It's all on again. Now that the invasion of Iraq is seemingly complete, the so-called "reconstruction" process has become the titbit over which the political leaders, the business sector, and the international NGOs have homed in on, like seagulls to a beach picnic. This is not encouraging for Iraq's future. Despite many attempts, the West has not apparently learnt the basic lessons of helping to build non-Western socio-political models in shattered societies.
In the Middle East context, the towering icon of failure is the nominal Palestinian "nation". This case sets a tragic foundation for all subsequent endeavours in the region. By all accounts, the mistakes in Palestine are about to be repeated in Iraq, as indeed they were - are - in Afghanistan.
In relation to the Iraqi rehabilitation, it is useful to consider these errors and to assess their links to the latest target of the West's largely unwanted charity.
In Palestine, the negative impact of the British mandate, following centuries of Ottoman rule, has been exacerbated by a range of cultural and historic characteristics such as: arbitrary national borders; the proximity of a valuable political commodity worth controlling (that is, the Israeli state); an easily demonised culture; a history of distinct tribal, ethnic and religious communities; --
a power-obsessed, previously exiled, political leader; and an Islamic culture that manifests often as a secular force.
The similarities with the current state of Iraq are clear.
In Palestine, the presence of these conditions has tended to undermine the support for the vibrant local civil sector and its myriad civil associations. These groups, often small and locally focused, were, and remain, at the forefront of Palestinian culture and are largely responsible for the survival of a Palestinian social and cultural identity.
But despite acting as the figurehead of the Palestinian cause, the role of the PLO in relation to street-level Palestine was negligible. The contribution of the Fatah militarist ascendancy to the civil wellbeing of the Palestinian people was mostly non-existent. For example, throughout much of the 1980s, the PLO's military budget was roughly eight times that of its education budget. What civil agenda existed was as marketing for the wider cause of Palestinian independent statehood.
In Iraq, the same course is under way. With the introduction of the US-British "interim" leadership, the cast is being set for the influx of Western values and Western culture and the construction of Western socio-political models.
-
Already, many of the most inappropriate examples of US and European culture - from the American Southern evangelists to the political lobbyists and the globalisation acolytes - are jostling at the gates of Baghdad.
The vast range of indigenous organisations in Iraq are likely to be overwhelmed by the mad rush to establish inappropriate socio-political structures on the area and its people.
The strength of Islam as an integral part of day-to-day social interaction and activity across the region has engendered the development of a highly sophisticated civil sector.
The need to fly in ready-made, demountable, social and political hardware to drop on hapless "Orientals" - "for their own good" - illuminates the distinct lack of imagination at the very top of the dominant
so-called globalised elites and the inability to imagine options other than the garden-variety Western democratic state. What can't be imagined can't be controlled.
-
In Iraq, again, what we are seeing is the extension of what expatriate Palestinian writer Edward Said identified as the cultural hegemony established by Western cultural elites over the Middle East region. As Said notes, this imaging of "Orientals", using the filters of Western language and iconography, says a lot about ourselves and our own fears; Orientalism has less to do with the "Orient" than it does with "our world".
This is another tragedy waiting to happen in a region due for some understanding and real assistance.
As the West raves fulsomely over the value of democracy in Iraq, we might consider not only the "the rule of the majority" in the West - where just over a third of the primary vote wins a national election, as here in Australia - but also the alternative models by which just and fair societies can be built and maintained.
The Islamic models of social emancipation across the Middle East may not be perfect. In this they share common ground with our own models. But they are right, at least in the sense that they resonate. That doesn't mean some of the more universally agreed standards of human rights need not be adhered to, but that any change, in Iraq or elsewhere, needs to go through, not bypass, the many and vital civil communities in the Islamic world.

In a government building resembling an oversize mausoleum in Baghdad, Major Charlotte Herring, a US Army lawyer, faced a nervous Iraqi lawyer, Fatima Suaad Ibrahim. A translator sat between them. Ms Ibrahim, 36, told Major Herring she lived with her parents, three brothers and their families in a house in Baghdad.

Major Herring, a single mother who has served in the army for 13 years, told her the Americans were urgently seeking Iraqi lawyers and jurists. They want to rebuild the legal system and to understand the structure of a court and prison system that remained an enigma.

Major Herring, with the staff judge advocate's office of the 3rd Infantry Division, questioned Ms Ibrahim who described an Iraqi system in which bribery was common.

She said judges had insulted her because she was a woman. She also said she had adored her job as a lawyer because it gave her a sense of freedom. She also described the system as a shadowy world where loyalty to Saddam Hussein was often a question of survival.

Ms Ibrahim said that lawyers attended two-year institutes to become judges in criminal and civil courts. Serious crimes like murder were handled by three-judge panels called the Court of Sessions.
Asked how many judges were women, Ms Ibrahim replied: "Only five or six. "That will change," Major Herring said.

The nation's federal politicians today
resigned themselves to dark days ahead as Australia was on the
brink of war against Iraq.
MPs and senators spent two days debating war, with parliamentary
sitting hours extended to allow everyone a chance to speak.
While all politicians accepted war could be just hours away,
they were divided on Australia's involvement in US-led action.
War talk turned into cross chamber spats with tempers flaring as
the deadline for military action loomed closer.
US President George W Bush on Tuesday gave Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein until midday Thursday Australian time to leave his country
or face war.
Australia has committed 2,000 troops to any action.
Cluster bombs, the effectiveness of protective suits for
soldiers, the Iraqi regime's rape of women and talk of bloody
warfare peppered speeches in both houses of parliament.
Labor went on the attack, accusing Prime Minister John Howard of
Nazi-style politics after he cancelled question time for the second
day running.
That left Defence Minister Robert Hill in the hot seat defending
the government's stance against anti-war critics in the Senate.
Labor frontbencher Wayne Swan accused Mr Howard of using Gestapo
tactics.
"Australians today are watching this parliament," Mr Swan said.
"They are watching it because they want to see that their
parliamentarians are looking after their national interest.
"They don't want to see some sort of Gestapo tactic that we're
getting here today from this government.
The government should be forced to answer questions about the
cost and conditions of the defence force deployment to the Gulf, he
said.
"Why has the PM decided to go AWOL on question time? What has he
got to hide?" Mr Swan said.
Labor frontbencher Mark Latham challenged 24 coalition MPs who
opposed the use of embryonic stem cell research to cross the floor
of parliament against war.
Opposition Leader Simon Crean slammed Mr Howard for failing to
step up security in Australia in response to international warnings
about a heightened risk of terrorism at a time of war.
"In agreeing to go to war they have done nothing to address the
increased risk of terrorism in this country," Mr Crean said.
Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was reprimanded by Senate
President Paul Calvert for sporting an anti-war t-shirt in
parliament.
She was warned against entering the chamber with a slogan
emblazoned t-shirt after a handful of coalition senators heckled
her for criticising the government's commitment to war.
But most politicians - reluctantly or otherwise - accepted
Australian troops would be embroiled in the US-led conflict by
week's end.
Australian Democrats Senator Lyn Allison raised the spectre of a
nuclear cloud.
But Queensland Liberal Senator Santo Santoro said Australia had
to call Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's bluff and the nation
should support its troops regardless of differing views on war.
"These are dark days but Australians have always looked after
their mates," he said.
Aust federal pollies debate Iraq as war looms

By Linda McSweeny
CANBERRA, March 19 AAP - The nation's federal politicians today
resigned themselves to dark days ahead as Australia was on the
brink of war against Iraq.
MPs and senators spent two days debating war, with parliamentary
sitting hours extended to allow everyone a chance to speak.
While all politicians accepted war could be just hours away,
they were divided on Australia's involvement in US-led action.
War talk turned into cross chamber spats with tempers flaring as
the deadline for military action loomed closer.
US President George W Bush on Tuesday gave Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein until midday Thursday Australian time to leave his country
or face war.
Australia has committed 2,000 troops to any action.
Cluster bombs, the effectiveness of protective suits for
soldiers, the Iraqi regime's rape of women and talk of bloody
warfare peppered speeches in both houses of parliament.
Labor went on the attack, accusing Prime Minister John Howard of
Nazi-style politics after he cancelled question time for the second
day running.
That left Defence Minister Robert Hill in the hot seat defending
the government's stance against anti-war critics in the Senate.
Labor frontbencher Wayne Swan accused Mr Howard of using Gestapo
tactics.
"Australians today are watching this parliament," Mr Swan said.
"They are watching it because they want to see that their
parliamentarians are looking after their national interest.
"They don't want to see some sort of Gestapo tactic that we're
getting here today from this government.
The government should be forced to answer questions about the
cost and conditions of the defence force deployment to the Gulf, he
said.
"Why has the PM decided to go AWOL on question time? What has he
got to hide?" Mr Swan said.
Labor frontbencher Mark Latham challenged 24 coalition MPs who
opposed the use of embryonic stem cell research to cross the floor
of parliament against war.
Opposition Leader Simon Crean slammed Mr Howard for failing to
step up security in Australia in response to international warnings
about a heightened risk of terrorism at a time of war.
"In agreeing to go to war they have done nothing to address the
increased risk of terrorism in this country," Mr Crean said.
Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was reprimanded by Senate
President Paul Calvert for sporting an anti-war t-shirt in
parliament.
She was warned against entering the chamber with a slogan
emblazoned t-shirt after a handful of coalition senators heckled
her for criticising the government's commitment to war.
But most politicians - reluctantly or otherwise - accepted
Australian troops would be embroiled in the US-led conflict by
week's end.
Australian Democrats Senator Lyn Allison raised the spectre of a
nuclear cloud.
But Queensland Liberal Senator Santo Santoro said Australia had
to call Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's bluff and the nation
should support its troops regardless of differing views on war.
"These are dark days but Australians have always looked after
their mates," he said.

The United States is conducting a secret "dirty tricks" plan against other UN Security Council delegations. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation are revealed in the document below.

Does the dirty tricks plan - along with US pressure and inducements to other Security Council members - mean that any vote for war would lack legitimacy? Or are these murky details about international politics simply the way of the world? Now that the plan has been revealed, will it backfire as the US seeks to win the UN waverers over?

March 2, 2003

To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA, DEF Chief of Staff (Regional Targets)
CIV/NSA
Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions
Importance: HIGH
Top Secret//COMINT//XI
All,
As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.
We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.
We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.
Thanks for your help

In the President's Words: 'Free People Will Keep the Peace of the World'

February 27, 2003

Following is a transcript of the speech given yesterday by President Bush to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, as recorded by The New York Times:

We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us.

On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

We learned a lesson: the dangers of our time must be
confronted actively and forcefully before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: we will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men.

Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the
networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaeda. Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning, and we're showing them the definition of American justice. And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror - outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass
destruction.

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that
could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it.

The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way,
this danger will be removed.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the
same direction - to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi
people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein. But Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be
easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's
torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick. And we are now moving into place nearly three million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We will make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating under the oil-for-food program, are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commission on Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and Unicef to
provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners: the Iraqi people.

The United States has no intention of determining the
precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and
parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so
their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a
dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we're the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers.

And other regimes will be given a clear warning that
support for terror will not be tolerated. Without this
outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders - true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian st ate must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

For its part the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to wrk as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

And the Arab states will be expected to meet their
responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the
emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.

The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal. Old
patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if
all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and
violence and get on with the serious work of economic
development and political reform and reconciliation.
America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace, and the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity.

In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We're a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council.

We believe in the Security Council so much that we want its words to have meaning. The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today, and will need tomorrow, international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are
willing to stand behind them and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to make sure that the force of right will in the ultimate issue be protected by the right of force.

Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the Council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.

I've listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilizedworld. The threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace. And by acting we
will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.

Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is
forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. These dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges.

Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: the liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people.

And I know something about these men and women who wear our uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage.

Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war. It'll be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East after so many generations of strife, yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us. And Americans do not turn away from duties because they
are hard. We have met great tests in other times and we will meet the tests of our time.

We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history and free people will keep the peace of the world.

Thank you all very
much.

(zxtvp12mp98 _8)

It comes down to a choice between two evils and one has to ask, “which is the greater”? On the one hand it is immoral to fight, to become a part and the cause of death and destruction; on the other hand, it is a greater moral wrong to ignore what is happening. I have come to the conclusion that bad as such action is, it is sometimes far worse if we do nothing.

May be a lot of life is shaped by the above kind of choices. Often we have to choose between evils, always hoping that we choose the lesser one. It’s a high price to pay, but the alternative of ignoring what is happening, by not becoming involved, by shutting our eyes to the fact that there are degrees of evil, some worse than others, is abandonment of everything that is good because we allow the greater evil to win. Such moral issues are complex. Often, unbeknownst, we do the wrong thing believing it is right. I’ve come to understand that life will never be clean and clear cut and that there is often no choice between black and white and that the choice lies too many times within the grey area. It makes me anguished to think of the choices that are open to us. I guess no-one likes to face the fact that sometimes an immoral act is the only right thing to be done and that the world is not what it seems, it is not just black and white!

I believe there are no limits for man in the world. He can see forever and he will achieve more than can ever be believe and yet while he will create, the darkness that hides in every man will destroy and matters of the spirit will be pushed aside in his rush to achieve. His learning will continue to be hard and deadly. There is something ignoble about mankind. Such an ugly notion, but I fear man's savagery and greed and his capacity to abuse. When you read Euripides, Menander and Theophrastus, Sophocles and Oedipus one realises how little mankind has changed in the intervening years. Human problems are complex but all the trouble in the world is human trouble. All the cruel and malicious indifference confronted has a human face and soul. We are at best indifferent and at worst wantonly cruel. We are all still savages at heart.

I am fascinated with this world of ours and watch its events with some interest. I often ask myself – why is it we never learn from past mistakes? Is it because our lives are of such short duration, or is it because we deliberately shut our minds from what we know?