Current Concerns
P.O. box 223
CH-8044 Zurich
+41-44-350 65 50

November 22, 2014
The monthly journal for independent thought, ethical standards and moral responsibility The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law
Current Concerns  >  2007  >  No 13, 2007  >  Towards Peace In and With Iraq [printversion]

Towards Peace In and With Iraq

A constructive proposal from the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research

The Board, August 16, 2007, Sweden

The Swedish Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF; see box below) has published a 10 Point Plan for peace in and with Iraq and presented it 16 August 2007. It “attempts to answer the question: What must the world do to reduce harm and create more good for and with the Iraqi people. This plan is an open, evolving plan, an invitation to dialogue – with the Iraqis in particular. We need each other as concerned citizens in the struggle against violence and hatred and those who promote and profit from it.”

Three challenges posed by the Iraq situation

With the exception of the Bush administration and a few other actors, a broad consensus is emerging worldwide: The military invasion and occupation of Iraq are considered a counterproductive means to achieve whatever positive official or implicit goals there may have been prior to the invasion in March 2003.
Iraq and its citizens, the region, the world order and the position of the U.S. itself has deteriorated markedly due to the failed policies of leading Western countries. The recent report “Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in Iraq”1 is a stark reminder of the urgency of a new and humane approach for Iraq.  It is urgently needed, therefore, to think positively and to think long-term.
Simply put, three existentially important moral, intellectual and political challenges face anyone who is concerned about Iraq’s and the world’s future:
1. How was it possible that a policy so wrongheaded, uninformed and badly planned could be promoted as – and believed to be – Realpolitik and would stand a better chance than other policy options in promoting values such as human rights, democratization, peace and justice? In short, what lessons are there to learn about the limitations of the instrument of military intervention and confrontation as conflict-management methods and peace instruments in the specific case of Iraq and in general? And, having learnt some lessons, how do we prevent anything similar from happening in the future?
2. As the occupation in and of itself has had far more destructive than constructive effects on today’s Iraq and its citizens, how can the occupation be lifted as soon as possible?
3. What new policies for peace and reconciliation and normalization can be envisaged inside Iraq, regionally and between the Iraqi people and the occupying nations?
The focus of this proposal will be on how to end the occupation and move on toward reconciliation and normalization. Visions of a future peace compel all to seek approaches that go far beyond the war and intervention paradigm and the almost purely Western perspective presently dominating the international research and media world.

From destructive to constructive perspectives

One of the main reasons that the troops have not been withdrawn already is that there are extremely few visions and concrete plans that deal in a systematic manner with what should happen when the occupiers have left Iraq.
Much intellectual energy, media coverage and writing is devoted to how bad and wrong everything is – and it is – while there is almost no focus on what can and should be done during the next 10-20 years. Conflicts cannot be solved, however, without views of a better future. Since 2003, the international peace movements worked against the war but have had surprisingly little to say about what should be a substitute for the occupation. This makes them important as anti-war movements but largely failures as peace movements.
As long as the overall perspective is so pervasive, it is a safe hypothesis that there will be either no withdrawal or an even worse situation after such a withdrawal. Continued occupation until at least 2009 is an option according to the “Joint Campaign Plan”.2
 To just withdraw and offer the Iraqis nothing better after having brought down this unique disaster on their lives and society would be indefensible, not to say  immoral. Iraq needs healing in a very broad and deep sense.
Withdrawal of foreign troops and bases is only a first step in a series that provides for progress towards peace and reconciliation in the country.

Why the occupation advocates may still win

The general discussion at the moment is highly deficient. Arguments are made by many and different actors that the Americans and their few allies should withdraw; then follows a cul de sac exchange among columnists, experts and diplomats about whether Iraq will then fall apart or recover. Few seem to recognize that the answer to that question is: the future of Iraq will not only depend on the effects of the withdrawal itself but much more on how we decide to co-operate with Iraq and its citizens.
The basic reason that Iraqis are killing Iraqis today is the occupation. It doesn’t mean that this will end when the occupation is lifted. To offer something completely new, constructive and truly peace- and reconciliation building, the risk of descending into total chaos and civil war will be reduced.
Over summer 2007 there is a “surge” in articles about how much various (mostly elite) Iraqis fear the day the U.S. soldiers go home. However, a large majority of eyewitness reports and surveys document that most Iraqis seem to feel that the situation created since March 2003 is markedly worse than under Saddam Hussein’s regime and that they see no light at the end of the tunnel as long as the occupiers remain.
The “surge” in pro-occupation articles is part of a broader opinion offensive to prove that there is no viable alternative to continued U.S. presence. If this wall of disinformation is allowed to remain, the advocates of continued occupation will win the debate in the media.
Withdrawal is not likely until many more citizens around the world can see alternatives to occupation. Elise Boulding, the grand old lady of peace research, has eloquently stated that what people can’t envision, they are not likely to fight for. What we can see is the occupation and its terrible effects – hence citizens’ engagement in that.

Dialogue, not a withdraw-and-forget policy

The worst and most dangerous policy at this point is a withdraw-and-forget policy. The invasion and ongoing occupation is a political, intellectual and moral disaster. A withdrawal that leaves Iraq at its own fate without any war reparations, aid, opportunities for socio-political healing, etc. would be yet another.3
Such a policy option may become more attractive as the quagmire in Afghanistan deepens and Iran and possibly the situation in Dafur divert international attention from Iraq.
The very least the international community in general and the occupiers in particular must do is to shape a policy that will convince the Iraqi people that it takes full responsibility for its actions and signals a determined willingness to repair and compensate for harm and damage done.
Peace and reconciliation can not be imposed no matter the good intentions behind. How best to do so can only be decided through dialogue with Iraqis at many levels, government and civil society as well as various parties in the region. An invitation from outside and some open-minded ideas for such a dialogue may in and of itself serve as a much needed reconciliatory gesture vis-à-vis the Iraqis and others.

The most relevant and visionary plan at present is American

A few policy attempts at devising a future out of the Iraq disaster have been made. They vary in terms of aim, degree of so-called realism, time perspective and creativity. The plan that has attracted most media attention is the Iraq Study Group. The Group has tried to strike a balance between saving face for the U.S. and improving the situation in the region. It was little more than a less hawkish US Government plan.
In spite of its stated policy of having a common defence and security policy, members of EU, the European Union, have been split on the Iraq issue during the sanctions years and ever since Germany and France refused to endorse the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Remarkably, the occupiers had no idea of what to do after their invasion while France and Germany had no idea about an alternative to the invasion. Neither Russia, China, the UN Secretary-General nor anyone else have put forward comprehensive ideas or visions, let alone concrete actions plans, that could promote an international debate on this most important peace-building project in the world community.
Interestingly, the by far most intellectually satisfying and visionary plan has been developed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio, and presented to the House of Representatives on February 28, 2007 - H.R. 1234: To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately. It comes in the wake of Kucinich’s 12 Point Plan for peace in Iraq.4
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this genuinely peace-oriented 2008 Presidential candidate – son of a Croatian-American truck driver and a former Mayor of Cleveland - receives little attention in the United States and is virtually unknown in Europe.5

Minimum basic criteria for a long-term peace plan

Any future policy for Iraq must satisfy some minimum standards such as:
1. Adhere to international law, including that neither dictators nor suspected war criminals shall be at large forever.
2. Include a broader perspective on Iraq as part of the Middle East conflict formation.
3. Place human beings at its centre: respect, dignity, fairness, reconciliation, human needs and alleviate fear.
4. Promote substantial demilitarization of Iraq, the region and of the international presence.
5. Be expressive of a genuine partnership ethos, impartiality and goodwill and thus convince the Iraqis that this is not the occupation coming back in disguise.
6. Signal such determination, willingness to devote resources and remain helpful for as long it takes to really convince the Iraqis that we do something to their, not our, benefit.
7. Build on dialogue with all parties including the various resistance groups, and seriously involve civil society in negotiations.
8. Respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country including its self-evident right to fully control the present and future oil income.
9. Must be fully compatible with the normative framework of the UN Charter and a larger international commitment to bring about peace by peaceful means in the Middle East.6
10. An interpretation of the Human Rights Charter and other provisions that permit both crimes by Saddam Hussein’s regime and by the international community to be fully investigated, including the human rights violations caused by twelve years of economic sanctions.

TFF’s 10 point plan for peace in and with Iraq

This plan deliberately uses words such as democracy, peace and reconciliation. It also refers to the Iraqi “government”. We are painfully aware that most Iraqis perceive words like these as grossly misused by Western powers and the present government as a “puppet”. However, we believe that these words can and should be used in a genuine sense and that “government” refers to a body elected by and for the Iraqi people.

1. Withdraw foreign troops, mercenaries and bases and end the occupation.

Before the invasion Iraq was not hosting and was not influenced by Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organisations. Today’s presence of terrorist movements and other actors resisting the occupation is a main outcome of the U.S. invasion and presence in Iraq since March 2003. By playing various groups against each other, the occupation powers have provoked a civil war-like situation that is not historically typical for Iraq and was not in the cards at the time of the invasion. Sunni and Shia Muslims simply did not have such animosity that the present conflicts and violence would have emerged without the occupation.
As the occupation continues much hurt and harm has been done by Iraqis against other Iraqis; it is likely to take considerable time to heal. The situation has also attracted many kinds of non-Iraqi criminal elements who are not likely to just withdraw to where they came from. As serious as this may be, there is – overall – more reason to believe that the withdrawal of foreign troops will lead to a decrease rather than an increase in violence, particularly if a range of parallel measures is taken as the withdrawal proceeds.
Iraqis are Iraqis first and identify with other categories only after that. Iraq’s history is lined with political violence, coup d’etats, etc., but they have never fought a civil war.
Much however will depend on how the transition from the occupation to a new international mission will be organized.
Why must the foreign bases and private military contractors be withdrawn too? First, they are the physical embodiment of the U.S. presence and interest in the oil. They will likely provoke terrorist attacks and be seen by neighbours as provocative. Third, they were established early as part of the occupation. Finally, they may well be perceived as having been endorsed by the present Iraqi government but it remains seriously disputed how many Iraqis see that present government as anything but a puppet of the U.S.
Finally, something else must be withdrawn: ordnance, mines, depleted uranium and other military waste products. Today’s Iraq is littered with decades of military waste products. Occupation troops have polluted the country to such an extent that there is a major need for military waste clean-up, including serious efforts to clean up after the use of depleted uranium shells and gross destruction by oil spills etc in areas such as historically unique Babylon.

2. Respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and reduce the role of the U.S. Embassy

There are too many simplifying perceptions of Iraq; one is that there are basically three groups and that the Kurds live in the north, the Sunnis in the centre and the Shiites in the south. Such factually incorrect views have led many to contemplate dividing Iraq. One proposal in that direction is the one associated with the Brookings Institution for “soft partition.”7
The international contribution to healing Iraq in the future must aim, above all, to heal Iraq as one, not as three. If division comes – and it would come hard and hardly soft – it would be for the Iraqis to decide and agree on. With complexities resembling those of former Yugoslavia to an astonishing degree, no type of non-negotiated division is likely to be peaceful.8
Many informed observers see the U.S. embassy as the de facto ruler of today’s Iraq. It’s the largest anywhere in human history, with the same acreage as the Vatican City, costing about US $ 600 million and planned to have a staff of 4 000 of which about half will be security and intelligence. While the Iraqi government may have some freedom of operation, it certainly cannot make important decisions that would militate against Washington’s long-term, fundamental strategic and economic interests.9
Fortunately, U.S. politicians have criticised the Embassy and what it signals, echoing this statement in the Los Angeles Times, “They’re not leaving Iraq for a long time,” said Hashim Hamad Ali, another guard, who called the compound “a symbol of oppression and injustice.”

3. Establish an international peacebuilding mission for Iraq under UN leadership

This will not be “just another UN mission”. It will be of a fundamentally new type and expressive of the world community – not the few Western government leaders who refer to themselves as the “international community” – coming together in respectful partnership with the people of Iraq and a new democratic government there. The basic provisions should include:  
3.1 A broad-based mission with partners such as e.g. Arab League, OSCE, EU, OIC, AU, GCC, NGOs from everywhere.
3.2 Composition: 15% robust military under UN command as stipulated in the Charter + 25% police + 60% civil affairs and other civilian-humanitarian, all in all perhaps at least 100 000.
3.3 No military personnel from countries that have been occupiers.
3.4 Low percentage of staff from Western-Christian parts of the world.
3.5 A clear and comprehensive mandate.
3.6 Funding secured for at least 5 years at the outset.
3.7 The UN in de facto control with its partners, limited influence by any member state.
Undoubtedly, this will be the largest ever UN+ mission. It must be big enough and structured in ways that it can do the job, but not be so big that the Iraqis will feel that it is a new occupation.
This new thinking is shaped by a conviction that the economic sanctions, dictatorship, earlier wars, the invasion and the occupation combine into a historically unique destruction of the lives and well being of the Iraqi people and their prospects for the future.
The mission therefore focuses mainly on the human socio-psychological, cultural and other “softer” dimensions of the conflict, war and terror. It would involve reconciliation and forgiveness, human healing, neighbourhood re-generation, schooling, health, psychiatric healing – the country has hundreds of thousands of clinically traumatised people, children and youth in particular – and empower civil society in general.
Such a UN mission would strike a new balance between the usual ‘lightweight’ people-oriented elements and the traditional mission ‘heavyweights’ such as the military, law, institution-building, physical re-building, loans and other physical dimensions.
The philosophy is simple: violence grows out of fear, hate, unresolved conflicts, humiliation and of not being heard, etc. As has been seen in dozens of other protracted conflicts, e.g. in Palestine, Afghanistan, Angola, East Timor, former Yugoslavia and Columbia, unless these human root causes of violence are addressed and addressed adequately, there is little chance that the ‘heavyweight’ mission elements will succeed.
All of Iraq’s roughly 26 million citizens are suffering at a scale never experienced in modern times. By 2007, around 2 million are displaced inside the country and over 2 million have fled abroad, predominantly to Syria and Jordan. There is all reason to believe that any future mission must aim first at human and social healing through cooperation, respect, and partnership with the people. And it must embody the values it wants to promote in its structure and code of conduct.
The suggested international mission is “heavy” on the civilian side because it must always be kept in mind that Iraq has lost not one but two generations in terms of education, health and welfare. And it has lost its huge middle class because of the killings, including planned assassinations, the sanctions and the brain drain.
The economic sanctions resulted in there being about 1 million fewer Iraqis alive today than would otherwise be; the war and its aftermath to date have cost several hundred thousand lives. The wars with Iran and Kuwait before it caused unspeakable human loss and other destruction of society and its potentials.
About half of Iraq’s citizens are children and youth under 16. Therefore the regeneration of Iraq must focus very strongly on empowering the young, on rebuilding the institutions of education as well as socio-psychological, mental and physical health inside Iraq.
But special efforts must focus on giving Iraqi youth speedy access to education within Iraq or abroad. Schools and universities abroad should come fore with scholarships and other support while also securing that the Iraqis will actually return at the end of their education and training.
Finally, such a new mission should advise and assist the Iraq government in many urgent matters, e.g. to create two new statuary bodies with autonomous financing and independent boards: a) reconstruction and development council run by Iraqi professionals and technocrats support from the mission and relevant international bodies; b) a national security council that will oversee and coordinate defence, interior affairs, intelligence and national security.

4. Cancel all Iraq’s debt

On July 23, 2007 it was announced that 45 states had decided to cancel US$ 140 billion of Iraq’s debt.10 According to some sources, this amounts to a complete debt relief as the debt of the country was estimated to be about US$ 130 billion in 2003. As most of it was so-called odious debt created by the Iraqi government before the invasion without the consent of the people, it is only fair that “the Iraqi people shall not pay Saddam’s bills” as the Iraqi Jubilee Now expresses it on its website. This debt forgiveness will benefit the people first but also the whole region as it permits faster Iraqi economic recovery.11
A peace plan must secure that these 45 countries actually stand behind their pledges in the future.

5. Compensate Iraq for the sanctions, the war and the occupation

While there are countless articles and analyses of the costs to the United States of the Iraqi war, there are none that estimate the costs to the Iraqi society, i.e. the human, physical, mental and cultural destruction.
The destructiveness and brutality of 30 years of dictatorship, 12 years of history’s most cruel economic sanctions and the occupation over 4 years merits the question: How could those most responsible mitigate at least to a symbolic degree the justified outrage caused by this destruction? This is not about humanitarian aid or development aid or assistance to help Iraqis return to their home country. It is about war and sanctions reparations.
Iraq accepted United Nations Security Council resolution 687, which declared Iraq’s financial liability for damage caused in its invasion of Kuwait. Subsequently, the United Nations Compensation Commission, UNCC, was established, and US$ 350 billion in claims were filed by governments, corporations, and individuals. Funds for these payments came from a 30% share of Iraq’s oil revenues from the oil for food program.
A similar arrangement should be made now for those who have wrought death and destruction on Iraq and its people for so many years. The U.S. and the U.K. in particular should accept their special, heavy liability for the destruction of Iraq. This can – but must not - be calculated in details through claims from Iraq; that would require a huge bureaucracy and years of work. Instead, it would serve reconciliation and forgiveness greatly if the occupying countries voluntarily offered war reparations to Iraq as a one-time lump sum in the order of US$ 250-500 billion.  

6. Secure that Iraq regains full sovereignty over its oil resources and receives 100% of the revenues

Oil is the sine qua non of Iraq’s development. It is the most important resource which, if well-managed, can secure the long-term survival and well-being of the country and its people. This requires that Iraq re-gains complete sovereignty over its oil resources and that the revenues from the oil export go back, without any deductions, to Iraq. It should be respected by all, of course if a future, truly democratically elected, Iraqi government voluntarily chooses to enter into other arrangements in this sphere.
Regaining this sovereignty over its one existentially important resources requires the declaration as null and void of whatever “agreements” that were imposed by the American administration installed after March 2003 as well as the new Iraqi oil law. 12

7. Make the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction

It is far too often forgotten that both the UN Security Council and General Assembly had long ago insisted that the Middle East shall be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction; media, politicians, and experts conveniently forget the fact that Israel is a major nuclear power since decades back.13
It has always been and remains untenable and unfair to have, as the West does, a double-principled policy: one for Israel and one for other countries in the region. It is simply not credible and never was and it does not enhance the security of Israel itself since Israel’s nuclear weapons is the single most important argument for others to acquire exactly the same prestige position. Thus, everybody – the region itself and the world – would be a far safer place if the UN resolutions were respected. Therefore, a region-wide dismantling of nuclear and other WMD facilities, with an appropriate monitoring and inspection regime, should be implemented. (see further point 10)

8. Establish a truth and reconciliation process, public apology accompanied by dialogue and forgiveness

The socio-psychological violence suffered by millions of Iraqis tends to get lost in the media and public debate because it is invisibly compared with the magnitude of the physical destruction. The need for healing among the Iraqis and between the Iraqis and those countries that have done such harm to their lives and society simply cannot be overestimated. In addition, the millions who suffer psychologically for instance from clinical traumatisation  have a human right to receive help. Their problems may fuel future violence and immense hatred if not addressed massively with the best human expertise available.
Iraq, like many other protracted conflicts will need a process – and possibly a Commission or some other appropriate institutional arrangement – to secure that the larger truths about its contemporary history can be revealed, recorded and victims thereby receive some measure of recognition and sympathy.
If there were a Western leader who would have the civil courage to publicly express his regrets over – even apologise for - the terrible destruction wrought on the Iraqi people and would address it directly to them, it would undoubtedly be a major step in the direction of reconciliation and forgiveness. It would take out at least some of the argument of future terrorism against the West.
We can not expect the Iraqis and others in the Middle East to forgive anyone for the sanctions and for the years of occupation without being invited and encouraged to do so by at least one of the wrong-doers. There are many cases in human history where statesmen’s regrets and apologies have invited victims to forgive and thereby opened the road to a better future and co-operation. Such cases must be studied and lessons learned for the case of Iraq.
Finally there is cultural reconciliation. It will not come about until the unique treasures of Iraq’s museums and historical sites are delivered back. They are essential for the history and identity of the Iraqis but also for the entire Western culture. Stealing them and bombing mosques and monuments is a way of depriving people of their identity and dignity.

9. Organize people-to-people co-operation and civil society exchanges

Governments alone cannot do good what they have done wrong. It is imperative that opportunities for people-to-people co-operation be investigated and new ways tried. Qualified doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, engineers, etc. from outside should be provided opportunities to work in Iraq when the new type of UN-lead mission is in place. Scholarships must be provided for young Iraqis who have lost so many years because of the sanctions and the war – but also for Western students and civil society organisations to go and work in Iraq with Iraqis. After the Second World War, international work brigades were organized to help re-build Yugoslavia. Something similar could be arranged for Iraq – it would get work done where many helping hands are needed and there would be no more convincing way to convey that the outside wants peace with Iraq and its people.
As a first step, before security so permits, a lot of virtual means could be used to promote people-to-people understanding. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and Internet TV could be brought to intensive use and e-learning opportunities – but funds must be made available for entrepreneurial young people to provide professional spaces for such human exchanges and mutual learning.

10. Organize a long-term regional conference working toward a comprehensive settlement for the entire region, including its two core conflicts – Iraq/the West and Palestine/Israel

The Middle East is already one of the most militarized regions in the world. The Bush administration’s $ 60 billion plan for arming selected countries against the alleged threat from Iran is once again based on a complete misconception of how to create peace and stability. The EU, Russia and other parties including the international public should voice their strong opposition to this initiative.
The most relevant initiative for peace that could be taken under UN auspices would be to convene a regional conference – with governments, regional organizations and civil society organisations together – on peace, security, and development in the Middle East.
It must be all-inclusive, not close the door on any actors. It would be multi-dimensional and deal with both development, security, law and human rights, peace and reconciliation in integrated ways.
It could be modelled upon the historically important OSCE process from the mid-1970es that was so instrumental in dismantling the Cold War blocs.
Its goals should include:
1. adopting a mutual non-aggression declaration together with all participating governments;
2. the re-confirmation to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region in adherence to UN Security Council resolution 687/1991;
3. adopting a convention on civil, human and minority rights for all in the region, perhaps with a supreme court or tribunal with enforcement power;
4. agreeing that all nuclear energy programs should be internationally monitored;
5. agreeing to destroy the existing stockpiles of WMD and removal of dangerous ordnance under international supervision;
6. arranging for the elimination of any foreign military presence in the region;
7. discussing an OSCE- and EU-inspired vision for the whole region.

A final consideration: Professional conflict resolution methods

While all these issues are important, the fundamental importance of professional conflict-resolution methods must be emphasized.14
A responsible diplomatic process must be built around a mediating country or organization or group of individuals – or a combination of them - who have comprehensive area expertise as well as experience and know­ledge of conflict analysis, mediation techniques and nonviolent conflict resolution, a mediating facility that can be perceived as truly impartial and able to empathize with all sides. And no mediator will succeed unless specialists with expertise and experience in such methods are included in the advisory team.
The present situation in Iraq, Palestine and other parts of the Middle East is simply undeserving for the people there but, in particular, it is unworthy of an enlightened global community.
This Peace Proposal should be seen as an encouragement, indeed as a moral appeal, to think constructively about how to create peace in and with Iraq and the wider Middle East. It has been developed on the basis of a firm belief that peace is possible. But equally strong is its underlying assumption that peace can be achieved only if all actors – governments, international organizations and civil societies - are willing to leave old approaches and methods behind and do things in new ways.

1 See www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/conflict_disasters/bp105_iraq.htm
2 Revealed in the International Herald Tribune of July 24, 2007.
3 This morally dubious option has been pursued by several countries that have withdrawn e.g. by Denmark whose troops were largely withdrawn in August 2007 without any consideration of how Denmark should and could contribute to healing the wounds and help the Iraqi people to live a normal life again.
4 See Kucinich’s 12 Point Plan at www2.kucinich.us/iraqplan and the plan for ending the occupation at www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd
5 In contrast to most others dealing with a change of policy in Iraq, Kucinich did not vote for the war in the first place. He spearheaded a peace rather than bombing policy in the Balkans (Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo), he has developed a comprehensive proposal for a Department of Peace and advocates the indictment of President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Furthermore, he went against the surge and the extended funding for the war in Iraq and argued for lifting the economic sanctions throughout the 1990s. Kucinich stands out as the only high-level American politician whose value-orientation and concrete policy proposals embrace non-violence, genuine conflict-resolution methods as well as reconciliation. It is perhaps more telling of the world than of him in these dark times that he is marginalised and operates a shoe-string campaign together with thousands of volunteers and his British-born wife Elizabeth Kucinich who holds an MA in conflict-resolution. There is more about him here [http://kucinich.house.gov], this is his official homepage www2.kucinich.us and more can be found about him and his wife on Wikipedia here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich
6 See for instance TFF’s Open Letter to the SG of the UN at www.transnational.org/Resources_Treasures/2007/OpenLetterKi-moon.html
7 See its website www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/june2007iraq_partition.htm
8 See Jan Oberg, Former Yugoslavia and Iraq: a comparative analysis of international conflict mismanagement, in Charles Webel and Johan Galtung (ed), Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, Routledge, London 2007.
9 More about the embassy plans from Los Angeles Times July 24, 2007 www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-embassy24jul24,0,7085179.story and from Think Progress of May 29, 2007 thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy-iraq/. However, the mentioned drawings from the architectural firm of the embassy no longer exists at its website.
10 The debt cancellation is announced here www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx
11 More about Iraq’s debt here www.cfr.org/publication/7796/
12 About the oil law, see www.iraqoillaw.com. See also David Moberg’s Iraqi Unions fight the new oil law www.inthesetimes.com/article/3261/iraqi_unions_fight_the_new_oil_law
13 The relevant documents are UNGA Resolution 3263 of December 9, 1974 and UN Security Council resolution 687/1991.
14 Several of the proposals in this plan were developed in 2004 in Jan Oberg’s Danish-language book the Forudsigelig Fiasko. Konflikten med Irak og Danmark som besættelsesmagt (Predictable Fiasco. The Iraq Conflict and Denmark as an Occupying Power). They happened to overlap considerably with the Kucinich’s 12 Point Plan for Iraq of January 9, 2007 and have been revised and expanded in 2007 under much inspiration from that plan.
© TFF 2007. All rights reserved.

The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research is an independent think tank, a global network and a website for peace by peaceful means.
 TFF is an all-volunteer global network. It promotes conflict-mitigation and reconciliation in general and in selected conflict regions through meticulous on-the-ground research, active listening, education and advocacy.
TFF works in support of the UN Charter norm - „peace by peaceful means.“ We help people learn to handle conflicts with ever less violence against other human beings, other cultures and Nature.
Goals
Conflict-mitigation, peace research and education to improve conflict understanding at all levels and promote alternative security and global development based on nonviolent politics, economics, sustainability and ethics of care.
The results which aim at decision-makers and citizens alike combine innovative thinking and theories with workable, practical solutions.
The board of TFF 2007:
Annabel McGoldrick, United Kingdom
Vicky Samantha Rossi, United Kingdom
Annette Schiffmann, Germany
Hans-Christof Graf von Sponeck, Germany
Jan Oberg, Sweden
www.transnational.org