From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 16:00:54 MST
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520171.html
[...]
The religious rhetoric and hectoring style of George Bush goes down
particularly badly in the secular, liberal societies of Europe. I share the
distrust of Bush, on whose face I am unable to discern a glimmer of wisdom.
I share the horror at the thought of one Iraqi child being killed in this
attack, should it happen. But it is here that I probably part company with
many in the peace movement. Because what if Saddam Hussein really is as big
a danger as they say he is, and continues to resist efforts to disarm him?
In 1981 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded
Kuwait. In 2000, according to a British Foreign Office report, Saddam
approved amputation of the tongue as a penalty for criticism of him. The
same report - and this has been confirmed by Iraqi women I have spoken to -
says Saddam's army retains professional rapists. Saddam has had and has used
chemical weapons against his own people. The British Prime Minster, Tony
Blair, whom I am inclined to trust, says Saddam either has or is developing
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and would use them. Are we willing
to take the risk of him sending anthrax germs around the world?
The trouble with deciding whether or not a war is just is that it is usually
only possible to know when it is over. Most people would now agree that
World War II (but not the Vietnam War) was a just war. What if Saddam is
just as dangerous as Hitler was?
Estimates have been made that up to 30,000 people may be killed as a result
of an attack on Iraq. Experts warn of a conflagration in the region. The
possible consequences are indeed terrifying.
But the truth is that even experts cannot predict what will happen. I have
recently been rereading World Conflicts, by Patrick Brogan, published in
1989. The author described Europe then as the most dangerous place on the
planet, because of the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union. He warned that
if all eastern European states demanded their freedom, the Soviet Union
could revert to "Stalinist thuggery" to restore its authority. "It is most
unlikely that the dissolution of the greatest of all 20th century empires
will be accomplished peacefully," he wrote.
Today the states of eastern Europe are getting ready to join the European
Union, old enemies France and Germany are preparing to share government
ministers, and Germany, still seen as potentially dangerous 15 years ago, is
perhaps the most pacifist country in Europe.
I hope there is no war. I hope an indefinite presence of weapons inspectors
in Iraq may buy time enough for Saddam to either agree to go, or be
overthrown by his own people. If there must be force I hope it has the
authority of the United Nations behind it, and that it is quick, with few
civilian deaths (please, none).
I hope for peace in our time. But not peace at any price.
Pamela Bone is an associate editor of The Age.
pbone@theage.com.au
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520192.html
[...]
"So that's what people mean by a just war?"
"I guess so. A just war is when you have to defend yourself because someone
has attacked you. Or when a friendly country is attacked and its leaders ask
you to help them defend themselves."
"So if America attacks Iraq and Iraq defends itself, that wouldn't be a just
war for America, but it would be for Iraq. And if Iraq asks one of its
friends to help it defend itself against America, that would be a just war
for the other country, right?"
"It's not quite that simple, I'm afraid. There are such things as good guys
and bad guys, sweetheart. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, so we don't think
anyone would be justified in defending him."
"But if he doesn't attack anyone, how can invading his country be a just
war? According to you, invading another country would always be wrong."
"Well, usually, but, see, everyone thinks Saddam has these really awful
weapons . . ."
"Worse than America's?"
"Not worse, no. But, well, because he's a bad guy, people think he might
decide to use those weapons against some other country some day, so America
wants to invade his country and destroy the weapons before he can use them."
"Has he threatened to use them? Like, who does he want to attack?"
"He hasn't actually threatened to use them against anyone in particular -
except the Americans, of course, if they invade his country."
"And us? Aren't we going to invade Iraq, too? We sent some soldiers off last
week. I saw that on TV, too."
"No one really knows, sweetheart. We mightn't actually be planning to
invade. We might be just trying to scare Saddam into giving up his weapons.
We might be calling his bluff."
"But if he isn't planning to attack anyone, wouldn't that mean Saddam won't
use his weapons unless he has to defend Iraq against an attack? So wouldn't
attacking him be the best way of making sure he does use his weapons?"
"That's logical, but I guess our government must think there's a huge risk
he will use them on, on . . . on someone else if we don't get in first."
"Our life skills teacher said the end never justifies the means. Was she
wrong?"
"I don't know, honey, I really don't know."
"By the way, whatever happened to Osama bin Laden? I thought he was supposed
to be the world's number one bad guy. Is Saddam even worse?"
"They're both pretty bad. They're terrorists, see? They both place a low
value on human life."
"Hmm. Dad, are we still holding little children behind razor wire in those
detention centres?"
"We are, sweetheart."
"So are we good guys or bad guys?"
"Good guys, definitely. No more questions, OK?"
Hugh Mackay is an author and social researcher.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST