 Master's
article:
The rise of people power
by the Master —, through Benjamin Creme
When all is said and done, there is but one way to describe the present
international situation: chaotic. Power-hungry warmongers, reluctant ‘agnostics’ and
self-appointed heroes, eager to save the world, struggle to win the support of the people for
their various points of view. The voice of the people struggles to be heard amid the tumult but,
more and more, is a factor to be reckoned with.
In many countries, vast throngs demonstrate their opposition to a forced
and unfair confrontation, and express their fears of a terrible aftermath.
Throughout history, similar situations have arisen again and again, but
only very seldom has the will of the people, even when directly involved, been an important
factor in the deliberations and decisions made. In recent centuries, only in the great
transforming actions of revolution has the people’s voice been central to the action, and made
its mark on the time.
Reckless power
Today, once again, the moment has come for the people’s voice to be heard.
Today, once more, it is essential that the needs of people everywhere for justice, freedom and
peace are heard and recognized by the wielders of reckless power.
These dangerous men, caught up in the glamour of their power, must realize
that the time for war is past, that humanity longs for peace and a security quickly vanishing.
The little ‘Napoleons’ must be told that their days of power are over; that the times have
robbed them of all relevance; and that the power now lies with those who serve the true needs of
the people.
Hectic
When Maitreya enters the fray, He may at first go unheeded in the hectic
events which daily drain men of serenity and calm. Soon, however, men will find that their
thoughts and needs are being heard and given voice by a mind more thoughtful and persuasive than
their own. In this way they will feel emboldened and join together the better to be heard.
Maitreya will address their most urgent needs, their deepest hopes and
fears. He will speak for all men, for people everywhere, and will thus make known the quality of
the new society which inwardly satisfies the dreams and expectations of all.
Challenge
Soon, indeed, will Maitreya enter, openly, the lives of men. He is well
prepared and eager for the challenge which lies before Him, and His courage will strengthen
those who can respond. From His great heart will flow the love which it is His nature to bestow,
and when men are ready He will declare His name and office. Thus will the Great Lord manifest
His close relation to men and women everywhere, and thus, too, will He fulfil the trust which
men, for ever, have placed in Him.
Questions & Answers:
Q. (1) Is war with Iraq now inevitable? (2) Do you think Saddam Hussein
will survive the war?
A. (1) No, but more likely than not. Mr Bush and his entourage seem absolutely determined to get
rid of Saddam Hussein. (2) Yes. He has a specially built ‘bunker’ which is literally impregnable
to the heaviest bombing, and in which a sizeable army can live for many months.
Q. Is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda?
A. No.
Q. Has Saddam Hussein been receiving any contact/advice from Maitreya
during this current crisis?
A. No.
Q. Many believe that oil is a major factor behind what passes for
foreign policy and also on the world’s stock markets: (1) Is it? (2) And will it play a key role
in bringing the world’s economic structure down?
A. (1) Yes. (2) No. Essentially, the catalyst for collapse and change is the insatiable greed of
the currency speculators who exist in every country.
Q. Was the loss of America’s Columbia space-shuttle and crew on 1
February 2003 a tragic accident, or a karmic event?
A. A tragic accident.
Q. I find it incredible that no one on the ground was injured when the
space shuttle broke up. Did the Masters protect the people on the ground from the falling
debris?
A. No.
Q. Are the Space Brothers helping in the clean-up of any toxic elements
in the atmosphere?
A. No.
Q. There is talk in the media that some toxins may leak into the ground
thus affecting cattle grazing and groundwater. Will toxins from the shuttle pose a problem to
the environment?
A. Little, if any.
Q. Did Maitreya help the astronauts not to experience any fear of what
was happening?
A. Yes.
Q. (1) During Benjamin Creme’s recent radio interview on Coast to
Coast, some of us experienced a blessing from Maitreya. I also believe that I experienced a
healing of an ear problem. Was Maitreya giving a blessing to the listening audience? (2) Was
this also to give an experience or blessing to those who fear His emergence?
A. (1) Yes. (2) Yes.
Letters to the editor:
Over a number of years, some of the Masters, in particular
Maitreya and the Master Jesus, have appeared, in different guises, to large numbers of people
around the world. They also appear at Benjamin Creme's lectures and meditations, giving people
in the audience the opportunity to intuitively recognise Them. Some people recount their
experiences to Share International magazine. If the encounters are authenticated by Benjamin
Creme's Master, the letters are published. These experiences are given to inspire, to guide or
teach, often to heal and uplift. Very often, too, the Masters draw attention to, or comment on,
in an amusing way, some fixed intolerance (for example against smoking or drinking). Many times
They act as saving 'angels' in accidents, during wartime, earthquakes and other disasters. The
following letters, previously published in Share International magazine, are examples of this
means of communication by the Masters.
Warm welcome
A few days ago [in January 2003] I had an unusual experience. Someone
knocked on my door and when I opened it I saw a rather tall man carrying a box with all sorts of
wooden objects, bracelets, carved boxes and so on, to sell. It was very cold so I asked him to
enter the hall. I hesitated and then, impulsively, I invited him to come in and have a cup of
coffee. It is not my habit to invite unknown men to come in, specially because I live alone and
I’m 92 years old, but I had a good feeling about him.
As soon as he was sitting he paid attention to a photo on my table and
asked who that was. So I told him it was Sai Baba. I thought it was a good opportunity to talk
about Maitreya. I asked him if he ever heard about Him. “Maitreya Buddha?” he asked. So I began
telling him about Maitreya and showed him Benjamin Creme’s books, including The Great Approach.
I talked about ‘Declaration Day’ and that at his age he would certainly see and hear Him. He
told me that he was 29 years old, a student and came from Ukraine. Just for a joke I asked him
how old he thought I was. He said without hesitation: 29! (92), the same age as his. A funny
joke of his! Afterwards I wondered how he could know my age so precisely! When he was leaving
and shaking hands, they felt moist (clammy). My question is: can you tell me who this visitor
was?
Y. G van A, Bergen, Holland.
(Benjamin Creme’s Master confirms that the young man was Maitreya.)
Children’s party blessing
Dear Editor,
 This photograph was taken
on 8 December 2002 at the warehouse of a toy company who had donated gifts to the charity
Children’s Aid Foundation, of Toronto, Canada. The gift bags were being filled by myself and the
special events co-ordinator Julia, who is in the photo, only blocked by this light. We were
preparing for a Christmas party for children in need.
Could you say if this is a blessing? I assume it’s for the children who received these gifts.
M.T., Toronto, Canada.
(Benjamin Creme’s Master confirms that this is a blessing from Maitreya.)
Word perfect
Dear Editor,
On 20 December a co-worker and I went to a local magazine’s office to ask
the editor about an idea we had to write articles for their monthly magazine — they work with
homeless people — where we would like to speak about problems in the world and how to deal with
them, and step by step we would write about the World Teacher. Some months before, they had
published an interview about Maitreya so we thought the editor might be open-minded. But on this
day I had no idea how to speak with him — I was discouraged and had no confidence, and our
conversation was not too easy.
Suddenly the situation changed: an elderly woman who sat behind us,
talking with others, turned to us. First she gave a donation for this work with the homeless.
Then with a loud voice she spoke about how the world must change and that everything will be
good, that the Lord is really ‘here’ and that we only need to open our eyes to see his love and
glory. She also spoke about all the signs and miracles that God is sending to us. She was very
engaging and with a big smile she ended her speech: “I would like to speak all day long about
those things!” To me and my colleague she said: “You two understand what I mean!” She also said
to me: “Next year things will change for the better for you.…” In her conversation she said all
the things we had not found the right words for. We wonder if this could have been Maitreya?
D.M., Regensburg, Germany.
(Benjamin Creme’s Master confirms that the ‘older woman’ was indeed Maitreya.)
The voice of
the people
Anti-war protests worldwide
Hundreds of thousands of protesters around the world took to the streets
on 18 January 2003 to demonstrate against a possible war in Iraq. Some of the biggest
demonstrations took place in Washington DC and San Francisco in the US, as well as Japan,
Russia, Pakistan, Germany, Paris and London.
In Washington DC and San Francisco, an estimated 200,000 people in each
city gathered to protest. Anti-war events took place across the United States, with organizers
estimating that people from 220 cities nationwide attended demonstrations.
In Paris, anti-war protesters shouted in English: “Stop Bush! Stop war!”
The 6,000-strong march was the third nationwide demonstration since October 2002. In Moscow,
about 1,000 Russians chanted “US hands off Iraq!” and “Yankee, go home!” at a march outside the
US Embassy. Elsewhere in Europe, 5,000 peaceful demonstrators gathered at a demonstration in
Göteborg, Sweden, while thousands marched in the German cities of Cologne, Bonn, Rostock and
Tübingen. Protesters in London gathered outside the Permanent Joint Headquarters of the British
Armed Forces to voice their opposition. About 100 people from Turkey’s Green Party demonstrated
in Istanbul, symbolically throwing toy guns into a trash can. Some 1,000 activists marched in
Cairo, while several Pakistani cities had anti-war demonstrations.
Demonstrations also took place in Christchurch, New Zealand, where about
400 people attended a rally organized by the Green Party, and an estimated 4,000 students and
union members attended a concert and march in Tokyo. More than 1,500 citizens waved placards and
banners, and marched in the Bahraini capital of Manama, saying “No!” to war with Iraq and
calling on their pro-Western leadership to expel US forces from the kingdom. The small Persian
Gulf state is home to the US 5th Fleet and hosts about 1,000 US military personnel who would be
among the forces used in any American-led attack on Iraq. (Source: CNN, USA; BBC, UK;
Associated Press, Reuters)
People’s politician appeals to media
Voted overwhelmingly Politician of the Year by the British public for the
January 2003 Channel 4 Television News Awards held in London, UK, retired MP Tony Benn said in
his acceptance speech: “I feel at the moment a little bit overcome. On Thursday I’m going to
Baghdad. I must admit that the thought that I shall see in the streets of Baghdad women and
children who may be widowed, who may be killed in a few weeks by British forces sent to war
without the consent of the Security Council or the House of Commons appalls me….
“I do believe that the media’s responsibility — at a time when war
propaganda is on a scale I have not seen for many, many years — is to remember to think of those
who may die in Baghdad with the same sensitivity they showed to those who died, quite
innocently, in the Twin Towers in New York. I hope the media will recognize that the viewers are
voters, and the voter is a viewer, and democracy depends not just on what we do on polling day
but on what we do on every day in the year.” (Source: Channel 4 Television, UK)
Mandela condemns US policy of aggression
US President George W.Bush has come under severe criticism from former
South African President Nelson Mandela over Iraq. A Nobel Peace laureate, Mr Mandela said the
sole reason for a possible US-led attack would be to gain control of Iraqi oil. Speaking at a
forum in Johannesburg Mr Mandela, one of the world’s most respected figures, said the US stance
on Iraq is “arrogant” and would cause “a holocaust”. He also said UK Prime Minister Tony Blair —
who supports Washington over Iraq — was in fact the “US foreign minister”.
Nelson Mandela, 84, said: “One power, with a president who has no
foresight and who cannot think properly, wants to plunge the world into a holocaust.” He said
war “would be devastating not just to Iraq but also to the whole of the Middle East and to other
countries of the world”. A spokesman for President Thabo Mbeki said that higher oil prices
brought on by a Middle East war would condemn Africa to deep economic crisis.
Mr Mandela accused both the US and UK Governments of undermining the
United Nations. “Is this because the Secretary General of the United Nations [Ghanaian Kofi
Annan] is now a black man? They never did that when Secretary Generals were white,” he said.
“Why does the United States behave so arrogantly?” Mr Mandela asked. “Their friend Israel has
got weapons of mass destruction but because it’s their ally they won’t ask the United Nations to
get rid of them. “They just want the oil,” Mr Mandela continued. “We must expose this as much as
possible.” (Source: BBC News Online, The Mirror, UK)
People push against the war
In an article whose headline reads: “W. pushes war, but people push back,”
New York Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez contends that more Americans are opposed to a war
with Iraq than is generally acknowledged and that the movement is spreading to mainstream
America.
Gonzalez gives several examples of critiques from somewhat unexpected
sources of the US Government’s rush to war. He cites a full-page advertisement in The Wall
Street Journal taken out by a group of Republican business leaders who gave their votes and
hefty campaign contributions to President Bush and now feel betrayed by the candidate they
supported in 2000 — a candidate they claim promised a “more humble nation in our dealings with
the world”.
Gonzalez also notes that no less a figure than retired US General Norman
Schwarzkopf, has voiced criticism of the Bush administration’s willingness to go it alone, and
concern regarding certain pronouncements by Defence Secretary Rumsfeld that have made him
nervous.
Gonzalez also points out the hundreds of local peace protests being held
across the country with little media coverage, as well as the small anti-war newspaper called
the War Times that has been inundated with orders. Add to this the city councils of 52 American
cities which have passed resolutions against a US attack without UN approval, and it becomes
apparent that a broad movement toward peace is developing. (Source: New York Daily News, USA)
Stormin’ Norman’s warning
Retired US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded the US-led
forces in the 1991 Gulf War when George Bush Senior was President, said a new war with Iraq has
not yet been justified.
Schwarzkopf, who became a military hero for his role in the last war, has
added his weight to calls for UN inspectors to be given more time to uncover any evidence of
Iraq’s alleged weapons programmes. “The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear
capability is a frightening thought,” he said in an interview published in the Washington Post
on 28 January. “Having said that, I don’t know what intelligence the US Government has. And
before I can just stand up and say: ‘Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,’ I
guess I would like to have better information.”
The retired General, who became affectionately known as “Stormin’ Norman”,
said he would like to give UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their task.
The general also had concerns about the role of the US army following any
conflict to overthrow Saddam. “What is post-war Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the
Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question to my mind. It really should be part of the
overall campaign plan,” he said.
“I would hope that we have in place the adequate resources to become an
army of occupation, because you are going to walk into chaos.”
(Source: The Washington Post, USA; Agence France-Presse, France; IslamOnline )
UK celebrities protest against war
On 31 January 2003 celebrities and public figures protested at the Palace
of Westminster, in the heart of British Government, against war with Iraq and demonstrated their
disapproval by signing a card for Prime Minister Tony Blair. At the press conference a panel of
speakers included film director Ken Loach, politicians George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn,
architect Lord Richard Rogers, Bianca Jagger and musician Damon Albarn.
MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “This is a war with no public support,
parliamentary approval, or moral justification … I think Tony Blair has made an enormous
mistake. I think there is huge political opposition in this country and the demonstrations we
are organizing will quite possibly be the biggest ever public political demonstrations in this
country, because nobody supports this war.
“Tony Blair should remember that the opposition is very big in this
country and Europe, and enormous in other parts of the world. In the United States, where I was
a couple of weeks ago, it is absolutely huge, with Vietnam and Gulf War veterans, the black
community and ordinary people throughout the country. [This war is for] US commercial and
military interests: essentially a war for oil. If we want to live in a peaceful world, and avoid
a war in Iraq, we need to assist in the disarmament process of all countries with weapons of
mass destruction, including our own and the United States. And we need to address the causes of
war, which are poverty and injustice. Otherwise, a war with Iraq today, North Korea tomorrow —
goodness knows what will be next.”
Bianca Jagger said: “I ask Prime Minister Blair and President Bush to tell
us why, if the weapons inspectors are asking for more time in order to be able to disarm Saddam
Hussein, we are not doing it?… Why go alone, without the rest of Europe who has not signed up to
these attacks against Iraq? We must not forget that the real reason for this war is because of
oil: it will be blood for oil.”
Musician Damon Albarn said: “There is a strength of feeling [against the
war] that is across the board. I don’t really believe in what Tony Blair is saying. I don’t
believe him because he is not listening to the people who elected him in.”
Spanish actors say: “No to war”
At the recent 2003 “Spanish Oscars night” award ceremony — the Goya Awards
— every single actor, actress, producer, director and scriptwriter sported a large black badge
on which was printed in bright red letters: “No war.”
All award winners used the opportunity to speak out against the proposed
US-led war against Iraq. Spanish actor Javier Bardem, who won the Goya award for best actor for
his role in Mondays in the Sun, a film about the social problems of unemployment in Spain, said:
“We can’t separate cinema from social matters, because they are the same thing. This ceremony
shines a spotlight on an issue which is not sufficiently emphasized — nobody should take the
people for granted. Winning the elections doesn’t mean receiving a blank cheque. Politicians
must listen to the people, who say ‘No to war’.”
Spanish cinema made itself heard in the highest rating television hours,
voicing what most Spaniards feel about the war in Iraq: 84 per cent answered “No to war” in a
Gallup survey carried out recently — the highest “No war” rate within the European Union.
(Sources: El Mundo, El País, Spain)
Nobel Laureates against the war
A group of 41 American Nobel laureates in the fields of science and
economics have signed a declaration opposing war with Iraq without wide international support.
The group includes men who formerly advised the government on national security issues, and 18
who have received the nation’s highest honour, the National Medal of Science. More signatures
are expected as laureates continue to respond.
The four-sentence declaration was organized by Nobel chemist Dr Walter
Kohn, in response to his observation that “No voice was speaking against the war”. He contacted
all American laureates in science and economics; signatories to date include Democrats and
Republicans alike, among them Hans A.Bethe, an architect of the atom bomb; Walter Kohn, a former
adviser to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon; Norman F.Ramsey, a
Manhattan Project scientist involved with the Hiroshima bomb and who later advised NATO; and
Charles H.Townes, former research director of the Institute for Defense Analyses at the Pentagon
and chairman of a federal panel that studied how to base the MX missile and its nuclear
warheads.
The declaration reads: “The undersigned oppose a preventive war against
Iraq without broad international support. Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a
relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and
unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic,
environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive
attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, US security and standing in the world.” (Source:
The New York Times, USA; truthout.com)
Pope speaks out against war
The Pope has condemned the threatened war with Iraq as a “defeat for
humanity”. His annual ‘State of the World’ address to diplomats at the Vatican voiced his
position in strong terms: “No to war.”
“War is not always inevitable,” he said, emphasizing international law and
diplomacy as the only worthy means of resolving differences between nations. “War is never just
another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.”
(Source: BBC TV Ceefax, UK)
Allegations of torture: unreliable evidence
As we go to press US Secretary of State Colin Powell is about to present
so-called evidence on Iraq’s weapons programme to the United Nations. However, recent reports
indicate that “at least some of the evidence Secretary Powell intends to present was derived
from interrogations of detainees held by the United States and its allies in the war on
terrorism”, according to the US-based Human Rights Watch.
The human rights monitoring organization called on the Bush administration
to answer the allegations and renounce torture before Powell puts his evidence before the United
Nations. “In his State of the Union address, President Bush said the Iraqi Government is ‘evil’
because it uses torture,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But
torture is evil no matter who is using it. Secretary Powell should not lose this chance to
explicitly renounce the use of torture by the US Government and its allies.”
Whatever the truth of allegations printed in a Washington Post article,
many people believe that illegal methods are being used to extract evidence from detainees. A
letter from Human Rights Watch addressed to Colin Powell and signed by Kenneth Roth challenges
the Bush Government: “Until this perception is changed, your presentation to the Security
Council — to the extent it relies on detainee interrogations — will not inspire the confidence
and trust you are seeking.” (Source: Human Rights Watch Press Release)
World becoming more free
The Freedom House Survey, which has been published as an annual report for
30 years, “is a comprehensive independent study of political evolution, evaluating countries
according to their civil liberties, independent civil institutions and independent media, as
well as their electoral politics”. Despite repeated accusations of a link between Islam and
extremism in the US press, 2002’s survey shows no important link between religious affiliation
to Islam and lack of freedom. In fact, it demonstrates a gradual move towards democratization in
many Islamic countries. As the Washington Post notes, according to the survey: “It seems that
most of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims actually live under democratically elected governments.”
The survey also indicates that countries with less freedom are more likely to export terrorists,
indicating that focusing on developing a more “open” political climate in such countries will
help decrease terrorism.
(Source: www.peace.moveon.org)
15 February: “Take to the streets”
Member of Parliament George Galloway has been the Glasgow Kelvin
representative in the House of Commons for nearly three decades. He has vigorously campaigned to
stop the sanctions against Iraq, and is at the forefront of the anti-war movement in the UK.
Gill Fry interviewed him for Share International.
SI: Do you think Saddam Hussein is really a threat to the stability of the
world or is there another cause, for example oil, for American interest in overthrowing Saddam
Hussein?
GG: Time magazine readers voted in a recent poll to decide who was the
most dangerous man in the world; almost 80 per cent of them chose George W.Bush, and I agree
with them. I think George Bush is one of the world’s worst leaders, in possession of some of the
world’s most terrible weapons and, unlike some other leaders, is both in a position, and fully
intends, to use them on a suffering civilian population in Iraq which has already been bled for
12 long years by war and economic siege. [This has led] to the death of more than a million
children, most of them under five, the great majority of them not even born when the conflict
with Iraq and the sanctions began.
I think that fewer and fewer people in the world believe that this [war]
is about to be done because Iraq is somehow a threat to anyone else. In truth it is we who are
threatening Iraq and the peace and stability in the Middle East region, for a whole number of
reasons. Oil is one of them; the blind support of Sharon’s extremist position in Israel is a
second; Bush’s wish to complete the unfinished business of his father in some kind of weird
Shakespearean way is another. But overwhelmingly it’s about projecting America’s overwhelming
power in the world: its control over the world and its warning to the rest of the world that
they must bow the knee to the twin features of contemporary US power — globalized savage
capitalism, and the new imperialist control over the strategically important areas of the globe.
SI: Do you think America is sincere in its “going to war for the sake of
peace”?
GG: When I watched George W.Bush gazing cross-eyed into that
telly-prompter, I was reminded of the American televangelist the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart who
ended up in prison on several counts of embezzlement and vice charges. I thought that Bush had
all the ‘sincerity’ of the Reverend Swaggart! I was astounded that grown men and women elected
to the American congress leapt to their feet almost 40 times in the course of the address to
give a standing ovation to such imbecilic rantings.
SI: What would be the repercussions of a war for the Middle East and the
Arab world in general?
GG: First of all there would be massive bloodshed in Iraq itself. The
American military with their auxiliary, Great Britain, intend to launch 800 cruise missiles in
the first two days — a blizzard of cruise missiles, more than they fired in the entire 45 days
of Gulf War I. This will then be followed by carpet bombardment from B52s — the same aeroplanes
that bombarded Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s — raining down on Iraq’s towns and cities. After
literally thousands of such bombing raids — and they have plans for 60 days and nights of
thousands of sorties a day — they intend to invade the country with 350,000 American and British
soldiers, killing everything that stands in their way, then physically occupying the whole of
Iraq, a country the size of France. [They will] bring in a puppet government from London, whose
first decision to privatize Iraq’s oil industry has already been made for them, installing it in
Baghdad and keeping it there. The process of doing that will cost many thousands of lives, not
all of them Iraqi and not all in Iraq. The one man who wants this war more than George Bush is
Osama bin Laden. He set out to engineer this kind of confrontation between East and West,
between the Muslims and the Others, on September 11.
When the war is ‘over’ Iraqi civilian resistance to the occupying army
will begin. [There will be] the same kind of dismal, melancholy process of suicide-bombs,
car-bombs and drive-by shootings, and all the paraphernalia of a civilian population under
foreign occupation that General Sharon’s forces face every day. The ‘earthquake’ in the region
will be deeply destabilizing — not least for the puppet-regimes, and the slave-regimes in the
Middle East who exist to serve the interests of the big powers, so some of the regime-change may
not be confined to Baghdad.
It will be a tremendous windfall for international terrorism. Bin Laden’s
whole cause was fuelled by the presence of a few thousand soldiers in tents hidden in the
deserts of Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine what kind of provocation it will be to Islamic
terrorism to have 350,000 Western crusader soldiers occupying an Arab country and looting its
wealth for many years to come?
SI: Do you think there is a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein?
GG: First of all the Americans tried to pin September 11 on Iraq, but they
had to back down in the face of the CIA’s testimony that this was false. They then tried to pin
the Anthrax attacks on Iraq and it turned out it was a purely American phenomenon. Then for many
months they said there was no link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden and now, in the 11th hour,
as they more and more desperately try to obtain public support for what they plan to do, they
have resurrected a non-existent link. Iraq is at the other end of the political spectrum from
Islamic fundamentalism. It is a secular, socialist dictatorship. That is precisely why we backed
them in the war against Iran — to try and be a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalist
revolution.
SI. What is the UN’s role in solving this crisis?
GG: The UN should resist the bullying, the bribing and the corruption of
the United Nations system by Britain and America who are holding a cruise missile to the head of
the Security Council and telling them: “Either you endorse what we intend to do or we will do it
without you.” The implied point is that, if we have to do that you will not share in the bonanza
of oil and reconstruction contracts that will follow this devastating war. It is the most
corrupt process that any of us alive have ever seen. So far it has not worked with the Security
Council. It might in the last moments of the 11th hour finally work. People must not be fooled —
if this war is wrong and hugely counter-productive, it will not become less so because Putin and
Chirac are bribed or bullied or threatened enough finally to acquiesce to it.
SI: How can we avoid a war taking place?
GG: By overwhelming numbers of people pouring onto the streets of London
on 15 February. Mr Blair is very vulnerable politically in Britain today. If we can cut this
axis of evil intent by severing the umbilical cord which seems to connect the Labour leader with
the most right-wing, fundamentalist Republican President in living memory — then we can stop the
war, because American public opinion is already moving significantly against a war. If they were
told that on this one even the British could not join them, then we could stop this madness from
happening. That requires hundreds of thousands of people to be on the streets and at
demonstrations everywhere that day in 11 European capitals, in the Middle East, Iran and America
too. If we can demonstrate the sheer scale of the opposition to this we can make the warmongers
think again. However imperfect an instrument, our countries remain democracies and, as Dr
Johnson said, “The knowledge that one is to be hanged in the morning concentrates the mind
wonderfully.” Elected politicians regularly face the ‘hangman’ who is the electorate, and if
they know that their constituents are voting with their feet and with their hearts against this,
then they can impose their will on their elected representatives.
“Dangerous folly”
An interview with William Rivers Pitt
by Felicity Eliot
William Rivers Pitt is a teacher from Boston, USA. He is the author of two
books: the bestseller War On Iraq: what Team Bush doesn’t want you to know (with Scott Ritter),
and a new book The Greatest Sedition is Silence*.
Share International: President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are meeting
as this interview is taking place. There is a carefully crafted message for public consumption,
but what is being said in private, I wonder? Would you care to hazard a well-informed guess?
WRP: I spoke recently to a Labour Party Member of Parliament, and asked
him what was going on in Tony Blair’s head. The gentleman had absolutely no idea; it seems
Blair’s motives are the biggest mystery in all of England right now. I can hazard a couple of
guesses, however. Tony may very well be setting himself up to be a real power-broker in all
this.
The Iraq operation is go/no-go on Blair’s word. That gives him enormous
pull. Remember, the British have a history of foreign policy wisdom that is approximately 1,000
years older than America’s. There may be wheels within wheels here. It also bears mentioning
that British Petroleum has a great number of interests in Alaskan oil-drilling. It could be that
Bush has Blair on board in exchange for the opening of Alaska for BP oil drilling. Reports about
Blair and Bush’s talk suggest that there was some tension despite the veneer of togetherness. I
cannot be sure what they discussed, but I would not be surprised if Blair was flexing his
muscles a bit.
Let me refer you to the following passage from The Washington Post: “Bush
administration officials acknowledge that Blair is the one world leader who could seriously
disrupt US military planning for a war on Iraq. In that sense, Britain remains the indispensable
ally because it provides international cover for what would otherwise be virtually an
all-American operation. But there seems little prospect of Blair pushing his differences with
Bush to breaking point.”
SI: President Bush has said a US-led coalition can move against Iraq
without a second United Nations resolution, and no delay over disarmament will be tolerated. He
seems to be serving notice that he does not intend to go back to the UN in case he doesn’t get
the answer he wants. What are the likely consequences of such a move?
WRP: America could easily become diplomatically isolated in such an
instance. In this global economic community, this would be a disaster. It is also a dead
certainty that such a move would guarantee more terrorism in America. Iraq’s civilian populace
is 97 per cent Muslim, and terrorist organizations that would normally not give a tinker’s damn
for Saddam Hussein will rally to the cause of the Iraqi civilians we will inevitably kill by the
tens of thousands. The move could cause a disastrous upheaval in the Middle East which is
frankly something the Bush administration is likely hoping for.
SI: Doesn’t the Bush regime at least have to go through the motions of
appearing to consult with the UN Security Council? Would they not lose potential public support
if they were seen to ignore the UN?
WRP: You would think so. Resolution 1441 was basically drafted by the Bush
administration, and the UN has been acting with that Resolution as its guiding principle.
Resolution 1441, however, was drafted by the Bush administration in a way that, they expected,
would cause Iraq to turn it down. Such a refusal would have been a cause for war by their
playbook. When Iraq accepted it, Bush was forced to deal with the UN. To a large extent, he
still has to. How this will all play out remains to be seen. Norman Solomon’s new book Target
Iraq deals with the concept behind 1441 in detail.
SI: How do you read US public sentiment at present?
WRP: Deeply worried and unsettled, unsure of why this all has to happen
now, and very much in support of a continuation of the inspection program.
SI: Baghdad “is not disarming” and remains a “danger to the world”, Mr
Bush has just warned. But I know both you and Scott Ritter, among others, continue to insist
that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. How come Scott Ritter’s information is ignored and
dismissed?
WRP: That is a slight mischaracterization. Ritter and I have asserted that
Iraq has no functional weapons program, that a vast majority of their weapons were destroyed by
the UNSCOM inspectors, that whatever was left has degraded into junk by now, and that any
remaining weapons can best be ferreted out by inspectors. To date, none of these statements have
been at all refuted.
These views are being ignored in the American media because the said media
is, to be blunt, in love with being big and dumb and simple. The complexities cause the eyes to
glaze and the commercials to go unwatched. The administration ignores these views because they
do not serve its purposes.
SI: Iraq has asked UN’s chief nuclear arms inspector Mohamed El Baradei
and chief inspector Hans Blix to visit before they make another progress report to the Security
Council on 14 February. Is Iraq playing games? How do you see this?
WRP: I cannot really speak on this. Iraq will not threaten them, I assume,
and will likely implore them to be fair and to ignore American pressure. The chief inspectors
will be lathered with propaganda by the Iraqis, but they are professionals and will not be
affected.
SI: We’ve been told that US Secretary of State Colin Powell will present
new evidence of Iraq’s failure to comply with UN demands. next week. What do you think we can
expect?
WRP: There will be no smoking gun. Much of it will be rhetorical, based
upon accusations and prove-a-negative rhetorical gamesmanship. We have the definitive ability to
definitively conclude whether or not Iraq has these weapons. If such definitive evidence is not
presented, Bush’s push for a new war resolution will fail.
SI: European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has said the case
for war against Iraq has not yet been made; and he also insists that “the centre of gravity
should continue to be the Security Council”. What is your reaction to that?
WRP: As an American, I believe that America cannot always be tied to the
will of other nations when it sees something that needs to be done for the good of the nation.
In this case, however, moving on Iraq without UN backing will be a disaster. America has always
considered itself to be above and beyond the community of nations. This particular
administration takes that to the furthest extreme, equating diplomacy and negotiation with
appeasement. This is dangerous folly. If America is to lead, it must on occasion follow, and be
that “humble” country Bush promised we would be during his 2000 campaign.
SI: Can public opinion still make a difference? Recent polls indicate that
82 per cent of Europeans asked are against a war with Iraq in the absence of a UN resolution.
WRP: That public opinion is the number one reason why France and Germany
are digging their heels in, and why Blair is feeling the heat. It can make an enormous
difference.
SI: In your “All I want for Christmas” article you asked some very tough
questions: “I want to hear about the end-game for our Iraq war. Who will rule in Saddam’s place,
and how will that person be an improvement? How will the Shiites and Kurds be represented and
protected? How long will American forces have to be there? How much will it cost? Who gets the
payout from the oil fields? How much of this war is based upon business decisions? Will we stop
at Iraq, or will we move on to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt in the manner that Richard
Perle has often envisioned?” Could I ask you whether, since Christmas, you have found or
formulated any answers? And what are they?
WRP: Not one single answer to these questions has been forthcoming from
the Bush administration. I do not expect them ever to answer these questions, for they are part
of that complexity the administration desperately wants to avoid in the public discourse.
*Scott Ritter and William R.Pitt, War against Iraq: what Team Bush
doesn’t want you to know. Profile Books, UK, 2002, and Context Books, New York, USA. (Reviewed
by Jos Kuyl in Share International January/February 2003)
William R.Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence. Available in April
2003 from Pluto Press.
Signs of the time :
Miracle of Theresa Rose
Kathryn Rossi of Freeport, Illinois, USA, was pregnant with her fourth
child, but tests during the 20th week of pregnancy revealed that there were chromosomal
abnormalities in the foetus and further medical tests were ordered. Rossi prayed to St Thérèse,
a saint noted for her love of children. The night before the tests Kathryn discovered that the
white paper towels she had purchased were not totally white after all. The roll Kathryn opened
had roses on it. “They say when St Thérèse hears a prayer, she sends a rose to let you know,”
Kathryn said.
The further tests revealed that the placenta was not delivering the proper
nutrients to the baby. The doctor said there was no way Kathryn could carry to term. They would
wait as long as possible, “but most babies with this condition are born too small to survive,”
the doctor said.
Family and friends began sending flowers and cards, and although Kathryn
had not told the story of St Thérèse and the roses to anyone but her husband Robert, in every
bouquet and on every card there was a rose. Even the ceramic angel her mother-in-law gave her
was holding a rose, a surprise even to Robert’s mother because the box had showed the angel’s
hands to be empty.
The infant was born just 25 weeks into the pregnancy, weighing only 14
ounces. Kathryn decided to name her Theresa Rose. But the doctor said her chances of survival
were only 5 per cent, and then only if the baby survived an operation to close a major blood
vessel in the baby’s heart. The operation was a success, as were further needed operations.
After one of the operations, Kathryn prayed to a statue of St Thérèse for
a sign that she was hearing Kathryn’s prayers. The next morning the doctor said that all of
Theresa Rose’s vital signs showed a marked improvement. “There’s just no explanation,” he said.
The baby Theresa Rose continued to improve, and after four-and-a-half
months was able to go home with her parents. Today, she is a healthy two-year-old baby.
(Source: Woman’s World, USA)
(Benjamin Creme’s Master confirms that the healing
miracle was manifested by the Master Jesus.)
Madonna images in Canada
Since September 2002, images of the Madonna have been reported in four
villages in the northern reaches of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, spurring hundreds of
people to visit.
The most recent images appeared in January 2003 on two homes in Beauval,
Saskatchewan. The images appear to glow at night, and have been captured on video, said Bertha
Durocher, who owns one of the homes.
Bertha said she did not want to tell others about the image on her window
at first. “I told my mom and she said: ‘Oh you’re probably seeing your own shadow,’ so I thought
people wouldn’t believe me. It was just glowing so beautifully, I had tears in my eyes” said
Bertha, who believes the sightings are some kind of divine message. (Source: Reuters)
(Benjamin Creme’s Master confirms that the images were manifested by Maitreya.)
|
Top
of Page