Dear Selected TFF PressInfo
Recipient,
It’s a pleasure for us to send you this PressInfo about
the Iraq crisis.
During the build-up of the Iraq crisis, TFF initiated
an international e-mail brainstorm. We asked some 150
peace researchers and conflict-resolution practitioners
around the world to respond, within four days, to the
following six questions:
1) WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONFLICT?
2) WHY ARE WE ONCE AGAIN WITNESSING A MASSIVE MILITARY PROJECT THAT MEETS LITTLE DEBATE?
3) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE UP TILL NOW – MID-FEBRUARY 98 – AND BY WHOM, TO PREVENT IT?
4)WHAT CAN STILL BE DONE TO PREVENT WAR AND BY WHOM?
5) WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CREATE A DEBATE AFTER A NEW WAR THAT WILL FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES?
6) ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS?
Not all, of course, were able to respond within this
short notice, but those who did provided us with so many
perspectives and proposals – some writing several pages. We
made a selection and edited it all in two PressInfos for you
to reflect on – as another TFF service for peace. This
PressInfo contains the answers to the last three questions.
No 32, the first
three.
“What is immediately evident,” says TFF director Jan
Oberg, “is that there is so much more to say about the
diagnosis and possible conflict-resolution than you
experienced in the general media coverage. Second, the
experts are much more self-critical about the United States
and Western policies; they clearly see that we are part –
historically – of the problem and not the solution. Third,
we must be painfully aware that the conflict is by no means
solved.”
So, we advise you to keep these points, you may need them
in the weeks and months to come. And please share them with
colleagues and friends.”
4) WHAT, IN YOUR VIEW, CAN STILL BE
DONE TO PREVENT WAR? BY WHOM?
• Support the UN and Kofi Annan, use the UN
Charter’s Article 100
Article 100 states that the Secretary-General shall not
seek or receive instructions from anyone and that member
states shall respect the exclusively international character
of the S-G’s responsibilities. Kofi Anan’s attempt to avoid
the war by sending a team of experts acceptable to Iraq and
conduct the inspection without tarnishing the honnor of this
country will solve de facto the very point chosen by Clinton
as his casus belli. Annan’s own mission to Baghdad must be
applauded, even if he or the UN as such cannot prevent a war
later.
• Change and add inspectors
The UN Secretary-General and the Security Council should
take an initiative for peaceful solutions. It is necessary
to change the composition of UNSCOM inspectors and to add
representatives from other members states to prevent the USA
and Great Britain from dominating its work.
• France, China, and Russia could send a peace
mission to the U.S. and to IRAQ
And when in IRAQ, stay there until the conditions have
cooled. They should visit and reside at the Palaces to
prevent the U.S. from initiating an attack. That we offer
Saddam a reason also for opening these sites: to prevent
them from being bombed.
• Establish an International Truth Commission
We need one now, whether there is another war or not.
There is a need for estabishing the truth about this
conflict ever since 1990. If a war starts it shall
investigate a) the build-up and road to war, as well as the
roles and choices made by different actors; b) the conduct
of the war, looking at possible violations of human rights
and international law, as well as crimes against humanity,
war crimes, and crimes against peace which may be committed
by the different actors/parties involved; and, c) the
effects of the war on the civilian population in Iraq,
including potential devastation of what little remains of
the civilian infrastructure, as well as the effects of
sanctions and other punishments which may be levied against
Iraq. The Commission should also look into the effects and
results of the earlier Gulf War, and the sanctions placed
upon Iraq following its prior defeat.
• Dialogues and peace conferences everywhere,
permanently
They should consist of mothers, elderly, farmers,
fisherfolks, children of both countries in one another’s
countries, presenting new terms of reference rather than
those used by “war lords”. Such on-going conferences in both
countries would also forestall a U.S. attack, especially if
the participants are wives and children of Congressmen and
other high officials.
• Inspection of all countries having weapons of mass
destruction
It’s high time to develop an agreed upon international
standard by which all countries in possession of weapons of
mass destruction should be inspected. The U.S. should be
examined under such standards as well as Iraq.
• The no-fly zone could cover all of Iraq’s
territory
This zone for military planes and helicopters could be
extended over the whole country. It should be made clear
that not only aggression against other countries (as Iran
1980 and Kuwait 1990) would meet with international
resistance, but also massacres of Iraqi citizens, like the
Kurds in 1991.
• Sale of oil for food and stop arms exports
The sale of oil for food and medicine, to be distributed
by the UN, should be increased, as UN General Secretary
Annan has recommended and the Security Council decided.
Strict sanctions against the import of weapons or technology
with military applications should be maintained. At the same
time, arms exports to Iraq’s neighbours, or other military
security assistance, must be stopped.
• Security regimes and nuclear-free zones
The Middle East should be invited to go through an
OSCE-like process, establishing the modalities of regional
security, at the lowest military levels, and all weapons of
mass destruction should be removed.
• “Radio Free Iraq”
A “Radio Free Iraq” could be established over which Iraqi
exiles and others can give accurate news to the Iraqi people
and propose alternatives to the current regime and its
policies. Reaching the people of Eastern Europe with
information and ideas from outside helped prepare the way
for the emergence of Gorbachev and the end of the Cold
War.
• Address the Kurdish issue
In Iraq, the Kurds are the victims, and Euro-North
American duplicity causes the Kurds to fight among
themselves. We can not truly address the Iraqi crisis
without coming up with a series of initiatives and short-
and long term proposals to mitigate and eventually meet the
legitimate needs of the Kurdish people.
• Use humour, the whole thing should not be taken
serious
People are accustomed to protests and anger. Instead, we
could propagate the joking image of Bill and Saddam, the two
masculine balerinas, using the UN as a stage for their
“pas-de-deux” and place this cartoon in major world news
media. Street demonstrations, panels, artists and peace
politicians would pour “black humour” over the whole affair.
What about a CNN journalist saying to a White House
spokesperson: “But you must be joking?”
• Emphasize the human rights and democracy
perspectives
No matter how we may object to US war policy towards
Iraq, this does not make Hussein right. Denial of human
rights and undemocratic practices create conditions for
conflict. We must be much more concerned about Iraqi
treatment of the Kurds and Hussein’s abuse of the human
rights of his own people? The debate can not be just about
UN sanctions and US air strikes. We must help information to
flow unimpeded to the people of Iraq.
• A Security and Cooperation Conference for the
Middle East
The European security- and confidence-building process
(OSCE) suggests one way: advance human rights and authentic
democratic practices, free media, civil society and
dialogue. It’s a Western concept, but it could be
implemented together with regional governmental and local
non-governmental organizations.
• Cross-cultural learning and peacebuilding
together
All the thoughts in this document highlight the need for
skills and training in cross-cultural learning and
cross-cultural peacebuilding. Islam and Arab culture also
has “soft” dimensions, offers non-violence and dialogues and
has age-old, interesting ways of handling conflicts. The
West ought not teach the peoples of Islam that weapons is
the chosen means, because then they – and future generations
– will say: we learnt it from you! We must learn from this
threatening conflict that there are better ways and develop
various types of interaction that furthers mutual learning
and peaceful co-existence among cultures.
• The US must constrain its “national interests” and
decrease its dependence on oil
Friendly countries must help the US understand that it
cannot draw the world into its global “national interests” –
in this case, oil – with potentially devastating
consequences. It needs a new energy policy that will reduce
its grotesque overconsumption of fossil fuels. Imagine that
the US invested with the same motive force in alternative
energy sources as it does in new weapons technologies!
• Positive incentives
None of the five permanent members of the Security
Council – and they have all violated global norms and
international law – would ever accept to be put in Iraq’s
situation. We need to insist that there is a written promise
be given Iraq: when it complies with UNSCOM and UN
resolutions the sanctions will end. No people and no
government can accept eternally a situation like that in
Iraq; the moralizing attitude of the West is undermined by
the fact that sanctions is our policy.
• Humanize the enemy, meet him face-to-face
National leaders should not say: we don’t deal with those
we don’t like, we eliminate them. The real challenge is: how
do we invite the bullies to come our way? Whether we like
him or not, Saddam exists and he doesn’t seem to go away
that easily. He may even have some points worth listening
to. Face-to-face meetings should take place.
5) WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CREATE A
DEBATE AFTER A NEW WAR THAT WILL FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES TO
THIS KIND OF CONFLICT-MISMANAGEMENT AND SERVE WHOSE WHO ARE
LIKELY TO BE ITS VICTIMS?
• Let’s learn to ask the difficult questions
It is clear that the discussions have to meet basic
ethical standards. Are the selected means and strategies,
for example, proportional to the ends? Do the means involve
inflicting harm on innocent civilians? Have all non-violent
means of persuasion been exhausted before violent ones been
considered? Can one combat gross violations of human rights
(both individual and collective) with strategies that may
involve comparable violations? Is it now allowed–under some
as yet unformulated and unlegitimized rubric– to combat
murder with murder? What trans-national multilateral
mandates and legitimation exist for the proposed
interventions? Are there clearly sign posted exits for the
decision makers or for those targeted ? How might the world
community judge whether the intended actions will yield
desirable or undesirable outcomes?
• Learing that peaceful means to transform conflict
take time
We may not be able to “prevent conflicts” as is often
stated, but we must – and can – learn to prevent violence in
conflict situations. For violence-prevention it is important
to take steps as early as possible. There are many “early”
alternatives to using force e.g. peace education and
building respect and tolerance into our dealings with
cultures different from our own. Violence may look like a
solution, but it only changes a conflict, it never solves it
– those hit and humiliated will seek revenge forever. That’s
what the Middle East is also about today, if we address the
historical relations between our cultures.
• The media coverage must be supplemented and less
self-righteous
Notice how often journalists asked: But can we trust
Saddam? They never asked: Does Saddam have reason to
trust the West? Media can promote conflict understanding,
look at structures and history and avoid boiling it all down
to “Saddam versus Bill”. Radio and television can offer
other perspectives, definitions of conflicts and cover
alternatives to violent methods. It can feature other
experts than we usualy see. Internet offers new
possibilities and challenges other media. Everyone can seek
a lot of sources and form his or her very independent
opinion. We need a dependable and fair source of
information, a new press union tied into some of the peace
institutes and think tanks around the world. The media could
play a constructive part by abandoning the hero worship (and
the demonizing) and educating the public as to the original
causes of the conflict.
• Come to terms with our own culpability
It will NEVER end until we come to grips with our
(Western/United States) culpability in making Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia and Iraq inevitable. If we don’t break the trend,
in the future we may not be able to keep these profitable
but destructive wars in other people’s back yards. They will
create so much hate that we in the West will be
targetted.
• If bombs fall, each of us can help the victims
It is necessary to create a debate in mass media and on
Internet regarding common cooperative security and common
responsibility after a new war. Ways must be found to help
the Iraqi citizens who will be double victims. This is not
only political, it is also a personal issue: what can I and
you do? A small example: we can fly a white flag,
handkerchief, or sheet of paper as our plea for peace,
expressing our sympathy with potential or real victims.
6) ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROLE OF
THE UNITED NATIONS IN THESE MATTERS? IF SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE
TO HELP THE U.N. MORE STORNGLY ENGAGE IN “PEACE BY PEACEFUL
MEANS” RATHER THAN BY VIOLENT MEANS?
• The UN is being deliberately misused
It is not the task of the UN to endorse warfare or put
its name under operations it cannot control. Global norms
are ignored when national power interests prevail
Any unilateral American military action (even supported
by the UK and some
other allies) against Iraq can have extremely heavy
negative consequences for the entire system of international
security. It will undermine its fundamental principle: that
the primary responsibility of the UNSC is the maintenance of
international peace and security.
• The UN must play a vital role
But it must have a new support. The US will not truly
support the UN in what the latter must be about. During the
Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement was instrumental in
supporting the UN in decolonization. In the post-Cold War
era, there is need for a new movement, something we could
call a Zone of Peace Movement of small states committed to
nonviolent inter-state relations and the promotion of human
rights domestically.
• We need to the UN to enforce higher norms
The norms and policies of the UN are needed more than
ever against outlaw leaders and states who ignore the idea
of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
Higher global norms compel us to help many countries to
rid themselves and the world of weapons of mass destruction.
The idea of agreements, monitoring and on-site inspection
(as in Iraq) can become a model of how international
disarmament agreements of the future can be verified (along
with the experience made in the context of CFE and CWC) –
provided the whole thing is not misused by any single actor.
So we also should take into account the larger meaning of
the current standoff. This is not just about “putting the
Iraqi regime in its place” but about developing
international norms that will be binding on both outlaw
regimes and the supposed pillars of the international
system.
• Small states, the UN and OSCE are more able to
solve crises like this
More needs to be done to strengthen those who work for
peace with peaceful means – rather than accept the
adventurist policies of big powers and NATO. The OSCE, for
instance, ought to have an NGO Affiliate to provide input
and more important, to obtain support. There is need for a
new international movement. Small states committed to human
rights and democratic practices can take a leading role in
such a movement to promote cultures for peace (Unesco) and
practical polices to establish Zones of Peace where problems
are dealt with by nonviolent means. The small actors and
NGOs can always pioneer this, big powers would be the last
to see the benefits. Such movements may even re-charge the
UN and direct it toward its original purpose. The end of the
Cold War provides the window for putting the UN on the
proper course.
• Zones of Peace
Outside of the Euro-N America area, we should attempt to
assist governments of small states to act as catalysts to
create regional zones of peaceful cooperation: Qatar in
Persian Gulf, Kirgizstan in Central Asia; Mongolia in N.E.
Asia; Nepal in South Asia; Malaysia in S. E. Asia; Uruguay
in S. America; Costa Rica in Central America; Eritrea in
Horn of Africa; and perhaps a few more.
• The US must pay its dues
The US has not paid its obligatory membership fees of
more than $ 1 billion to the UN; that’s about 10 per cent of
the UN’s annual budget. By not doing so it undermines the
abilities of the organisation to be an efficient body. Other
member states and world opinion must help the US understand
that warfare costs much more in terms of human lives,
economic resources and reconstruction and that it speaks
with less authority when promoting such destructive
policies.
Want to comment on this information? Please write your
views to:
tff@transnational.live
