Asylum seekers beware

01.26.2003

I didn't get to post much Saturday because a major internet worm wreaked havoc on the web (oh, and also because I went to Chicago). However, I caught this bit of news from CNN:

The story remarks that Iraqi scientists are refusing to speak privately w/ UN inspectors. Scroll down to find out why. An unidentified Iraqi (w/ a notebook half tucked into his jacket) jumped into a UN vehicle asking for help and claiming he was being mistreated. The UN inspectors turned him over to Iraqi police who dragged the man away. Yeah, if I was an Iraqi scientist I'd be uneasy about talking to the UN now more than ever.

-----

In the continued spirit of open dialogue. I've found an online version of Iraq's state-controlled newspaper, Iraq Daily.

Also, here's a link to a White House statement on exactly what kind of evidence of compliance the US is asking from Iraq. Whatever your political position, I hope you note that the criteria are pretty clear. The statement specifically compares Iraq to three other states asked to give up weapons of mass destruction by the international community (South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan) and how these three states demonstrated compliance.

Whether we like it or not, Iraq is a brutal regime w/ a horrible record of using weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps war isn't the answer. But I'd like to see anti-war opponents present a credible alternative that would lead to disarmament w/o war. And just once I'd like to hear an anti-war statement that at least acknowledges that Iraq is a brutal regime and offer a way to bring democracy, human rights, free speech, and all the things we love to the Iraqi people. So far all I've heard where slogans. Yes, war is bad. War is very, very, very bad. But simply announcing the obvious (that war is bad) isn't the same as offering an alternative.

We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Second World War. Many of these were allied civilians. Tens of millions of people died in that war. Entire countries were reduced to rubble. But you know what? It was worth it. Hitler was a monster and his regime was sheer evil. If we'd simply decided that war was bad, Europe would be ruled under the world's most brutal totalitarian regime and millions more Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, political critics, and other "undesirables" would've died along the search for a master Aryan race. And maybe if we'd fought a preemptive war, rather than go out of our way to have peace at any cost ... maybe, just maybe the end result would've been less costly.

Posted by Miguel at 04:14 AM

Comments

This is not a war between US and Iraq alone. It's not just a national interest over oil. And though defending human rights is legitimate issue, it's not going to be solved just by toppling Saddam Hussein alone. This is a global war thats very much related to the global fight against terrorism. The US cannot go to this fight being as brash as a bull in a china shop.

This war will have dire consequences to other parts of the world. Not only in terms of economic hardships (oil price hikes, recession, unemployment, sharing of war fundings etc). Those are the least of problems and expected in a war.

Here is an article describing a mass protest in Indonesia, the country with the widest number of Muslim'population in the world, Muslims who believe that US' going to war with Iraq is akin to declaring a war against all Muslims. Articles in Time Asia (read the article on Confessions of the Bali Bombers, 27 Jan) also provides a general idea of the 'mood' in Southeast Asia.

This poses risks on several fronts:
1.The war will add to the existing resentment of moderate Muslim masses(poor people do not need a hike in fuel prices, loss of jobs).
2.Radical Muslim leaders would claim this war as another reason to consider US as a country/people/lifestyle to be opposed.
3.Dangerous atmosphere to American tourists, journalist and businesses.
You can also now guess part of the reasons why countries in Asia and Europe are reluctant to endorse support for the war.

However, I do not support extreme Muslims putting up posters of Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein as hostile gestures or make funny remarks abt US' 911 incident. Lack of education, poverty, misinformation, or religious leaders who teach the wrong things ... have become excuses. Their resentments/anger have been misplaced, they should take personal responsibility and adopt a less volatile attitude.

But, if US seeks as its goals peace, human rights, economic and political freedom to developing countries, and to fight terrorism, then it needs to garner support not only from governments, but also (and maybe in the broader sense more importantly so) from moderate Muslims and local Muslim leaders/teachers.

The "soft-sell" approach (Indonesian Educators Ponder Lessons After U.S. Visit By JANE PERLEZ, NY Times, 24 Jan 2003) such as offering goodwill US tours to Muslim nationals, conducting crosscultural exchanges of teachers/students in Muslim countries, promoting US as a country that is tolerant of divergent religions and views, taking a SINCERE interest in developing the country not just economically but also helping the peoples to integrate conservative values with urban lifestyle changes (referring to business éthics')... these are some efficient ways to improve US'image in the longterm.

PS: The thing that is ironic abt this is US is presenting 2 faces - a harsh stance with the Iraq war, and a soft one with the 'soft-sell' approach.
To many, this seems to be another of US' hypocritical move.

Posted by: Lippy Lin at January 27, 2003 02:27 PM