(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have
turned Justice Mute)

A Position Statement on the Behalf of the Editorial Board of the Free Arab Voice

The dirtiest word in the lexicon of political philosophy may be 'appeasement'. It is fashionable to use the example of Hitler's invasion of Poland as an argument to convince people that a 'pre-emptive strike' is justified. With respect to Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq, one has to agree that the spectre of 'appeasement' looms very large on the horizon. If the world does not stop this power-mad leader NOW, it will be much harder to stop him in the future.

It is wrong for a nation to march into another country and assume control of it for no other reason than a desire to control the assets of that country. It is wrong for a nation to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and to use not only the threat of that power to eliminate opposition to its goals, but to actually USE those weapons in aggressive actions against other nations.

The U.S. has made all of these arguments in its bid for world support of its proposed invasion of Iraq. In fact, though, it is the U.S. rather than Iraq that is the threat. The world is guilty of the policy of appeasement with respect to the United States, and the dangers of appeasement in this case cannot be underestimated.

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the attacks of 11 September, Bush warned the world that 'you either are with us or against us' and made the potential effects of any opposition very clear. At that point in time, saturation media coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and Bush's obvious intention to wage war against any convenient target either convinced the world community of the righteousness of his actions or persuaded world powers that it would not be in their best interest to oppose the U.S. The Taliban was not a popular regime in any case. Other nations, even if they did not accept U.S. logic, were not willing to risk their own security for the sake of the Taliban.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the real beginning of a policy of 'appeasement' on the part of the world community. Having persuaded or cowed the world into support, acquiescence or discreet silence, Bush immediately began to rant about his 'axis of evil', and to turn his attention to future targets. Chief among these was the sovereign nation of Iraq, rich in oil but weakened by over a decade of punitive international 'sanctions'. In point of fact, the invasion of Iraq was a primary goal from the moment George W. Bush Jr. assumed the Presidency of the United States. Since the first invasion of Iraq, U.S./Zionist media and interests have portrayed President Saddam Hussein as the 'anti-Christ', a dangerous super-villain with no redeeming features as well as the desire to control or destroy the rest of the world. So successful was this media and government propaganda that even many anti-war activists preface their declarations of opposition to an invasion of Iraq with a caveat statement denouncing Saddam Hussein as a leader and/or human being. Too often, anti-war declarations are in the nature of: 'While we believe in a regime change for Iraq, the United States should not invade Iraq.' Bush Jr. no doubt felt that his programme for the second invasion of Iraq would proceed smoothly, unimpeded by any real opposition.

Reality is against him, however, and there is no new 9/11 drama to obscure the facts or issues here. It is the United States, not Iraq, that possesses the 'weapons of mass destruction' AND the intention of using them. It is the United States, not Iraq, that has plans to invade, occupy and control other sovereign nations. It is the United States and its sidekick, the Zionist entity, that pose the real and pressing threat to world peace and security.

Bush now declares to the world that: 'You either support Saddam Hussein or me'. He is using the same form of intimidation and blackmail against the world community that succeeded in giving him the 'rubber stamp' of international approval for his invasion of Afghanistan. Now, however, the stakes are higher where the international community is concerned.

The proposed U.S. invasion of Iraq is the 'crossing of the Rubicon' in terms of any international influence over the United States and its foreign policies. Opposition to Bush must be real and effective if Iraq is not to be merely the first step in a continuing U.S. policy of invasion and aggression against sovereign nations throughout the world.

The U.S. offers foreign aid for those who support the U.S. and threats of reprisals, whether economic or military, for those who oppose it. One nation cannot stand alone against the U.S., although Iraq bravely has refused to surrender to U.S. acts of military aggression, bullying, threats and years of punishing economic sanctions. It is vital now for the international community to unite against the U.S. plan of aggression, not only for the sake of Iraq, but for the sake of all independent nations and people throughout the world.

The United Nations was created for a situation like this. If it cannot protect Iraq from the proposed U.S. invasion, then it cannot protect any one. Nations cannot act unilaterally now, because the price of opposition to the U.S. for a single nation may be too high. If the international community unites, however, it can halt the progress of the U.S. plan for control of the world map.

The European Community cannot be divided, nor can it afford to support the U.S. proposal to invade Iraq. Tony Blair's bid to increase England's sphere of influence at the expense of Iraq, Europe and indeed the rest of the world is not only shameful but ultimately will be revealed to be an empty illusion. If one day Great Britain should decide that its interests are opposed to a particular U.S. plan, it will fare no better than Iraq in any attempt to halt the U.S. Tony Blair will have to realise that the British Empire cannot be resurrected, even by hanging onto the coattails of George Bush. England must stand united with France, Germany and other European nations who understand the dangers posed by a policy of appeasement. The United States cannot be allowed to continue in its path of aggression.

There was a time when the Soviet Union was able to act as a balance to U.S. foreign influence and aggression. Even if Russia's power and influence do not equal that of the old Soviet Union, it needs to act now to prevent the U.S. from becoming the sole arbiter of world fate.

China certainly possesses the power to do something concrete to halt the progress of U.S. aggression. It cannot afford to be seduced by trade considerations into allowing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The plan to invade Iraq is part and parcel of a larger U.S. programme to control the global map. The threats and enticements offered by the U.S. to smaller nations in order to gain their 'support' of this war cannot be allowed to influence a nation with real power to stop this international bully.

Small nations that rely upon U.S. aid and could be destroyed easily by the U.S. military machine must unite to form an effective alliance against the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. To stand alone against the U.S. might be suicidal, but to join together with other nations is the only true path to security. They have to recognise the real danger of appeasement, and to understand that they could fall victim to a future U.S. plan of invasion at any time if they do not stand firmly against U.S. aggression now.

One should not have to stress the importance of an Ummah and an Arab Nation united against the threat of U.S. aggression against a fellow Islamic Arab nation, but unfortunately, neither the Ummah nor the Arab Nation have demonstrated any concrete or practical opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The recent example of Turkey, negotiating over aid and influence with the U.S. as its price for betraying Iraq, is disgraceful, even if Turkey so far has not capitulated, simply because its terms were not met. As shameful are those Arab nations that have allowed the preliminary invasions of their own lands by U.S. troops and armaments and their situation should provide a clear and compelling example of the high price of U.S. aid.

On the other hand, a few brave and intrepid Kuwaitis have demonstrated their resistance to the U.S. military programme, even at the price of their own lives. Moreover, their acts are clear proof that, even if the leaders and government of a nation acts dishonourably and surrenders to the pressures of fear and greed, the masses effectively can oppose the U.S. programme of invasion. In practical terms, however, at this late stage, any truly effective popular demonstrations must take the form of action rather than slogans and words.

Iraq has declared that it is U.S. and Zionist weapons of mass destruction that pose the only real threat to the world and this is no more than the truth. It is not a matter of choosing between the U.S. and Iraq, as George Bush would lead people to believe. It is a matter of standing up for oneself against a superpower that obviously has no moral integrity or qualms about destroying any sovereign state that dares to oppose its crimes against humanity. After all, the U.S. unequivocally refused to be bound by any international court of justice. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity, who refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity that refuse to abide by U.N. resolutions and international law in the form of the Geneva Conventions and other laws relating to the protection of human rights.

Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to any one. It is the U.S. that poses the greatest threat now to the world community, and opposition to the U.S. proposed invasion of Iraq must be real and effective, consisting in deeds rather than words.

There is a tactic known as the 'human shield', whereby individuals act as human shields to protect some one who is a target. The world must act now as a 'human shield' to protect Iraq against the U.S. A real international peace-keeping force must be created to protect Iraq from invasion. Iraq cannot be allowed to stand alone against U.S. aggression and if the only way to truly stop this invasion is to stand in the path of the U.S. military machine, then the international community must act to do precisely that. Honour and integrity demand that the world community oppose the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, but beyond that, self-preservation demands it as well.