BY ROHAN PEARCE
The January 17 Washington Post quoted an anonymous UN official who stated that the discovery of a dozen rocket warheads in Iraq by UN inspectors was not a "smoking gun". In fact, the discovery of the 1980s-era warheads has lessened further the credibility of the US government's claim that Iraq still possesses an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.
Eleven of the warheads, discovered on January 16 at the Ukhaider ammunition storage area south of Baghdad, were of the type used to deliver chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. The 12th was removed by inspectors for testing.
Washington's excuse for its massive war drive against Iraq is its accusations that Baghdad is hiding "weapons of mass destruction". A report published by the CIA in October claimed that "more than 10 years after the Gulf war, gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents... Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents... Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500MT of [chemical weapons] agents." The CIA report further claimed at least 6000 chemical bombs remained unaccounted for.
A September 12 briefing paper by the US Department of State said that "gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard... Iraq has not ... accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent."
Yet, after hundreds of unhindered inspections, instead of discovering evidence of this massive alleged arsenal, UN inspectors found a box, cunningly secreted in ... an ammunition storage facility!
The box, described by head of Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate Mohammed Amin as being covered in bird droppings and dust, was similar to that used by Iraq to store conventional 122mm warheads.
Former UN weapons inspector Raymond Zalinskas told the January 17 ABC radio AM program that the claims by Amin that the shells had expired and been forgotten about were believable: "They had these huge ammunition storage areas in several places, the main one being at Musana, so I would easily imagine that a box of ammunition here and there would be lost and put in some corner somewhere and not known to anybody anymore."
Zalinskas told AM that the "excellent" condition of the warheads only indicated they had been "stored properly under proper conditions and didn't rust".
Amin told reporters at a press conference held shortly after the discovery that the warheads were imported in the 1980s. Hiro Ueki, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) spokesperson in Baghdad, also told journalists this after the warheads were found — hence depriving Washington of useful pro-war propaganda.
Anti-war sentiment
The fact that the discovery of a tiny number of obsolete shells is the most damning "evidence" that the UN inspectors have been able to scrape together highlights the dilemma facing the US ruling class and its allies: that despite examining more than 230 sites, inspectors have not been able to provide an excuse for war that will be seen as reasonable by the majority of people, both within and outside the US.
A Los Angeles Times poll, published on December 17, found that 72% of those surveyed felt that Bush "has not provided enough evidence to justify a war with Iraq". The LA Times article on the results argued that the poll also indicated "that Americans do not agree with the president's argument that any error or omission in the arms declaration Iraq sent to the UN [in December] is adequate to justify war". "If UN inspections fail to turn up evidence of Iraqi weapons programs", the article said, "almost half of respondents said they would oppose war. Only 41% would favor war."
As an article in the January 4 Washington Post put it: "Bush has the delicate task of preparing US forces for war while convincing potential allies abroad that he will not act rashly or before the inspection process instituted by the United Nations has played out."
The inspections have continued without any significant problems or delays. In notes for his December 19 report to the UN Security Council, UNMOVIC head Hans Blix acknowledged: "Access to sites has been prompt and assistance on the sites expeditious. It seems probable that a general instruction has been issued [to] not in any way delay or impede inspection of the kind of sites we have gone to so far."
This cooperation is despite several cases of flagrant provocations by inspection teams. Blix's notes recount an episode in which sites were inspected on "the Muslim day of rest [Friday]... Clearly we have the right to undertake inspections at any time, night or day, whether on weekdays or religious holidays. We intend to exercise this right — not to harass — but to demonstrate that just as there are no sanctuaries in space there are no sanctuaries in time." The only hiccup was that the staff at one of the facilities were absent, presumably enjoying their day of rest.
Assertions like that of US state department spokesperson Richard Boucher, who told a January 16 press briefing that there is "no point in continuing forever or going on if Iraq is not cooperating", look increasingly absurd.
Because of this "failure" of the inspections, the White House has been forced to conduct a balancing act between being seen to address the popular sentiment that the inspectors should be allowed to do their job and the need to massively build up its military forces in the Gulf if the US is to launch an invasion in weather conditions favourable for desert warfare.
The longer Washington is forced to delay its attack, the more it is faced with decreasing US popular sentiment for war caused by increasingly large anti-war mobilisations. Growing anti-war sentiment in Europe is making it increasingly difficult for Washington to bank on certain UN security Council endorsement for an attack on Iraq.
The White House seems to be backing away from some of its more belligerent "unilateralist" rhetoric (understandable given that the December 17 LA Times poll showed that 68% of respondents would only support a war if it is supported by the "international community"; only 26% supported a "unilateral" war against Iraq.)
Divisions
Outside of the US, Australia and Britain, growing popular anti-war sentiment has led governments of other imperialist countries to try distance themselves from a "pre-emptive" war on Iraq and argue for a slower-paced war drive with a UN fig leaf.
The January 17 Los Angeles Times reported that Javier Solana, the European Union's representative for foreign and security policy, stated that the discovery of the warheads was "proof of the work of the inspectors". The same article quoted comments by Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis that the discovery "confirms that [inspectors] are doing their job well. They must continue... They need the personnel and time required to give a convincing answer to the questions that have been raised."
The January 14 British Guardian reported that Chris Patten, the EU's external relations minister, "said it would be hard to persuade Europeans to pick up the tab [for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq] if President George Bush acted unilaterally to disarm Saddam Hussein". Patten told the Guardian that he "would find it much more difficult to get the approval of member states and the European parliament if the military intervention that had occasioned the need for development aid did not have a UN mandate".
These divisions are at the root of the continuing discussion about whether a second UN Security Council resolution needs to be passed before a war on Iraq can be launched. British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, despite being pressured by mass anti-war sentiment (a recent poll revealed only 13% support in Britain for a US/British war compared to 53% for a "UN" war), has defended Bush's assertion that there is no need for another resolution.
This international divide between the ruling elites of different imperialist blocks has led to much speculation on the possible outcome of the January 27 report by Blix to the Security Council. The January 4 Washington Post reported: "'We're looking forward to that report', a senior administration official said. Bush's State of the Union address is the next day, and officials said they believe that is when Hussein's time will have run out."
However, Blix has argued that the terms of the UN Security Council's December 1999 resolution 1284 indicate that UNMOVIC should issue another report on the progress of the inspections in March. On January 13, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency, told US news network CNN that inspections could take almost a year.
According to a January 17 New York Times report, though, the US government is opposed to Blix's position, possibly indicating that Bush is intent on using his 2003 State of the Union speech on January 28 as a declaration of war. White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer told journalists on January 9 that Bush hadn't put a "time line" on weapons inspections. However, Bush responded to a journalist's question on January 14 by saying: "Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception. And that's my view of timetables."
According to the January 4 Washington Post, no presidential travel has been scheduled for February, indicating that the White House hawks may very well have a definite time table for the end of inspections and the start of the new Gulf War.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, January 22, 2003.
Visit the