From: Russ Pearson <R.Pearson-AT-art.derby.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:02:13 +0000
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Iraq -- putting out fires with gasoline


c.boddhisatva
>
>	While it's true that the West uses "humanitarian" concerns to
>justify plain old imperialism, that does not mean that poor people should
>be left to the tyranny of dictators against whom they are hopelessly
>out-gunned - thanks to the industrial nations (and I think the Soviet
>Union, Russia, and China should be included in the rogues' gallery of
>armers). People can be tyrannized and beaten down by small groups of
>people with masses of arms. One can't assume that people like Suharto and
>Hussein are just going to go away - or that they should be left to wither
>on the vine even if they would.
>
>
>	The question is how to reduce net tyranny in the world.  I don't
>think that leaving highly tyrannical, super-exploitative third world
>regimes in place in the name of anti-imperialism does that.  Obviously the
>western powers hardly care about the Iraqi people.  That doesn't mean that
>getting rid of Sadaam Hussein, even through the force of arms, is wrong in
>and of itself.  It's a question of intent.  If the intent is to deliver
>the Iraqi people into democracy, it's good.  If the intent is to further
>US hegemony, it is a dramatically qualified good, even to the point of
>being bad.  It's a world of unpleasant alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>	peace
 or not as the case may be. The world may be full of unpleasant
alternatives but you paint a picture where we are all caught between Iraq
and a hard place.
For sure, the world would be a better place if the 'butcher of Bagdad' were
to be shot down in a hail of bullets, but the question this begs is whose
bullets? In the UK, opinion is largely divided around a unity- that
_something must be done_ about Sadaam, with differences as to what ie full
scale bombing vs SAS execution squads. Some choice: hard core vs soft core
imperialism, and the very people who would not benefit in either outcome
are the Iraqi's.
That the West _does not_ have the right to interfere in the lives of other
peoples does not enter the debate here in the UK. The western powers take
it for granted that they are a 'civilising force' and tell those they dub
"Johnny Foreigner" to behave more like themselves. In the British case this
involved dropping poison gas on Kurds at the hands of 'Butcher/Bomber
Harris' in the 1920's ("Playing cricket with blood" as one pilot later
described it). This policy has an old and venerable pedigree, take for
example British gun-boats policing the African coast in the mission to end
slavery (cf. _Heart of Darkness_). This masquerade continues to this day.
Now if the Iraqi people were to shoot down Sadaam, all well and good,
of imperialism in a post Sadaam society. At best they might hope for a new
Shah...
The only answer to this problem, as I see it, is that we _do not_ let
dictators wither on the vine. The question however, is which dictators.
In Britain we have a phrase NIMBY -Not In My Back Yard. Anti-imperialism
often takes a NIMBY form. Imperialism is bad when a foreign power is seen
as the bad guy (eg the US, Germany, Russia China etc), but when it
originates in 'our' own back yard, well then it's a crusade for freedom and
democracy. In Britain we live in the heart of the beast, but most folk
accept the policies of imperialism. So without much hope of seeing an
answer generated by events, the real question, is not what should be done
with Sadaam and other third world dictators, but whither Clinton and Blair,
together with all the rest of the murderous bastards?

	revolution





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---