Reaktionen auf diese
Seite:
From: Harriet.Kyle@fco.gov.uk
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: Iraq
Dear Sir/Madam,
IRAQ
Thank you for your recent email concerning Iraq.
The British Government understands that there is concern about military action.
The decision to join a coalition of governments in military action against
Iraq, supported by a majority in the House of Commons on 18 March, was undertaken
as a last resort. The Iraqi regime's refusal to co-operate left us with no
option. The purpose of our military action is to ensure once and for all the
disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of
delivery as required by United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR)
1441 and previous resolutions. The coalition's intention is to do this as
quickly as possible and to keep Iraqi civilian casualties to a minimum. In
the longer term we want to ensure a better future for the Iraqi people and
to achieve greater stability internationally.
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been central to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship
since the 1980s. He has amassed poisons, viruses and bacteria and pursued
a nuclear weapons capability, in flagrant disregard of UNSCRs and Iraq's obligations
as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contravention
of UNSCRs, Iraq has been developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering
these weapons to targets throughout the Middle East and even in south-east
Europe.
Of course, other countries do have similar capabilities. But two things single
out Iraq: the unambiguous obligations imposed by the Security Council to disarm
and Saddam Hussein's willingness to use WMD. No other country in modern times
has used chemical weapons against its neighbours or killed 5,000 of its own
civilians and injured 10,000 more, as the Iraqi regime did in Halabja in 1988.
In November, the UN Security Council unanimously sent the Iraqi regime an
uncompromising message: co-operate fully with weapons inspectors or face disarmament
by force. UNSCR 1441 gave Iraq one final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
obligations, by giving up once and for all its WMD and the means to deliver
them. The burden was placed squarely on Iraq to make an immediate, full and
honest declaration of its WMD holdings.
It was clear from briefings by the weapons inspectors that Iraq's co-operation
had been neither full nor immediate. The Iraqi declaration of 7 December was
false, just as all its previous "full and final" declarations had
been. The document released by the inspectors on 7 March, the so-called clusters
of outstanding issues, catalogued Iraqi evasion and deceit, of feigning co-operation
while in reality pursuing a cynical policy of concealment (www.unmovic.com).
The document detailed at least 29 instances of Iraqi failure to provide credible
evidence, and at least 17 occasions when inspectors uncovered evidence that
contradicted the official Iraqi account. In all the discussions in the Security
Council and outside, no-one claimed that Iraq was in compliance with the obligations
placed upon it. And with good reason. Iraq had simply not accounted for the
thousands of tonnes of chemical and biological weapons materials left unaccounted
for when the regime forced the weapons inspectors to leave in 1998. The regime's
tactics were to deny the existence of WMD and, if caught out, to offer the
smallest concession possible in order to work for delay.
In the weeks before military action we worked very hard in a final effort
to achieve a Security Council consensus on Iraq. We pointed out that it was
not a question of increasing the numbers of weapons inspectors, or of allowing
more time for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime to bring themselves into
compliance. We said that what was needed was an irreversible and strategic
decision by Iraq to disarm, and to disclose all the relevant information which
it could and should have given in the last 12 years - a strategic decision
like that taken by South Africa when it decided freely to abandon its secret
nuclear weapons programme. We acknowledged that, were the regime to co-operate
in this way, the weapons inspectors would of course need more time to complete
their work, to verify the disarmament. We proposed tough but realisable tests
and a timetable for completion of those tests. In line with resolution 1441,
we also sought an understanding that, if Iraq failed those tests, it would
not have taken the final opportunity which had been afforded to it.
The British Government deeply regrets that, despite all the United Kingdom's
efforts, the Security Council could not agree a way forward to put pressure
on Iraq to take the strategic decision to disarm. Given this situation, we
did not pursue a vote on the draft UK/US/Spanish resolution tabled on 24 February
and the co-sponsors reserved the right to take their own steps to secure the
disarmament of Iraq.
Throughout this crisis we have considered the options carefully with our allies,
taking account of the circumstances, such as the potential wider impact on
the region, and the need to act in accordance with international law. Military
action to enforce Iraqi compliance is fully in accordance with international
law: authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of
UNSCRs 678, 687 and 1441; and all of these resolutions were adopted under
Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force for the express
purpose of restoring international peace and security. Every possible care
is being taken to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure.
We will work to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are
met. The Department for International Development have already committed £20
million to UN Agencies and non-governmental organisations for their preparations;
set aside an initial £60 million for the immediate humanitarian response;
and seconded staff and others to the region. Our forces also have up to £30
million to enable them to meet their humanitarian obligations under the laws
of armed conflict.
We envisage a leading role for the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq. We want
to see the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, when a new government
is in place willing to disarm Iraq of WMD, and to ensure that oil revenues
are used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. We look forward to an Iraq where
there is respect for human rights and the rule of law, where all Iraqis have
the opportunity to share in the country's wealth, an Iraq at peace with its
neighbours and which can play a full role in the international community.
With kind regards,
Harriet Kyle
PR Section Assistant
Tel: 030-20457-262
E-mail: Harriet.Kyle@fco.gov.uk
Please visit our Website: http://www.britischebotschaft.de
Unsere Antwort:
Dear mister Harriet Kyle,
thank you very much for your kind answer, I would like to give you some suggestions
back.
There is no question, Saddam Hussein is an dictator, and it is my opinion
too, that there should be every effort to change dictatorship in irak to a
more human and democratic gouvernment.
It took a long time since world war two to institute UN und international
court of justice as an idea for a human world with human justice and human
concent. As you know, amerika left this idea not agreeing to international
court of justice and UN, and, I am sorry to say, your country as well, not
agreeing to UN.
In my, and in the opinion of most of the countries on the world, there was
in March 2003 no legitimation for a war to irak. War is an act of helplessness
if any other idea fails, and they did not fail at this moment. Human history
shows us as well, war always hits the weakest, and this are in this case the
innocent families and especially childs in irak. And, whatever military thinks
about weapons, there has never been a "clean war" .
War is as well an idea of persons, just looking for her own advantange, and
there are a lot of reasons, this happens in irak at the moment. May I remember
you to beginning of golf-war one, Saddam Hussein consulting April Glaspie,
ambassador of USA in the case of kuweit. You will find the whole document
within this link: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
. This was the first try, to get rid of a person, not following the own interests
any more.
May I remember you as well to the historic facts who supported Saddam Hussein
in these years before. It was the USA. There were a lot of inconsiderate countries,
including my country germany as well, who earned a lot of money delivering
technologies to irak. And it was Donald Rumsfeld himself in the year 1988
in Bagdad with Tarek el-Asis, who told the world about good relationship to
irak at the time halbaja-massaker was happening. You will find information
within this link: http://www.muslim-markt.de/wtc/us-feldzug_gegen_den_irak.htm
. Some more details you will find here: http://www.jungewelt.de/2003/02-03/005.php
.
So, once again, there are a lot of good reasons, to be carefull with the truly
suggestions for this war. One is a fact of your own gouvernment, showing world
an intelligence report produced by a studend some years ago. These informations
you will find here: http://wsws.org/de/2003/feb2003/irak-f21.shtml
.
So there is only left to say, there might be a lot of other reasons, than
you told about, which were the final decicion for this war. I am very sorry
and worried about, that the new europian unit is not able to stand for themselves
and as one unit, and it is quite disapointing, that former empire GB is not
able to follow his own human and democratic way.
Therefore I will not change my opinion, although I like your country very
much, not to visit GB any more or bying products from your country, untill
you will end the war in irak.
Best regards
Andreas Kleffmann
Weitere Links von Besuchern:
1.
http://www.members.fortunecity.com/britonsvsbush/index.html
Seite gegen Bush mit Links, downloads, news und Artikeln, zeigt Bush mit Hitler
auf einem Bild.
2. http://www.linkcrusader.com/index
Mächtige Seite mit weiteren Links zu insgesamt 700 Seiten gegen Bush
inkl. Cartoons etc.
Ein message board oder Tools für Internetaktivisten, Handbücher
für Aktivisten und entsprechende Software bis hin zu eMail-Bombern fehlen
nicht.selbstverständlich werden auch Sticker, T-Shirts und alle möglichen
Sachen mit Aufdruck gegen Bush verkauft. Gegen dollar versteht sich. Man sollte
fragen, ob die auch iraki Dinar nehmen!!
Auch die e mail des Präsidenten president@whitehouse.gov ist dabei
3. http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/mediacarta/toolbox/who_owns
Who owns what speziell bezogen auf US-Medien bringt diese Seite den Kampf
gegen die Einheitsmedien und die damit verknüpfte Einheitsmeinung zum
Ausdruck.
4. http://www.boycottamerica.org/
Publiziert verschiedene Kampagnien zu diversen Problematiken, listet US-Firmen
mit deren Umsätzen auf, hat eine kommentierte Linkliste zu verschiedenen
Organisationen, die derzeit Boykottmaßnahmen durchführen. Nennt
alternative Medien, die abseits vom Mainstream berichten. Zeigt auch Links
zu derzeit laufenden Anti-kriegs-Boykotten
5. http://www.Antiwar.com
Kontroverse Artikel besonders zum Thema naher Osten und Irak sowie zu den
Hintergründen hierzu. Hat auch gut sortierte internationale Links
6. http://www.boycotttheUSA.com
Bietet Links, Boykottvorschläge, News und Artikel zum Thema
20. http://www.boycottUS.net
Aufruf zum Boykott sämtlicher Waren aus den USA
7. http://www.boycottbush.net/index.htm
Spezielle Boykottseite gegen Bush und die Firmen die ihn im Wahlkampf unterstützt
haben. Die Firmen werden aufgelistet mit der Höhe der Wahlkampfspende
etc. Geboten werden weiterhin Links. News und der Verweis auf Einkaufslisten
mit Ausweichempfehlungen, einem Consumerguide.und einem Link zu http://www.ethicalconsumer.org,
einem online magazin, das Boykottauswertungen macht, hochinteressant !!
8. http://www.corpwatch.org/home/PHH.jsp
Kritisches Magazin über das Verhalten großer Firmen, das auch die
sogenannte New Oil Order anspricht. Suchmöglichkeit who owns what
9. http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html
setzt sich für faire und unabhängige Berichterstattung in den Medien
ein.
10. http://www.cjr.org
Columbia Journalism Review bietet Recherche für Journalisten auch betreffend
who is who und who owns what.
11. http://www.boycottusa.org
News, Artikel, fordert zum Boykott von USs-Waren, hat Links etc.
12. http://www.boycottwar.net/index.htm
Scheint wohl zentrale, internationale Boykottsite zu sein, die Links in viele
Länder zu Boykottaktionen nennt, auch nach Deutschland
13. http://www.arabicnews.com
Wenn die Seite mit der seiteninternen Suchmaschine abgesucht wird mit "boycott",
dann werden jede Menge interessante Artikel in arabischen Medien hierzu aufgelistet,
unter anderem auch der, dass Amerika derzeit amerikanische Firmen bedroht,
sie sollen Israel nicht boykottieren. Erwähnt wird auch, dass der Import
von US-Waren nach Saudi-Arabien um 25% abgenommen hat.
14. http://www.boycotttheusa.com/
der Untertitel lautet richtigerweise saving the world from america.
15. http://www.boycottamerica.org
Nennt verschiedene Kampagnen , die zum Us-Boykott führen, wie Irak, Kyoto
etc. alternative Medien und links hierzu.
16. http://www.cmlk.ch/index.html
Martin Luther King Zentrum in der Schweiz ruft speziell zum Benzinboykott
gegen Us-Mineralölgesellschaften auf.
17. http://www.boycottbush.org
Wohl belgische Seite, die sich mehrsprachig auf wenige Produkte konzentriert,
die aber ohnehin von weitem als amerikanisch erkennbar sind.
18. http://www.usaBoycott.com
Seite mit Standort in Leipzig, wohl noch recht frisch im Netz, weil noch um
Verständnis für Umbauarbeiten gebeten wird.
Plaktvorschläge von Besuchern:
Wir möchten hier noch einmal darauf hinweisen, daß alle im Boykott angesprochenen Firmen die Gelegenheit erhalten sollen, sich vom Krieg im Irak zu distanzieren. Wir werden jede Firma auflisten, die dies über uns oder unsere Besucher bekannt gibt.
Weitere Informationen:
***Die Summe aller Schweigeminuten:***
Falls Dir die schrecklichen Ereignisse am 11.September immernoch zu schaffen
machen nimm dir 2 minuten Zeit um die 3.000 zivilen von New
York,Washington und Pennsylvania zu gedenken...
Wenn du gerade so schön dabei bist,kannst du auch gleich noch 13
Schweigeminuten für die 130.000 irakischen zivilisten einlegen, die 1991
unter
dem Kommando von Präsident G.Bush umkamen.
Dann kannst du daran denken, wie die Amerikaner danach in den Straßen
gesungen und getanzt, gefeiert und geklatscht haben.
Jetzt ist es an der Zeit weitere 20 schweigeminuten für die 200.000 iranische
Zivilisten einzulegen, die in den 80ern von Irakern mit US-gesponsorten
Waffen und Geld geopfert wurden, bevor Amerika die Richtung wechselte und
seine irakischen Freunde zum Feind erkor.
Du solltest Dir noch weitere 15 min nehmen, um den Russen und 150.000
Afghanen zu gedenken, die von den Talibanen getötet wurden, die ihre
edle
Ausbildung und Unterstützung von der CIA bekamen.
Dann wären da noch 10 Schweigeminuten für die 100.000 zivilen Opfer
der
amerikanischen Atombombenabwürfe über Hiroshima und Nagasaki im
2.
Weltkrieg.
Du hast jetzt eine Stunde lang geschwiegen!2 Minuten für die getöteten
Amerikaer in New York, Washington und Pennsylvania und 58 Minuten für
deren Opfer auf der ganzen Welt.Falls Dir die Relationen immernoch nicht
vollständig bewusst sind, kannst du noch eine weitere Schweigeminute
für die
Opfer des Vietnam-Krieges draufschlagen.Oder für das Massaker in Panama
1989, bei dem amerikanische Truppen arme unschuldige Dörfer angriffen
um
20.000 Obdachlose und tausende Tote zu hinterlassen.
Oder für die Millionen von Kindern, die ob der Unterversorgung durch
das USEmbargo
gegen Irak und Kuba starben.Oder für die Hunderttausenden,die bei
US-finanzierten Bürgerkriegen Chile, Argentinien, Uruguay, Bolivien,
Guatemala, El Salvador (um nur ein paar wenige Beispiele zu nennen) ums
Leben kamen.
