TONY AND BILL CAN'T TALK OF PEACE AND HARMONY
Tony and Bill can't talk of peace and harmony
Suzanne Breen
AT Christmas there's never any shortage of statements from world leaders on the need for harmony and peace across the globe. But it will be hard to take anything Bill Clinton or Tony Blair say on the subject seriously after the bombing of Iraq.
I'm no friend of Saddam Hussein's but last week's air strikes were totally un-justifiable. The timing was highly suspect.
When Monica Lewinsky was summoned back to the Grand Jury, Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan.
On the eve of the Congressional vote on impeachment, he bombed Iraq. Two hours after the vote was taken, the bombing miraculously stopped.
The war was justified on the grounds of Iraq's non-cooperation with UN inspectors. But if the inspectors were unable to locate the weapons after years of searching on the ground, how did those directing the missiles know where to target?
As countless commentators have said, Gulf War II, just like Gulf War I will strengthen not weaken Saddam's grip on power.
He is now less likely than I ever to cooperate with the UN. Hatred for the West, and sympathy for Iraq has multiplied in Arab nations.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair correctly claimed that Saddam broke international law. But no state flouts UN Security Council resolutions more, or refuses to sign more international conventions -including those against chemical and biological weapons - than the US.
Britain and the US again showed their contempt for international law by bombing Iraq. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force by one nation against another without authorisation from the Security Council. Three of the five permanent Council members -China, France and Russia - opposed the bombing.
Do Britain and the US now believe that any country can decide to attack another without UN approval or is it only themselves that enjoy that privilege?
Israel flouts UN resolutions on South Lebanon and the West Bank settlements, and possesses weapons of mass destruction, yet has never been bombed by Bill and Tony.
Iraq refused five out of 300 UN supervision visits. That mightn't be ideal but it doesn't justify raining down Cruise Missiles.
Oddly enough, Britain and the US weren't known for adopting the high moral ground with Iraq in the past.
In 1980, when Baghdad invaded Iran, did they express outrage? No, they supported it.
Did they complain when chemical gas was used on Iranian troops? Not a murmur.
The Iraqi regime was just as ruthless then as now but was supported for strategic reasons.
Indeed, the same countries attacking it last week were among those who supplied Iraq with weapons of mass destruction.
Ten years ago, when Saddam killed almost 200,000 Kurds with chemical gases, the US and Britain turned a blind eye. But in 1991, they fell out with Iraq for strategic reasons and overnight Saddam became the devil incarnate.
Politicians and journalists suddenly took an avid interest in his human rights abuses.
Britain and the US's attitude to Iraq has everything to do with power and politics and nothing to do with morality.
So soon after Omagh, we know all too well the devastation of bombs. Twenty-nine people were killed then.
Hundreds died and were injured last week in Iraq. Just because it happened thousands of miles away, just because television made it look like a hi-tech video game, doesn't lessen the human suffering.
There were dead women and children on the streets of Baghdad. Water, electricity, food and medical supplies were severely disrupted. Hospital wards forced to close. That's the reality behind the sanitised jargon of "precision bombing" and "degrading Iraq's military capacity".
When they talk of "collateral damage", they mean dead civilians.
It's something to remember when listening to the pious words of Bill and Tony this Christmas.
Suzanne Breen
AT Christmas there's never any shortage of statements from world leaders on the need for harmony and peace across the globe. But it will be hard to take anything Bill Clinton or Tony Blair say on the subject seriously after the bombing of Iraq.
I'm no friend of Saddam Hussein's but last week's air strikes were totally un-justifiable. The timing was highly suspect.
When Monica Lewinsky was summoned back to the Grand Jury, Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan.
On the eve of the Congressional vote on impeachment, he bombed Iraq. Two hours after the vote was taken, the bombing miraculously stopped.
The war was justified on the grounds of Iraq's non-cooperation with UN inspectors. But if the inspectors were unable to locate the weapons after years of searching on the ground, how did those directing the missiles know where to target?
As countless commentators have said, Gulf War II, just like Gulf War I will strengthen not weaken Saddam's grip on power.
He is now less likely than I ever to cooperate with the UN. Hatred for the West, and sympathy for Iraq has multiplied in Arab nations.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair correctly claimed that Saddam broke international law. But no state flouts UN Security Council resolutions more, or refuses to sign more international conventions -including those against chemical and biological weapons - than the US.
Britain and the US again showed their contempt for international law by bombing Iraq. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force by one nation against another without authorisation from the Security Council. Three of the five permanent Council members -China, France and Russia - opposed the bombing.
Do Britain and the US now believe that any country can decide to attack another without UN approval or is it only themselves that enjoy that privilege?
Israel flouts UN resolutions on South Lebanon and the West Bank settlements, and possesses weapons of mass destruction, yet has never been bombed by Bill and Tony.
Iraq refused five out of 300 UN supervision visits. That mightn't be ideal but it doesn't justify raining down Cruise Missiles.
Oddly enough, Britain and the US weren't known for adopting the high moral ground with Iraq in the past.
In 1980, when Baghdad invaded Iran, did they express outrage? No, they supported it.
Did they complain when chemical gas was used on Iranian troops? Not a murmur.
The Iraqi regime was just as ruthless then as now but was supported for strategic reasons.
Indeed, the same countries attacking it last week were among those who supplied Iraq with weapons of mass destruction.
Ten years ago, when Saddam killed almost 200,000 Kurds with chemical gases, the US and Britain turned a blind eye. But in 1991, they fell out with Iraq for strategic reasons and overnight Saddam became the devil incarnate.
Politicians and journalists suddenly took an avid interest in his human rights abuses.
Britain and the US's attitude to Iraq has everything to do with power and politics and nothing to do with morality.
So soon after Omagh, we know all too well the devastation of bombs. Twenty-nine people were killed then.
Hundreds died and were injured last week in Iraq. Just because it happened thousands of miles away, just because television made it look like a hi-tech video game, doesn't lessen the human suffering.
There were dead women and children on the streets of Baghdad. Water, electricity, food and medical supplies were severely disrupted. Hospital wards forced to close. That's the reality behind the sanitised jargon of "precision bombing" and "degrading Iraq's military capacity".
When they talk of "collateral damage", they mean dead civilians.
It's something to remember when listening to the pious words of Bill and Tony this Christmas.
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/159
Published Date: 24-Dec-98
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.