|
Iraq:
The West needs intellectual armament and
conflict-resolution
A speech in Berlin
by
Jan
Oberg
TFF
director
What I'm concerned about are those people - of whom I
think there are still pretty many - who say: "Yes, war
would be terrible. Yes, the Iraqi people have suffered
enough. Yes, we ought to do something else. But what can
be done instead of war?" I shall address the little
nagging feeling: what if this "bad guy" over there
actually presents us, in five years or so, with a fait
accompli, and he has some weapons with which he can
threaten us? It doesn't matter whether I think he wants
to or will be able to, or not. Intellectuals have a duty
to also the legitimate concerns of citizens. In addition,
let me emphasise that it is never enough to say 'No to
war.! We must also be constructive and answer the
question: If not war, then what? We must do so, because
there is a problem and because people here and there are
fearful about the future.
I would like to do three things: a) look into what I
think governments could do, and b) look into what
ordinary citizens can do. And then c) I will give you a
vision - unrealistic as it may seem - with some
exploration, some ideas, brainstorming.
Conflict-resolution is about techniques and creativity,
about seeing a possible future that is better for all
conflicting parties and for the rest of the world. May I
confess to you in passing that I believe it is not that
difficult to come up with a better idea than slaughtering
the people of Iraq. And may I add that if war is the only
plan in town, then that war is more likely to happen than
if there are more competing options.
Most people in this room, I suppose, are from member
states of the European Union. Does it have a common
foreign and security policy in general? My answer is no.
It neither had such a policy in the case of Somalia, nor
in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo or Macedonia. Does
the European Union have a policy on Iraq? My answer is
again no.
What we need is one type of armament or rearmament:
intellectual armament. The European Union does not need
weapons, and the civil and military "conflict management"
capacity that is now being developed in order to have, at
maximum, 70,000 EU soldiers intervene up to 6000
kilometres from Brussels is… well, ridiculous. I
mean, if you have more muscle power than brain power and
goodness of heart, you should be careful with those
muscles!
The EU is not able to and should not even try to match
the United States in the sphere of militarism and
intervention capacity. If the European Union is to play a
global role, it must be based on all the things we know
we need but ignore when it is most needed: early warning,
decent and comprehensive conflict diagnosis, violence
prevention, close co-operation between governments and
civil society organisations, genuine peace processes,
reconciliation, truth commissions and forgiveness. If we
list the lessons we can learn from conflict-management
attempts since 1989 by the West in the regions I
mentioned, we &endash; i.e. our governments - should be
self-critical and honest enough to admit that much of it
has turned out to be conflict mis-management. Allegedly,
the 'peace' created through bombings since October 7,
2001 implies that civil war is close, a famine
catastrophe developing, promises of billions in
reconstruction aid solidly forgotten and a central
government having control of a few square kilometres
around Kabul.
The EU must be ambitious enough to do better! Better
than it did before and much better than the American
bellicose quick-fix-destroy-and-run-away!
Here follow 16 points. They are pretty simple. Ask
yourself why none of them have been tried. If they were
tried they would also serve as a much-needed assistance
to the United Nations, whose Charter is still the least
bad comprehensive peace strategy humanity has.
1. The EU should formulate a sharp, firm policy
vis-a-vis Iraq. Put your demands, do your analysis, do
your diagnoses, prognoses and therapy policies. It is a
shame that all these countries cannot have something in
common in this dire situation of the international
community. Otherwise, and if it doesn't have very soon,
it will be an intellectual and political and moral dwarf
in that system.
2. Get the media, researchers, NGOs, and professional
groups of doctors, nurses, scholars, journalists,
engineers, writers, painters, what have you, to exchange
visits with their peers in Iraq. Get delegations to
Baghdad, get people from Baghdad to Europe. Talk with
each other, with each other as human beings. It's
possible to get there, it should be possible for us to
invite them here. Let us listen to each other in hundreds
of popular diplomatic citizens initiatives all around
Europe. This can be supported by enlightened governments
that set up funds for such meetings, travels, hotel costs
etc. Any European country could set off a few hundred
thousand Euros to facilitate such dialogues between human
beings there and here.
3. Encourage your business people to do more trade
with and investment in Iraq. To begin with: within the
sanctions regime. I'm glad that there is a huge
industrial fair just opening now in Baghdad - there
should be many more companies there from Europe. Why do
capitalists accept that they are prevented from doing
optimum business in a market with 23 million people who
need everything? In the world's second largest oil
country. Capitalist outside the military-industrial
complexes should become peace activists if you ask
me!
4. Reestablish your embassies at the highest level and
develop full diplomatic powers in Baghdad. The country in
which I was born is one I'm increasingly ashamed of:
Denmark. Denmark is presently the president of the
European Union and it does not even have an embassy in
Baghdad. Thus it has no first-hand information about the
situation, how people think, what personalities say
what.
Sweden whose prime minister, the late Olof Palme was a
mediator in the Iran-Iraq war, is stone dead
intellectually, morally and politically. It has no
independent policy after having joined the EU. Sweden
also doesn't have an embassy in Baghdad. It has one in
Amman, and a lower-ranking diplomat goes a couple of days
a months from the embassy in Amman, Jordan to Baghdad. He
cannot meet high-level politicians or ambassadors in
Baghdad because of his rank, no matter how smart he may
otherwise be. Why don't we send a high-ranking
diplomat?
And what kind of information can you have on which to
shape your policy, if you are not present and you can not
talk with the people with whom you are going to deal in
the future? People must be present and see, listen and
talk (back) to the Iraqis because otherwise we must do
only with the CIA and what is - strangely - called
"intelligence" accompnaied by psycho-warfare, propaganda
and, sorry to say, fabricated stories by marketing
companies or, rather, lies.
5. The EU must make tough demands on Iraq to accept
the Security Council resolution about disarmament, but it
should not follow the American policy. The EU has a great
advantage in that it can do without arrogance and
black-and-white image of the conflict; it does not have
to humiliate and it doesn't feel hurt the way the United
States does after September 11. And there is less
Christian fundamentalism on this side of the Atlantic.
Regime change, if necessary, must be the privilege of the
Iraqi people, not the West. I have some ideas as to how
we can help the Iraqi people to install democracy, but it
remains their decision, not ours.
6. There must be a European initiative to selectively,
over time, suspend and finally lift the sanctions.
Whenever Iraq complies with the demands, there must be
some selective reward and not just complete punishment
all the time. I must add I would be delighted to see one
little government somewhere saying: we need civil
disobedience, we will do some sanctions busting! We must
give the Iraqis some hope and solid reason to trust that
if they comply, there is light at the end of the tunnel
they see themselves deep into. Just somebody who would
have the courage to say: the sanctions are only wanted by
the United States, but not by the rest of the world, and
therefore we will start dealing with Iraq in a principled
war. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but in the
future we promise to start dealing with Iraq, trading
with Iraq, investing in Iraq, even before all the
sanctions are lifted. A little civil disobedience,
please! It would be helpful if a prime minister somewhere
had ever read a little Gandhi - I mean Mahatma, not
Indira or Rajiv, of course!
7. The EU should establish a contact and mediation
group. Scott Ritter rightly argued in favour of
mediation. I share this idea completely. It's fantastic
that 189 countries are sitting on their hands - looking
at what one country and one UN member does. Where on
Earth is the rest of the world's diplomatic corps? Shall
we really believe that the experienced diplomats of some
189 UN countries cannot come up with something better
than sitting idle and watch when one member goes in to
slaughter Iraqis and occupy that country in contravention
of international law and every ethical consideration?
There is an evident need for some kind of contact and
mediation group to go to Iraq. The EU must send Javier
Solana, Chris Patten and many others. Well, I know some
would see Solana as a war criminal when, as NATO's
Secretary-General, he was the highest civilian in charge
of the bombing of Yugoslavia. But the situation is so
serious that we should, perhaps, anyhow give him the
benefit of the doubt and go to Baghdad, since Iraqi
politicians for years have tried to initiate a dialogue
with the European Union (and not even received an answer
to their letters).
And, well, you may say that what I have just said
proves that the EU would not succeed with a dialogue and
mediation initiative. And you may be right, I am
sceptical too. But if it is not even tried in this deeply
frightening situation, I think we must also give up every
hope that the EU can and will play a constructive, new
role in world affairs. Many ask: but how does the Bush
regime get away with its policies these days? The answer
is, to a large extent, that they do because others fail
to present alternatives to US policies.
8. Then we need a regional conference with a
comprehensive framework, something like the OSCE process
begun in 1975 in Europe that was so remarkably helpful in
getting us out of cold war. This regional framework must
include a new approach, not by the US, but by the UN, the
European Union, and someone maybe in Asia, to mediation
and problem-solving in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
These two are very closely connected, and from Baghdad's
perspective, the main threat is Israel - politically,
historically and ideologically. Although they know they
are going to be bombed predominantly by the US, the main
enemy as they see it is called Zionism. It's time we
learn that there is no conflict at one point in space and
time. There are many conflicts and many layers of
conflict at one spot and they collide and overlap in
time.
9. The EU and others of course should co-operate and
co-ordinate with the United Nations to develop a new
security regime for the whole region. This must include a
respect for Security Council resolution 687 that states
that the whole region should be a zone free from weapons
of mass destruction. That means disarming and inspecting
and controlling also what Israel, the region's only known
nuclear power, does!
We need a new security regime that includes economic
security and environmental security, the chance of
democratisation and reconciliation and forgiveness among
human beings. Security is not predominantly about
weapons, it's about human beings, social affairs,
economic affairs and that sort of things. It's about
stopping the arms exports to the region and withdrawing
from those bases that are there against the will of the
local citizens. It is true that the Middle East is full
of authoritarian or undemocratic regimes; but with the
exception of Iraq they are all supported by the US and/or
other Western countries.
10. The EU should, while it does all this, constantly
keep the United States informed about everything it does,
but not be the slightest deterred if or when the
Bush-regime disagrees with what the European Union does.
The steps outlined above would, I believe, be more
compatible with the present democratic sentiments all
over Europe. There seems to be no country in Europe in
which a majority wants this war. Neither do we want to be
hit by the possible consequences of such a war should it
spread, whether politically, economically,
environmentally or militarily.
So, these are my humble suggestions as to what
governments could do. It can be done by individual EU
governments, by groups or by all of the EU. It can be
done also by many others around the world. But,
fortunately, governments are not the only actors we can
rely on. So, here comes some proposals as to what we, the
peoples, can do.
11. Citizens anywhere can do what they do in all peace
movements: support initiatives like the ones above (and
others, of course) and put pressure on their governments
to be more creative. We MUST not sit and wait for this
war to break out in one month from now as Scott Ritter
said. Take initiative, do anything, even unrealistically,
but DO something. Because it is very late already.
Write, call and visit the editorial offices of your
main media and demand to have meetings with your
parliamentarians &endash; person-to-person. Bombard them
(non-violently, of course!) with letters, e-mails,
appeals and open letters so that if the war happens, no
decision-maker shall be able to say that he/she thought
it was supported by the people.
12. Or, imagine that we sent twenty Nobel Peace Prize
recipients over there and let them stay well into the new
year. Or peace and other movements could use the idea of
human shields and send thousands of citizens to Iraq.
Would the West be able to start to destroy the society if
it meant killing thousands of citizens and thousands of
Westerners and not "only" Iraqis?
I went to Yugoslavia during the bombing there, because
I wanted to be there in solidarity with my friends and I
would also not mind to go to Iraq to make it more
difficult to start a war.
13. There is also simple solidarity: one of the things
we can do today is to get hold of e-mail-addresses of
Iraqi citizens and tell them by e-mails that we at least
do not support the policies of our governments. That we
will listen to and publish their stories, portray their
suffering now and, if possible, during a war. Such
stories coming out from under NATO's bombs over
Yugoslavia made their remarkable way to Western websites
and media.
14. We can write to the UN, to Kofi Annan, to Hans
Blix, and to their advisers. We can write to our United
Nations Associations, and we can write to the UN
information offices in our countries. Let thousands of
letters and e-mails and visits roll down over their heads
so they can't avoid telling the head quarters in New York
and the Ministries of Foreign affairs: something is
happening.
I do not think it is impossible. Each single
individual in this room is a peace movement. There are no
limits to what every individual can do, if he or she
takes the time, the energy, and has the will to do
it.
Finally two question based on some moral pain. A) What
could we offer the Iraqi people? Can we shape a policy in
the West that does not address Saddam Hussein only, but
focuses on the people of Iraq? B) what must we in the
West and in the United States in particular do, because
no concrete solution process can take place unless both
parties are willing to give something.
It cannot be a one-sided thing. I recently heard a
very non-sensical argument put forward by the Swedish
foreign minister who said something like this: I have
told the representative of Iraq what they must do and
they must open all the sites. I also told him that if
they don't, it's they themselves who decide that they
will be bombed. Excuse me - is the United States itself
not responsible for deciding that bombing is what it will
do? Does the Bush regime not have a free will to decide
whether the appropriate response is war or some other
option? Is Iraq alone responsible for the war? If there
are alternatives available to the West - such as
mediation and negotiations and mutual give-and-take - it
is the West itself that is responsible for the
slaughtering of the Iraqi society if that is that is what
it chooses. The rest is moral nonsense and abdication of
responsibility.
15. So, can we offer the Iraqi people something in
return for their hospitality to inspectors, the suffering
under the sanctions and their compliance with UN Security
Council demands &endash; carrots and not only sticks?
Imagine we promise the Iraqi people that we will stop
threatening them, that we will suspend and eventually
lift the sanctions, that we will normalise relations,
that we will give them economic aid to rebuild their
already crushed society, that the CIA and other
intelligence agencies will go home, that Iraq's
sovereignty over it's oil and other resources will be
respected, and that there will be compensation paid to
the people- at least to a certain extent - for the losses
caused during twelve years of sanctions. Imagine further
that we promise EU support, exchange, scholarships and
mutual friendship with the people. We will, in good
faith, work for the whole reegion becoming a zone free of
MDW and honestly seek a new approach to the
Israel-Palestine conflict.
Next, imagine we said this to the Iraqi people. "We
will give you all this, if somehow you work out that
Saddam Hussein, his family and his leadership go on early
pension, leave politics, and live a peaceful life. Some
could stay in some of the magnificent palaces (Saddam
could actually have an extra one as a kind of summer
cottage as he may not travel safely that far outside
Iraq!). We also want you to have free elections and find
a new democratic leadership.
Please do not get me wrong! Whether they want or do
not want to get rid of President Saddam Hussein is not my
concern, not my business. We have recently seen a show in
which 100% - or was it 103%? - of the Iraqis stated that
they wanted Saddam Hussein! What I am saying is that
democratisation must come about by democratic means. I am
also saying that any new government in Baghdad, Western,
Iraqi or a mixture, will be violent and authoritarian,
one way of the other, if violence is used to bring it to
power.
The huge civilisational question I am getting at is
this: Are there nonviolent methods to think through when
we are all in deep trouble? Can we, in this case, do
something which is attractive to the Iraqi people so they
become stronger? How can we offer the Iraqi people
something which is so attractive that their 65-year old
president would say that, in order for his people to get
all the benefits mentioned above he would gladly
resign.
16. Let's finally ask: what should the United States
do?
The first thing the US should do is, as I said, they
should stop threatening, call off the war, say there must
be other ways and show decency and civilisation. It would
be the first step in making the West popular (again) in
Iraq. When a country is threatened on its very existence,
the people will always back up the leader, probably in
proportion to the external pressures.
If the US cannot do so, the allies can back down from
the bellicose, screaming, arrogant, non-intellectual and
humiliating rhetorics of President George W. Bush.
The US should then ratify all the important
international treaties that they have abrogated or
refused to sign in recent years - including that for an
International Criminal Court. It should pay to and
respect the United Nations as the highest authority in
international affairs.
Let us hear an American ambassador say: yes, we are
willing to work with the UN, not above it, but with it as
any other decent member state. Next, what about starting
a unilateral disarmament in the United States, since they
have had a unilateral armament unparalleled in
contemporary history? Stop the Ballistic Missile Defense!
Stop a number of the projects in biological, chemical
research that was revealed earlier this month. And
negotiate nuclear disarmament in good faith according to
the Nonproliferation Treaty of 1986. You can NOT argue
that other countries in the long run should not have
nuclear weapons, when you have them yourselves and intend
to use them for "preventive" purposes.
Withdraw your military bases from the Middle Eastern,
Balkan and Central Asian area which we know is the main
reason that a person like Osama bin Laden has had and
seems to have the support that he has among the people in
street.
Could the US then do exactly like we suggest for Iraq:
free, fair, open elections for a new president of the
United States. If the American people wants George W.
Bush that is their privilege, but given that the United
States has a global reach, some new mechanisms should be
provided that citizens around the world could also vote
for him &endash; or some other candidates.
Opinion polls measuring where the American people
stand right now tell us that 30 - 40 % are against a war
now against Iraq. The Bush regime should not call itself
democratic and then go to war. I'm dead scared by the
thinkable consequences for Western democracies of US
global dominance and this was as is Scott Ritter. I'm
scared of what could, sooner or later, happen to people
like Scott Ritter, Hans von Sponeck and others who have
shown civil courage. We must stand up together with them
in this situation!
In summary, Gandhi argued that the coward should take
to violence because nonviolence requires a lot of
courage. One could add that the intellectually lazy
fellow chooses violence before even thinking of
nonviolent options.
I have tried to tell you that I am positive that there
are possible government initiatives, citizens diplomatic
initiatives, and some kind of long range vision of a
change towards democracy both in Iraq and the United
States. There are alternatives to war! War is no
alternative at all! If we try them, and try them hard,
then perhaps the nightmare we now see unfold could become
a turning point for a better world.
The time is not tomorrow, it's today. Thank you very
much for your attention.
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|