Index of Letters Sent to Newspapers in the UK
Credit to Arab Media Watch for inspiring this layout. Go to their site under Media Resources/Media Contacts for a comprehensive listing of television and print media. Thanks to Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq for advice on contacting media in the UK.
|
Link to Letter Below
|
Link to Newspaper
|
Link to Editor
|
Comments
|
| September 21 |
|
|
Rothstein article at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/wo/0909rothstein.html |
| September 18 |
|
|
|
September 16
|
|
|
David had good idea of making letter exclusive to the paper. If paper rejects it, reuse it elsewhere. |
September 16
|
|
|
|
September 16
|
|
|
Similar letter sent to the Evening Stanard after rejected (part of same company) |
September 15
|
|
|
|
September 21, 2002
To the Editors: (The Observer)
In am reponding to today's article "Dossier to Show Iraqi Nuclear Arms Race." Nice to see that George Bush and Tony Blair are working together on the government's 50 page dossier, due to be released the morning of the Commons debate the 24th. Their tactics, however, should give us pause on such an important issue. One also has to wonder about motivations.
The Commons has a mere few hours to review the dossier before debate commences that day. Yet, the Blair government, like Bush's, is leaking out generalized accusations here and there. Impossible to refute in advance and precious little time given once it's out. The Labour Party, on the other hand, played fair and released its "counter-dossier" last Tuesday. [It is reprinted at http://grassrootspeace.org/]
On this side of the Atlantic, the Bush administration is pursuing a rush to judgment as well, blitzing the Congressional committees with testimony before Congress while trying to get a vote on war powers by the end of the week. There are also leaks from unnamed sources - again impossible to refute - about an alleged Iraqi attempt to buy special aluminum tubes.
Let's pause for a minute before we consider the substance and recall a little history and possible motivations. The American people did not support the Gulf War until a young woman came before a Congressional Committee and claimed that Iraqi soldiers here turning Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. The people were outraged. After the war, we learn it was a lie and the that woman was related to a Kuwait ambassador. In the US, we've been waiting for the big lie this time around.
Then there are the US elections. As reported in the New York Times on September 21, the Republicans have gained from the war so far. Americans tend to rally around the President in a crisis (manufactured or not) and the war "frenzy," to use the Bush administration's term, has obscured the worsening US economy and financial scandals. So, this all serves Bush, who is trying to maintain control of the US House and to regain control of the Senate. This is not to say the elections are the only reason his administration has for wanting war. Control of oil (with Iraq having the second largest proven oil reserves) has been suggested as a motivation, along with other geo-political considerations your readers have no doubt read about or guessed.
The Democrats are no better. For example, the Democrat-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in its hearings this summer, did not call a single opponent of going to war. At most, witnesses voiced some concern about timing and not going it alone. Scott Ritter, a weapons inspector from 1991-98 and the team's leader for his last 20 or so inspections, was not called. Instead, they called conservative think tankers and officials from the previous Bush administration. Then, this fall, the Committees have called Administration witnesses. One committee called David Kay, a former arms inspector and war hawk who not done an inspection since 1993. Still, no Scott Ritter.
Many in the US consider that the fix is in, as we say. The Bush administration wants the war for various reasons, none of which have to do with weapons of mass destruction. If they were concerned about such weapons, they would welcome the return of inspectors, not try to undermine it as Colin Powell has said they will do if done under current UN resolutions (CNN story). The Republicans see an electoral advantage. The Democrats do not want to seem weak against the devil incarnate and want to get the debate over as soon as possible.
There is reason to be skeptical of this rush to war. So let's consider this latest tease as dutifully reported in your paper. I say "dutifully" because your headline says the dossier will "show an Iraqi nuclear race." You accept the veracity of the dossier with its "compelling details" without having seen it. You dutifully report the leaks engineered for maximum effect by the Bush and Blair administrations. What happened to the independent press?
I refer you to a September 9th article by Linda Rothstein, Editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, entitled "You Call That Evidence?" She considered the leak to the Times that Iraq had tried to buy special aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium (they could also be used in ballistic missiles; Iraq is allowed to construct the short-range type).
Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice were dispatched to the talk shows to discuss the leak. (Everyone here believes that the leak was planned by the Administration.) They were not able to keep their stories straight about how many times Iraq tried to buy the tubes. He said they knew of only one attempted shipment while she talked about a series.
Well, what about the Iraqi's - how close could they be to having nuclear weapons?
When the US ordered inspectors out in 1998 a few days before it started bombing (the administration repeats the myth that Hussein kicked them out), the Iraqi industrial infrastructure for developing nuclear arms was destroyed, according to Scott Ritter in many public statements.
As Ms. Rothstein put it:
"Essentially, the Iraqi centrifuge program was a failure. And if the Iraqis were to depend on producing weapon material through the centrifuge process - rather than trying to obtain it on the black market - experts say it would probably take five or six years. Now we are expected to believe that Iraq is closer to a nuclear weapon capability because it is starting all over again!"
Concerning those tubes, which would use a different process than Iraq had failed with before, she writes:
"The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard."
The leaks have only served to get the media on board and to scare the public. Hard evidence has not been presented yet of an Iraqi threat. If such evidence is forthcoming, we need a thorough debate that gives a close look at the evidence and is willing to consider arguments both for and against going to war.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Jenks
President of the Core Group
Traprock Peace Center
charlesjenks@gmail.com
http://grassrootspeace.org
Back to Top
Dear Editor: (The Observer)
I am writing in response to David Rose’s article. He attacks Scott Ritter’s consistency since he resigned as UN weapons inspector in 1998. The piece’s headline screams “Hero of Doves forgets when he was a hawk.” Ritter has the topic of consistency in media interviews, e.g. the Salon interview on March 19, 2002 (http://salon.org). He has also had interviews on virtually every major media network in the US. In the Salon interview, he said
“I haven't changed, circumstances have. In 1998 I said the best way forward is to revive the legitimacy of the inspections, to get the inspectors back in, not to spy on Iraq, not to undermine the authority of Saddam Hussein. In other words, not to do anything other than what we were mandated to do: to disarm Iraq. In December 1998, the United States did exactly this. Acting under instructions of the United States government, Richard Butler [UNSCOM chairman] unilaterally dismissed the modalities for sensitive site inspections. Iraq was willing to accept inspections otherwise. But with no modalities, Butler opened the door for Iraq to say, you cannot come into this site. The United States bombed Iraq, citing this obstruction as justification. But of the over 120 sites struck by the United States in Operation Desert Fox, less than 12 had anything to do with UNSCOM's mandate. The remainder were Saddam's security, intelligence, military, and the vast majority were revealed as a part of the inspections process. So the U.S. corrupted and de-legitimized the inspections process. You can no longer hold Iraq to a standard of 100 percent disarmament, to a [United Nations] resolution the U.S. no longer finds convenient to adhere to itself. “
I have spent a lot of time with Ritter, as Traprock Peace Center has initiated 10 speaking engagements with him around the US with many editorial board and media interviews. I participated in many of these events and have had conversations with him. He has always addressed issues directly and states upfront that he is not a pacifist and would fight to defend his country. He has also said that he would support military force (which makes us doves cringe) if Iraq were indeed re-arming with weapons of mass destruction.
And this is this key message - on every occasion that I have heard him speak, he has stressed the need to get UN inspectors back into Iraq. He argues that the proper policy is the return of weapons inspection, not regime change. To try to ensure that the US does not manipulate the inspections again, he suggests a third party observer of inspections. To go to war to change a regime, as the US and UK seem determined to do, would violate international law.
To David Rose, I say it is very easy to attack someone’s credibility in print, when the person is not sitting there to respond.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Jenks
President, Traprock Peace Center
Back to Top
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:51:45 -0400
To: The Observer
Subject: Inspect the Inspectors
To the Editor:
Now that Iraq has agreed to readmit United Nations weapons inspectors, the Bush Administration (perhaps with the help of Mr. Blair) is determined to snatch war from the jaws of peace. A White House spokesman calls Iraq's letter to Kofi Annan a trick and predicts it will fail.
Those for whom war is not a virtue in itself must, to the contrary, hope that the inspections succeed. Clearly this will require the promised cooperation from Iraq. But it also means that the international community must protect weapons inspections from misuse. Iraq charges that UNSCOM's work was tainted by the US's search for information useful for a coup or assassination. Rolf Ekeus, former chief inspector, has confirmed these charges (Svenska Dagbladet 27 July 2002).
What we need now is to resume inspections with a system of quality control that would prevent such abuse. One possibility
would be to appoint two groups of inspectors: the first to hunt weapons, the second to monitor the inspectors' work. This
second group would not have authority to block particular inspection demands, but could report to the Secretary-General if it
noted a pattern of improper searches.
A system of quality control should not be seen as a concession to Iraq. It is simply a way of ensuring that inspections remain focussed on their stated goal of curbing weapons of mass destruction. Disarmament -- not regime change -- is the only valid goal for the international community.
Sincerely,
David Keppel
This letter is exclusive to The Observer.
Back to Top
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
To: The Daily Express
To the Editor:
On September 16th the Express reported that the “Tories will abstain on a vote forced by Labour rebels concerning Iraq. As an American who cherishes the special relationship between the people of the UK and the US, I am distressed about the current situation as I see this relationship at grave risk.
The UK’s support is crucial to get US public opinion to support the war. The US government now considers UK support “in the bag.” US Senator Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said a few days ago on national radio - “We have Britain. We need more.” Uncle Sam thinks he has the Bull Dog on a leash.
I believe that the US administration’s regime change policy risks disaster for both nations. This war would create tremendous resentment worldwide. American public opinion is lukewarm on it (it dips into a small minority when people are asked if they would support a protracted occupation with many US casualties.) How much would this cost the UK in terms of its economy, British deaths, and international prestige?
After our armies devastate Iraq and kill thousands of civilians, how will we feel about ourselves? How will the British feel about their special friends in the US after being dragged down by this war?
All this for what? Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says it was 90-95 percent disarmed in 1998 when the US ordered the inspectors out so a few days before it started bombing Iraq. He explains that the UN created confrontation with Iraq by violating the agreed upon sensitive site protocols. The US then used the UN’s inspectors data to target the vast majority of the bombs against Hussein and his security apparatus. (Regime change was clearly the policy then as now.)
Our friends in the UK are being suckered into supporting this war. I feel a special relationship strongly as my grandmother was Scottish, my great grand-father was from Wales and most of my other forebears came from England. To cherish my heritage I must, and do, cherish your country and its people. The UK would be a far better friend to the US if it would stand up and say “No,” as a parent would to an errant child.
Charles W. Jenks
President
Traprock Peace Center (http://www.grassrootspeace.org)
Back to Top
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
To: letters@dailymail.co.uk
Subject: Special Relationship at Risk
To the Editor:
You reported on Monday that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has warned Saddam Hussein: time is running out for him to rid his country of weapons of mass destruction “or his regime will have to end.” The UK appears to be adopting the regime change policy of the US and parroting the US charge that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
The UK’s support is crucial to get US public opinion to support the war. The US government now considers UK support “in the bag.” US Senator Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said a few days ago on national radio - “We have Britain. We need more.” Uncle Sam thinks he has the Bull Dog on a leash.
How sad that the UK is following the US lead on this policy that risks disaster for both nations. Hardly any country in the world supports this war. American public opinion is lukewarm on it (it dips into a small minority when people are asked if they would support a protracted occupation with many US casualties.) The conservative estimated cost would be 80 billion dollars, with 20 billion required for the first year of occupation alone by at least 80,000 troops (this is the lowest figure; other estimates are over 100,000.) Scott Ritter, retired US Marine Corps officer and former chief weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, says there is no viable political alternative in Iraq and that an occupation force would have to occupy Iraq for many years while contending with a resentful and dangerous population. He also stated in a public appearance that at least 30 to 40,000 Iraqi civilians would be killed during a campaign just to take Baghdad.
How much would this cost the UK? How many British soldiers will come home in body bags? How will this effect the British economy? After our armies devastate Iraq and kill tens of thousands of civilians, how will we feel about ourselves? How will the British feel about their special friends in the US after being dragged down by this war?
All this for what? Ritter says Iraq was 90-95 percent disarmed in 1998 when the US ordered the inspectors out so it could start bombing Iraq. He explains that the US manipulated the inspection process to create a pretext for bombing and then used the UN’s inspection data to target the vast majority of the bombs against Hussein and his security apparatus. (Regime change was clearly the policy then as now.)
Our friends in the UK are being suckered into supporting this. As an American, I have always felt that there really is a special relationship between our people. I feel this very strongly as my grandmother was Scottish, my great grand-father was from Wales and most of my other forebears came from England. To cherish my heritage I must, and do, cherish your country and its people. The UK would be a far better friend to the US if it would stand up and say “No,” as a parent would to an errant child.
Charles W. Jenks
President
Traprock Peace Center (http://www.grassrootspeace.org)
Back to Top
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:20:47 -0400
To: letters@observer.co.uk
Subject: Iraq: Inspections or Pretexts?
To the Editor:
More through coercion than persuasion, George W. Bush is bringing Security Council members to his position of making deliberately impossible demands of Iraq, so that rejection will let him launch preemptive war with the fig leaf of United Nations support. Meanwhile Baghdad -- noting the Bush Administration's commitment to "regime change" -- sees war as inevitable, and thus is more interested in building fighting morale than in finding a compromise.
But there's still a way that diplomacy could preempt war. If the weapons inspectors returned and began a tough but fair search, their presence would block American attack. The key is to find terms that are tough enough to win international legitimacy -- and yet might still be acceptable to Iraq.
Such a compromise exists -- precisely thanks to the misuse of previous inspections. Iraq charges that UNSCOM's work was tainted by the US's search for information useful for a coup or assassination. Rolf Ekeus, former chief inspector, has confirmed these charges (Svenska Dagbladet 27 July 2002).
What we need now is to resume inspections with a system of quality control that would prevent such abuse. One possibility would be to appoint two groups of inspectors: the first to hunt weapons, the second to monitor the inspectors' work. This second group would not have authority to block particular inspection demands, but could report to the Secretary-General if it noted a pattern of improper searches.
Though this solution hardly meets the current demands of Bush or Saddam, the international community might be able to pressure both to accept it -- and thereby save the world from a ruinous war.
Sincerely,
David Keppel
Bloomington, IN
Back to Top
