11-14-2004, 08:02 PM
Former Swedish UN Ambassador Calls On Stockholm to Vocally Oppose Iraq War
Stockholm Dagens Nyheter (Internet Version-WWW) in Swedish 03 Nov 04
[Guest commentary by former UN Ambassador Pierre Schori: "We Must Demand an End
to the Occupation of Iraq"]
[Excerpt] Official Sweden speaks in a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the
days of the Vietnam war, it is almost silent. But it is high time to demand an
end to a situation in Iraq that is increasingly seen as an occupation. The
so-called war against terrorism is being conducted in violation of international
law and humanitarian conventions. No matter how last night's US election turns
out, it is important that we clearly state where Sweden stands on the Iraq
conflict, writes former Swedish UN ambassador, Pierre Schori.
Former UN ambassador Schori criticizes the government's silence on the
conflict. Official Sweden speaks in a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the days
of the Vietnam war, it is virtually silent. But it is high time to demand an end
to the situation in Iraq, which is increasingly seen as an occupation. The
so-called war against terrorism is being conducted in violation of international
law and humanitarian conventions: issues that are traditionally major concerns
for Sweden. Regardless of how last night's election in the United States turns
out, it is important that we clearly say where Sweden stands in the Iraq
conflict, writes former Swedish UN ambassador Schori.
Daniel Planalp, a 21-year-old from San Diego in California, said in an
interview in the New York Times: "This is Vietnam. I do not know why we fighting
a war there. We are now fighting to survive. The Iraqis do not want us there. If
they wanted us there, they would help us."
That was not something the Bush camp wanted to hear. But the genie is out of
the bottle. More and more people in the United States are comparing the war in
Iraq with the disaster in Vietnam. Just a few months ago, Vietnam was a taboo
word.
George W. Bush did what he could to make the voters believe that the Iraq
war and the UN-sanctioned campaign against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in
Afghanistan were the same "war against terrorism." But here too the Republicans
have been forced to listen to arguments they did not want to hear. This illegal
war has made Iraq into a magnet for international terrorism, John Kerry
repeatedly said. The war has created "a new Afghanistan in Iraq," summed up
critical observer Francis Fukuyama.
There is also growing concern on Wall Street. The official cost of the war
is said to be 120 billion dollars so far. But if you add the total affect of the
war on the US economy, the figure might be more that double that amount,
according to a recent joint study by experts from the Brookings Institution in
Washington and the Center for International Economics in Australia (New York
Times economy supplement 24 October). This study claims that the US economy has
lost 150 billion dollars due to the large and growing deficit (3.5 percent of
GNP), high oil prices, and general uncertainty affecting the financial markets,
investment climate, and consumers' will to spend. Taken together, these things
mean that the war has cost 270 billion dollars so far. That figure corresponds
to almost one percent of GNP since the beginning of the war a year and a half
ago.
In another study, respected Yale economist William Nordhaus predicted that a
prolonged war would cost up to 1900 billion dollars.
Many people are asking themselves what the Bush administration was actually
after in Iraq. Was it just a change in regime? But the coming change in regime
is certainly not the kind the neo-conservatives dreamed of, nor will it lead to
the consequences they imagined. The Iraq they planned for simply does not exist.
Instead, the dream turned into a nightmare for thousands of US families -- and
many more Iraqis.
Does Iraq concern us? Of course it does. We are all holding our breath and
wondering what will happen concerning the United States and Iraq after the
presidential election. How the war ends will affect us all.
Official Sweden talks with a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the days of
the Vietnam war, a war which by no means had the same regional and global
consequences as Iraq, it is almost silent.
You could say that events speak more loudly than words. Sweden wisely
resisted invitations to join the so-called coalition. And when we speak, we
invoke international law and the United Nations.
But it is high time to demand an end to a situation that is increasingly
seen as an occupation with a clearly American face and manner of conduct.
There are increasingly frequent attacks on civilian targets, including
mosques and popular restaurants, in densely populated areas that are "suspected"
of being "terrorist strongholds." Television pictures of the way US planes bomb
Baghdad's slums and those of the torture in Abu Gharayb prison have become
macabre metaphors for the Iraq fiasco and the fantasies of "liberating" Iraq.
This is a so-called war against terrorism that is being conducted in
violation of international law and international humanitarian conventions,
issues that Sweden is traditionally strongly concerned about.
All of this has taken place during an election campaign where the
Republicans ridiculed and criticized the United Nations, talked in crusade-like
terms about a war between good and evil, and where television advertisements for
the National Guard said that one reason for joining up was "to defend the
American way of life."
I do not believe the apocalypse will take place if the United States
withdraws. Could it be worse than today's Iraq? At the time, people claimed that
the United States could not leave Vietnam either. And France could not leave
Algeria.
Of course the rest of the world must assist the Iraqi people on their way to
freedom and independence. A democratic Iraq is also in our interest. The
Security Council's unanimous resolution 1546 on 8 June was an important step in
the right direction. The resolution demanded an end to the occupation without
affirming the illegal war and gave a clearer role to the United Nations, at the
same time as a road map to Iraqi sovereignty was established.
But I have doubts on one point. In my final report to the Foreign Ministry,
I asked how the United Nations could help bring reconciliation and stability
under the protection of a US-led military force, and at the same time retain its
credibility and integrity in the eyes of world opinion.
There is no military solution to the Iraq war. But a political solution will
not be achieved as long as the US-led occupation continues. It seems
increasingly obvious that it is precisely the presence of US troops that
provokes much of the will to resist and the anger than is manifested daily. US
forces have increasingly taken up the fight against various groups in the Iraqi
nation that enjoy a certain amount of popular support, and which are carrying
out what appears to be a successful guerilla war. That has drawn the United
States into internal power struggles. But these resistance groups must also be
part of a peaceful solution to the conflict.
[passage omitted quoting opinions by American experts cited from US press]
In order to achieve that, it is important that no matter what the outcome of
last night's election is, that the rest of the world and Sweden clearly say
where they stand in this conflict.
Stockholm Dagens Nyheter (Internet Version-WWW) in Swedish 03 Nov 04
[Guest commentary by former UN Ambassador Pierre Schori: "We Must Demand an End
to the Occupation of Iraq"]
[Excerpt] Official Sweden speaks in a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the
days of the Vietnam war, it is almost silent. But it is high time to demand an
end to a situation in Iraq that is increasingly seen as an occupation. The
so-called war against terrorism is being conducted in violation of international
law and humanitarian conventions. No matter how last night's US election turns
out, it is important that we clearly state where Sweden stands on the Iraq
conflict, writes former Swedish UN ambassador, Pierre Schori.
Former UN ambassador Schori criticizes the government's silence on the
conflict. Official Sweden speaks in a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the days
of the Vietnam war, it is virtually silent. But it is high time to demand an end
to the situation in Iraq, which is increasingly seen as an occupation. The
so-called war against terrorism is being conducted in violation of international
law and humanitarian conventions: issues that are traditionally major concerns
for Sweden. Regardless of how last night's election in the United States turns
out, it is important that we clearly say where Sweden stands in the Iraq
conflict, writes former Swedish UN ambassador Schori.
Daniel Planalp, a 21-year-old from San Diego in California, said in an
interview in the New York Times: "This is Vietnam. I do not know why we fighting
a war there. We are now fighting to survive. The Iraqis do not want us there. If
they wanted us there, they would help us."
That was not something the Bush camp wanted to hear. But the genie is out of
the bottle. More and more people in the United States are comparing the war in
Iraq with the disaster in Vietnam. Just a few months ago, Vietnam was a taboo
word.
George W. Bush did what he could to make the voters believe that the Iraq
war and the UN-sanctioned campaign against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in
Afghanistan were the same "war against terrorism." But here too the Republicans
have been forced to listen to arguments they did not want to hear. This illegal
war has made Iraq into a magnet for international terrorism, John Kerry
repeatedly said. The war has created "a new Afghanistan in Iraq," summed up
critical observer Francis Fukuyama.
There is also growing concern on Wall Street. The official cost of the war
is said to be 120 billion dollars so far. But if you add the total affect of the
war on the US economy, the figure might be more that double that amount,
according to a recent joint study by experts from the Brookings Institution in
Washington and the Center for International Economics in Australia (New York
Times economy supplement 24 October). This study claims that the US economy has
lost 150 billion dollars due to the large and growing deficit (3.5 percent of
GNP), high oil prices, and general uncertainty affecting the financial markets,
investment climate, and consumers' will to spend. Taken together, these things
mean that the war has cost 270 billion dollars so far. That figure corresponds
to almost one percent of GNP since the beginning of the war a year and a half
ago.
In another study, respected Yale economist William Nordhaus predicted that a
prolonged war would cost up to 1900 billion dollars.
Many people are asking themselves what the Bush administration was actually
after in Iraq. Was it just a change in regime? But the coming change in regime
is certainly not the kind the neo-conservatives dreamed of, nor will it lead to
the consequences they imagined. The Iraq they planned for simply does not exist.
Instead, the dream turned into a nightmare for thousands of US families -- and
many more Iraqis.
Does Iraq concern us? Of course it does. We are all holding our breath and
wondering what will happen concerning the United States and Iraq after the
presidential election. How the war ends will affect us all.
Official Sweden talks with a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the days of
the Vietnam war, a war which by no means had the same regional and global
consequences as Iraq, it is almost silent.
You could say that events speak more loudly than words. Sweden wisely
resisted invitations to join the so-called coalition. And when we speak, we
invoke international law and the United Nations.
But it is high time to demand an end to a situation that is increasingly
seen as an occupation with a clearly American face and manner of conduct.
There are increasingly frequent attacks on civilian targets, including
mosques and popular restaurants, in densely populated areas that are "suspected"
of being "terrorist strongholds." Television pictures of the way US planes bomb
Baghdad's slums and those of the torture in Abu Gharayb prison have become
macabre metaphors for the Iraq fiasco and the fantasies of "liberating" Iraq.
This is a so-called war against terrorism that is being conducted in
violation of international law and international humanitarian conventions,
issues that Sweden is traditionally strongly concerned about.
All of this has taken place during an election campaign where the
Republicans ridiculed and criticized the United Nations, talked in crusade-like
terms about a war between good and evil, and where television advertisements for
the National Guard said that one reason for joining up was "to defend the
American way of life."
I do not believe the apocalypse will take place if the United States
withdraws. Could it be worse than today's Iraq? At the time, people claimed that
the United States could not leave Vietnam either. And France could not leave
Algeria.
Of course the rest of the world must assist the Iraqi people on their way to
freedom and independence. A democratic Iraq is also in our interest. The
Security Council's unanimous resolution 1546 on 8 June was an important step in
the right direction. The resolution demanded an end to the occupation without
affirming the illegal war and gave a clearer role to the United Nations, at the
same time as a road map to Iraqi sovereignty was established.
But I have doubts on one point. In my final report to the Foreign Ministry,
I asked how the United Nations could help bring reconciliation and stability
under the protection of a US-led military force, and at the same time retain its
credibility and integrity in the eyes of world opinion.
There is no military solution to the Iraq war. But a political solution will
not be achieved as long as the US-led occupation continues. It seems
increasingly obvious that it is precisely the presence of US troops that
provokes much of the will to resist and the anger than is manifested daily. US
forces have increasingly taken up the fight against various groups in the Iraqi
nation that enjoy a certain amount of popular support, and which are carrying
out what appears to be a successful guerilla war. That has drawn the United
States into internal power struggles. But these resistance groups must also be
part of a peaceful solution to the conflict.
[passage omitted quoting opinions by American experts cited from US press]
In order to achieve that, it is important that no matter what the outcome of
last night's election is, that the rest of the world and Sweden clearly say
where they stand in this conflict.