UN vote brings war closer

UN vote brings war closer

The unanimous vote by the 15 members of the United Nations Security
Council on November 8 to impose “tough” new weapons inspection rules and
deadlines for compliance on Iraq, with the threat of “serious consequences”,
should not confuse anti-war campaigners. It makes a massive US invasion
of Iraq more likely.

The resolution gives the United States all the excuses it needs to launch
a devastating war, whenever it chooses. As White House spokesperson Ari
Fleischer boasted, “Nothing in this resolution handcuffs the president”.

There is no justification for a US/UN war on Iraq. There is no credible
evidence that Iraq retains or has continued to produce weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Former senior UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has
stated repeatedly that Iraq was disarmed of biological and chemical weapons
and the capacity to produce them by 1994. The International Atomic Energy
Agency concluded in 1998 that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons or the
capacity to make them.

Iraq has stated unequivocally that it does not possess WMD and on September
16 Baghdad agreed to US President George Bush's September 12 demand that
Iraq abide by existing UN Security Council resolutions and allow the unconditional
return of UN weapons inspectors. This was immediately rejected by Bush
and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the return of inspectors was
blocked.

Washington's war threats have nothing to do with Iraq's mythical WMD
or its equally mythical links with the al Qaeda terrorists. These are just
ruses to panic people into accepting a bloody war. The Bush gang repeats
endlessly and openly that its real goal — which was even enshrined in US
legislation in 1998 — is “regime change” in Iraq.

US imperialism has long wanted to extend its military and political
dominance over the Middle East's oil resources. Iraq and Iran — which remain
too independent for Washington's liking — are obstacles to that.

The Bush gang hoped that by exploiting the 9/11 attacks it could convince
the American people of the need to invade Iraq. However, the US public
remained sceptical and Washington's “hawks” were unable to win their support
for a unilateral US attack. This forced the Bush gang to reluctantly “negotiate”
with France and Russia at the UN.

While France and Russia were always more concerned with gaining guarantees
that their economic interests in Iraq would be respected than with preventing
war, the delay has allowed the US anti-war movement to grow in size and
understanding.

War plans back on
track

But now, the Bush gang's war plans are back on track. Washington's UN ambassador,
John Negroponte, declared that Security Council resolution 1441 does not
contain “hidden triggers” for a US war. He's right — the triggers are blatantly
visible:

 If Iraq does not accept 1441's provisions by November 15, the US will
go to war.

 If Iraq fails to provide a “currently accurate, full and complete
declaration” of its entire military and civilian biological, chemical and
nuclear industries by December 8, or if that declaration contains any
“false statements or omissions”, the US will go to war.

 If Iraq fails to give the “precise locations” of “weapons, components,
sub-components, stocks of agents and related material and equipment”, the
US will go to war.

 If Iraq fails “at any time to comply with” or “cooperate fully” with
the implementation of the resolution, the US will go to war.

 If inspectors report “any interference” with “inspection activities”,
the US will go to war.

 If UN inspectors seize Iraqi scientists and their families and attempt
to spirit them out of the country — even if they do not want to go — and
Iraq attempts to prevent it, the US will go to war.

The resolution states that Iraq is already in “material breach” of previous
UN resolutions and any further failures to comply would constitute
another “material breach”. In diplomat-speak, this means that military
action must follow.

While the resolution does state that the Security Council will immediately
meet “to consider the situation” once a breach is reported, there is nothing
in the resolution that prevents the US from going to war. Such a war does
not require authorisation from the Security Council.

Negroponte was open about this when he stated on November 7: “This resolution
doesn't constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against
the threat posed by Iraq.”

Iraq must attempt to avoid any breach, no matter how trivial,
for 105 days (February 21), at which point the heads of the UN inspection
teams will report to the Security Council on whether Iraq has or has not
fully cooperated. A negative report means war.

The US and Britain will be sure to interpret the resolution as literally
as possible. British officials told the November 7 British Guardian
that they would not require evidence that Iraqi officials had deliberately
set out to obstruct inspectors. US national security adviser Condoleezza
Rice has stated that a two-hour delay of inspectors must be considered
a violation, the Los Angeles Times reported on November 6.

Impossible deadline

Even the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who abandoned any pretence
of neutrality and backed the US-British resolution, admitted that it would
be impossible for Iraq to meet the 30-day deadline required of it to declare
every component of its alleged chemical and biological weapons programs
and related industries.

Clearly, there is vast latitude in the resolution's provisions for war
to be triggered, and even if Iraq scrupulously abides by them, Washington
can simply provoke a crisis just as it did in the days before its December
1998 three-day bombing blitz on Iraq — which was launched even as the Security
Council was meeting “to consider the situation”.

The Bush gang wants to wage war on Iraq. It would prefer to launch such
a war in the cooler months, around January or February. US forces have
been steadily building in the Middle East. There are around 60,000 US troops
present in the region.

Over the past few months, the US has ferried dozens of helicopters and
hundreds of tanks and armoured vehicles to supplement the huge arsenal
that is already warehoused there. Six-hundred US war planners will be ensconced
in Qatar by December.

By late December, there will be at least four aircraft carriers and
their battle groups in the region. It is estimated that the extra 50,000-70,000
US and British troops required for an invasion of Iraq could be transported
to the region within weeks of a final decision to attack.

The anti-war movement — and all the political forces which claim to
be part of it — must now take a clear stand: UN endorsement of Washington's
war on Iraq does not make it legitimate. The anti-war movement must redouble
its efforts to mobilise the largest possible numbers of people to stop
this war.

As the successful campaign against the US war on Vietnam proved in the
1960s, mass political action around the world can force governments to
end wars.

From Green Left Weekly, November 13, 2002.

Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.