[Media-watch] Email exchange with David Aaronovitch

[Mark and Andrea]

You may find this of interest....


-----Original Message-----

From: David.Aaronovitch at guardian.co.uk

[mailto:David.Aaronovitch at guardian.co.uk]

Sent: 28 May 2004 16:16

To: Mark Priestley

Subject: Re: Interview on Today programme





Dear Mark,

You wrote a very long medialensish e.mail asking questions the answers to

which are all contained in various pieces that I have written over the last

18 months, and all available on Guardian Unlimited. Even if I were to

re-answer each one just for you it wouldn't change your mind about this

issue one iota, would it? And then I'd have to do it again ad nauseam for

all the other medialens folks, including the mad fascists and barmy

conspiracists. You want a dialogue? Write a letter that suggests you are

genuinely interested in one. Otherwise save your own time and mine, and in

particular that save yourself from that false tone of hurt amour propre when

I don't respond to one of your interminable epistles. Yours finally, David

Aaronovitch


28th May

Dear David,
I wrote the email below to you on 17th May, and I am surprised that you have
not replied. This is especially surprising given that on the day I wrote,
you replied within several hours to some emails sent to you by regular
contributors to Medialens. These letters were rude in tone (which mine was
not), and your replies were equally rude (if I remember correctly, one
accused the correspondent on talking 'bollocks') .

I do not agree with sending rude or abusive emails to people, but it does
appear that one has to take this approach in order to receive a reply from
you. Again I would welcome your comments, both in response to the points
made today, and to my original email.

Yours sincerely,
Mark

17th May

Dear David
I listened with interest to your interview on Today this morning. Several of
your comments intrigued me, and I would be grateful if you could answer some
questions.
You stated that you have always been sceptical about Iraq's possession of
weapons of mass destruction. I would like to believe this. There was ample
evidence that these weapons were non-existent before the invasion; evidence
that a journalist of your standing must have been aware of. I am therefore
curious to hear your views about how this scepticism squares with statements
that you made in the past affirming your belief that Iraq possessed such
weapons. For example you wrote in the Independent on 22nd September 2002,
'But I am more convinced that what marks Saddam Hussein out is his
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction'.
You went on to say that the improvement of conditions for ordinary Iraqi
people - democrats, trade unionists etc. - justifies the invasion. There are
several points to make about this:
  a.. May I remind you that this was not the original justification for the
invasion, although it has strangely assumed prominence in the absence of any
discovery of the much vaunted weapons of mass destruction. We were told that
we were going to war because of the threat that Iraq posed to the
international community. It was even asserted that such a course of action
was not pre-emptive - as the threat was not immediate; rather the new
doctrine of a preventive war was cited, to counter this grave threat that
Iraq posed in the long term. All this seems laughable today given the
failure to even find evidence of programmes (as was predicted by the likes
of Scott Ritter before the invasion). As a supporter of the war, how can you
accept the validity of such a shift in justification for the invasion?
  b.. If we assume that humanitarian intervention was justified, and that
this was a major and legitmate reason for invasion, then we seem to be
missing several points:
    a.. This was a unilateral action by a small group of countries in
defiance of international opinion, norms and law. How can you justify such
palpably illegal action? This is analogous to the recent vigilante action of
a minority against suspected paedophiles; something that I suspect you would
rightly oppose. Such actions are based upon power, not right or the riule of
law.
    b.. The abysmal human rights record of Iraq has been well established,
but it is accepted that most of the humanitarian evidence used to justify
invasion happened in the past, and that the impact of the regime on ordinary
Iraqis has been less brutal in recent times. It has never been conclusively
proved that Iraq carried out the chemical attacks at Fallujah (although I
accept that Saddam Hussein would have been capable of doing so). There is
some evidence that the gas used was Iranian, and that the attack was a
tragic consequence of a battle in the Iraq/Iran war. The widespread pogroms
following the uprisings in 1991 were certainly carried out by Ba'athist
regime, but one has to question the role played by the coalition in not only
allowing this, but actively enabling it (the temporary lifting of the no-fly
zone, for example). Can you explain to me why action against Iraq became
more urgent as the humanitarian situation was improving?
    c.. If humanitarian intervention in the form of a massive invasion is
justified in the case of Iraq, then why are you not calling for similar
action in the cases of Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan and the DRC - just to
name a few countries where the human rights situation at least parallels
that in Iraq? Given your logic, shouldn't we be helping democrats and trade
unionists in these countries?
  c.. Last year you said,  'If nothing is eventually found, I - as a
supporter of the war - will never believe another thing I am told by our
government or that of the US, ever again. And more to the point, neither
will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere.' In the light
of the failure to find anything, could you please confirm that you will
never trust the government again?
I would welcome your comments.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20040528/56fa6b5f/attachment.htm