A Road to Peace
With Iraq
Europe's Choice
by Hans Van Sponeck and Jan Oberg
Dissident
Voice
February 18, 2003
This comprehensive peace
proposal was submitted to Feature editor Robert Donahue, the International
Herald Tribune on December 5. On December 19, Donahue accepted the article for
publication by e-mail. Then nothing happened. On February 6, however, Mr.
Donahue told us that he had let another editor read the article. This editor
"didn't like the article and thought that many of its points were
unrealistic - and I respect my colleague," he said over the phone. So the
International Herald Tribune changed its mind and hoped we would accept their
apology. On February 17, the European Council of the EU came together and began
formulating a common foreign policy in relation to the Iraq crisis.
The International Herald Tribune made a
politically motivated turnaround and effectively wasted exactly two months of
this proposal's life in the public debate. We are proud to publish the original
manuscript with all its "unrealistic" points intact:
Unfortunately, UN
Security Council Resolution 1441 does not free concerned citizens from thinking
of alternatives to the planned war against and occupation of Iraq. Even in the
unlikely event of a complete Iraqi compliance acceptable to the United States,
the resolution, unlike earlier ones, does not promise Iraq the lifting or even
the suspension of sanctions.
As long as war
is "the only plan in town" there is a grave danger that war will be
seen as a solution. Given our experience with the Iraqi people, the UN, and
conflict-mitigation in various parts of the world, we object to war being the
only option. In fact, it is no solution at all. A pre-emptive war will be a
clear-cut violation of the UN Charter and international law, both in its letter
and spirit, and of humanity's intellectual and moral capacity. In short, a
legal and moral defeat for those who start it.
The real
intellectual, political and moral challenge is this: What can be done to move
towards a genuine solution of this manifest conflict other than war and
occupation? Or, more philosophically, how do we learn to clash as civilised
human beings rather than as brutes?
What follows are
suggestions that we see as relevant to a European debate. We identify these out
of protest over the prospect of mass killing and intensified suffering of the
Iraqi people, combat soldiers of Iraq, US and other nationalities, and citizens
of neighbouring countries.*
1. Safeguards
must be identified for the UN arms inspectors to be able to do their work
without external or internal interference. Should interference occur, it must
be reported to the UN Security Council. UN arms inspectors providing
intelligence services to governments must be dismissed immediately.
2. The free
press and non-governmental organisations must significantly step up their
analysis and reporting to challenge war propaganda and disinformation of the
ground realities in Iraq. In almost all nations, there are now clear majorities
against a war. Democracies need honest information and open debates, not
disinformation and psycho-warfare against their citizens.
3. If Western
governments refuse to listen to Iraqi arguments, they must at least listen to
the Arab League, which is clearly against war as a means to solve the conflict.
4. There is a
strong argument for dialogue, explorative talks, and later structured
negotiations between the US or other Western countries and Iraq. The
Secretary-General of the United Nations, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize,
must take such a step now. He can do so according to Article 99 of the Charter
and he is obliged by Article 100 to not seek instructions from any government.
The UN must be reminded of its essential peace mission to "save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war" and never serve to legitimise wars
before everything else has been tried. A consistent, visionary mediation and
negotiation process has not been tried by any government or organisation thus
far.
5. The European
Union professes to have a common foreign and security policy as well as a new
conflict-management unit. But this does not seem to apply to the case of Iraq.
Prime Minister Blair supports the war option, President Chirac rejects
"automaticity" in the UN Security Council, while Chancellor Schroeder
says no to the military option. Sweden endorses war if based on a future UN
mandate. Denmark, which presently holds the Presidency, will participate in a
war provided there is a UN mandate. Neither Denmark nor Sweden has a diplomatic
presence in Baghdad.
In short, the EU
as an inter-governmental body has no policy! But it could.
Two EU hearings
on Iraq in 2001 - 2 have not produced a European Iraq policy that has made any
difference to the international debate. This is worrisome, particularly since
European political and economic stability and the future of the anti-terrorism
coalition are at stake. The EU is internationally increasingly perceived as a
'follower' instead of as a leader in the discussion of global issues.
Disappointment about European Union complacency is growing, particularly in the
Middle East.
There are a
number of steps which the EU and individual member governments would have to
take to show that the political will and determination exist to make a
difference in dealing with issues so vital to peace and security. The EU simply
cannot sit, wait, and watch the United States go it alone like in the Balkans
and Afghanistan. Its creative "niche" is genuinely political, peace
by peaceful means as stated in the UN Charter, not to imitate the military
might of the U.S. It won't be able to match the US in that respect, and it
should not. This is what the EU - and other concerned governments - could do
and should do quickly:
6. Encourage
media and parliamentary delegations to visit Baghdad and see and listen and
dialogue with Iraqis at various levels. Iraq is not one man, it is 23 million
fellow citizens. They have points of views, hopes, and fears like all of us.
7. Move towards
re-establishing embassies. It is a scandal that many government do not have any
representation and, thus, cannot collect first-hand facts and impressions and
make their own independent analyses on which to base their policies.
8. Encourage
trade and investments with Iraq first inside the sanctions framework, and later
outside it, should the United States and others uphold the sanctions regime ad
absurdum.
9. Establish a
contact group, perhaps in liaison with China, Russia, and others who want to
prevent war and find peaceful solutions. Apart from mitigating the conflict and
establishing some initial trust between the world and Iraq, the group should
plan for a comprehensive regional conferences, somewhat like the OSCE process
for Europe that had such ground-breaking results from its start almost 30 years
ago.
10. Work for a
just peace in the Middle East in general and in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. The Iraq issue is not unrelated to it. Acknowledge that US
initiatives have failed and that we need other completely impartial mediators
in that process.
11. Develop a
new security regime for the whole region and honour, finally, UN SC Resolution
687 that requires that the Middle East shall become a zone free of weapons of
mass destruction. On a more general level, it is time to realise that the
threat of WMD will only increase as long as holders of nuclear weapons ignore
their obligations to completely disarm their nuclear arsenals according to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. Full compliance and access to nuclear sites
everywhere would be a natural corollary to preventing new states from acquiring
WMD.
12. Develop a
new security regime that would include economic, political, environmental, and
other essential aspects of security and prohibit new military trade and
establishment of bases in this already grotesquely over-militarised region.
13. Inform the
United States about all such initiatives when they are launched but develop
them independently. The EU should not be deterred if the United States objects
to them.
14. What about
Saddam Hussein and regime change? This is not part of our program. This is for
the people of Iraq to decide. But if they want to oust the President,
contemporary history makes one thing abundantly clear: such changes succeed
only with non-violent struggle, civil disobedience, and alternative government
based on integrity and participation; in short, democracy with democratic
means. Violence will only replace one authoritarian elite with another.
Peace is
possible. Peace can be learnt. Peace is the only battle worth waging, as Albert
Camus once said. And we must find peace with fellow global citizens. We plead
to the United States government to be with the world and not against it.
* A US-led
attack on Iraq could kill between 48,000 and 260,000 civilians and combatants
in just the first three months of conflict, according to a study by medical and
public health experts. Post-war health effects could take an additional 200,000
lives. (The report, "Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs
of War on Iraq," was issued by International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War (IPPNW), recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, and produced
by Medact, the organisation's United Kingdom affiliate.) The study adds that if
the conflict spreads to Israel-Palestine and if weapons of mass destruction are
used, there could be 3,9 million dead. No political, economic or psychological
motive can ever legitimate that!
Hans
von Sponeck is a former UN Assistant Secretary General
& United Nation Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq. He is an Associate of
the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Sweden. Jan Oberg is TFF’s Director (http://www.transnational.org). © Copyright Hans Van Sponeck, Jan Oberg and TFF 2003.