Yesterday Dr. Hans Blix ordered Iraq to destroy its tactical missiles having a range exceeding UN limit. Although all by itself he is entitled to make such a demand, the Iraqis of course wouldn't want to do it. The most immediateÓand pressing reason is that there is a war against Iraq looming on the horizon.
Even though it exceeds the UN-approved range, this missile in itself is not a weapon of mass destruction but can be purely a weapon of self-defense. When the UN formulated the 1991 disarmament resolution against Iraq, this limit was set not with the understanding that Iraq should comply while being attacked by a U.S.-led coalition force. Quite to the contrary, it was an imposed limit if Iraq is spared of an armed invasion.
Hence, the Iraqis could agree to destroy it when the UN is satisfied that Iraq has indeed otherwise disarmed and that there would be no war to further disarm it. This principle can be applied to all other weapons of self-defenseÓexceeding UN limitations other than chemical, biological and nuclear arms of mass destruction.
February 28, 2003 (9:26am):
you for your neighbours"
The only time people are willing to risk their lives for others is when they are convinced of a cause, or have a common cause, to fight for their nation or their rights. That's why only patriotic soldiers fight for their nation, and revolutionaries fight for their cause. Otherwise, none would be willing to die for something in the slightest less relevant.
In Iraq's case, since potentially millions of the innocent may have to die just for the fortunate survivors to enjoy "liberty," those killed in the process certainly would not have volunteered to die for this "cause" not in their interest, but in the interest of a foreign nation. They have been sacrificed for others' cause. Why should they welcome that? They hate it! That's why when people tell the Iraqis "We are going to liberate you," they know it means "We are going to kill you." Why should people, so many millions of them, welcome others to kill them in the name of "liberty?"
They certainly are not revolting, not risking their lives for their "liberty." It's their lives, not for others to risk or take. Since they have not seen death better than living under Saddam Hussein, none has the right to risk their lives or kill them in the name of "liberation." That's because in taking their lives, they are committing de facto homicide. They are murderers, mass murderers. If they need "liberation," liberate them without risking their lives. But if they must be killed for liberation, they must have the final say.
Do they really think their poverty and suffering Saddam's fault, life under Saddam worse than death? If so, let them risk their lives on the streets of Baghdad first before mentioning the word "liberation." Otherwise, it's just someone else's rationalization, not out of the people's hearts. It's like murdering a billionaire with the excuse that his heirs want it done. But did his heirs want to do it? It's imposing a will on others and justifying the killing with a convenient excuse. Because obviously there are no masses of people risking and sacrificing their lives now to overthrow Saddam, killing millions to "liberate" the remaining 250 is to massacre in the name of liberation. Should anyone kill millions for the remaining few? Is there such a war of liberation or would that be a war of annihilation? Even if there is a just cause for revolution, in consequence it's not worth it. It's no longer in the public interest. Too many of the public must die for the liberty or "democracy" of few! It's a form of slavery. The common people, the martyrs die for the lucky few. It's not to bring rights and freedoms to the masses but to kill them to serve a few. In these cases, numbers count. Numbers matter.
That's the case in Iraq. Even if there were a case for revolution, it's certainly not one for which its people are willing to risk or sacrifice their lives. Consequently, none has the right to kill them in the name of revolution or liberation. Because they are the only ones having the right to their own lives, when they don't want to lose them for "liberation," anyone killing them in the name of liberation is only using this term as a convenient cover or excuse to justify imposing their own will on others and massacring millions during the process. Their "liberators" are worse than the "tyrants" they replace.
Under Saddam, at least they are alive. But with the coming of the Americans, they are all dead. The people have not wanted this kind of "liberation" or perhaps any "liberation" at all. Yet, those in the name of liberation have brought them death. If they can speak in heaven, they would all out of seething hatred scream to their "liberators": "We want to eat you alive."
Sunday, March 02, 2003,8:20:24 PM:
Who's the tyrant?
If it's obviously to kill ten million to "make a regime change;" especially when Saddam is destroying his prohibited weapons, even useful self-defensive missiles, and therefore genuinely disarming Iraq to have no military might to threaten anyone, waging war on Iraq now amounts to "imposing a foreign will on Iraq without justifiable excuse or need at the expense of Iraqis," not to "liberate them."
The ones doing it surely don't give a damn about the ordinary Iraqi people. Even Saddam is backing down, if not just to save Iraqi lives, at least consequentially if war is averted, to save lives, not to sacrifice them for his "weapons of mass destruction."
People in Iraq during a war may not have that luxury or chance to defect as some were demanding couple days ago. Besides, if 10 million Iraqis rather lose their lives to defend their nation than defecting, have they wanted "liberation" or have they been defending against foreign invasion (or aggression)? It doesn't sound like "welcoming liberation" to me.
Who are the tyrants now? Those waging a war to kill millions just to have a regime change. They are the killers this time, not Saddam Hussein. Killing millions is a serious large scale mass murder, not a small disaster. Many idiots or perhaps psychopathic killers yell "attack Iraq" without ever calculating how many millions of Iraqis must die. In World War I, in few days of trench war, over two million were killed. And, in those days of Iran-Iraq war in around 1980, the casualty was again over two million. That's without using American weapons of mass destruction such as the cluster bombs, etc. Imagine how many times 2 million the Americans shall kill in a full scale bombing of Iraq? Ten million is not an exaggeration! Someone out there was yelling "genocide." It might amount to that.
A psychopathic police?
If the U.S.A. is to have a slightest colour of being a world police, it cannot act like a psychopath without regard for human lives. Otherwise, we have a psychopathic killer in uniform, not a world police, but a world menace.
Defending American interests abroad other than removing real terrorist threats cannot go against local national interests the foremost of which is of course human lives. Killing millions of the innocent locals on foreign soil just to "defend" American interests abroad is to conquer, or colonize, not to liberate. After all, whose interests has this killing "defended?" The dead Iraqis' or American? The dead are gone. Only the Americans are around to reap the reward of their victory.
If the Americans enforce the superpower mentality of "If we can do, we'll do" without conscience or any respect for others' lives, that's close to following the path of the notorious conquerors. "If we can defeat you by force, we'll do." That's what Napoleon, Hitler and many others had in mind when they started their wars of domination. That's the attitude of a conqueror bent on using force, not reason or conscience, to get his way.
If so, there would necessarily be redoubled efforts on many
other nations' part to play the "catch up" game in global
arms race. After all, it's always that stealth bomber that speaks,
not reason, conscience or humanity: Let force speak.
4/March/2003 2:41:15 PM:
Since this morning I have sensed some American demands for Iraq to hand over suspected Al Qaeda operatives now residing in Iraq. If this is the only remaining requirement for the U.S.A. to not wage war on Iraq, it is a reasonable ultimatum.
Despite the lack of actual cooperation between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to terrorize the USA, the latter has reasons to fear any such a potential. The only thing Iraq can do, if it wishes to avert a war, is to act within its own authority to exclude Al Qaeda from Iraq.
This conclusion is based on the long-standing principle of war that those harboring enemies out to actively terrorize or kill people on this side can be also a target of war. Iraq therefore has to convince the USA that it does not pose such a threat to US security in that respect. To satisfy the requirement of not posing such a threat, Iraq has to at least make itself an exclusionary zone, not a safe haven, for Al Qaeda fighters. Otherwise, the suspicion would be always there that Saddam Hussein might aid Al Qaeda to threaten American lives and properties. If this suspicion lingers, at least in American eyes, the US is entitled to invade Iraq with or without UN approval.
Right now, Iraq is doing well cooperating with the UN to destroy its prohibited weapons. Therefore, a resolution allowing continued inspection and time for the US to work out with Iraq a solution to this Al Qaeda dispute would be wise. If the US just wants disarmament and a sense of security, I'm sure the US would also wish to have time to work out a solution to expel Al Qaeda from Iraq without a war. In that event, it's up to Iraq whether to avoid a war or fight a war for Al Qaeda.
Let's just have a policy change by peaceful means instead of a war to bring about a "regime change."
Kuan-Chyun Cheng(C) 2003
Table of contents