This Is Not A Game

Is a war against Iraq in the interest of the world? Here's why France and Germany say no.

Why have France and Germany, among many others, disagreed so strikingly with the Bush administration's policies on Iraq?

The first reason is an obvious one. France and Germany, having fought three devastating wars with each other in the last century, remember what it's like to be "unilateralist," and aggressive. They have flourished under the multilateral European Union, which they see as the wave of the future -- and they are right.

Europe -- and now Russia -- sees that continents which agree to be free of war are much freer in other ways, and the Europeans want to extend this principle to the rest of the world. Bush's notion, a perpetual war on terrorism, may blind him to other new possibilities. The Bushies, contemptuous of "old" Europe, are in fact the ones stuck in the Cold War. Their vision of going back to a '50s Fortress America is not a vision, but an illusion; you can't go back, and the new foes are not on the order of the Soviet threat.

Here is what France, Germany and the Continent see. They see this as a war for the oil and arms markets of the Middle East. They see this as a war believed to be pro-Israel, but that may make Israel one of the prime casualties, if some very real contingencies happen, such as mass release of chemical and biological weapons. Finally, they see this war as a threat to the core alliance of NATO, and to the world economy.

In short, it is not just "What's in it for us?" Rather, they ask if this war is in the interest of the world, let alone of the Iraqi people, whom Rumsfeld would "rescue." They answer "no." Nor does it fit the criteria of a "just war."

Meanwhile, the prospect of war has mobilized millions of Europeans, and yes, Britons and Americans. Leading labor, civil rights, women's and religious organizations have come out against the war -- along with 50 city councils, including Philadelphia's. This stands in contrast to Vietnam, where it took thousands of U.S. casualties to mobilize labor and others against the war. This time, more people see ominous signs, sooner, and are speaking out.

What will happen, if the war is launched, remains to be seen. We know that two leading medical organizations, the British Medical Association, www.medact.org, and the U.S. Physicians for Social Responsibility, www.psr.org, have published a chilling analysis, "Collateral Damage." They note that a three-month Iraq war could result in over 250,000 casualties, plus 200,000 more deaths from effects on water and food supplies, and environmental catastrophe. And if the war went nuclear, which Bush has not ruled out, all bets are off, but it could be closer to perhaps four million souls, according to MedAct. U.S. casualties may be high as well, from combat, disease and desert conditions.

Mr. Rumsfeld's Pentagon has adopted the strategy of "Shock and Awe," according to leaked reports. The aim is to so traumatize the Iraqi army and people that they will surrender in three days. But the purported means are indeed "shocking and awful." According to these reports, 400 cruise missiles a day would be launched against Baghdad, a city of five million, about the size of the Philadelphia area. Imagine City Hall as ground zero for such an onslaught. Imagine the top 400 targets, from King of Prussia to the Navy Yard, and everything of value -- including five million people -- in between. We may be looking at devastation of unprecedented proportions, comparable perhaps to several small nuclear bombs.

No wonder the French and Germans are looking for alternatives. They leaked their own U.N. Security Council resolution to the media. As reported by Australian ABC-TV reporter Michael Brissenden, this plan would really deal with Iraq's weapons, and put Iraq under a kind of U.N. trusteeship, with armed U.N. peacekeepers, for as long as needed to prevent war. Mr. Bush has said the "game" is coming to an end. If so, Europe has called him on it, and it is time for him to show his cards. How the Security Council responds to the European initiative will also say much about whether the Council steps up to the plate, as the world peacekeeper it was meant to be.

Edward A. Aguilar is director of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities of Pa., and is with the Global Security Task Force of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Phila. chapter. Opinions are his own. PSR experts will analyze the health consequences of war at a peace brunch on Sat., Feb. 15, 11 a.m., Friends Center, 15th and Cherry sts., preceding the peace march kickoff at the State Building, Broad and Spring Garden sts. If you would like to respond to this Slant or have one of your own (850 words), contact Howard Altman, City Paper executive editor, 123 Chestnut St., third floor, Phila., PA 19106 or e-mail altman@citypaper.net.

Browse The
February 13, 2003
Issue

Join the
City Paper
Mailing List




	search citypaper.net