Should the antiwar movement oppore or support UN involvement in the Iraqi war as the U.S. now suggests?
THE U.S., UN AND IRAQ
By Jack A. Smith
The bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad last month, presumably by forces resisting Washington's invasion and occupation of Iraq, has caused some sharp differences of opinion within the antiwar and progressive movements in the United States.
The issue itself has assumed greater importance since the Bush administration, now reeling from unexpected setbacks, wants the UN to become directly engaged in Iraq as a military handmaiden under the U.S. occupation authority. Several countries, now reluctant to participate in the occupation, have stated they might do so under UN auspices.
Much of the U.S. left, while not necessarily supporting the use of terrorism against civilian targets, has sought to offer explanations for why the UN office was considered a legitimate target Aug. 19 by Iraqis resisting occupation by a foreign power.
Many in the liberal antiwar camp have criticized the attack, believing that the United Nations offers the best hope for easing the plight of the Iraqi people after two devastating wars, 13 years of economic sanctions and periodic bombings by the U.S. and UK. They fear the UN may now be reluctant to participate in the reconstruction of this battered country and society.
First and foremost in discussing this matter it must be recognized that the bombing
By Jack A. Smith
The bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad last month, presumably by forces resisting Washington's invasion and occupation of Iraq, has caused some sharp differences of opinion within the antiwar and progressive movements in the United States.
The issue itself has assumed greater importance since the Bush administration, now reeling from unexpected setbacks, wants the UN to become directly engaged in Iraq as a military handmaiden under the U.S. occupation authority. Several countries, now reluctant to participate in the occupation, have stated they might do so under UN auspices.
Much of the U.S. left, while not necessarily supporting the use of terrorism against civilian targets, has sought to offer explanations for why the UN office was considered a legitimate target Aug. 19 by Iraqis resisting occupation by a foreign power.
Many in the liberal antiwar camp have criticized the attack, believing that the United Nations offers the best hope for easing the plight of the Iraqi people after two devastating wars, 13 years of economic sanctions and periodic bombings by the U.S. and UK. They fear the UN may now be reluctant to participate in the reconstruction of this battered country and society.
First and foremost in discussing this matter it must be recognized that the bombing
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
and the rest...?
04.09.2003 17:10
Zz
Do we need the rest of the crap?
04.09.2003 22:02
The IMC-UK censor is requested to delete this and include a article on how the UK manipulats the UN to rape and pillage Iraq.
ram