BY NORM DIXON
On October 8, US Secretary of State Colin Powell hinted that a "compromise" within the UN Security Council on a resolution for "tough" new weapons inspection guidelines in Iraq was close to being struck. Such a resolution would provide Washington with the trigger for its long-planned invasion of Iraq and make war inevitable.
The October 10 Los Angeles Times reported that "after weeks of haggling with fellow Security Council members, the United States and Britain are moving towards acceptance of a single, compromise UN resolution that would call for 'consequences' if Iraq defies international weapons inspectors but would not automatically authorise the use of force, according to US officials and UN diplomats involved in the negotiations".
According to the October 11 New York Times, "the diplomatic strategy now being discussed in Washington, Paris and Moscow, would allow Mr Bush to claim that the resolution gives the US all the authority he believes he needs to force Baghdad to disarm".
Yet all this diplomatic manoeuvring ignores the fact that Iraq agreed on September 16 to Washington's key demand that it comply with all existing UN Security Council resolutions on weapons inspections.
On October 1, Iraq's cooperation deepened during talks in Vienna between Iraqi officials and the heads of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix said that Iraq accepted "all the rights of inspections that are laid down in previous UN resolutions". Iraq confirmed that "all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" and that eight presidential sites would be open for inspection, subject to the procedures agreed to by the Security Council in 1998. Four CD-ROMS full of information about equipment imported since 1998 that may have a potential military use were handed over.
The US State Department immediately demanded that inspections be delayed until "a new, strong, tough resolution" was passed by the Security Council. A "senior State Department official" brazenly told the October 2 New York Times that the US would go into "thwart mode" if Blix sought to return to Iraq without new guidelines. Blix had stated that UNMOVIC and the IAEA could begin work as early as mid-October.
The purpose of the drive for a tough new UN resolution by President George Bush and his British sidekick, Prime Minister Tony Blair, is to sabotage that agreement and end the rapid progress that has been made towards the resumption of UN inspections.
Addressing the UN General Assembly on September 12, Bush demanded that Iraq unconditionally comply with all UN Security Council resolutions passed against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime since 1990. He also issued an ultimatum to the UN Security Council: if it failed to enforce its resolutions against Iraq with military force then the US would act unilaterally.
As the September 13 Washington Post noted, Bush's speech was a continuation of the administration's policy of "pre-emptive action" (a euphemism for military aggression), not a departure from it: "[Bush is] at least making a bow in the direction of lining up international support. Although as the White House sees it, this probably means a UN demand that weapon inspectors have unfettered access to Iraq, followed by a Hussein rejection, followed by an American insistence that it has no choice but to send in the troops."
The Bush gang was forced to concede that it needed the UN Security Council to cooperate with, or at least acquiesce to, its planned war against Iraq in order to slow the growth of opposition to the war within the increasingly sceptical US population.
UN endorsement of a US attack would make it easier for Washington's allies and supporters throughout the world to confuse the public by claiming that a US-led war on Iraq was not naked imperialist aggression, but "multilateral" enforcement of "international law".
It would also provide nervous pro-imperialist Middle Eastern regimes with a justification for providing access to their military facilities and air space to the invaders. European governments would feel more comfortable in offering open military cooperation in the face of massive local opposition to war.
The hostility directed at Hussein's regime by US vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the other imperial militarists — the real power behind Bush's throne — has nothing to do with Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction or its tenuous "terrorist links".
The Cheney-Rumsfeld imperial cabal's long-held ambition has been to overthrow Hussein's government and replace it with a puppet regime, as the first step in ridding the Middle East of governments and popular movements that it considers obstacles to US domination of the strategic oil-rich region.
Invoking the horror of 9/11, the Bush gang has argued that unless the US launches an attack on Iraq, Hussein would soon be in a position to hand "weapons of mass destruction" to "terrorists" for use against the US, or he might launch them himself.
However, Washington's cynical campaign was thrown into disarray by Iraq's September 16 decision to "allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions" based "on [Baghdad's] desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction".
Iraq's agreement removed any justification for the tough new Security Council resolution, which would have included immediate military "consequences" for the slightest breach, that was already being drafted by Washington and London.
However, the White House and Downing Street immediately rejected Iraq's offer. Powell and British officials stepped up their push for the passage of a new Security Council resolution.
Without a new resolution, inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA would be conducted under the provisions of UN Security Council resolution 1284, passed in 1999.
Under 1284's terms, UN and IAEA inspectors will have 60 days to determine what sites need to be inspected or monitored. Inspectors will then have six months to determine whether Iraq is developing banned weapons.
If Iraq cooperates, sanctions may be suspended after 120 days, with suspension renewed every 120 days thereafter if Iraq continues to cooperate. Once Iraq is found to be free of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, sanctions would be lifted completely.
Clearly, this is not conducive to Washington's predetermined timetable for war, which is rumoured to have the ground invasion pencilled in for January or February, preceded by a massive bombing blitz in late December.
The US-British draft resolution contains provisions that are so stringent and so completely disregard Iraq's national sovereignty that it is clear that it was deliberately designed to incite rejection by Baghdad. It demands that Iraq accept the resolution's terms within seven days of the Security Council passing it. Iraq must then provide a "full, final and complete declaration" of banned weapons programs within 30 days.
The draft authorises "member states" of the UN Security Council" to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to accept or comply with the resolution. Any "false statements or omissions in the declaration 85 and failure by Iraq to comply and cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions 85 shall constitute further breach of Iraq's obligations".
A US official bluntly revealed to the September 28 New York Times the true purpose of the provisions: "If we find anything [Iraq] gives us that is not true, that is the trigger. If they delay, obstruct or lie about anything they disclosed, then this will trigger action."
A European diplomat agreed, telling the NYT: "The Americans are not really interested in having the inspectors go back in. This is not a resolution for inspections. It is a declaration of war."
If that is not enough to guarantee rejection by Iraq, then provisions that amount to the de facto US occupation of Iraq would. The US-British resolution unashamedly ditches even the pretence that the inspection process will be neutral or respect Iraq's national sovereignty.
Not only does the draft resolution order Baghdad to agree to "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transport". It also states that "any permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on any inspection team with the same rights and protections" as UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors.
In other words, US spies and agents provocateurs can openly join the teams. These "representatives" would have the right to "recommend" which sites are to be inspected, which individuals should be questioned, what "data [is] to be collected" and "receive a report on the results".
The draft states that Iraq must provide "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC wish to interview" and UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors "may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq, or facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that such interviews shall occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government".
This amounts at best to an invitation for Iraq's top scientists and officials to defect or, at its most sinister, the legalised kidnapping of key Iraqis.
Inspectors and Security Council members have the right to impose "no-fly/no-drive zones, exclusion zones and/or ground- and air-transit corridors, which shall be enforced by UN security forces or by member states". Inspectors, their base camps and transit routes will be protected by "sufficient United Nations security forces". They will also have "the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed and rotary winged aircraft, including unmanned reconnaissance vehicles".
Bush and Blair claim that the draconian new resolution is required because Iraq refuses to allow "unfettered" access to presidential sites. In his "dossier" released on September 24, Blair claimed that Iraq had "barred" inspectors from these sites in 1997.
While it is true that a dispute between Baghdad and the UN disrupted inspections of the sites between December 1997 and February 1998, this was settled with the passage of UN Security Council resolution 1154, passed in March 1998 with the support of US and British delegates. Under 1154's provisions, UN inspectors will be able to enter these sites as long as they give 24 hours' notice and are accompanied by diplomats appointed by the UN secretary general. No further delays or obstructions to inspections were reported.
Much has also been made of the extent of the presidential sites. Washington and London regularly imply that weapons of mass destruction could be concealed in these areas. The eight sites cover a total area of 31.5 square kilometres, 10 sq kms of which are covered by lakes. The largest site, the Radwaniyah in Baghdad, covers almost 18 sq kms. The UN in February 1998 conducted a detailed survey of each site and found no significant military installations or evidence of banned activities.
France, Russia and China — permanent members of the Security Council which, together with the US and Britain, have the power to veto council resolutions — have been unwilling to support the US-British draft resolution in its initial form.
Russian officials — including President Vladimir Putin and foreign minister Igor Ivanov — have repeatedly stated that a new UN resolution is unnecessary because the guidelines contained in existing resolutions, in particular 1284, were sufficient. They have also argued for the speedy return of inspectors. Chinese Premier Zhu Rongli expressed a similar position on September 27.
France's major objection has been Washington's insistence on a single resolution that would both impose the harsh new conditions and include automatic authorisation of subsequent US military action against Iraq in the event of a breach.
France has instead proposed that a resolution containing tougher compliance conditions and shorter deadlines be passed. In the event that UNMOVIC reports a "serious failure" by Iraq to comply, a meeting of the Security Council would consider a second resolution to approve military action.
As the impasse has continued, Russia and China have lined up behind the French position and are likely to accept any compromise that is reached between Paris and Washington.
In return for a favourable UN resolution, US officials have continued to quietly promise that a post-Hussein pro-US regime in Iraq will respect contracts signed by Baghdad with French and Russian oil and construction companies. The massive debt of US$7 billion owed to Russia would also be repaid, Washington has pledged.
Paris has been vague about which "tough" guidelines being pushed by Washington it is prepared to accept. Clearly, any US-French compromise resolution that retains even a fraction of the outrageous provisions contained in the US-British draft will give Washington the ample opportunities it hankers for to manufacture crises and provoke confrontations in order to trigger a military attack on Iraq.
Whatever the eventual outcome, Washington and London are still openly reserving the right to launch an invasion of Iraq if a compromise is not reached. According to the September 19 Washington Post, "Should the Security Council reject" the US-British resolution, "the administration is prepared to make clear it believes it has authority to act unilaterally under a 'self-defence' clause in the UN charter".
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, October 16, 2002.
Visit the