Koalitionen för fred i Mellanöstern - nätverket för fredaktiva människor i Gbg bildat före Irakkriget med plattformen
USA ut ur Irak - Inget svenskt stöd till USAs krig
Erkänn irakiernas rätt till självbestämmande
Erkänn irakiernas rätt till motstånd
Vi organiserar apellmöten lördagar kl 13 -14 vid Kopparmärra i Göteborg, där vi också delar flygblad och har annat material.
Vi ordnar seminarier, utställningar, filmvisningar, demonstrationer etc i samarbete med andra individer i nätverk eller föreningar som t.ex Studenter mot krig, FREDSAM, ISM, Kulturarbetare mot krig etc
"Irak olja och klimat - Om vägar till en hållbar framtid"
Seminarium den 10 nov kl 18.30 i Hörsal "Dragonen", Sprängkullsg. 19
med Per Gahrton- ordförande dels i den gröna ideverkstaden Cogito och dels i Palestinagrupperna, Eva Selin- professor i fysik, freds-och miljövän och numera verksam vid Borås Högskola samt Thomas Sterner- professor i Miljöekonomi vid Handelshögskolan i Göteborg
arr FREDSAM och Utrikespolitiska Föreningen vid Göteborgs Universitet
Vi har regelbundna medlemsmöten var tredje vecka med början den 20 oktober kl 18.00 i Palestinalokalen 1:a våningen Viktoriahuset, Linnégatan 21 vid Hagabion, Portkod C0004.
Chefen för Bagdads museum, Donny George, kommer till Göteborg i början av nästa år
Fallujaintervjuer från 6 maj - Samlade intervjuer med människor i den terrorbombade staden Falluja finner ni på http://ingrid-ternert.blogspot.com
Nya terrorbombningar i Irak! An urgent humanitarian crisis is unfolding in occupied Iraq. The Doctors for Iraq Society is calling on you to act NOW.
For more information contact contact dr Salam Obaidi Doctors for Iraq Society at email@example.com
For media enquiries contact
UK Phone : 0044 (0) 2085209489
UK Mobile : 0044 (0) 7891022381
Baghdad phone No. : 00964 1 4437512
Baghdad Mobile : 00964 7901 963 257
IrakSolidaritets i Stockholm Fallujainsamling går oavkortad till Studiecentret för mänskliga rättigheter och demokrati i Falluja.
Studiecentret företräder många fackliga, religiösa och andra organisationer inför FN:s Kommission för mänskliga rättigheter och kanaliserar hjälp till den hårt drabbade Fallujabefolkningen bl.a till sjukvården.
Säd bidrag till pg: 11673-1 www.iraksolidaritet.se firstname.lastname@example.org
För er som vill se andra webbsidor mot krig
http://www.studentermotkrig.org (Studenter mot krigs hemsida)
http://www.motkrig.org/ (en mer allmän hemsida mot krig)
Vi inom Fredskoalitionen ser Irakkriget som en helt olaglig ockupation med dess brutala mord på långt över 100 000 civila och i övrigt ett oerhört lidande för en sedan decennier hårt prövad irakisk befolkning.
Kriget är ett steg på vägen för vissa neokonservativa individer att med president Bush i spetsen genomföra PNAC, Project for a New American Century, som presenterades redan år 2000 från den tankesmedja där han då ingick.
Efter det att Bush blivit president finns numera medlemmar därifrån i hans närhet, som t.ex Rumsfield, Cheney, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz vilka idag håller på att genomföra detta för människans framtid livsfarliga projekt.
För Iraks del har det gällt för ockupationsmakten USA att härska genom att söndra, dvs genom att via egna "puppets" få till stånd en delning av landet. För att därefter ostört kunna bevaka området genom att sätta sig fast i sina fjorton militärbaser och fyra stora flygbaser.
Detta är tydligt i det från början amerikanska underlaget till den irakiska konstitutionen som nu diskuteras inför det irakiska valet till konstitutionen den 15 okt. Ett förslag som fullständigt bildar underlag för en delning av Irak och en ojämn fördelning av dess naturresurser (läs oljan). Och därmed också underlag för inbördeskrig och inblandning från USAs och Irans sida i Iraks inre angelägenheter.
P N A C
Carterdoktrinen jan 1980
Defence Planning Guidance 1992 (hemlig version läckt till bl a NYT mars-maj 1992)
Mål 1: "hindra uppkomsten av…varje fientlig makt från att dominera en region vars resurser, sammantagna och under enhetlig kontroll, skulle vara tillräckliga för att skapa världsherravälde." Tänkbara konkurrenter skall "avskräckas … från att utmana vårt ledarskap eller från att försöka ändra den etablerade politiska och ekonomiska ordningen". "Känslan av att världsordningen garanteras av USA" snarare än av FN kommer att vara avgörande.
Thomas Friedman, NYT, mars 1999
"Marknadens osynliga hand, kommer aldrig att fungera utan en dold knytnäve -McDonald´s kan inte blomstra utan en McDonnell Douglas, tillverkaren av F-15. Och den dolda knytnäven som gör världen trygg för Silicon Valleys teknologiföretag heter USA:s arme, flygvapen, flotta och marinkår."
Rebuilding America´s Defences (PNAC september 2000)
A. Pax Americana
Fyra avgörande uppdrag:
Kunna föra stora krig
Förnya USA:s krigsmakt
Ställa FN åt sidan
Bevara USA:s dominans
B. Säkra den globala hegemonin
Irak och Persiska viken
Hålla tillbaka Kina - allianserna Sydkorea/Japan
Europa - hindra eget försvar, Nato
Störta fientliga regimer
C. Rekonstruera den amerikanska militären
Tekniskt modernisera delar av krigsmakten
Slopa onödiga och dyra projekt
D. Framtida krig och Pax Americana
Ett globalt missilförsvarssystem
Utveckla en ny sorts kärnvapen
Flygvapnet - "global förstaslagsstyrka"
Kontrollera de nya internationella "allmänningarna",
rymden och cyberrymden
The National Security Strategy of the United States (2002)
1 Sammanfattning av Amerikas internationella strategi
2 Strävan efter att bli en förkämpe för mänsklig värdighet
3 Stärka allianser för att besegra global terrorism och förebygga attacker mot oss och våra vänner
4 Samarbete med andra för att förhindra regionala konflikter
5 Hindra våra fiender från att hota oss, våra allierade och våra vänner med massförstörelsevapen
6 Inleda en nya era av global ekonomisk tillväxt genom fria marknader och fri handel
7 Utvidga tillväxtkretsen genom att öppna samhällen och bygga en demokratisk infrastruktur
8 Utveckla handlingsplaner för gemensam handling med andra större centra för global makt
9 Förändra Amerikas nationella säkerhetsorgan så att de kan möta det tjugoförsta århundradets utmaningar och möjligheter.
The Project for the New American Century PNAC
By William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03
When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of thegroup. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official forRonald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."
PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chlabi.
Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.
PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles issigned by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others.
William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.
The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical,
Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.
Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.
In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons.
Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.
Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows.
The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown.
Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold.
Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece,
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."
There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland.
These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this gameplan
They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.
As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.
Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.
This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.
The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat
to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism, he said, by creating more justice in the world."
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.
The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.
Learning from History
Over the past 80 plus years, the U.S. and Britain have repeatedly intervened in Iraq and the Middle East. The record shows that their actions have never been motivated by concerns for the masses and for self-determination and liberation; they have been driven by the ruthless calculations of global imperialism and ensuring U.S domination of the region and its vast energy resources.
In this quest, the U.S. has launched covert and overt wars, backed regional tyrannies and supported Israel’s forcible dispossession of the Palestinians and aggression against neighboring states—inflicting enormous suffering and perpetuating brutal oppression in the process.
The Creation of Iraq
Britain created Iraq after World War 1, chose its government and shaped its future, not in accord with its promises of self-determination or Iraqi wishes, but to help insure British control of the Middle East for its strategic location and its vast oil reserves.
The British realized petroleum was becoming the lifeblood of modern empire—a key economic input impacting production costs, profits, and competitive advantage; an instrument of rivalry whose control ensured leverage over other powers and the world economy; and a resource essential for projecting military power globally.
Britain combined three demographically distinct administrative units of the Ottoman Empire to form the new Iraqi state: Basra in the Shia south, Baghdad in the Sunni center, and Mosul in the Kurdish and Turkomen north.
Iraq’s Kurds had been promised independence after World War 1. Instead, the British brutally suppressed the Kurds and incorporated them into Iraq because without the oilfields of Mosul and Kirkuk, the new state would not be economically viable.
A pro-British monarch was installed and a comprador-feudal elite cultivated from among the Sunni elites, exacerbating ethnic and religious tensions. One percent of the landowners owned 55% of the land, and the country’s petroleum wealth was signed away to British and American corporations for a song.
Iraq’s borders were drawn to prevent it from becoming a Gulf power—the small state of Kuwait was given 310 miles of Gulf coastline while the larger state of Iraq was given 36 miles—sowing the seeds of conflict and war for decades to come.
The Iraqi people, however, never welcomed foreign conquerors—with flowers or sweets! In June 1920, over 100,000 Shi’as, Arab nationalists and tribal leaders rose up against the British. The so-called standard bearers of the West retaliated with a rampage—destroying, sometimes burning, whole villages and executing suspected rebels on the spot.
British forces bombarded Shi’a rebels with poison-gas-filled artillery shells, and over the years Britain developed a number of anti-personnel weapons for use in Iraq, including phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet (to maim livestock), man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, and delay-action bombs.
1958 to 1979: CIA Intrigues and Betrayal of Kurds
In 1958 the Iraqis finally overthrew the hated monarchy. The self-proclaimed champions of freedom in Washington and London responded with military deployments— including nuclear weapons—threats of war, and covert operations which would ultimately bring Saddam Hussein to power.
In 1963, the CIA provided the Ba’ath Party with lists of suspected communists, left-leaning intellectuals, progressives, and radical nationalists—thousands of whom were promptly massacred in a Ba’ath-led military coup.
On Ba’ath cadre later admitted, “We came to power on an American train.”
In 1972 Iraq signed a 15-year friendship treaty with the Soviet Union and completed the nationalization of its oil industry. Did Washington accept Iraq’s right to exert control of its resources and future?
No. The U.S and its regional henchman, the Shah of Iran, immediately turned to Iraq’s Kurds and encouraged them to rise against Baghdad, providing millions of dollars in weapons, logistical support, and funds.
The CIA saw the Kurds not as friends but as “a card to play” against Iraq and “a uniquely useful tool for weakening [Iraq’s] potential for international adventurism.”
In 1975, when U.S. and Iranian goals were met and Iraq was forced to sign the Treaty of Algiers, the Kurds were promptly abandoned, and then quickly decimated by Iraq’s military which had been forewarned of the betrayal.
Between 150,000 and 300,000 Kurds were forced to flee into Iran. “Covert action,” Henry Kissinger infamously remarked, “should not be confused with missionary work.”
The 1980s: Fueling the Iran-Iraq War
During the buildup to the 2003 invasion, George W. Bush condemned Saddam Hussein for his actions in the 1980s—invading Iran, accumulating weapons of mass destruction, and using them against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.
What Bush did not say, however, was that these crimes took place when Hussein’s government was closer to Washington than ever before—and that the U.S. directly facilitated every one of these crimes.
In effort to counter the 1979 Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah and head off Soviet geopolitical moves (including Soviet efforts to turn Iraq into a regional ally), Washington fueled the Iran-Iraq War—by first supporting Iraq, then Iran, and then Iraq again, all the while making sure neither side won decisive victory.
The U.S. moves turned the war into one of the longest and bloodiest conventional wars of the 20th century. “Doling out tactical data to both sides put the agency [CIA] in the position of engineering a stalemate,” Bob Woodward wrote. “This was no mere abstraction.
The war was a bloody one...almost a million had been killed, wounded or captured on both sides. This was not a game in an operations center. It was slaughter.”
After the Iraqi military’s 1987-1988 Anfal offensive against the Kurds, including the use of chemical weapons, the U.S. didn’t punish the Hussein regime. On the contrary, Washington rewarded Hussein with increases in aid and trade in hopes Iraq could become a loyal ally in the region.
The 1990s: A Decade of War Crimes
After the end of the war with Iran, Saddam Hussein demanded that the other U.S-backed regimes in the region, in particular Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, help with the huge debt that Iraq had incurred and raise oil prices to increase Iraq’s oil revenues.
When the demands were met with hostile refusal, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. (Just before the invasion, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq had signalled to Hussein that such a move would be acceptable.)
The invasion abruptly turned Baghdad from a U.S. ally to an enemy. However, U.S. aims in the 1991 Gulf War were never limited to expelling Iraq from Kuwait, much less preventing aggression; instead, coming at a time when the Soviet Union was spiraling into collapse, the war was an effort to radically deepen U.S. regional hegemony and usher in a “new world order” of unfettered U.S. dominance.
These objectives demanded crushing Iraq as a regional power and forcefully demonstrating U.S. military might to the world. George H.W. Bush publicly talked about going the last mile for peace while secretly telling his war cabinet, “We have to have a war.”
The U.S. rejected at least 11 different peace proposals. Bush I was literally “jubilant” when negotiations collapsed and enraged when it seemed they might succeed. He and his advisors viewed the UN as providing “a cloak of acceptability” to their war aims, as National Security Adviser Scowcroft put it.
These objectives dictated an extremely brutal military strategy—against both Iraq’s military and its civilian infrastructure. The Defense Department estimated the dead at 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed and 300,000 wounded.
Many more Iraqis would eventually die as a result of the deliberate destruction of Iraq’s power grid and water systems.
Article 54 of the Geneva Convention prohibits attacks on essential civilian facilities, including “drinking water supplies and irrigation works.” In other words, the U.S. bombing campaign was a war crime.
U.S. aims also dictated that the war continue after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait and combat formally ended. The main weapon was sanctions, which was justified in the name of disarming Iraq, but whose aims actually went far beyond disarmament.
Sanctions were designed to cripple Iraq by preventing it from rebuilding its industry, economy and military; block rival powers from making inroads in Iraq; and make life so miserable that rising mass discontent would compel elements in the Iraqi military to overthrow Hussein.
This is why sanctions were never lifted even after Iraq had in fact disarmed ñ which is the simple reason why no weapons of mass destruction were found following the 2003 U.S. invasion.
As Iraqi doctors pointed out to me, destroying water and sanitation systems and then preventing them from being rebuilt—thus subjecting a country to water-borne disease —is a form of biological warfare.
No one knows exactly how many Iraqis were murdered by U.S. sanctions. Estimates range from 500,000 to 1.7 million between 1990 and 2003. In 1998 UNICEF estimated that some 5,000 Iraqi children under five were dying each month thanks to U.S. actions. That the equivalent of a World Trade Center catastrophe—and more—every 30 days.
The New Millennium: Invasion, Conquest, Occupation
As brutal as this history has been, the 2003 war represents a quantum leap in U.S. aggression. Today’s war is being fought in the context of a new overarching global strategy: to secure U.S.’s position as the world’s only superpower for decades to come.
By forcefully suppressing any possible rivals; by crushing masses who resist, by restructuring global political, economic and military relations; and by imposing capitalist globalization.
This unbounded campaign for greater empire is being carried out under the rubric of the “war on terror.” Iraq was not a “diversion” from this “war”. The invasion of Iraq shows what the U.S “war on terror” is really all about. U.S strategists saw conquering Iraq as a key step in unfolding their broader global agenda:
“shocking and awing” the world, strengthening the U.S grip on the Middle East, turning Iraqi into a military and political platform for further aggression, and gaining tighter control of international energy supplies.
What the Bush regime calls “liberation” in Iraq is nothing but 21st-century neo-colonialism, with the U.S. trying to cobble together a new, reactionary pro-U.S ruling class— at the moment comprised of Shi’ite theocrats and Kurdish warlords.