IRAQ: Washington demands war despite inspectors' return

BY NORM DIXON

Iraq's “surprise” decision on September 16 to accept the return of
UN weapons inspectors was the last thing US President George Bush wanted.
It deprived his administration of a key pretext — one that is convincing
enough to sway an increasingly sceptical world population — for the planned
US invasion of Iraq.

Iraq's move has also disrupted Washington's belated — and grudging —
effort to dress up its threatened attack in the camouflage of a “multilateral
response” to Iraq's “defiance” of UN Security Council resolutions.

Washington's immediate dismissal of Baghdad's agreement to cooperate
with weapons inspectors — and its refusal to slow its preparations for
war — has exposed further the fact that its persistent allegations that
Iraq continues to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons are
little more than cynical propaganda for war.

Following discussions with UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, Arab League
secretary-general Amr Moussa, Iraq's foreign minister Naji Sabri presented
Annan with a letter that succinctly stated that Baghdad would “allow the
return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions”.

Sabri's letter stressed that Iraq's decision was based “on its desire
to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions
and remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction”.
It stated that Iraq made its decision based on Annan's September 12 statement
to the UN General Assembly that readmitting inspectors was “the indispensable
first step … towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting
of sanctions imposed on Iraq”.

UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. The inspectors from
the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) were not “expelled” or “kicked out”,
as is repeatedly asserted by lying US, British and Australian politicians
and by lazy or dishonest Western journalists. They were ordered out by
the United States ahead of a four-day bombing attack by US and British
warplanes. The head of UNSCOM at the time, Australian Richard Butler, was
criticised for not seeking Security Council approval before withdrawing
the inspectors.

Baghdad later refused to allow the inspectors back in after it was revealed
in 1999 that Washington had used UNSCOM as cover to spy on President Saddam
Hussein's whereabouts. Several of Hussein's residences were destroyed by
US warplanes in a clumsy attempt to assassinate Iraq's ruler during the
raids. The targets were selected using data uncovered by UNSCOM.

The presence of US spies was not merely an “allegation”, as the establishment
media persistently and dishonestly reports. Former UN weapons inspector
Scott Ritter and former UNSCOM chief from 1991-97, Rolf Ekeus, have confirmed
that US spies infiltrated UNSCOM with Butler's knowledge. Highlighting
Washington's hypocrisy, the infiltration was a direct breach of the Security
Council resolutions that established UNSCOM — the same resolutions it now
demands that Iraq abide by or else suffer a US invasion.

Washington was caught flat-footed by the swiftness of Iraq's agreement
to allow the return of inspectors. Apparently, the Bush gang believed its
own rhetoric which claimed Hussein would “never” agree to the return of
inspectors and comply with existing UN resolutions, unless confronted with
a tough new UN Security Council resolution that demanded compliance under
threat of immediate military attack.

Iraq's move followed Bush's September 12 ultimatum to the UN that demanded
that the Security Council endorse the military enforcement of council resolutions
passed against Hussein's regime since 1990 or the US would act unilaterally.

However, the Iraqi regime was not as politically dumb as Washington
had convinced itself it was. Clearly, under the circumstances of Washington's
stated intention to attack Iraq regardless of what the Security Council
decided, Baghdad had little choice but to accept the return of UN weapons
inspectors.

But Baghdad also realised that Bush's tough talk before the UN could
not hide the fact that his very appearance before the world body represented
an important chink in the imperial Goliath's armour.

Bush did not want to have to go through the UN process before attacking
Iraq. Following months of fierce debate within the US ruling class, those
pushing for a US attack on Iraq without UN approval and irrespective of
the return of weapons inspectors — dubbed the “hawks”, led by vice president
Dick Cheney and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld — found themselves on
the back foot as public support for a unilateral war on Iraq began to fade.

A public opinion poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and published
in the September 5 Washington Post revealed just how badly the Cheney-Rumsfeld
war talk had fared. While nearly 66% of respondents favoured military action
to topple Hussein, support dropped to 30% if any attack was carried out
by the US alone. Only 42% said they would support an attack if US forces
“might suffer thousands of casualties”. Just 18% would support a unilateral
US attack that cost the lives of thousands of US soldiers.

That was why the “hawks” ordered Bush to go to the UN to demand its
backing for military action. They had been forced to make a concession
to try to heal the rift in the ruling class and halt the slide in US public
support for war.

Iraq's quick agreement to readmit weapons inspectors was a recognition
that a further delay would have played into Washington's hands. It would
have heightened the crisis atmosphere, strengthened Washington's claim
before the US people that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and allowed
the US time to bribe or threaten other Security Council members to pass
a resolution that would give it a blank cheque to wage war.

Following Bush's bellicose UN ultimatum, US and British officials began
to draft a tough new Security Council resolution to govern weapons inspections.
Compared to the existing UN Security Council resolution, it would have
sharply reduced deadlines for Iraq's compliance, lowered the threshold
of what constitutes a breach of cooperation and compliance and included
immediate military “consequences” for the slightest breach.

Appearing on the CBS News program Face the Nation on September
15, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that a new deadline for compliance
would be “a short time, a matter of weeks”. He added that the US-British
draft resolution included phrases that “member states should feel free”
to “use necessary measures” should Iraq not comply to the council's satisfaction.
It would have been a blank cheque for US military action.

Washington's intention was to craft a resolution that so disregarded
Iraq's national sovereignty that it would be impossible for Baghdad to
agree to it, thus making a US military attack inevitable. The deadlines
were designed to ensure that war would be launched at a time most convenient
for the US.

Washington was making rapid progress in convincing the other permanent
members of the Security Council — which have the power to veto any council
resolution — to accept that a US attack was a fait accompli which they
might as well endorse or acquiesce to —and reap the benefits.

US officials quietly assured Russia and France that any US puppet regime
in Iraq would respect contracts signed between Hussein's regime and those
countries' oil and construction companies. The massive US$7 billion debt
owed to Russia would also be repaid, US officials pledged.

Washington's August 26 announcement of its support for Beijing's war
against the independence movement in Xinjiang province as part of the international
War on Terror ensured that China would at least abstain on the draft resolution.

Moscow also let it be known that its price for not wielding its veto
was a similar blank cheque to launch military raids across its border with
Georgia to kill Chechen rebels, also under the cover of the War on Terrorism.
The September 14 Washington Post reported that "a senior US official, who
asked not to be identified, said Washington was open to hearing Russia's
arguments for action against Georgia and suggested that the two countries
might find 'common interest' on the need for preemptive strikes against
terrorists".

On September 13, Moscow's previous opposition to a military attack on
Iraq became less certain when Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov warned
that Baghdad would face "possible consequences" if it did not comply with
UN Security Council resolutions. However, Iraq's agreement to allow the
return of weapons inspectors seems to have abruptly stalled Washington's
war diplomacy.

US demands war

The US reaction to Iraq's conciliatory move has been to up the pace of
war preparations. The White House immediately issued a terse statement
that described Iraq's agreement as "a tactical step" to avoid "strong UN
Security Council action". "As such, it is a tactic that will fail", the
statement warned. Bush later described Iraq's move as a "ploy" and a "trick".
The White House statement insisted that enforcement of existing UN resolutions
against Iraq "will require a new, effective UN Security Council resolution
that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi
people, to the region and to the world".

In subsequent days, Powell and British officials continued to push for
the Security Council to pass such a resolution before the final arrangements
for the resumption of weapons inspections have been finalised. However,
statements by Russia, France and China indicate that they will oppose a
new resolution. Annan has also stated that existing resolutions are adequate
for inspections to resume.

As he shared a platform with Powell in New York on September 17, Ivanov
flatly rejected the US demand: "We managed to avert the threat of a new
war scenario and go back to political means of solving the Iraq problem...
It is essential in the coming days to resolve the issue of the inspectors'
return. For this, no new resolutions are needed."

On September 19, Ivanov dismissed claims by Cheney and Rumsfeld that

inspectors would not be able to find Iraq's "hidden" weapons of mass destruction:
"Being experienced in that sort of thing — both Americans and Russians
— I think we can easily establish whether or not [they] exist."

When the 15-member Security Council met on September 17, the US, supported
by Britain and Colombia, attempted to delay the a meeting with Hans Blix,
the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) chief,
to discuss the modalities of the resumption of inspections until after
US officials had prepared a new resolution. However, the council's majority
voted to meet with Blix on September 19.

On September 17, Blix and Iraqi officials agreed to meet in Vienna on
September 27 to complete technical arrangements for the inspectors' return.
Iraq promised to provide that meeting with all documents relating to its
import of "dual use" equipment and materials since 1998. Blix stated that
inspectors could be at work within weeks.

Without a new Security Council resolution, the inspections by UNMOVIC
and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will 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 take
six months to determine whether Iraq is developing "illegal" weapons. If
Iraq cooperates, sanctions may be suspended within 120 days and if Iraq
continues to cooperate the suspension will be renewed every 120 days. Once
Iraq is found to be free of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, sanctions
should be lifted completely.

Clearly, this schedule is not conducive to Washington's predetermined
timetable for war. Iraq's cooperation and a finding that it is free of
weapons of mass destruction, will be a major public relations blow to Washington's
goal of a war to carry out "regime change". Certification of Iraq's weapons-free
status would remove the Bush gang's key justification for a war. 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".

Meanwhile, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney have stepped up pressure on the
US Congress to pass a resolution endorsing a unilateral US attack on Iraq
before November. Top Republican and Democrat congressional leaders have
said that they will support the administration's request to give Bush "maximum
flexibility" to wage war.

On September 19, Bush asked Congress for authority to use "all means
[the president] determines to be appropriate, including force" to disarm
and overthrow the Hussein regime. "If you want to keep the peace, you've
got to have authorisation to use force", Bush stated.

From Green Left Weekly, September 25, 2002.

Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.