Politicians have led us to believe that 9/11
changed the world irretrievably, requiring a maximal response to counter
it. Certainly, if the event itself
did not change the world - history has seen acts of terrorism since time
immemorial - the aggressive military campaigns undertaken by the West in
response have indeed changed it. Ten years on, despite the two deadly wars
fought on our behalf (with one still ongoing), we live today in a world that seems more volatile and less
secure, ruled more often than not by violent military action. It is as if history has reversed its
course, taking us back to the old days when armed conflict was a legitimate way
to solve problems.
We watched in horror the destruction
caused by the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Here was an apocalyptic spectacle of devastation brought on
by the uncontrollable forces of nature. While elsewhere, in Libya, we are
witnessing yet another scene of man-made disaster unfolding. Yet again, Western
political leaders are fueling the chaos by ill-chosen rhetoric and military
aggression. When will we ever
learn?
My concern over the events immediately following
9/11 took the form of letters to the Editor of The Guardian (a UK daily). Here is a selection, some published,
most still just inhabiting my computer.
LETTERS TO THE GUARDIAN
10 September 2002
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Dear Sir,
The horrific images of 11/09/01 are still with
us. Looking back on the year, I
canÕt help feeling that the world leaders have let us down. Confronted by such a catastrophic
event, the prudent response would have been to pause and reflect on why this
attack had come upon America. Then
to recognize that terrorism has existed since time immemorial in various forms
and that it can never be eliminated totally simply by force, without
eradicating the causes, the grievances that exist in many parts of the world,
i.e., injustice, discrimination, poverty, to name a few. With this insight, the world leaders
could have launched a fresh, even-handed peace initiative in Palestine, stepped
up pressure on oppressive regimes that enjoy a friendly alliance with the west,
and sent out massive humanitarian aid for the needy parts of the world, coupled
with intensified intelligence work to track down the terrorist cells. This would have been a civilized
enlightened response. Certainly,
they should have cautioned themselves, and the shocked world, against any
instinct for retaliatory action.
But this did not happened.
The West missed a historic opportunity to
demonstrate to the rest of the world what it takes to be a civilized and
enlightened nation.
The war on ÔterrorÕ has since been destabilizing
the world, compounding the grievances against America and the West, and breeding
a new generation of terrorists.
Ironically, every political and military action America has taken since
has signalled/shown that the grievances at the heart of the 9/11 attack might
well have been legitimate. The US actions sent a message that America is
unilateralist (the Kyoto Accord, the Earth Summit, the International Criminal
Court, and now the war on Iraq) and would do practically anything to protect
its own interests. Ethical and
legal considerations do not seem to enter this equation. While Ôthe war on terrorÕ in
Afghanistan got rid of the Taliban regime (which was not its primary aim), the
rhetoric of ÔterrorÕ gave license to some political leaders (Sharon and Putin
to name two), to clamp down on their opponents by force. The concept of Ôright to self-defenceÕ
is overextended, and the use of disproportionate force is justified as long as
you are Ôfighting terrorÕ.
And now the US and UK political leaders claim that
the war on Iraq is an act of self-defence. Amazingly, war has now become a readily acceptable
option. War against Iraq? Why not? Saddam Hussein is evil; his deadly arsenal, a menace to
world peace. Never mind that America has its own weapons of mass destruction
and has used them often enough, although only in Asia. And what of the killing of innocent
civilians caught up in war? DonÕt
even think about it; itÕs an inevitable cost of war, acceptable collateral
damage.
When NATO air-raided Belgrade during the Kosovo
war, they were selective about their targets to avoid civilian causalities.
This time the war, if it happens, will be fought in Iraq. Will there be similar consideration for
the Iraqi people? The rest of the
world will be watching.
A. Horie-Webber
13 September 2002
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian.
Dear Sir,
To place too much importance on securing the UN
Security Council vote to legalize the US proposed war on Iraq is to obscure the
fundamental question of the legitimacy of such an Ôpre-emptive warÕ, with or
without UN approval.
A. Horie-Webber
14 September 2002
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Dear Sir,
Did George Bush get the idea of a
Ôpre-emptive strikeÕ from Ariel Sharon?
They seem to speak the same language. Apparently, Mr Sharon is very keen on such a strike against
Iraq. This time, he has said,
Israel will not stand idly by but fight Iraq alongside the US. What a prospect! Will Mr Blair join in?
While Mr Bush singles out Saddam
Hussein, the rest of the world may well feel that the real threat to world
peace is Ariel Sharon and George Bush, and the arrogant unfettered actions of
their governments.
Mr. Blair insists that Britain must
stand by its friend. But a true
loyal friend would dare to confront his friend if necessary and speak his
mind. It is telling that so far
only Nelson Mandela has had the courage to stand up to America and speak the
truth, denouncing the US as "unilateralist and a threat to world
peace".
A. Horie-Webber
P.S. I would vote for Nelson Mandela for President of the World,
and Bill Clinton as his deputy for his political intelligence and big heart!
25 September 2002
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Dear Sirs,
Re: Pre-emptive Strike against Iraq
Mr Blair wants to save the world by
waging a pre-emptive war against Iraq.
Are the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed during the
course of the war? With what
deadly consequences?
Personally, I don't wish Mr Bush or Mr
Blair to act on my behalf to safeguard my future, at the expense of thousands
of innocent lives.
The world is not a perfect place and
life is full of uncertainties. I
am content to live my life as it is, with a strategy of containment and
evolution.
A. Horie-Webber
28 September 2002
Letter to Tony Blair
Dear Mr. Blair,
You needn't keep reminding us what a horrible
dictator Saddam Hussein is. We
know that. We know that he had
done some horrible things, like gassing his own people. We know the existence of mass
graves. We also know that, when he
was committing these horrendous crimes, the West was his ally and was turning a
blind eye.
A. Horie-Webber
1 March 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
letters@guardian.co.uk
Re: 'Final Push for Peace' (War on Iraq)
The U.N. Security Council should reject the
proposed second resolution. To
endorse it is to sanction an illegal 'pre-emptive war', of the kind that Ariel
Sharon has been conducting in Palestine to a deadly effect. Would the rest of the world want to go
down the same road, down to chaos and ever escalating violence? The answer must be an emphatic NO.
It is false to argue that unless the U.N. can
present a united front its credibility is lost. On the contrary, it is only right that there should be a
genuine debate and genuine disagreement on a matter serious as this; there should
be no compromise, no ambiguity. I
hope the Security Council member states will resist the shameless US pressure,
and vote against this second resolution.
The US may still go to war in defiance of the U.N., but the rest of the
world will have upheld International Law.
With the U.N. integrity firmly intact, the ultimate worldwide chaos will
have been averted.
As for Tony Blair, this is one initiative he
cannot back down on. He more than any party needs the second resolution passed
to justify and legalize his war.
But he should realize that by forcing this resolution by such shameful
means, he is undermining the raison d'etre of the U.N. as a democratic
humanitarian organization for peace.
The 'right thing' for him to do at this juncture is, as John Welford
suggested (letter, 3 March), "to stand up against George Bush and withdraw
the UK from this potentially disastrous war."
But does he have the courage or sense to do this?
A. Horie-Webber
akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk
3 March 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Dear Sirs,
Re: Last Push for Peace
Indeed, why the charade? (Guardian editorial,
3March) Tony Blair and his US allies seem to have made up their minds to go to
war against Iraq, and what's more, believe fervently in the righteousness of
their action. So, why don't they
go it alone? Why the charade of the weapons inspections? Why bother to force the second
resolution to get a U.N. mandate?
For the US, it obviously serves as a cover in case things go wrong. They
can then count on other nations to share the cost of the war in the nasty
aftermath.
The current "arm twisting" (and bribing)
of the smaller member states of the Security Council by the US and the UK is
shameful. It illuminates the
hypocritical conduct of the so-called leading 'democratic' nations, who preach
'freedom and democracy' to the rest of the world but cannot themselves uphold
these principles when the crunch comes.
Does Mr Blair realize that his rhetoric of war
means in reality 3000 US smart bombs and e-bombs on the first day of the
war? Is he aware what this really
means in actual human cost?
A. Horie-Webber
13 March 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
letters@guardian.co.uk
Re: "No Matter What" on
Iraq
Yesterday in Parliament Tony Blair
accused the French of intransigence, describing their position as: 'they will
veto [the new resolution] no matter what'. Notably he omitted the qualifying clause in the French
argument: they will veto "any resolution that automatically sanctions
war". The same 'no matter what' phrase was repeated by the British
Ambassador at the UN.
Perhaps his 'cropped' phrase was a spin designed to make the French
position appear unreasonable for the UK audience.
But whom does Mr. Blair think he is
fooling? The rest of the UN and
the world know the exact French position, which has been unambiguous and
consistent. Today the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin made it
crystal clear again, in response to Jack Straw's attack on France's rejection
of the amended resolution: "The issue is not a question of giving Iraq a
few more days before resorting to war, but resolutely disarming Iraq through
peaceful means.' (BBC World Service).
The vast majority of the world would endorse this position. There can be no compromise between the
war-now position of the US and peaceful disarmament through continuing
inspection. It's time for the
Brits to recognize this; the Yanks do.
It is unedifying to witness the
British Government desperately churning out the amendments for votes, and
shifting the blame for its failure onto French intransigence. From start to finish, Mr. Blair seems
to have failed to see the wood for the trees. Britain opted for this US led war without UN sanction,
without a full consultation with its European allies, and apparently without a
comprehensive appreciation of what this might entail.
Now Britain is committed to this war,
'no matter what' (Blair interview 1/3/03). Meanwhile we know that the war has already started on the
Iraq/Kuwait border and in the Iraqi no-fly zone. I sincerely hope that Mr. Blair is prepared for the
catastrophic consequences of some 3000 smart bombs and missiles raining on the
Iraqi people in the first 48 hours of the war. (Newsweek17/2/03).
A. Horie-Webber
15 March 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
letters@guardian.co.uk
Re: The Israeli-Palestinian "road
map" to peace
Ever since 9/11, the Israeli and US governments
have made a point of referring to the Palestinian resistance, in particular,
the suicide bombings, as 'terror attacks', equating the militant Palestinians
with Al-Quaeda terrorists.
As long as the western leaders view the
Palestinian resistance as "terror attacks", as Tony Blair did at the
hastily assembled Friday press conference to announce the road map for peace,
there can be no peace settlement in the Middle East. His casual use of this phrase not only adds insult to the
Palestinian injury, but also exposes his gross insensitivity to and lack of
appreciation of the true plight of the Palestinian people.
A. Horie-Webber
akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk
18 March 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Re: Bill Clinton's advice: Trust
Tony's Judgement
Now that the war proper has started,
it is worth recalling the speech Bill Clinton delivered at the Labour party
conference last October.
While appearing to support the US and
UK stand against Iraq, Mr. Clinton subtly managed to convey where he really
stood. "I tell you
this", he said casually, as if he was departing from the prepared text for
a private chat, "Inspection had been effective, eliminating more arms than
were ever destroyed in the Gulf War," running off with ease the list of
hardware the inspectors had taken off Baghdad: 40,000 chemical weapons; 100,000
gallons of chemicals used to make weapons; 48 missiles; 30 armed warheads and a
massive biological weapons facility equipped to produce anthrax and other
bio-weapons (The Guardian report 3/10/03). Inspections worked, he insisted, even when Saddam got
up to his old tricks playing cat-and-mouse, while in war, no matter how precise
or smart your bombs, "innocent people will die." Nothing was more likely to prompt
Saddam to use his weapons of mass destruction than certain defeat by a US-led attack,
he said. 'Pre-emptive strikes', he
warned, might bring unwelcome consequences in the future.
I wonder if Mr. Blair remembered that
wonderful anti-war speech when he asked Bill to lend him a few words of
support.
A. Horie-Webber
akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk
24 March 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Re: Iraqi Resistance
Remember the people of Belgrade who defiantly
challenged the allied bombing by displaying a 'target' mark on their chests
during the Kosovo war? It was only
after the war that the people rose in a popular uprising and got rid of
Slobodan Milosevic,
It is no surprise that the invading US/UK forces
are meeting stiff resistance.
Hasn't it ever occurred to the US war leaders that the proud Iraqis
might hate the American invaders for their arrogance and chauvinism, even more
than their own leader, and would fight to death for their country?
A. Horie-Webber
akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk
6 November 2003
Letters to the Editor, The Guardian
Dear Sir,
Why are the suicide bombers perceived
as more terrible than the missiles, tanks, daisy-cutter and cluster bombs that
kill far greater numbers of innocent civilians?
When the Israeli army is waging war
against the Palestinians with all its military might, destroying Palestinian
villages, assassinating their militant leaders, it would seem that suicide
bombing is perhaps the only weapon left for the Palestinians to counter the
Israeli aggression.
A. Horie-Webber
From:
Akemi Horie <akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk>
Date:
17 November 2003
To:
letters@guardian.co.uk
Subject:
Mr. Bush's visit
Is
Blair Bush's Poodle? Wrong. (Re. Mr Blair and his Visitor)
We
got it wrong. The chief promoter
of toppling Saddam Hussein for 'freedom and democracy' turns out to be Tony
Blair, not George Bush. All
along, it appears, Blair, along with Ariel Sharon, has been the mastermind of
the 'pre-emptive' war on Iraq, with Bush as his faithful lieutenant. Blair's messianic vision of achieving a
new world order and peace (which Bill Clinton is said to have wisely brushed
aside) happened to match with the neo-con agenda of Bush's friends
strategically, if not the goal itself.
So the neo-con friends went along with Blair's grand rhetoric, using it
as a cover for achieving their own goals.
For
George Bush, searching for a way forward after the shock of 9/11, Blair was a
god-sent mentor, clever and articulate.
George was mesmerized by Tony's brilliant rhetoric and still is, judging
by the Frost interview. So, really
this has been Blair's war fought with the might of the US military, thanks to
George.
That
is why, while Bush has expressed some doubts about the intelligence that led to
the war, Blair has remained steadfast,
believing 100 percent in the righteousness of the war and Iraqi
possession of WMD, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. Blair and his foreign secretary have
often appeared to copy Bush's pronouncements on the war, word for word, for
example on the terrorists' 'hatred of freedom and democracy'. Perhaps these were in truth Blair's
words copied by Bush, not vice-versa.
This
explains why George Bush was accorded the honour of a state visit by Blair at
this juncture. It was to be
his reward for supporting Blair's war and his world vision with the zeal of a
fervent follower. Together they
were to celebrate their historic victory wrapped in royal pomp and
ceremony. Only, so far, the war
has not gone quite the way the master and his poodle had anticipated. Blair's grand vision allowed little room
for the complexities of reality.
A.
Horie-Webber
akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk
30 November 2003:
Letters to the Editor of The Guardian
Re: Pre-emptive strikes
Mr Sharon's pre-emptive strikes have not
eradicated the Palestinian resistance, in particular suicide bombing, but have
only strengthened their resolve.
Now the Israelis are erecting high walls to encage themselves in a siege
mentality.
Is this the ultimate end to which we all are
heading?
A. Horie-Webber
20 October 2004
From: Akemi Horie
<akemi@horie.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:41:15 PM Europe/London
To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Subject: Margaret
Hassan
Dear Sir,
Margaret Hassan has lived in Baghdad for more than 25 years, safely,
throughout the horrors of Saddam Hussein's regime, until now. Doesn't Tony Blair see the irony? Why should someone who is "immensely
respected" (his word) and much loved by the Iraqi people (her friend's
account) only now become a victim of the kidnapping rampant in the now
'liberated' Iraq? As usual, Blair
seems incapable of reflection. It
doesn't seem to cross his mind that his own action (the decision to go to war)
might in part be responsible for this mayhem. Instead, he spins this dreadful incident from his moral high
ground: "It shows you the type of people we are up against, that they are
prepared to kidnap somebody like this." Such comments would only inflame the situation. He should keep his mouth shut and stay
out. Let the Irish government deal
with the situation.
A. Horie-Webber
P.S.
Margaret Hassan was an aid worker who devoted her life to helping the
Iraqi people, in particular, Iraqi children. She was murdered by her captors. Her body was never found.