Arundhati Roy.

January 28, 2003 7:37 AM

Arundhati Roy on the war. This is the text of a speech Arundhati gave at Santa Fe last September. I have not seen it on MeFi before. Hence, I thought it would still be of interest. TWe have talked about her before here- 1, 2, 3. It is a long speech! So, read it when you have the time.
posted by SandeepKrishnamurthy (11 comments total)

I know. I typed in "TWe". I meant to type- "We".
posted by SandeepKrishnamurthy at 7:38 AM on January 28, 2003

Via ZNet sums it up for us. Thee are those against the war (as in this case) who also go much beyond that specific issue to badmouth gloabliazation, capitalism etc. Roy is in that camp. Then there are those who feel a way of life is seriously put in jeapardy by terror regimes and Saddam's gaining leadership in a vital area of the world--and hence go along with an invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam.
You dcide. As for Bush and his plans: this url gives time it will most likely take place, what Bush will give and not give; what other countries can be expected to do or not to do. I do not post this because it will be taken down, but some readers might like to decide for themselves on such matters:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=252
posted by Postroad at 7:45 AM on January 28, 2003

Hans Blix statement on Iraqi compliance
Powell response to Blix - (RealPlayer video)

Smart Sanctions: Restructuring UN Policy in Iraq - Technical improvements and other means to strengthen verification and monitoring

C-Cpan Iraq page
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Iraq page

Daschle and Pelosi on Iraq - Pre State of the Union Briefing (RealPlayer video)
posted by sheauga at 7:50 AM on January 28, 2003

ummm...

Postroad, you cast aspersions about the link offered and those who may support it and then offer us debka? Ha!

But wait, you didn't mean to be humorous did you?

Arundhati Roy is an exceptionally talented writer. I read this speech last year and recommend it to anyone interested in an informed opinion. Also read her book The God of Small Things if you haven't already. It's great!
posted by nofundy at 8:04 AM on January 28, 2003

Roy has an opinion; there are those, myself included, who disagree. But certainly her opinion - and mine, and Postroad's - can be challenged? Or is Roy now the avatar of Gaia herself, and we should prostrate ourselves before her and keep silent, nodding sagely at her wisdom and chastising the critical?
posted by UncleFes at 8:10 AM on January 28, 2003

All rhetoric opinion aside what really disturbs me is the illogic of the situation. "Saddam has not yet proven that he does not have weapons of mass destruction". What pray tell would constitute evidence of non-existence?

Fes: Everyone is entitled to an opinion (poor persecuted Postroad included) but it should be pointed out that Postroad didn't address even one point that Roy made. All he did was toss her into anti-globalization dustbin as if that rendered her arguments moot. Question and challenge everyone's arguments but try and stear clear of logic fallacies and cheap rhetorical ploys while doing it.

(My opinion - Roy is great writer - of fiction)
posted by srboisvert at 8:30 AM on January 28, 2003

What pray tell would constitute evidence of non-existence?

showing proof that those that Iraq was in possesion of at the time of resolution 1441 have been destroyed.

or just explaining why iraq is in possesion of chemical compounds that have no other use than the creation of mustard gas (as stated in Blix's report).
posted by Mick at 10:21 AM on January 28, 2003

I think the US should explain why it has nuclear weapons
posted by Outlawyr at 11:09 AM on January 28, 2003

I think the US should explain why it has nuclear weapons

Basically, so everyone in Europe and, perhaps, North America wouldn't have to speak Russian.
posted by UncleFes at 12:07 PM on January 28, 2003

UncleFes that is a debatable point, i am sure you'll agree.
'It was a Manichean doctrine, seductive in its simplicity. But the supposed military threat was wholly implausible. Had the Russians, devastated by the war, invaded the west, they would have had a desperate battle to reach the Channel coast. Britain would have been supplied with an endless stream of men and material from the US, making invasion virtually hopeless. And even if the Soviets, ignoring the A-bomb, had conquered Europe against all odds, they would have been left facing an implacable US: the ultimate unwinnable war. In short, there was no Soviet military danger. Stalin was not insane.'
still, it does not answer the question 'why does the us need huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons (at all/in the post cold-war era)?
mark thomas will be investigating uk and us compliance with UN arms resolutions on friday 7.30pm channel4, for those of us in the uk.
'Late last year the Guardian newspaper ran a front page story on the Joint Non Lethal Weapons Directorate, a US military body who have exploited a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which allows states to develop and produce chemical weapons for "law enforcement" , for tear gas and the like. Scientists say there is no such thing as a "non lethal chemical weapon " citing the Moscow theatre siege as an example of how lethal non lethal weapons can be.

More importantly though is the question of military involvement in a "law enforcement programme". Why is the work funded and tested by the military and not the police? Then came the revelations that the Joint Non Lethal Weapons Directorate had in fact developed and tested a mortar shell designed to carry a chemical weapon payload.

Add to all of this the fact that Bush is spending $6bn on bio labs to house the most dangerous pathogens known to humankind and the US has some serious explaining to do. Are the USA’s programmes "defensive" and therefore legal? The only thing that could establish that would be an independent inspection team created under the treaty the US destroyed. So the US is asking Iraq to comply with it’s international obligations while hiding from its own.'
posted by asok at 9:13 AM on January 29, 2003

I really loved Roy's book the God of Small Things. Brilliant writing, really amazing stuff. And I do think she makes some truly excellent and trenchant points-- however, she wraps up her words in a lot of grade-c rhetoric that really turns me off.
posted by cell divide at 10:10 AM on January 29, 2003