BY NORM DIXON
The United States remains determined to launch a massive military attack to topple Iraq's President Saddam Hussein, even in the face of the explosion of popular anger in Middle Eastern countries triggered by Israel's state terrorism against the Palestinians.
Since September 11, the US and Britain have steadily increased the volume of propaganda alleging that Iraq possesses "weapons of mass destruction". US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have declared that preventing these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists constitutes the "second phase" of the "war on terrorism".
However, Bush and Blair have been unable to present any proof for their charges. This has not stopped either of them, their political minions and the compliant Western capitalist mass media from stating ad nauseum that it is "a fact" that Iraq possesses or is developing "weapons of mass destruction".
No evidence
Last October, former UN weapons inspector (and an admitted former US spy) Scott Ritter dismissed claims that Iraq has developed biological weapons since the UN withdrew its inspectors in December 1998, ahead of four days of blanket US-British bombing raids.
Ritter told the October 19 British Guardian that between 1991 and December 1998, Iraq "was subjected to intrusive, full-time monitoring of all facilities with a potential biological application. Breweries, animal feed factories, vaccine and drug manufacturing facilities, university research laboratories and all hospitals were subject to constant, repeated inspections... The UN never once found evidence that Iraq had either retained biological weapons or associated production equipment, or was continuing work in the field."
Rolf Ekeus, who between 1991 and 1997 was executive chairperson of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), the body which conducted the search for biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, reported that "in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally".
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1997 also declared that it had "efficiently and effectively" eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
When pressed about the absence of evidence, US and British government officials routinely resort to the unprovable claim that Iraq's weapons factories are cleverly concealed underground (a claim that is also being used by Washington to justify the proposed use of "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons against Iraq).
US and British officials also point to Iraq's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return after they were withdrawn in 1998 as "proof" that Baghdad must be up to no good.
However, they never mention that Iraq did not readmit UNSCOM inspectors because, even though it had abided by UN Security Council resolutions and destroyed its "weapons of mass destruction" and the facilities that produced them, the US had bluntly stated it would never allow the UN Security Council to lift sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991 until there had been a "regime change".
What is also overlooked is the fact that US spies operated within UNSCOM — with the full knowledge of the body's head, Richard Butler — in order to pinpoint the whereabouts of Hussein in the event of a US military strike.
Open secret
The US and Britain's latest unsubstantiated allegations that Iraq is building "weapons of mass destruction" and is willing to share them with anti-US terrorists are designed to panic Western populations — particularly the American public — into backing a large-scale war that could result in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides.
Since September 11, the US and Britain have repeatedly raised the demand that Iraq allow UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to the country. They have warned that Iraq will face military action if it fails to do so.
However, it is an open secret that Washington has no intention of aborting its military attack, preparations for which are well underway. In fact, the return of the weapons inspectors would get in the way of the US plan to overthrow of Hussein.
As the New York Times' Barbara Crossette commented on March 5: "The question hanging over the United Nations now is whether the United States really wants arms inspectors to return, based on public comments made by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld questioning their value... Other diplomats say they think that Washington fears that inspectors could be used to give the appearance of Iraqi compliance while continuing to stonewall inspectors and hide weapons programs."
Walter Pincus and Colum Lynch, writing in the April 15 Washington Post, noted that "senior Pentagon civilians such as [deputy defence secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and their allies elsewhere in the administration fear that a go-ahead by the Iraqi leader could delay and possibly fatally undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq".
Wolfowitz is a central leader of the faction, which has gained the ascendancy since September 11, that favours the aggressive and unilateral use of US military power around the world. Dubbed the "hawks" by the US press, its ranks include Rumsfeld, vice-president Dick Cheney and Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
Pincus and Lynch continued: "'The hawks' nightmare is that inspectors will be admitted, will not be terribly vigorous and not find anything', said a former US official. 'Economic sanctions would be eased, and the US will be unable to act'."
Clearly, Iraq is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
'Will not take yes'
The US is cynically working to ensure that the conditions attached to the return of UN inspectors will be so outrageous and demeaning to Iraq's sovereignty that it will be impossible for Hussein to agree to them.
The Bush gang's strategy was revealed to the April 14 British Guardian: "A US State Department official said he thought it very unlikely that the Iraqi regime would be prepared to accept the stringent program of inspections the US will demand. As [a US intelligence source] put it, the White House 'will not take yes for an answer', suggesting that Washington would provoke a crisis. He added that he expected war to begin soon after the May ultimatum."
On April 15, Rumsfeld stated that he could not imagine a formula for UN weapons inspections that would be both acceptable to Iraq and the US. "I just can't quite picture how intrusive [inspections] would have to be that it could offset the ease with which [Iraq has] previously been able to deny and deceive, and which today one would think they would be vastly more skilful, having had all this time without inspectors", Rumsfeld said.
On May 30, the US is scheduled to present the UN Security Council's six-monthly review of sanctions against Iraq with a new set of "smart" sanctions. The US is likely to issue its ultimatum at that meeting.
Just in case Iraq tries to ward off an attack by admitting UN inspectors, Washington has been busily implementing "Plan B": to discredit the effectiveness of weapons inspection regimes in general, and the proposed new UN inspection agency — UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) — in particular.
The April 15 Washington Post reported that Wolfowitz had ordered the CIA to investigate UNMOVIC chairperson Hans Blix's performance as chairperson of the IAEA between 1981 and 1997 in the hope of finding some dirt with which to discredit him as being either soft on Hussein or excessively gullible. Blix was head of the IAEA when it declared Iraq free of nuclear weapons, a decision criticised by the US government at the time.
The Post reported: "A former State Department official familiar with [the CIA report delivered in late January] said Wolfowitz 'hit the ceiling' because it failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new UN weapons inspection program."
Under the UN Security Council resolution that established UNMOVIC, UN sanctions against Iraq will be suspended if Iraq cooperates with UNMOVIC "in all respects" and when "key remaining disarmament tasks" have been achieved, such as confirmation that Iraq is not developing VX nerve gas, is no longer developing medium- or long-range missiles and provides all related documents.
It will be Blix, as head of UNMOVIC, who will be the final arbiter as to whether Baghdad has cooperated or not. The US and British governments know that if Blix does his job in an honest and professional manner, he will have little choice but to certify Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction, depriving the US of its excuse to wage war.
Diplomatic coup
Meanwhile, in an act of incredible hypocrisy, on April 22 the US engineered a diplomatic coup that overthrew Jose Bustani, Brazilian head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the body that enforces the international chemical weapons convention.
Washington threatened to withdraw its 20% contribution to the OPCW's US$60 million annual budget if two-thirds of the convention's 145 member countries did not vote to oust Jose Bustani. His sacking is the first time a UN agency head has been removed mid-term.
The US accused Bustani of "bias" because he has insisted that OPCW inspectors be allowed to examine US chemical weapons installations on the same basis as other convention signatories' facilities.
Washington refuses to accept weapons inspectors from countries it accuses of being hostile to the US, has imposed limitations on what parts of facilities can be inspected and has given the US president the power to block unannounced inspections and prevent the removal of chemicals from US facilities.
The US has also attacked Bustani's "ill considered initiatives" of urging Iraq to sign the chemical weapons convention and become subject to OPCW's unannounced inspections. Bustani argued that this would be more acceptable to Hussein than the return of the Security Council-controlled UNMOVIC inspectors. In fact, when UNSCOM pulled out in 1998, Iraq allowed the OPCW to finish UNSCOM's tasks.
Needless to say, Washington has rejected such a course of action as it would remove its justification for war.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, May 1, 2002.
Visit the