By Graham Jenkin
On February 18, a young substitute teacher from Columbus, Ohio, faced off with one of the most powerful people in the world. Dressed neatly in a white shirt and tie, Jon Strange was given the freak opportunity of putting a question to US secretary of state Madeleine Albright live on national television.
Flanked by Clinton administration heavyweights, Albright cast an arrogant and formidable image. The question was clear and striking. Why bomb Iraq when other countries have committed similar violations? Turkey slaughters its Kurdish population; Saudi Arabia persecutes religious and political dissidents; Israel slaughters and brutally imprisons Palestinians; Indonesian forces massacre East Timorese. Yet, in those cases, the use of US force is never raised. Why the double standard?
The double standard of US foreign policy, wholeheartedly supported by the Australian government and Labor opposition, is glaringly obvious. Mass murder and executions by US allies are met by stony silence, while enemies of the US are condemned, starved and bombed when accused of committing similar atrocities.
Albright's response could at best be described as evasive. What makes Saddam Hussein different, according to the secretary, is that he has a record of repeatedly using chemical and biological weapons against his own people. "The US and the civilised world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his neighbours", Albright said.
There is overwhelming evidence that Hussein used chemical and biological weapons against Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s. What was Washington and London's response at the time?
In March 1988, Hussein, encouraged by the results of using chemical and biological weapons in his US-backed war against Iran, engaged in the mass slaughter of Kurds at Halabja using nerve gas.
Already receiving aid from the US and western Europe, Baghdad found its actions at Halabja resulted in increased financial and strategic support. According to US dissident Noam Chomsky, Hussein's gassing of Kurds resulted in "no passionate calls for a military strike" as is the case today. "On the contrary, the US and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer."
Although Iraq was an exporter of food, Chomsky reports that agricultural and food aid was extended to Iraq following the atrocities at Halabja to repair soil damage and make up for production lost due to the deaths of local farmers.
There is vast evidence on the public record of US and western European support for Hussein throughout the 1980s.
Loans were granted to Iraq by the US Department of Agriculture which, according to former US attorney general Ramsey Clark, were illegally used to purchase equipment such as jeeps and helicopters.
Dennis Bernstein, a journalist who wrote extensively on the role of Western corporations in supplying arms and equipment to Iraq, reported that in 1987, US Vice President George Bush not only encouraged Iraq to produce chemical and biological weapons, but was willing to commit US financial and strategic resources to assist.
According to Bernstein, the US Department of Commerce granted low-interest loans to Iraq which were used to purchase "strategically sensitive" exports. Further, he reported that the US sent technicians to Iraq to advise and train in the development of nuclear weaponry.
In 1992, a US House Banking Committee investigating US dealings with Iraq found that the Bush administration deliberately helped Iraq with military equipment and training while remaining silent on Hussein's human rights atrocities. Fuel air explosives, nuclear plant equipment, bacterial research technology — all were sold to Iraq, sometimes directly to the Iraqi Defence Department.
The US was not alone. John Tirman, former reporter for Time and executive director of the Winston Foundation for World Peace, reported that the Soviet Union and much of western Europe were assisting Iraq with military intelligence and loans. Bernstein reports that 86 German corporations had engaged in transactions with Iraq. British and French companies also cashed in, with government approval.
The relationship between the US and Hussein was so tight that Iraq could even get away with killing US troops. In May 1987, while the US Navy was in the Gulf assisting Hussein in his war against the Iranian revolution, the Iraqi military attacked the USS Stark, killing 37 crew members. The US response amounted to a "slap on the wrist", according to Chomsky.
After questioning the State Department in December 1989 as to why strategic and financial aid was being furnished to Iraq, Chomsky was informed that such aid was putting the US "in a better position to deal with Iraq on human rights issues".
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Hussein was a trusted friend and trading partner of the US and Britain, a fact ignored by most mainstream media covering recent events and seemingly forgotten by Albright and her "civilised" colleagues.
Hussein was extremely useful in providing profits for US and British businesses during the 1980s and, through his US-backed war with Iran, was effective in undermining regional solidarity and cooperation.
Atrocities that Washington and London now condemn and use as justification for bombing and sanctions are the same atrocities which were ignored at the time. The change in policy represents a realisation that the Iraqi dictator was no longer under control, no longer an asset to furthering the interests of the West.
Many brutal dictatorships and regimes are today being backed and bankrolled by our leaders — Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, to name just the worst. Which will be the next friend to turn foe? Who will be tomorrow's Hussein?