|
In
the Press This Week
The
Benevolent Occupiers
(May 17
2003 – May 24 2003)
|
By
V&A Editorial Staff
|
24/05/2003
|
From
The New York Times
(May
18 2003)
“I
am sure things will improve. But after traveling around central
Iraq, here's what worries me: The buildup to this war was so
exhausting, the coverage of the dash to Baghdad so telegenic, and
the climax of the toppling of Saddam's statue so dramatic, that
everyone who went through it seems to prefer that the story just end
there. The U.S. networks changed the subject after the fall of
Baghdad as fast as you can say ‘Laci Peterson,’ and President
Bush did the same as fast as you can say ‘tax cuts.’
Bored
With Baghdad — Already
From
The Independent
(May
24 2003)
“Having
successfully taken Baghdad, Sgt English and his colleagues are
engaged in a difficult transition. The US Army came to make war but
is now under intense pressure from Washington to end the disorder in
Baghdad, part of which can be blamed on the determination of Donald
Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, to use small numbers of
troops…
“US
officers tend to refer to their post-war opponents as criminals and
to their new job as one of policing. In fact, the lawlessness has
several components. There are the looters - many of them simply
impoverished young men - who have swarmed across the city like
locusts, systematically dismantling anything portable…
“Up
to 30 Iraqis have been shot within the last month in the central
area of Baghdad by American troops, according to the battalion
commander, Lt-Col Scott Rutter. He insisted that the situation in
Baghdad was improving, and that the majority of people welcomed the
Americans and wanted nothing more than peace.
“But
these matters are never about the will of the majority. They are
about an armed and determined minority, fuelled by the fury felt by
the throng who buried Mohammed Tahab.”
On
the streets of Baghdad, there are no heroes or villains. Only
victims
From
The Guardian
(May
20 2003)
“All
this serves to illustrate the grand mistake Tony Blair is making.
The [US] empire he claims to influence entertains no interest in his
moral posturing. Its vision of justice between nations is the
judicial oubliette of Guantanamo Bay. The idea that it might be
subject to the international rule of law, and therefore belong to a
world order in which other nations can participate, is as
unthinkable in Washington as a six-month public holiday. If Blair
does not understand this, he has missed the entire point of US
foreign policy. If he does understand it, he has misled us as to the
purpose of his own diplomacy. The US government does not respect the
law between nations. It is the law.”
Let's
hear it for Belgium
|
