Middle East File (2002-04-01 to 2003-02-16)

Saturday's march was a protest with no leaders and little to say. The 'little' it had to say was 'No'. Simple as that
Madeleine Bunting
Monday February 17, 2003
The Guardian

There will be millions of people who will never forget Saturday February 15 2003. It was an extraordinary combination of the utterly prosaic and the deeply moving: a bursting bladder and the nearest toilets several hours' walk away in Hyde Park, an aching back and blisters, and then the remarkable sight of a heaving mass of people along the Embankment converging with crowds pouring across Waterloo bridge. Everywhere there were astonishing juxtapositions: the body-pierced peaceniks alongside the dignified Pakistani elder with white beard; the homemade placard "The only bush I trust is my own" drawing surreptitious giggles from a group of veiled Muslim women.

This was a day which confounded dozens of assumptions about our age. How much harder it is today than a week ago to speak of the apathy and selfish individualism of consumer society. Saturday brought the entire business of a capital city to a glorious full-stop. Not a car or bus moved in central London, the frenetic activities of shopping and spending halted across a wide swathe of the city; the streets became one vast vibrant civic space for an expression of national solidarity. Furthermore, unlike previous occasions when crowds have gathered, this was not to mark some royal pageantry, but to articulate an unfamiliar British sentiment - one of democratic entitlement: we are the people.

That is why Saturday was a defining moment in contemporary political culture - whatever it achieves in the debate on the war with Iraq. First, it shifted the tone of what Britain believes itself to be. Are we to be cowed by security threats and fear of our neighbours, our political culture crippled by suspicion into campaigns of ugly persecution? Saturday's march was a defiant no. The very best of Britain was on the city's streets (and for every person marching, there were more in sympathy at home): we showed ourselves to be a nation that is at ease with itself, compassionate, multicultural and tolerant. One of the day's many ironies was that this was the Britain which is so frequently exhorted in ministers' speeches. Among Saturday's demonstrators were New Labour's natural allies - fair-minded, decent people, the kind who don't walk on the other side of the street. They were beautifully British - patiently waiting when the march ground to a halt, politely apologetic if they bumped into you, and not overly friendly, the reserve only cracking briefly and occasionally.

Second, Saturday proved that the decline of democracy has been overstated. What has changed is the pattern of participation; political parties and turnouts may be declining, but intense episodic political engagement is on the increase. In recent years we have seen both the lowest turnouts and the biggest demonstrations in British political history - there's a conundrum to keep hundreds of political scientists busy.

Third, there was another intriguing characteristic of this protest. As we shuffled along the Embankment, someone yelled through a loudspeaker that we were too quiet, he urged us to shout. In reply, came a roar of noise which could be heard slowly rippling along the length of the march. No words, no slogans, just a roar which quickly subsided. For the next five hours, there were no loudspeakers until we finally arrived at Hyde Park just as the speeches finished - and we weren't even the last, the streets were packed behind us. Thousands of people on Saturday never heard a speech. Did it matter? Did we miss anything? No, because if truth be told, the speakers were a B-list of political has-beens and celebrities, and their speeches were pretty dreadful. This was a protest with no leaders and with little to say; it was not interested in debate. The "little" it had to say, was NO. It was as simple as that.

This was the most important aspect of all. The demonstration was driven by one very powerful and very accessible emotion: a deeply felt revulsion against modern warfare. Over the course of the 20th century, as our technological ingenuity made war ever more brutal, we discovered that it was the weakest civilians who suffer the most - the old, the young and the sick. As the sophistication of the weapons developed - cluster bombs, landmines - we learned that the killing goes on long after the peace treaties are signed. And when images are relayed all over the world within minutes, we have understood how violence in one part of the globe can destabilise and radicalise another, setting off uncontrollable chain reactions of more violence.

All of this knowledge is underpinned by something much more visceral. It is a sensibility formed by scores of war films such as Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, and thousands of TV images of the suffering of war's victims. How can we endure the suffering of Iraqi civilians on our television screens in two months' time? The tears which have embarrassed us in our cinema seats and in our armchairs may have been manipulated by Hollywood or newsmen, but they have enlarged our emotional imagination. We can now imagine, in a way that no previous generation has done, the families - just like our own - in a Baghdad suburb whose lives are now hanging in the balance. And we can imagine the suffering of those who prosecute the war, the sons and lovers - just like our own - bracing themselves to kill, and to die.

This groundswell of emotion doesn't generate anger - there wasn't much in evidence on Saturday - so much as stubborn resistance. That makes Tony Blair's battle to convince the British public all the harder. You can argue with people who are angry - there's a debate to be had, but you can't argue with "No". This is the politics of emotion which is fed, inspired and manipulated by mass communications. Blair is fighting against the images of war's victims which we hold in our heads - such as the one the Daily Mirror published of a sick child on its front cover on Saturday.

You can't use arguments about international law against such an emotional opposition, as Blair now appreciates - in his speech on Saturday, he switched to the moral ground. This is where debates about war end up, even if it isn't where they start.

But this is the hardest ground of all for Blair to win on; the onus lies with him to prove that war will cause less suffering than Saddam Hussein will, an impossible task given the huge uncertainties of the war's conduct, let alone its impact on the Middle East and relations between Islam and the west.

Not one bomb has been dropped on Iraq, not one shot fired and already there has been the biggest global protest movement ever seen. What happens once the orphans, the widowed and the killed appear on our screens? Then, the stubbornness will become anger. We said No, Not in our Names and we meant it. Blair will never be forgiven. A tragic end to a good prime minister who was swept to power on a promise that "things will only get better".

m.bunting@guardian.co.uk

Feb 16: - Guardian report: Iraq crisis: the peace marches -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One million. And still they came 
Euan Ferguson reports on a historic peace march whose massive turnout surpassed the organisers' wildest expectations and Tony Blair's worst fears
 Sunday February 16, 2003 The Observer

 'Are there any more coming, then?' There have been dafter questions, but not many. At 1.10 yesterday afternoon, Mike Wiseman from Newcastle upon Tyne placed his accordion carefully on the ground below Hyde Park's gates and rubbed cold hands together. Two elderly women, hand in hand in furs, passed through, still humming the dying notes from his 'Give Peace A Chance'. They were, had he known it, early, part of a tiny crowd straggling into Hyde Park before the march proper. 
Half a mile away, round the corner in Piccadilly, the ground shook. An ocean, a perfect storm of people. Banners, a bobbing cherry-blossom of banners, covered every inch back to the Circus - and for miles beyond, south to the river, north to Euston.
 Ahead of the marchers lay one remaining silent half-mile. The unprecedented turnout had shocked the organisers, shocked the marchers. And there at the end before them, high on top of the Wellington Arch, the four obsidian stallions and their vicious conquering chariot, the very Spirit of War, were stilled, rearing back - caught, and held, in the bare branches and bright chill of Piccadilly, London, on Saturday 15 February 2003. Are there any more coming? Yes, Mike. Yes, I think there are some more coming. It was the biggest public demonstration ever held in Britain, surpassing every one of the organisers' wildest expectations and Tony Blair's worst fears, and it will be remembered for the bleak bitterness of the day and the colourful warmth of feeling in the extraordinary crowds. Organisers claimed that more than 1.5 million had turned out; even the police agreed to 750,000 and rising.
 By three o'clock in the afternoon they were still streaming out of Tube stations to join the end of the two routes, from Gower Street in the north and Embankment by the river. 'Must be another march,' grumbled the taxi driver, then, trying in vain to negotiate Tottenham Court Road. No, I said; it's the same one, still going, and he turned his head in shock. 'Bloody Jesus! Well, good luck to them I say.' There were, of course, the usual suspects - CND, Socialist Workers' Party, the anarchists. But even they looked shocked at the number of their fellow marchers: it is safe to say they had never experienced such a mass of humanity. There were nuns. Toddlers. Women barristers. The Eton George Orwell Society. Archaeologists Against War. Walthamstow Catholic Church, the Swaffham Women's Choir and Notts County Supporters Say Make Love Not War (And a Home Win against Bristol would be Nice). They won 2-0, by the way. One group of SWP stalwarts were joined, for the first march in any of their histories, by their mothers. There were country folk and lecturers, dentists and poulterers, a hairdresser from Cardiff and a poet from Cheltenham. I called a friend at two o'clock, who was still making her ponderous way along the Embankment - 'It's not a march yet, more of record shuffle' - and she expressed delight at her first protest. 'You wouldn't believe it; there are girls here with good nails and really nice bags .' Cheer upon cheer went up.
 There were cheers as marchers were given updates about turnout elsewhere in the world - 90,000 in Glasgow, two million on the streets of Rome. There was a glorious cheer, at Piccadilly Circus, when the twin ribbons met, just before one o'clock. The mood was astonishingly friendly. 'Would you like a placard, sir?' Sir? The police laughed. One, stopping a marcher from going through a barricade in Trafalgar Square, told him it was a sterile area, only to be met with a hearty backslap. 'Sterile area? Where did that one come from.' 'I know,' shrugged the bobby. 'Bollocks language, isn't it?' And the talk was of politics, yes, but not just politics. There were not the detailed arguments we had had, even during the last peace march in November, over UN resolutions and future codicils. This march was not really about politics; it was about humanitarianism. 'I'm not political, not at all. I don't even watch the news,' said Alvina Desir, queuing on the Embankment for the start of the march at noon. 'I've never been on a march in my life and never had any intention. But something's happened recently, to me and so many friends - we just know there's something going wrong in this country. No one's being consulted, and it's starting to feel worrying - more worrying than the scaremongering we've been getting about the terrorist threat. I simply don't see how war can be the answer and I don't know anyone who does. And, apart from anything else, as a black woman in London, it feels dangerous to spread racial tension after all that's been done.' A Cheshire fireman nearby said: 'They will take notice of a protest like this. Our MPs, and Blair himself , were voted in by ordinary people like those here today. Blair is clever enough not to ignore this.' Linda Homan, sitting on bench at 9.30 in the morning, watching a bright and dancing Thames, had come down early from Cambridge and was wondering at that stage whether many would turn up. Palettes of placards lay strewn along the Embankment, waiting. A trolley was pushed past filled with flags and whistles; there were more police - then, way back then - than marchers. 'I've never felt strongly enough about anything before. But this is so different; I would have let myself down by not coming and I think this will be something to remember.' For Linda, like so many along these streets, it was her first march. 
Twelve-year-old Charlotte Wright, who came up by train from Guildford, Surrey, on her own. 'My parents aren't very happy about this but I think it's important. Bombing people isn't the right way to sort a problem out.' Jenny Mould, 36, a teacher from Devon. 'I drove up last night. It took seven hours but it was definitely worth it; the Government should, it must, listen to the people, otherwise what's the point in democracy?' Retired solicitor Thomas Elliot from Basildon, Essex, a virgin marcher at 73, said: 'I remember the war and the effect the bombing had on London. War should only be used when absolutely necessary.' 
Andrew Miller, 33, from New Zealand, whose feeling, echoed by all around, was that 'all the different groups that are marching today show the world that the West is not the enemy, that British people do not hate Islam and Arabs and the coming together of people is the greatest way forward.' Lesley Taylor, a constitutional law lecturer who's lived across here for 29 years, holding a forlorn placard reading 'American against the war.' Why only one? 'I don't know any other Americans here. In the Eighties here I saw a lot of anti-American resentment, and now it's back. I accept that the perception of George W. Bush has something to do with this, but still... these are the same people the thinking middle-classes, who were so shocked and honestly sympathetic after September 11: how can they turn so nasty so quickly? 'Because America is making your Prime Minister go against the huge majority of the British people. And that won't be forgiven. Look about you. That's what this is about; not fierce party politics but a simple feeling that democracy, British democracy, has been forgotten.' Chris Wall, a Nottingham mother who had brought down eight children with her: 'They talk about it at school and that's a good thing. Children need to be aware of what's happening in the world. And this is, of course, a peaceful protest.' It remained so all day, despite the numbers; by five o'clock police were reporting only three arrests. In Hyde Park itself, a long line of purple silk lay on the grass, facing Mecca, and Muslims took off their shoes to pray. Beside it, artist Nicola Green had set up her Laughing Booth, and was encouraging people in to, obviously, start laughing, on their own, and be recorded; it was, she says, the most disarming of all weapons. 
The sky above the nearby stage grew dark, and the park grew even more astonishingly full. Charles Kennedy won loud applause for stating that 'The report from Hans Blix gives no moral case for war on Iraq'; George Galloway won both applause and laughter for suggesting a new slogan: 'Don't attack Chirac'. Mo Mowlam warned: 'We will lose this war. It will be the best recruiting campaign for terrorists that there could be. They will hate us even more.' Will yesterday, astonishing yesterday, change anything? The facts are undeniable. Perception is all. If you look more carefully, in fact, at the warlike Wellington statue, a new tale emerges. The driver of the chariot is a boy. The reins are slack. The horses are not rearing with anger, but pulling up in mid-charge. Behind, the fierce, all-powerful figure is not the Spirit of War but the angel of peace, carrying an olive branch.

Feb 11 - Hong Kong South China Morning Post article - Bush/USA will spend more than One Billion US dollars a day on "defence" in the next 12 months. 

February 10, 2003: It's all about OIL?!
Ex-general buckets PM's 'political' war
By Simon King

PRIME Minister John Howard was on the verge of sacrificing young Australian lives just for political gain, a former defence chief-of-staff said today.

Retired Major-General Alan Stretton also said committing troops to the war on Iraq could make Australia a military target.

Mr Stretton today had a statement read on his behalf as part of the Walk Against the War Coalition against war with Iraq.

"Our prime minister must be stopped in sacrificing our young Australian lives for what he originally thought would be short term political gains," he said.

He said Australia would reap none of the benefits of war but could become a victim of Iraqi aggression if it joined the attack.

"Australia will not be given any say on the control of Iraqi oil, Australia is currently under no threat from Iraq but an attack on Iraq will only raise the likelihood of that," he said.

Mr Stretton also lambasted US Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council last week.

"The evidence produced by (Mr Powell) is most unconvincing and certainly does not provide any excuse to embark on a war in the Middle East," he said.

"President (George W) Bush's endeavour to link al-Qaeda and the fight against terrorism to Saddam Hussein has produced no evidence."

Mr Stretton described Mr Bush's behaviour as "irrational and dangerous".

"The real reason for war is the presence of America in the Middle East in order to control more than 10 per cent of the world's oil which Iraq produces," he said.

"An attack on Iraq is in America's interest but as a former high commander I can say it is certainly not in the interest of Australia nor is it in the interest of the rest of the world."

Mr Stretton said Mr Bush's pledge that Iraq would pay the billions of dollars the war would cost through its oil supply would allow the US to install a military governor in Iraq.

Also joining the call for people to join Sydney's Walk Against War protest on February 16 was NSW Teachers Federation president Maree O'Halloran, University of NSW Professor George Williams and NSW Greens MLC Ian Cohen.

January 30, 2003:    Churches unite against war on Iraq

FR BRUCE DUNCAN CSsR is astonished that Australia has effectively committed troops to any military course of action the US may decide to take in Iraq

BY sending armed forces to join the British and US forces ready to attack Iraq, the Australian Government has effectively committed troops to any military course of action the US might decide. This is an astonishing situation.

It means Australia has relinquished to the US President its moral responsibility to decide about engaging in a major war, even if it involves a pre-emptive military strike without UN authorisation.

All this has been done without proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny, and against public opinion which is more than 60 per cent opposed to Australian involvement in a pre-emptive strike.

It may smack of appeasement to certain members of the Government, yet opposition to this war has been sweeping through Western Churches. The situation is unprecedented since never before have the Western democracies fought a major war without the blessing of their Churches. Surprisingly, there has been little media comment on this in Australia. (...not so surprising...see articles below re ownership of media by people in favor of war...)
Why has the Australian Government volunteered to join a pre-emptive war with only Britain and the USA, even without UN endorsement?

The 1991 Gulf War to defend Kuwait comprised a coalition of 34 countries, including Muslim ones.

Now President George W. Bush is determined to proceed, alone if necessary, despite the obvious damage to the Atlantic Alliance which is so crucial to improving international order and governance, and according to a mid-January Pew Research survey, despite 53 per cent of Americans believing that Bush had not yet made the case for war.

The Washington Post reported on January 12 that Bush had ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans to invade Iraq just six days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, and he has since repeatedly claimed, without proof, that Saddam is connected with al-Qa?da.

The Churches are now likely to mobilise their constituencies on what is one of the most grave moral issues for a nation. A bruising debate over the justice of a war will polarise public opinion and unfortunately may harm the morale of armed forces personnel themselves.

Yet the Churches speak as key custodians of the just war tradition in Western societies.

Not only is the rejection of war with Iraq virtually unanimous among the Church statements overseas, except for some evangelical groups, but often the mainstream Churches are attempting to speak with one voice to their governments, as in the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

In Australia, leaders of many Christian traditions have been speaking conjointly. In September, 38 leaders of various Christian communities wrote to Prime Minister Howard questioning the morality of war with Iraq. Mr Howard was later reported condemning the views of leaders of the Anglican and Uniting Churches critical of launching a pre-emptive strike.

Yet the Pope himself is opposed to a pre-emptive strike.

In his address to the diplomatic corps last month, he insisted that ?ar cannot be decided upon ... except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations? He is also concerned that war will harm his constant efforts to foster deeper understanding and co-operation between Muslims and Catholics.

The Catholic Church illustrates how widespread in Europe at this time is the refusal to accept the need for war, including from Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Tauran (undersecretary for relations with states) in the Vatican, Cardinal Ruini, president of the Italian bishops conference, and the French bishops conference. Archbishop Tauran feared a war on Iraq would be a disaster and spark a kind of anti-Christian, anti-West crusade

Reinforcing the views of other bishops conferences, the German bishops on January 20 also strongly opposed military intervention. They supported UN efforts to contain Iraq, but declared that  preventative war is in contradiction with Catholic teaching and international law ... A preventative war represents an aggression and thus it cannot be defined as a just war for self-defence

Other Catholic bishops conferences are issuing statements opposing war. The bishops of Malaysia and Singapore on January 19 denied that military intervention met the conditions for a just war, and called on bishops conferences everywhere to speak up strongly on the issue. Cardinal Carrera of Mexico on January 21 declared that war was not necessary.

In Pakistan, the leaders of the Catholic and Protestant Churches on January 21 condemned totally the notion of a pre-emptive strike. They called on the British and US leaders to reverse their decision to wage war and, instead, to use other means to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions for disarmament of weapons of mass destruction

The views of the Catholic bishops in the United States are particularly significant because of their long and substantial involvement in debate about issues of war and peace, and because with 50 million adherents the Catholic Church is the largest in the USA. By an overwhelming vote of 228-14 with three abstentions, the US Catholic bishops on November 13 strongly criticised the Bush administration's rationale for war with Iraq.

The president of the US bishops conference, Bishop Wilton Gregory, had written to President Bush on September 18 questioning the morality of any pre-emptive unilateral military strike to overthrow the government of Iraq. Gregory wrote: we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature. He asked Bush to step back from the brink of war

The US bishops conference of November 13 endorsed Gregory's letter, and reiterated the traditional criteria for just war, especially just cause, legitimate authority and proportionality, while recognising that people of good will may differ on how to apply these norms. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances ... would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.

Instead, they urged the United States to continue the policy of containment, with a military embargo, political sanctions and careful economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians. The bishops supported the role of members of the armed forces in defending the nation, but pointed out military personnel also have a right to conscientious objection if they judge a war unjust.

The bishops conference of England and Wales supported the US bishops and called on the British Government to step back from the brink of war. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor on November 15 said that the dossier on Iraq published by Prime Minister Tony Blair failed to convince the bishops that the threat from Iraq justified war.

Toowoomba Bishop William Morris, as chair of the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, in August denied that an attack on Iraq at this time would conform to the conditions for a morally legitimate use of force. And in Canberra, the president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Francis Carroll, and Bishop Pat Power, with leaders of eight other Churches, on August 23 expressed their concern about Australia's unquestioning support for unilateral US military intervention in Iraq. They argued that Iraq did not threaten to attack any other country and there was no evidence that it had been involved in the September 11 attacks.

The full Australian Catholic Bishops Conference responded to the Iraq crisis on November 29, calling for political restraint to avoid a war which could inflict a human catastrophe and welcoming the role of the UN Security Council in ensuring that Iraq meet its obligation to disarm

The Churches are now in a very difficult position, with the risk of a major clash with the Government on a matter of high principle. Not only is the Australian public deeply divided, but so are people in the pews.

The task now is urgently to inform Catholics about the implications of the Church's teaching on just war, while encouraging full and open debate; to explain the right of conscientious objection; and to work for a rapid political solution to the current dilemma without resort to war.

Fr Bruce Duncan is a Redemptorist priest and lectures in social ethics at Yarra Theological Union in Melbourne. He is a member of the Melbourne Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace and a consultant at Catholic Social Services Victoria.

Catholic Leader, Brisbane

Don't act alone, Butler warns US
By John Ellicott
January 29, 2003

THE first victim of any unilateral action by the US against Iraq would be international law, former UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler said last night.

Mr Butler said Iraq "undoubtedly" possessed weapons of mass destruction but any action by the US without UN authority would "set loose forces we would deeply live to regret". "If the US decides to act alone and take the law into its own hands, that, I think, will shred what benefit may have been achieved by threatening force against the Iraqis," Mr Butler told the Sydney Institute last night.

"It will be seen as American imperialism rather than an effort by the United Nations to keep peace and security."

He said the US claim that the Iraqi conflict was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction lacked credibility. "If they were so deeply concerned about weapons of mass destruction, what are they doing about the situations around the world that are no less dangerous and involve weapons of mass destruction?" he said.

"Why are they permitting the existence of such a shocking double standard?"

Mr Butler said it was hypocritical that Israel's weapons of mass destruction were off limits to US concern.

"How is it that India and Pakistan's recent acquisition of nuclear weapons is somehow permissible?" he said. "Indeed in the case of India there has been great talk from the Bush administration as one of its great power pals.

"India and Pakistan's weapons are of deepest concern to survival on this planet."

He said it seemed that weapons of mass destruction had been divided into two categories - the good ones and bad ones.

"There is a sense of deep unfairness in the world about this, that is coming to haunt us now through the terrorist movement and through other attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

"The spectacle of the US armed with its weapons of mass destruction acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia, and if necessary, use its weapons to win that battle, is something that would so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I would strongly suspect it would set loose forces we would deeply live to regret."

Mr Butler said weapons of mass destruction posed the greatest threat to the world and its environment and could only be controlled through a non-political body. He said the three non-proliferation treaties signed since the Cold War encompassing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons had been successful and should be maintained.

The Australian

The Guardian, Jan 28  - history repeating itself...

If Tony Blair will not speak for England, then who will? The prime minister's global strategy has now been tested to destruction - Martin Kettle Tuesday January 28, 2003 The Guardian 

It says something about the fashions of intellectual life that there are more books in print these days about the historian AJP Taylor than by him. But if ever it was in the collective public interest for a book to be urgently reprinted, because it can speak so directly to our present discontents, then that book is Taylor's The Troublemakers. Subtitled Dissent over British Foreign Policy 1792-1939, the book was Taylor's own favourite from his output. Based on his Ford lectures at Oxford University in 1956, the unerring coherence of The Troublemakers is never in doubt and was never more relevant than today, nearly half a century later. 
The Troublemakers leaves an infinitely sharper and brighter imprint in the mind than most of the thousands of history books that have been written in the subsequent half-century, about which it can truly be said that they say more and more about less and less. No one could possibly say that about Taylor's book. The Troublemakers is, in one sense, an apologia on behalf of Taylor's own lifetime of radical iconoclasm about international affairs. It was an iconoclasm which he practised as well as preached, as a leading early member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, an opponent of Suez and frequently as a defender of the Soviet rather than the American stance in successive cold war confrontations. Taylor was regularly mocked by the foreign policy establishment, for example, for repeatedly arguing that the Soviet Union had no intention of invading western Europe. But in the end he was probably more right than his critics. 
The Troublemakers also tells a national story - and it is a story that has not ended yet. For every national tradition, Taylor argued, there is a national countertradition, and the dissenting tradition in foreign policy is one of the most sustained countertraditions of them all. Taylor mined a rich mother lode of anti-war, anti-imperial, anti-Whitehall dissent in British public life through some of the most bellicose eras of modern history, from the French revolution to the outbreak of the second world war. His heroes are sometimes famous men, like Gladstone, more often half-forgotten men, like John Bright and occasionally wholly forgotten ones like David Urquhart or HN Brailsford. Throughout, though, there is an essential message: that there is a radically different way of defining the British national interest from the one embraced by governments down the ages - and that it is one which can embrace both the traditional right and the traditional left. 
Most of the time, the challenges mounted by the troublemakers have tended to be quixotic, marginal and unsuccessful. But not invariably. At certain moments, the troublemakers understand more clearly than anyone else what needs to be said and done. The climax of Taylor's book marks such a moment. It comes on the evening of September 2 1939, when Neville Chamberlain sat down, in a shocked chamber and without a single cheer, after giving the Commons his latest - and, as it turned out, his last - report on his efforts to strike a deal with Hitler over the invasion of Poland. As Chamberlain took his seat, the acting leader of the Labour party, Arthur Greenwood, rose to reply. As he did so, there were mutterings of encouragement to Greenwood from both sides, and a shout, traditionally attributed to Leo Amery, came from the restive Conservative benches. Taylor treated that shout as the apotheosis of the "troublemaking" tradition -the moment when the outsiders reclaimed the moral initiative from the insiders and saved the nation from its leaders.
Today, Amery's words have a power which vaults across the decades to another generation as it stands on the eve of another war: "Speak for England, Arthur!" History never exactly repeats itself, and the supporters of peace and war in this generation are interestingly transposed today compared with their predecessors in 1939. But we are once again a country desperately in need of a clear, temperate voice at a time of unmistakable international crisis. Rarely has it seemed more important in recent years for the national interest on the world stage to be properly articulated and clearly acted upon. And yet if Tony Blair no longer speaks for England - or, more properly, Britain - then who does? Even now, it may seem unfair to write Blair so peremptorily out of the script. He still speaks for many more people - and in more subtle ways - than those who rush to label this as "the Bush-Blair war" ever acknowledge. He has, in his way, been pursuing a necessary, often lonely, frequently unrewarding and at times even heroic effort to prevent a dangerous American war against a dangerous Iraq. He is - or was - right to try to contain the administration that rules the US, just as he is also right to seek to contain the threat from Saddam Hussein. 
Nor is Blair's frequently stated desire for Britain to have the best of both worlds - European influence and transatlantic influence - either unprincipled or tactically wrong. That policy made enormous sense before September 11, when Blair invoked it to try to head off the Bush administration's early signs of multilateral disengagement. But it has been tested to destruction since September 11. It can no longer bear the weight that the combination of the danger from terrorism and the momentum of the Bush administration's response now place on it. Bush has forced Blair to choose between Europe and the US, and Blair cannot avoid the tragic choice. That is why this weekend's Blair visit to Bush at Camp David could be pivotal in our modern nationhood. Driven by a combination of anger, oil, domestic electoral calculation, and the awesome re-energisation of what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, the Americans have got themselves over-exposed on Iraq. By overcommitting militarily so hastily, Bush is now a step away from having to go to war largely to save his own face. War with Iraq is not even in America? interests, never mind Britain's. 
In theory this could be seen as a great opportunity for Blair. In theory, this weekend is the moment when Blair can say to Bush that our national interest is at odds with America's war. In theory, that refusal could matter. In theory, it is even the moment when Blair could start to make the great overdue turn towards Europe to which Bush has finally forced him. In practice, none of these things is going to happen. Tragically, when Blair says he positively wants America to act this way, he seems to be saying what he believes. Tragically, he cannot contemplate saying no to the US, even when Bush has pushed him to it. That is why we are again at a "speak for England" moment. Yet even AJP Taylor would have been hard put to explain how the man who currently speaks for England is, of all unlikely people, Jacques Chirac. ?martin.kettle@guardian.co.uk

January 18, 2003 - How the Internet is stopping a war
(...the war people own the newspapers, but they can't buy the internet!)

  January 17, 2003       ITALIAN JESUITS' HARSH CRITIQUE OF US IRAQ STANCE   

The authoritative Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica has published another sharp attack on US policy toward Iraq.

"Why is Saddam Hussein so dangerous that he must be stopped by a preventive war?" the Jesuit magazine asked, in a long article signed by the editors.

The article charges that an American attack on Iraq would be motivated in large part by political and economic reasons rather than military necessity.

Civilta Cattolica points to the "rude reality" that Saddam Hussein is only one of many unsavory dictators in the world. In fact, the magazine states, some dictators enjoy the support of the United States.

And while the Iraqi regime is accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction, the US also hold nuclear weapons- and has built chemical and biological weapons as well.

The article in Civilta Cattolica commands attention because the magazine's contents are reviewed in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State.

SOURCE
Catholic World News    LINKS   La Civilta Cattolica

WAR WITH IRAQ COULD UNLEASH THE FORCES OF EVIL  (Brisbane Catholic Leader, January 2003) - What an excellent summary of the whole situation...

Military chaplain and deacon GARY STONE warns that Australia is being led into a war against Iraq which is morally and ethically unjustifiable

I WRITE today as an Australian citizen concerned at the threats to world peace and the need for us to courageously confront evil, even using lethal force in circumstances that are morally justified.

I believe Saddam Hussein must be confronted, but I am concerned that a unilateral pre-emptive assault on Iraq without UN mandate has not yet been justified and may result in dire consequences

For the last 33 years I have served in the Australian Army, firstly as an infantry officer, and for the last seven years as a chaplain. As an infantry lieutenant colonel, I commanded an Australian Army peacekeeping contingent on the Iran-Iraq border in 1989-90. I have dealt with senior Iqraqi and Iranian officers, and seen first hand the catastrophic outcome of more than eight years of combat which cost more than 1 million lives. I have seen, felt, even ‘smelt’ the evil emanating from the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Upon my return to Australia I was employed as the land operations officer in the Defence Command Centre in Canberra, and was watch commander when in January 1991 we sent a ‘flash’ message to our troops in the Gulf authorising them to use lethal force to liberate Kuwait from Saddam’s forces. I wholeheartedly supported that action, and today I consider the war on the terrorist activity of the al-Qa’ida network just as necessary and morally justifiable.

But as the spectre of a new war against Iraq looms closer each day, I have grave reservations about involvement by us, on military, strategic and ethical grounds.

As a Christian soldier deployed to five conflicts I have taken great solace in adhering to the long established ‘just war’ doctrine which has informed ethical action in conflict situations since the time of St Augustine.

It is not just practical wisdom, I consider it is divine wisdom. It obliges all citizens and governments to work toward peace and the avoidance of war, but acknowledges the right of legitimate defence by military force in circumstances where, at one and the same time:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor is lasting, grave and certain.

• All other means of resolution have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.

• There must be serious prospects of success.

• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, para 2309)

This doctrine has been tried and tested over hundreds of years and remains just as valid today. Troops sent to restore peace in a conflict vitally need to know they have both moral legitimacy and parameters on their use of lethal force.

Readers might be interested to know that the Australian Army, in its most recent rewrite of our keystone doctrinal document, The Fundamentals of Land Warfare, 2002, specifically endorses the criticality of adhering the ’just war’ precepts for the long-term restoration of peace to be achieved.

I hope our military leaders will not be asked to turn a blind eye to this doctrine, and commit our soldiers to an unjust involvement which may haunt them for years to come, in order to satisfy the demands of our US allies’ urgency for action.

From my first-hand experience, the politics and culture of the Middle East are complex issues that most Westerners would have great difficulty understanding. There are no simple or quick fix solutions there.

Hastily devised, externally imposed, and shortsighted ‘Western’ solutions have led from one problem to another in the Middle East throughout the last century. Both Saddam and Osama bin Laden received substantial support from the US in earlier ill-conceived strategies.

People in the Middle East continue to be outraged at the meddling by Western governments in those affairs that suit them (like the economics of oil), and their indifference and intransigence in matters of justice (like restoration of a Palestinian homeland).

Serious attention to demands for Israeli compliance with UN resolutions unfulfilled by them, which could restore justice to the Palestinian people, would draw much of the sting out of the tail of Islamic extremism.

The US has weapons of ‘massive’ destruction that will be able to bomb Iraq back into the dark ages, but real peace requires more than military might. Peace will only be achieved when the root problems of justice in economic, social and political terms is provided for.

It is morally scandalous that inestimable billions of dollars will be found to fund this conflict and its aftermath, when these could have been more fruitfully directed to health and human development in the poorest countries of the world where the seeds of discontent are sown.

Strategically, we need more thinking and action in the ways in which we can provide justice to peoples and nurture and sustain long-term peace, rather than the prevailing shortsightedness of seeking military solutions, which have limited prospect of sustainment.

It is my great fear that unilateral action against Iraq by the US and allies like us, will greatly swell the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists and unleash forces of evil that it will be extremely difficult to contain. What is needed in the Middle East is justice, legitimacy and integrity. The majority of Islamic people expect it just as much as we do. It is a non-negotiable prerequisite for peace .

The so-called ‘war on terrorism’ which has involved the pursuit of the al-Qa’ida network has, in my mind, a legitimacy based on a just response to acts of terror perpetrated by an aggressor who seeks to engage us in indiscriminate conflict. A ‘war on Iraq’ is not in this same category, and can only be tenuously linked to the war on terrorism.

Many media reporters are saying that war is now inevitable. It may be in the mind of the US administration, but it doesn’t need to be. Despite the morally reprehensible conduct of the regime of Saddam Hussein, no ethical justification has yet been established for engaging in a pre-emptive war against the people of Iraq. None of the just war criteria has yet been satisfied. No Iraqi, US, British or Australian soldier should have to shed their blood over the oil fields of Iraq until they are. Continued containment of Saddam or his surgical removal, short of invasion, remain as valid options.

Should a ‘just’ case emerge for conflict to be initiated by us, please God it will only employ ‘just’ and discriminate use of force.

I hope the Australian people and Christians particularly, will have the courage and wisdom to continue to speak their minds to their politicians on this issue, and not just assume we must follow the US party line and timetable. World peace is at stake here. Our integrity as a nation is at stake.

History will judge us by our actions and inactions, but more significantly God will judge us.

We may well ask whether God would want us to be bombing Baghdad in a few weeks time, or pursuing other means to achieve peace. I suspect his answer might be an echo of the words of Micah that we should ‘do (only) what is just, and show mercy’ (Micah 6:8).

Gary Stone is a deacon of the Catholic Military Ordinariate, and is based in Brisbane.

---

A Look at The 'Powerful Jewish Lobby' 
(this article is extra forceful....even extremist?....but is worth reading for statistics....)

by Mark Weber

For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.

Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.

"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong."[note 1]

Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful."[note 2]

Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence -- vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.

As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out:[note 3]

Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked ...

Jews are only three percent of the nation's population and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry."[note 4]

Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene:[note 5]

During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.

The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign."[note 6]

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."[note 7]

One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote:[note 8]

In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation ...

Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films.

The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America's most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.

Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Americans readily accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is impressed. "I am very angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering."[note 9]

A Well-Entrenched Factor

The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life.

In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of Jewish power in the media and government. The shy 39-year-old -- known around the world for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo trans-Atlantic crossing -- was addressing 7,000 people in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US involvement in the war then raging in Europe. The three most important groups pressing America into war, he explained, were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration.

Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on:

... For reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, [they] wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we must also look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection:[note 10]

How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles.

As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote Lilienthal, news coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American television, newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic to Israel. This is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal of Palestinian "terrorism." As Lilienthal put it: "One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which cause is never related to effect, was assured because the most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control."

One-Sided 'Holocaust' History

The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had a profound impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is the well entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious than in the "Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II.

Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has remarked:[note 11]

Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes by without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating.

Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are, for example, the tens of millions of victims of America's World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims of China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives.

The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational" campaign is crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: "With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy."[note 12]

Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught political science at City University of New York (Hunter College), says in his book, The Holocaust Industry, that "invoking The Holocaust" is "a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews."[note 13] "By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure ... Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel's and its own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the brazen "shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other countries by Israel and organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The Holocaust," Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery in the history of mankind'."

Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own."[note 14]

Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States:[note 15]

I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on.

Today the danger is greater than ever. Israel and Jewish organizations, in collaboration with this country's pro-Zionist "amen corner," are prodding the United States -- the world's foremost military and economic power -- into new wars against Israel's enemies. As the French ambassador in London recently acknowledged, Israel .... -- is a threat to world peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?," he said.[note 16]

To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American interests. In fact, they often conflict.

As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of current affairs and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace.

Notes

1.	Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11.
2.	D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002.
3.	Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.
4.	S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001. http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html
5.	Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.
6.	Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
7.	M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
8.	Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
9.	Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks.
10.	A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229.
11.	From a 1992 lecture, published in: David Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306.
12.	Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79.
13.	Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149.
14.	The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from which this article is adapted."
15.	Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.
16.	D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens World Peace," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador is Daniel Bernard.

6/02

About the author

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review.

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Post Office Box 2739 · Newport Beach, California 92659

http://www.ihr.org

---

The opposition of the churches to war - January 2003


Here at CathNews we have been endeavouring to bring you a summary of the position being taken by the Catholic and other churches to the fight against terrorism and the calls for a war against Iraq. The latest issue of Sojourners magazine carries an indepth article which endeavours to provide a comprehensive understanding of the stance being adopted across a broad coalition of religious leaders in the United States.

Nearly all the statements [from religious leaders] have two things in common: a just-war assessment that finds the Bush-Blair approach to war morally questionable at virtually every turn and a realistic, sharply critical assessment of the Saddam Hussein regime. The joint U.S.-U.K. statement argues: "Let there be no mistake: We regard Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as a real threat to his own people, neighboring countries, and to the world. His previous use and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is of great concern to us." The statement from the North Atlantic members of the WCC was equally sharp: "We believe that the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so."

Despite administration efforts to make the link between the "war on terrorism," the military action in Afghanistan, and the proposed war against Iraq, the U.S. Catholic bishops, at their November meeting, said that they "continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature." The bishops continued: "[W]e fear that resort to war...would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force ... We are deeply concerned about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction."

The administration does have some supporters in the religious community. The earliest, and biggest, supporter of a pre-emptive and, if necessary, unilateral strike against Iraq has been Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who put together a supportive letter to Bush with his spin on just war theory. Endorsers of the letter included Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson; Campus Crusade's Bill Bright; and D. James Kennedy, head of Coral Ridge Media Ministries. Land argues a pre-emptive strike against Saddam is a defensive "just cause" because of the Iraqi leader's actions of a decade ago.

SOURCE :Sojourners 3 Jan 2003

January 2003
Pope 'doing everything' to stop Iraq war

Pope John Paul II has once again argued forcefully against military action in Iraq, demanding adherence to existing international agreements.

Speaking to the Vatican diplomatic corps, the Holy Father observed that humanity has been overcome by fear: "I have been personally struck by the feeling of fear which often dwells in the hearts of our contemporaries," he said.

This grim picture could be changed, the Pope argued, if world powers took "the proper steps".

He urged international leaders to "say Yes" to life, respect for law, and solidarity among nations; he exhorted them to "say No" to death, to selfishness, and to war.

Meanwhile the head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Archbishop Renato Martino said the Pope is "truly very worried" about the events which could occur in the near future.

Pope John Paul II, he said, "is doing everything in his power", through prayer and public pleas to encourage government leaders to focus on diplomacy and international law in order to avoid a war in Iraq.

Christmas 2002: 

War can be averted: Pope
From correspondents in Vatican City
December 26, 2002

WAR must and can be avoided even in a world made fearful by terrorism, Pope John Paul II insisted in a Christmas message that stepped up the Vatican's campaign against a war in Iraq.

"May humanity accept the Christmas message of peace!" he declared overnight.

What a powerful article!

Volume 6, No. 2 Summer 2002            Email from America

WARS AND RUMOURS OF WARS

This is not the most comfortable country in which to live at the moment. There are constant murmurings of "war". Many people, having internalized the 'truth' that the United States stands unchallenged as guardian of the rest of the world, don't find the doctrine of first or pre-emptive strike promulgated by President Bush's administration in any way questionable.

On the other hand, the voices of opposition to a possible war, initiated by the US against Iraq, are growing stronger. Dominicans engage in a month-long "fast for peace". Silent prayer vigils are held outside the UN. Sit-ins, phone-ins, mass rallies take place. That old national treasure Walter Cronkite breaks his silence and says that a unilateral attack on Iraq by the US, without UN backing, risks unleashing world maelstrom. But peace activists have not been able to translate the very strong anti-war sentiment of the American public into effective action. And in forming their opinions the people are poorly served by their media. The administration seems unshakeable.

The announcement of the need to "deal" with Saddam Hussein, with or without benefit of the UN, came at the outset of the mid-term elections campaign. Against glum tidings of a weakening economy and well-publicised cases of corporate corruption, this unilateral policy quickly grabbed the headlines. With the mid-term elections now passed the Republicans have increased their hold on power and the administration's stance on a first strike appears validated, even though the reality of a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation in the volatility of the Middle East is fraught with the gravest dangers. That is not to say that Saddam is not a barbaric leader who has caused untold grief to his poor countrymen and women and children.

President Bush's somewhat lacklustre record before the shocking events of September 11 are now but history. With "The war on terrorism" the President's stature has risen to that akin of a statesman. Meanwhile, as so much of the common wealth pours into the new priorities of securing the safety of her citizens at home, America's domestic economy struggles. The "war" waged in Afghanistan has not been spectacularly successful. Suddenly Saddam Hussein is brought back into worldview. He is the monster with arsenals of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and, God forbid, also possibly nuclear. He is in imminent danger of unleashing them on an unsuspecting and unprepared world. Never mind that he has not done anything with this terrifying arsenal over the past 10 years, there's no time to wait to see if the weapons' inspectors are able to do an adequate job of investigation; there's no time to wait for the UN to try every avenue of diplomacy.

A recent issue of UN DIPLOMATIC TIMES examines the US administration's view that confronting the Iraqi threat is 'crucial to winning the war on terror' against Al Qaeda. The assessment of former US diplomat, Jonathan Dean, now an advisor on security issues to the Union of Concerned Scientists is quoted. Dean reiterates that although close satellite, electronic and aerial surveillance of Iraq has continued since 1991 there is no evidence "yet available" that Iraq "has produced fissile material for weapons or extended the permitted range of its scud missiles."

"It is highly unlikely that Iraq is producing large stocks of chemical weapons," counters Dean, "It is highly unlikely that, if Saddam Hussein, a leader of a socialist secular party, did have such weapons, he would entrust them to a fanatical Islamic cult like Al Qaeda ". Dean describes Hussein's brutality as guided by a secular assessment of political threat, a distinction quite apart from Al Qaeda's "demented belief that a program of indiscriminate murder directed mainly at office workers and night clubs, will free Islamic countries from the complexities of the modern world and qualify the perpetrators of ghastly crimes for entry into heaven".

Yet these distinctions are not made plain, to the point that some people see in the actions of the Bush administration a deliberate attempt to disarm the UN. They see it as implacably opposed to sharing in any form of multilateral action over which it is not the master. In the absence of another superpower, the temptation for the US is to see itself, not as one member state among 190 member states, but rather as the alternative body to the UN itself.

For many ordinary, hardworking, Americans there is a perplexity and hurt at what they see as the rest of the world hating them. They struggle to see any foundation for resentment by the world's poorer nations. They do not see, for example, that their government's unquestioning support of Israel against the Palestinian people might evoke anger among Arab peoples; or that in buttressing this brutal eye-for-an-eye cycle of warfare, the possibility opens of world conflicts which know no borders, no arbitration, no end beyond the next bloody vendetta.

At Advent we stand in need of much prayer, cool heads and the silence and the courage to touch our shared humanity. I sense that the ordinary people of this land instinctively know that war and violence are not the answer. Let us pray that the leaders will at last come to serve the will of their people.

December 2002:
Holy Land Patriarch condemns Israel ban on Arafat Mass attendance:

In his Christmas message, Patriarch Michel Sabbah has condemned both the Israeli government's ban on Yasser Arafat's attending Midnight Mass, as well as the military occupation of Bethlehem.

Sabbah, leader of Latin Rite Catholics in the Holy Land, urged the world community and Christians everywhere "to wake up" and help the Israelis and Palestinians accept peace.

"Our message is also an appeal to all persons of good will, to the international community, and to all our Churches over the world, to wake up and to come and help both peoples of this land to make peace, based on justice, equality and dignity," he said. "To all we say: Do not forget this land and do not abandon us to our fate."

Patriarch Sabbah added: "As for the siege and the humiliation imposed on the Palestinians of Bethlehem itself and on all the Palestinian towns and villages, and the demolition of houses and the killing of people ... all these measures push us rather to renew our courage, our hope and our love even to those who make our life hard."

"The present difficulties will not compel us to cancel our feasts. Besides the sufferings already imposed upon us, it is not necessary to dispossess ourselves from the joy of the feast and from our duty to worship God and present him ourselves with all our sufferings."

Reflections: US bishops pose questions on Iraq

By Bruce Duncan (Sydney Cath Weekly, c. Nov 28, 2002)

As we stand on the brink of war with Iraq, let us consider the critical moral issues it raises; military intervention could result again in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Astonishingly, Church leaders throughout the world have been almost unanimous in their refusal to endorse the justice of such a war, with the US Catholic bishops being among the most insistent that, on the evidence they have seen, war is not justified.

The Australian media do not seem to have realised the significance of this yet.

For the first time in the history of western liberal nations, the Churches are, in effect, declaring that this is not a just war.

Circumstances can and will change, but unless the US can prove that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks or poses a direct threat to the West, the view of the Churches is unlikely to shift.

The US bishops have also beencareful not to compel consciences unreasonably, acknowledging that assessing the justice of a war is a complex process and that they are making what is called a prudential decision, on the basis of the evidence available to them.

In other words, they allow for the possibility that Catholics, even after considering carefully the evidence, may disagree with the bishops’ views and still be in good conscience.

Nevertheless, the bishops have a duty to invoke their moral authority to guide Catholics on an issue of such gravity.

This is especially so since the Church in its history has been deeply involved in efforts to prevent killing, particularly of the innocent, and has played a central role in the development of the ‘just war’ tradition in the West.

It is true, unfortunately, that the Churches, including the Catholic Church, have not always been true to their own best “just war” traditions, and have at times succumbed to nationalism and expediency. Witness the jingoism at the start of World War I.

The contrast between that jingoism and the Churches’ current rejection of the Bush Administration’s arguments for war is quite startling.

The bishops are aware that their statements could place members of the armed forces in a difficult position, as they may be required to fight in Iraq.

The bishops are not demanding that Christians in the armed forces resign. Nor do they impose an obligation in faith to oppose the war.

But they are asking service personnel to examine the arguments carefully in coming to a decision of conscience.

If servicemen and women do decide that the war is unjust, then they still have the option of conscientious objection.

Finally, the debate over the war is entangled with political dimensions.

The Churches, however, cannot simply be silent because of these political overtones, but are trying to address the moral aspects in a non-partisan manner.

It may be difficult to maintain this balance, particularly if there are large-scale demonstrations against a US-led invasion of Iraq.

Question: why is Australian media (somewhat) pro-war?
Answer: who owns Australian media? (...see article below re ownership of USA media...)

US Bishops - Full Statement 

Caritas urges day of prayer today for Holy Land peace (Nov 29)


Caritas Australia Chairman Bishop Hilton Deakin has called on the community to pray today for "an end of the violence and suffering in Palestine and for a just peace in the Holy Land".

"The land which saw the birth of three of the world’s great religions continues to be violated by war and injustice," he said. "The Israelis and the Palestinians must negotiate a compromise so that they can share the land in peace."

Caritas Australia is joining with all 154 members of the Caritas Internationalis network in calling for an end to the presence of Israeli troops in the occupied territories. This will mean the withdrawal of all Israeli troops, checkpoints, blockades, curfews, closures and any other obstacles to the free movement of people.

"The illegal occupation of Palestine is at the root of the current violence," said Bishop Hilton. "Caritas Australia is deeply concerned for the people of Palestine who endure constant suffering and daily humiliations. The people live in constant fear."

"The long and short-term effects of the occupation on the health and nutrition of the people of Palestine especially the children cannot be over-estimated."

By ABE ATA

The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification “Christian” includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union. So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland? We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.

I refer, of course, to the American religious right. They see the modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel. Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy, this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one, or the Israeli right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.

The views of the Israeli right are well known: They want us gone. Less well known are the views of the American religious right. Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla., said: “God appeared to Abraham and said: ‘I am giving you this land,’ the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.” House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, was even more forthright: “I’m content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. … I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.”

There is a phrase for this: ethnic cleansing. Why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ? Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian Christians -- Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians -- have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions -- Muslims, Jews, Druze and most recently Baha’is -- for centuries. We want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair.

What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians, we grieve for what we have lost, and few people (the Ashkenazi Jews are one) have lost more than us. But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.

Abe Ata is a ninth-generation Christian Palestinian born in Bethlehem. He is a visiting Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia and author of 11 books, including Intermarriage between Christians and Muslims.

National Catholic Reporter, November 22, 2002

Hardly a day now passes without Mr Bush or his officials stressing the urgency of the supposed Iraqi threat and the vital importance of confronting it now. To listen to the president, one might think that it is the only issue that matters - and that the affairs of the nation are otherwise in perfect order.

In his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, Mr Bush employed what might in British parlance be termed the kitchen sink approach. In other words, he threw just about everything he had at the target, including domestic appliances.

In his opening paragraph alone, for example, he linked the words "Iraq" and "terror" or "terrorism" on no fewer than four occasions. This despite the fact that the administration's evidence of links between Saddam Hussein's regime and the September 11 al-Qaida murderers is paper-thin.

In spelling out the dangers posed by terrorism, which may be defined as the use of fear and violence to attain political ends, Mr Bush used fear and the threat of violence to promote his policy.

Since when has it been the proper function of an American president to scare the children? But with his claim that Iraq might use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for biological and chemical weapons attacks "targeting the United States", he strayed into the realms of horror-movie fantasy.

It would be useful to know what plausible evidence the administration has for suggesting that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists ... This could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints".

As a matter of fact, rather than propaganda, the administration has no such evidence, only suppositions - for although Saddam is bad, he is not mad.

It would be helpful to understand what purpose is served by over-stating Iraq's missile capability, and postulating the theoretical possibility of Iraqi attacks on countries such as Turkey. Mr Bush's advisers surely know that Iraq has no motive for such attacks, that its deputy prime minister was visiting Ankara only the other day, and that Israel's chief of military intelligence, Major General Aharon Ze'evi, (who should know), says he doubts Iraq has the capability for such actions.

Even as he threatened to wage open-ended war, Mr Bush insisted that his administration's purpose is "to secure the peace" - apparently oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction contained in the two statements.

He said the White House "did not ask for this present challenge". But as all the world, and the American public, increasingly suspects, it is a challenge Mr Bush has deliberately chosen to dramatise and prioritise. That Saddam is a serious problem is hardly a new idea. That, suddenly, the US must without delay start a full-scale war in the Middle East to topple him most certainly is.

Mr Bush said that if Saddam did not comply with the almost impossible preconditions that the US is insisting upon in the UN security council, America would act "with allies at our side". This is disingenuous, to say the very least. The US does not have the support of traditional allies in Europe or the former Gulf war allies in the Arab world for anything that smacks of precipitate or unilateral action, let alone "regime change". Nor is it likely to obtain it.

Only Tony Blair's British government is on board the Bush bandwagon - and even in Britain, polls show a majority of people are opposed to military action. Americans who worry that the US is going out on a limb in terms of democratic opinion, international law and practical military concerns are right to do so.

Mr Bush even went so far as to purloin the words of John F Kennedy and suggest that what the US is now facing is akin to the Cuban missile crisis. That is a gross exaggeration of the position. It is at odds with the known facts. As such, it is misleading and unnecessarily, irresponsibly alarming to the American people. This is not leadership in the Churchillian style that Mr Bush professes to admire. It is mere demagoguery.

The television networks were plainly unimpressed. And so, too, are a growing number of Americans. The more Mr Bush presses his case, and the more the people listen to him and analyse his case, the more unconvinced they become.

The latest in a raft of opinion polls, taken by the New York Times and CBS News, shows clearly that American common sense is beginning to eclipse the president's over-excited rhetoric.

Majorities of those interviewed believe that Mr Bush is spending too much time on Iraq; that the same goes for a sheepish, supine Congress; that other problems are being ignored; that the economy is heading south even as the troops head east; that a broad coalition of countries is an essential prerequisite for military action; and that a war could have unpredictable, dangerous consequences for the region and the wider world.

Most sensibly of all, Americans who rightly believe that the main, present and urgent threat to US security emanates from the al-Qaida network and its sympathisers wonder why Mr Bush is trying to shift the focus to Iraq. Al-Qaida is still out there. It is undefeated. It is probably planning more outrages. It may be found in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, perhaps in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. But not in Iraq.

The bottom-line question that will not go away, and which was left unanswered in Cincinnati, is what is driving Mr Bush down this path? Is it a desire to draw attention away from his poor to chronic domestic policy record? Is it an attempted diversion from the stock market collapse, America's rising unemployment and its corporate malfeasance scandals? Is it all about oil? Or the mid-term elections? Or his own re-election bid in 2004? Or is it a personal, Bush family vendetta against Saddam?

Any one of these explanations makes more sense than far-fetched claims that Saddam is planning attacks on the most powerful nation in the history of the world, attacks that would certainly be traced back to him and would result in his utter annihilation.

As this American debate develops, Mr Bush is starting to lose the argument. Perhaps he will listen. But perhaps he will go ahead anyway. In which case, the necessity for regime change does indeed become overwhelming. Regime change in Washington, that is.

Email
simon.tisdall@guardian.co.uk

More articles
Other articles by Simon Tisdall

Special reports
Iraq
United States

Useful links
US government
United Nations
European Union

August 26, 2002: "The South China Morning Post" (HK) p.14 (article by Philip Bowring):

...the New York Times reported that the US, like Saudi Arabia, had not only encouraged and armed Iraq's 1980 attack on Iran but had, at the very least, kept quiet about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians....and possibly advised on military operations in which chemical weapons were used. 
Again, it is not news that the West supported Iraq's aggression out of fear of Iranian Islam, or even that Saddam Hussein frequently used gas and other chemical weapons. 
But the Times' revelations are important....in showing up the hypocrisy of President George W. Bush's contention that a "regime change" in Baghdad must be brought about to prevent the possibility of Saddam using chemical or other so-called "weapons of mass destruction". 
Given the West's past complicity in Saddam's war-making, it is particularly poignant that the main victim, Iran, is now classed as a member of the "axis of evil".  Mr Bush ....seemed to have learned ( history) from Josef Stalin. Rewrite history to suit yourself. Fortunately there are newspapers willing to put reality before warped versions of patriotism.
...the real world is (a complicated place), particularly that part which has been in chaos ever since the Western powers, for their own interest, created bizarre new states out of the collapsed Ottoman empire.

also on the same page. Article by Robert Fisk:

Three Western war crimes investigators turned up to see me in Beirut last week......They wanted to know about torture at Israel's notorious Khiam jail in southern Lebanon........
Khiam prison is still there....a living testament to brutality and Israeli shame. The problem is that Israel is now trying to dump its Lebanese torturers on Western countries.....
Over 26 years, I have seen many war crimes in the Middle East. .......I was at the Sabra and Chatila camps (in 1982) when Israel's Phalangist thugs were butchering 1,700 Palestinian civilians. I was with Iranian soldiers when Iraqi troops fired gas shells into them....  
....I believe that those responsible for these atrocities should be put before a court.........Ariel Sharon -  held "personally responsible" by his own country's inquiry into Sabra and Chatila - is now the prime minister of Israel.
...  if any reporter wants to testify against the above (gentleman), he can forget it...... In fact, Belgium has just done its best to stop the survivors of Sabra and Chatila from ever testifying against Mr Sharon in Brussels. 

August 7, 2002:

Powerful t.v. program  on SBS (Australia)  "Dateline" re the courageous Israeli soldiers who are in prison for refusing to serve in the occupied territories....they are called "refuseniks". Click here for transcript of this report

Ten Things You Should Know about U.S. Policy in the Middle East

World Media Ownership, especially in USA (why the media is so pro-Israel)

2002-04-01 China Daily Cartoon re Israel & Palestinians....& USA.   How sadly true....

* In his 2002 Easter message to the people of the Holy Land, Latin  Patriarch Michel Sabbah insists that the key to peace lies in the end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

* The Palestinians have suffered great injustice by being driven from their homeland by force, with the support of western powers, particularly the US which continues to give billions of dollars a year to Israel. But while there is no way to undo what has been done, the Palestinian people are still suffering greatly, with the demeaning humiliation by the Israeli military checkpoints and the security apparatus. -  Bruce Duncan - C. Weekly