I think there is a really important issue here that most of these
discussions are missing (in line with the mainstream discourse).

In my opinion, before one can have even a discussion on "what do we do about
evil?", one needs to clarify the following:
1. WE: Who are we? Are we the people? Are we the consumers? Are we the
disillusioned "citizens" in a system over which we have no control? Are we
the voters-legitimasiers (apologies for the neologism) of the world order?
Or are we the oil companies and the professional politicians with the strong
links to businesses, or the nation-states were we happen to live, constantly
in need of a balanced balance of payments, currency, and budget?
2. DO: Why "do" anything? What is the legitimasy of any action? Who are we
to judge things happening thousands of miles away? Who can claim a sound
knowledge of the local conditions, cultures, histories and needs, so as to
suggest, design and implement a specific action (in the absence of local
inputs/feedback at least?) Where does the ideology of intervention come
from? (easy answers: the culture of imperialism; the cultures of
consumerism; the histroy of intervention; the ideology of individualism) To
what extent can the act of "taking action" be justified to some
external/universal condition, rather than to our own internalisation of the
values of our own sytem?
3. EVIL: Who/what is "evil"? How do we measure this? On what grounds?
Hillary's and Nick's emails clearly demonstrate the subjectiveness of our
perception of what/who is evil and I don't want to expand on this.

However, what is more important for me, as far as it concerns the sceptics
of the forthcoming war, is that often the critique and the examination of
alternatives is conducted in the same narrow-minded short-sighted framework
as is the thesis for war/intervention (at least in the way that it is
presented). Saddam was not born yesterday, neither was Iraq's regional
imperialsim and Ba'ath's nationalism and totalitarianism. Equally, Iraq's
"weapons of mass distruction" (itself, a socially constructed term: to what
extent is a conventional army NOT a weapon of mass destruction, while a
biological weapon is? has history ever seen a war without mass distruction?
I don't get it) did not grow on a tree. They are the product of the
political competition between the -then- USSR and the USA in the region (to
control the fundamentalist and nationalist/independence movements that
emerged in the post-colonial arab world after WWII; towards a "socialist"
"alternative" for the USSR and towards a controlled "free" market for the
USA) and of the economic needs of the oil companies and the arms industry
(the industry of production of "bads"). [Kuwait itself has been the product
of the retreat of colonial imperialism under the increasing dominance of
American-style imperialism] Moreover, the emergence of "evil" as an issue,
is neither objective/universal nor a-historic. It is embeded in the need of
capitalism (ok, of US-style capitalism) for aggressive expansion, creative
destruction and control over new "markets" (the term "primary accummulation"
comes to mind). It is not Bush's short-sighted-ness (neologism again?)
and/or arrogance that has allowed the emergence of this particular discourse
("axis of evil" etc) and that will allow this and the other wars to happen.
It is the internal systemic need to resolve (at the global scale) the
inefficiencies of the existing (at the local-peripheral level) political and
economic configurations, combined with the aggression of the dominant
version of capitalism, under the extreme pressures of the new
international/global configuration of the system. [Ok, this might sound a
very historical-materialist perspective (and, as such, quite myopic), but it
is the only one I can employ, without resolving to explanations like "Bush
is crazy", "the world has gone mad", etc; and without arriving to
conclusions of the kind "we should correct all evil; not just Iraq's"]

Under this rationale, (a) the evil that brought us were we are (or, more
precisely, that brought Iraq were it is) is not Saddam's making, but
(primarily) ours; and, as a logical conclusion, (b) the defeat of evil
cannot come with the establishment of a new post-colonial order in the
muslim/arab world, but ONLY by us -in the "developed" world- building a new
ideology of refrainment, non-interventionism and sincere (non-individualist)
international co-operation. [In this respect, it is a very powerful position
where we are in, having direct -albeit limited- influence over the education
provided in this country] It is only under this perspective that I see any
point in objecting Bush's and Blair's war, in the same way that it is under
this perspective (but with the reverse expectations) that this war is worth
undertaking for Bush, Blair and their likes. There is a wider issue here,
not just the few thousands of Iraqees that will die in the few days that
this war will last (which will be less than the number of civilians that
will die in car accidents or in work-related accidents in the same period,
not to mention the manifold numbers of people that will die from starvation
or deseases in the Third World). There is an issue of whether one supports
the latest version of the "new world order", or whether there are other
aspirations that one puts forward. If one is happy with their
McDonnald's-based diet, and their VR/TV-based entertainment (let me welcome
here the newly created BBC-3: a new dimension in entertainment), then maybe
supporting this war might be the best option: as Blair says, "the world will
be a better place without Saddam" (he obviously believes in the importance
of marginal effects!). Conversely, if one is against this war, then -to me-
this only makes sense if integrated into a wider critique of the world order
and the future as sketched in the various multinationals' headquarters. I
have to admit, in this respect I am even sympathetic to Blair's dispair in
the fact that so many people support capitalist "development" and still are
against the war. I suppose this is what legitimises in his mind his devotion
to "some more conviencing to be done". But -putting my sympathies aside!-
this leads me to conclude that any active objection to this war (and to the
others that will follow) necessarily must involve an open discussion of the
conditions under which this war has become "inevitable". One needs to expose
the true reasons of the double-bill war aginst terrorism and against evil,
by unvailing the semantics of the new discourse and by locating their
historical-geopolitical origin.

To wrap it up, for me, measuring the "evilness" of Saddam and talking about
prioritising our interventionist actions on the basis of this measurement is
myopic and constitutes intelectually a real trap. For me, one has to look at
"the causes of things" (being in LSE, I am allowed to use the LSE-logo I
suppose) and decide in the terms that Bush has offered: we are "either with
the USA or against them".

Vassilis Monastiriotis, Geography, LSE.






----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Polson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Axis of evil: the new domino effect


> Nick
>
> I am not sure how we do this, but it seems to me a better aim than just
> picking out a few examples of "evil" states when other states get away
with
> murder.
>
> What does the group think?
>
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Megoran [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 12 February 2003 10:39
> To: Robert Polson
> Subject: RE: Axis of evil: the new domino effect
>
>
> Rob,
>
> How do we move towards that?  Advocates of the current war (for want of a
> better term) argue this is a sort of 'first step' - an argument repeated
in
> the past, each war heralding the dawn of a 'new world order'.  It is hard
> not to be cynical.  In this month's Red Pepper, Tariq Ali suggested that
> this crisis might see the death of the UN, and didn't think that would be
> such a bad thing. What do folk make of that?
>
> How would we stop this 'ethical international law' becoming a new tyranny?
> Our local peace group holds a vigil in the market place each week, and
> someone said to me recently that instead of arguing *against* the bombing
> of Iraq, we should be arguing *for* the invasion of all other states that
> are not democracies.
>
> Nick
>
> --On 12 February 2003 10:21 +0000 Robert Polson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the core problem here is the unequal application of
International
> > Law.  If states/leaders are selectively picked upon this negates the
> > legitimacy of any action taken against any other.
> >
> > Interesting also here is Nicks reference to Wounded Knee - which
> > illustrates the point above - the native Indians were trying to preserve
> > their way of life against an alien aggressor who had used their law
> > against the native peoples.
> >
> > What we need is an "Ethical International Law" which is applied now
> > against all errant states.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nick Megoran [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 11 February 2003 18:22
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Axis of evil: the new domino effect
> >
> >
> > A small contribution inspired by Hilary's:
> >
> > Axis of Evil: the new domino effect
> >
> >    It has become de rigueur amongst European pacifists to mock US
> > President George W. Bush's revelation that Iraq, Iran and North Korea
are
> > the Axis of Evil.  These commentators, most of whom have not themselves
> > lived under Mussolini's fascist regime, seek to outdo each other in
their
> > vitriolic anti-Americanism.
> >    That they are ungrateful for the decades of prosperity and protection
> > that the American nuclear shield has brought them does not even need
> > mentioning.
> >    However, the threat to freedom posed by the Axis of Evil should not
be
> > misunderestimated. The facts speak for themselves.  North Korea is not
> > free; no country can be a democracy where people with  similar names to
> > their fathers succeed them as president.  Saddam is prepared to use his
> > armed forces to exert influence other countries that have rich oil
> > deposits.  And the Iranian leaders so pepper their speeches with
reference
> > to God, even writing it on their bank-notes, that they are clearly
> > fundamentalists.
> >    The extent to which this Axis of Evil threatens the free world is
> > demonstrated by a secret map that shows their geopolitical strategy,
which
> > cannot be revealed for security reasons.  A sudden and simultaneous
strike
> > by North Korea across Siberia, Iraq up through the Balkans via Turkey
(the
> > 'soft underbelly' of Europe), and Iran across the Caucasus would trap
the
> > Russian city of Omsk in a three-pronged pincer movement.  Russia,
weakened
> > by 70 years of Communism, could not withstand these new Mongol Hordes.
> >    Once this vital heartland, with its vast mineral reserves,
capitulates
> > to the Axis of Evil, it would inevitably be only be a matter of time
> > before the sphere of marginality and then the free world itself fell
like
> > dominoes.
> >     Our intelligence reports suggest that, if the Axis of Evil were to
be
> > given all the necessary materials, skills, and production facilities,
they
> > could produce weapons of mass destruction at some point in the future.
> > Our sources, which we cannot disclose as they may contain secret coded
> > messages to terrorists, suggest that some new terrorist outrage may be
> > imminent. Everyone knows that Saddam, Khatami and Kim Jong Il are bad
men
> > who have done bad things in the past, and so will certainly try and do
> > them in the future.
> >    Such men will stop at nothing, they are the new Hitlers.  To appease
> > them would be to betray those brave boys who fell at Gettysburg and
> > Wounded Knee.  Not to take pre-emptive action against them and their
> > terrorist allies now would be to miss the last chance for peace.  Future
> > generations will judge us harshly if we fail.
> >
> > Nick Megoran, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
> >
> > --On 11 February 2003 10:34 +0000 Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Baghdad, 11 Febnruary 2003.
> >> The Iraqi government announced today it had won international backing
for
> >> 2 no-fly zones over the state of Great Britain. The Arab world is
> >> increasingly worried over Britain's weapons of mass destruction, said
to
> >> include atom bombs as well as biological warfare agents at Porton Down.
> >> The northern no-fly zone is north of latitude 55 deg North, and
protects
> >> the region of Skurt-istan, whose people rose in rebellion against the
> >> southern capital many decades ago but were repressed with some force at
> >> Glen-Halabja-coe. The southern no-fly zone is south of latitude 53
> >> degrees north and protects the Marsh people of the Thames Estuary,
whose
> >> way of life had been drastically altered, especially on the Isle of
Dogs,
> >> by an influx of government agents intent on 'moderrnising' the area.
> >> However Iraqi spy satellite photographs of the Canary Wharf area show
> >> little of this new development has benefitted the Thames marsh people
but
> >> much is related to the oil industry.
> >> However Baghdad emphatically denies that its real motive is British
North
> >> Sea Oil. "it's just a coincidence that the only state with weapons of
> >> mass destruction we are acting against just happens to have oil too.
How
> >> was I to know Zimbabwe and North Korea don't have oil?" said Mr
Hussein.
> >> A so-called 'Third Tunnel' has been dug under the Thames marsh people's
> >> lands, which will be used mainly by the wealthy, yet is underming their
> >> very homes. Some of their garden regions have been replaced by barren
> >> concrete. Baghdad asks is this an attempt to starve the marsh people
out?
> >> In fact neutral observers say a more subtle tactic to starve the Marsh
> >> people out is in progress. All the local shops they buy food at are
being
> >> closed as 'supermarkets', few of which locate anywhere near the marsh
> >> people, take over the food trade. The few remaining local food shops
are
> >> forced to raise their prices to unrealistic levels unaffordable by the
> >> native people of the Isle of Dogs.
> >> A vast refugee camp has been built at 'Milton Keynes' for fleeing marsh
> >> people, but the UN criticises the inhumane conditions there. "I can't
> >> stand this place, I must leave now, there's simply nothing human about
> >> this place, they keep people in these little concrete boxes in the
baking
> >> hot sun" said a visibly upset UN camp visitor. Far from their homeland,
> >> with no realistic way of ever getting back, some have applied for
asylum
> >> in Guantanamo Bay. Baghdad stated that "it had no quarrel with the
> >> British people but wished to remove a leader whom it said many British
> >> themselves considered undemocratic" However Mr  Hussein said it had
> >> little hope of Blair giving up his weapons of mass-destruction and
> >> acknowledged that many "ordinary British" would be killed if an
invasion
> >> was necessary to advance the cause of world democracy. Iraq hopes
> >> house-to-house fighting can be avoided, especially in the capital.
Iraqi
> >> commanders have discovered that even without missiles falling, it can
> >> take many hours, even days, to get from the outer suburbs to the centre
> >> of London. As a tactical measure, the Central Line will stay closed,
and
> >> gritters are banned from the M.11, ensuring no invasion force can get
> >> anywhere at all in the Eastern Zone.
> >> Blair meanwhile is playing for time, saying he will let New Arab Treaty
> >> Organisation weapons inspectors in but is not saying where his weapons
> >> are. Baghdad believes he will try and delay any invasion by Iraqis
until
> >> the winter, when he will be hoping some 2 inches of snow may fall on
> >> Britain, and so reduce the transport system to total chaos and snarl up
> >> any invasion. Hillary Shaw, School of Geography, University of Leeds,
> >> Leeds.
> > --
> > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
> > charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
> > be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
> > in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
> > person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
> > and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
> > prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
> > message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
> > immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
> > for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
> > information in this message that do not relate to the official
> > business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither
> > given nor endorsed by it.
> >