True freedom [Archives:2003/630/Viewpoint]

Editor
I want to share with you my views about the fate of Iraq, if we assume that it falls in the hands of the US and UK in this war. The coalition claims that it is there to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. They claim that they will bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, but we remain suspicious.
Yes, we are suspicious and we have the right to be so. After all, this war has not received international legitimacy, was not approved by the international community, was not based on the will of the people of the world, and does not represent the wish of the Iraqi people. Freedom cannot be enforced on any nation. Only Iraqis can decide on what they want and need.
So, doesn't this assumed “freedom” contradict with true freedom?
No doubt, this so called “liberation” of Iraq, would create splendidly strong and flowery relations with the US and UK, and possibly Israel. Whatever happens in the future, Iraq-US relations would always be strong. This will probably go on regardless of what the US does to Arabs in supporting Israel or acting against Arab interests. Iraq won't have the freedom to say no to the US any way. After all, wasn't the US the country that 'liberated' Iraq? So Iraqis will continue to owe this favor to the US forever. How can you be free when you are in debt all your life?
Doesn't this contradict with freedom?
Iraq won't be able to produce its own strong weapons again. It will be a country that basically lives and survives with limited ambitions concerning military might. In this particular case, it could be a repeat scenario of post-World War II Germany and Japan. Countries like the US, UK, and others will have the right and freedom to develop their military capabilities to whatever extent they feel necessary while Iraq won't have this very right.
Doesn't this contradict with freedom?
The Iraqi regime that could be appointed after Saddam is gone, must be loyal to the US and UK, and must be in coherence with business interests. Hence, this regime will have to consult those countries on many things that may even be related to local political as well as commercial affairs.
Doesn't this contradict with freedom?
Overall, Iraq may become a colony without explicitly saying so. After all, the Afghanistan example is clear. Its leader was appointed by the US directly out of orders from the White House. Whether we want to admit it or not, Iraq would be seen by the world as a US colony. How can a colony be free?
Doesn't this contradict with freedom?
Finally, what if the US and UK fail to find solid evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction when the war is over? Wouldn't the two countries try to diminish this issue and say “life goes on”? Shouldn't the world prosecute those powers if we find out that the basis of the whole war was wrong?
Doesn't this contradict with freedom?
Yes, this so called 'freedom' brought to Iraq by the US and UK is not true freedom.
True freedom means that you have your will in your hands.
Freedom means that you can stand up against any unjust power and say “no!”
That is true freedom.
——
[archive-e:630-v:13-y:2003-d:2003-04-07-p:view]