February 23, 2003
Q&A
Seattle Times letter-writer Edwin G. Davis, while expressing his concern for the likely humanitarian impact of war, as well as its probable costs, still counts himself as a hawk -- until the Peace Movement can satisfactorily answer some nagging questions. These are precisely the sorts of people the Peace Movement should be reaching out to. So here goes.
Why isn't the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against the U.S. and others, maybe through terrorists, a certainty unless Iraq is disarmed? Note first of all that the U.S. intelligence apparatus itself has disputed the imminence of any Iraqi threat on more than one occasion. CIA Director George Tenet has even stated that he doesn't expect that Saddam would ever use any weapons of mass destruction he might possess unless he were attacked. The Institute for Public Accuracy has thoroughly debunked the Iraqi threat myths, and none of the other countries in the region -- those that would be much more likely to fall within Saddam's reach -- are the least bit worried by an Iraqi attack. Moreover, the only times that Iraq has used WMD upon others were when it had the support of the United States. We should be much more worried, frankly, of the certainty that the United States will use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons when it attacks Iraq. Why will inspections disarm Iraq when they didn't before? In fact, Iraq was essentially disarmed by 1998 -- as testified by former inspectors Raymond Zilinskas, Scott Ritter, and others. Even former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler acknowledged in 1998 that if disarmament were a five-lap race, that the inspectors were three-quarters of the way through the fifth lap. Saddam stopped cooperating with UN Inspectors because, he said, the U.S. was using the inspections as a cover for spying operations. The United States denied the charge, ordered the inspectors to leave (they were not kicked out by Saddam), and commenced bombing. The spying charges were later confirmed. The inspectors didn't return for almost four years. But at the time of UNSCOM's demise, Iraq was already "qualitatively disarmed". We should wonder, then, at U.S. motives. Why did it fear the end of the sanctions regime (which, it was well known at the time, was not only a disaster from a humanitarian perspective, but had strengthened Saddam's grip on the populace)? Why didn't the United States allow the inspectors to finish their job, and certify Iraq in compliance with UN Resolution 687? We might also ask why the current administration has promised to launch a war even if the current inspectors certify Iraq's disarmament, and why U.S. intelligence is supplying the inspectors with "garbage after garbage after garbage", while at the same time impugning their effectiveness and leaning on them to give disparaging reports. When you say force should be the last resort, what resort hasn't been tried in the past 12 years? Those that preach force "as a last resort" have bought into the fallacy that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours and the world. In reality, it is the United States which is engaging in military operations worldwide, and threatening the peace on virtually every continent. The vast majority of the world's people are opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq irrespective of whether the U.S. is able to obtain a UN resolution -- and the opposition is strongest in the region. Having said all that, even those (European leaders, for the most part) that do consider it important to "disarm" Iraq insist that the inspections need be given much more time. And of course, the inspectors themselves have pleaded this need over and over again. In short, it is the United States which has, through three presidential administrations, engaged in duplicity, defied UN Resolutions (most germane here are those regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine and UN 687's mandate for region-wide disarmament), "moved the goalposts", and ostracised the International Community -- all while the sanctions have destroyed thousands of innocent lives every month for the past 12 years. Do you propose keeping the U.S. forces now assembled in the Gulf there forever, and if not, will Iraq comply with U.N. mandates? No. U.S. forces should be immediately withdrawn. The current buildup is a clear violation of international law. As stated, Iraq has for the most part complied with UN mandates in the past without the presence of U.S. forces. There's no reason to think that it wouldn't do so in the future. Of far more import is whether the world will be able to convince the United States to comply with UN mandates -- a very tricky proposition indeed, especially given the current Administraion's open disregard for international law. What will happen to the U.N. and Iraq's neighbors if Iraq is not now disarmed? As shown, Iraq's neighbours are overwhelmingly opposed to a U.S. military invasion, and consider the notion of an Iraqi "threat" laughable. Regarding the UN, we should be asking what will happen to it if the United States invades despite monumental opposition within the UN. It is not for the United States to dictate to the world community, it is for the United States to act within the parameters of International Law. If the International Community -- especially that segment which would be most affected by an invasion -- is opposed to an invasion, this doesn't signify its "irrelevance", but its vitality. It is supremely contemptible that the United States displays the arrogance to defy International Law, and/or to buy off and threaten those sectors of the International Community with which it doesn't agree. Won't Iraqis fare better under almost any other government? Yes. Saddam Hussein is a murderously brutal despot. Unfortunately, those candidates most favoured by the United States to replace him are even worse. Kurdish leaders and Iraqi exile opposition leaders are both bristling at U.S. plans for post-Saddam Iraq. The U.S. has time and again spurned democratic formations in Iraq (and throughout the region and world) in favour of murderously brutal despots -- remember, Saddam was a valuable U.S. ally at the height of his depredations. The Iraqi people should determine their country's polity. The United States should worry about its own "difficulties" in maintaining a democratic polity in the "homeland".
What You Can Do: Help open the lines of dialogue. Point those who, like Mr. Davis, are concerned at the calamity that war will bring, but who've legitimate questions regarding the wisdom of opposing the war, to this post. Those who're still not convinced, or who still have questions, use this post's comment form to express your concerns. That's another non-force option this country hasn't fully exhausted: a thorough discussion of the issues at hand. No time like the present.
Posted by Eddie Tews at February 23, 2003 01:38 PM
Comments