see also: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1119-01.htm Annan Says Iraqi No-Fly Zone Firing No Violation
forwarded... November 19, 2002 Dear Friends, It is an "interesting" time, to say the least. War against Iraq is literally around the corner, and the build up is on going despite what the President says about respecting the UN time tables. War in Afghanistan is on going, but for the most part it is happening outside of public knowledge. It is an "interesting" time when convicted Iran Contra criminal John M. Poindexter can crawl back into the Pentagon without much fan fare. He is the head of the Office of Information Awareness. This innocuous sounding little office is charged with developing new surveillance technologies for the Government. A task that worries civil libertarians because it could result in a "surveillance state." We are worried about that, but we are even more worried about Poindexter's public image overhaul. Is the public's memory really that short? Poindexter was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. He testified to Congress that he made a "very deliberate decision not to ask the President" about the diversion of missile profits to the Contras in order to "provide some future deniability for the President if it ever leaked out." Is this the man we want to be in charge of surveillance and personal information collection? His office has developed a system that can provide investigators with instant access to a huge volume of personal information, including mail and calling records, credit card, and banking transactions and travel documents..... all without a search record. For more on Poindexter and the Office of Information Awareness visit http://www.hereinreality.com/bigbrother.html#ref Poindexter is not the only convicted (although- to be fair- his conviction was overturned in 1990) Iran Contra alum in the Bush II White House. Visit http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html for the complete list. But enough about Poindexter. In this issue of the ATRC Update, we have articles from Bill and Michelle about the official sanctioning of the war in Iraq- in the Congress and the United Nations. We also include some of our most recent media hits and new resources that help advocates, activists and academics get a handle on what's going on. Warm Regards and an Early but Heartfelt Happy Thanksgiving, Bill Hartung Michelle Ciarrocca Meghan Towers Frida Berrigan ----------------------- THE LEGAL ROAD TO WAR? UN SECURITY RESOLUTION 1441 By Michelle Ciarrocca With Iraq's acceptance of UN Security Resolution 1441, the inspectors are back in Iraq after a 4-year hiatus. Hans Blix, Chief of the UN inspections, and his team and inspectors for the nuclear program arrived in Baghdad on November 18th. They are hunting for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and are scheduled to report back to the Security Council with their findings by January 27, 2003. However, as Ian Williams noted in a recent commentary piece for Foreign Policy In Focus, the UN resolution may simply be an "alternative 'legal' road to war rather than an alternative to war itself." Mohammed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, was a bit more optimistic about the UN resolution and resumption of inspections saying, "It's an opportunity to cough up whatever they have left of weapons of mass destruction." "I think this will be a beginning for a path for Iraq to go back into being a full-fledged member of the international community, towards suspension of sanctions, towards a comprehensive settlement. This is an opportunity. It is an alternative to the use of force." "Our Kind" of Resolution The Bush administration described the nuclear reduction treaty signed by the U.S. and Russia this summer as "our kind of treaty," because it gives the White House and the Pentagon room to pursue nuclear weapons research and development. The UN resolution on Iraq can be seen in the same light. Passed unanimously, the resolution gives UN weapons inspectors "unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to anyone and anywhere in Iraq that their search for weapons of mass destruction might lead them. The resolution grants UN inspectors much more authority than they had last time. They have unfettered access to the Presidential Palaces; the power to deploy UN security guards; the right to declare "exclusion zones" to freeze movement into and out of inspection sites; and more. Saddam Hussein was given seven days to confirm his intention to comply -- which he did. Any breach of the resolution will be reported to the Security Council and result in "serious consequences." The first test of Iraq's intent to comply will be in the next few weeks. Under the terms of the UN resolution, Iraq has until December 8th to hand over a comprehensive list of weapons sites, which will be checked and compared to a list of more than 100 priority sites compiled by western experts. The list was derived from the findings of previous weapons inspections and the latest intelligence. Any false statements or omissions regarding weapons sites would constitute a "material breach of Iraq's obligations." When asked what would constitute a "material breach" by the Iraqis President Bush said, "Zero tolerance. About as plain as I can make it. We will not tolerate any deception, denial or deceit, period." In fact, almost any misstep by Iraq can be interpreted as a material breach and retaliated against. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte stated, "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions." At What Cost Unanimity? Unanimous passage of the UN resolution by the 15 members of the Security Council is not the same as international consensus on attacking Iraq. Every member of the Security Council got a little slice of what they wanted. France, with the backing of Russia and China, got to water down the resolution a little and insert a provision to ensure that the U.S. would return to the Security Council before launching an all out attack on Iraq. Their opposition to a "blank check" for U.S. war in Iraq played well with their domestic constituents, but they refrained from opposing the United States outright. The UK co-sponsored the U.S. resolution and played the mediator. While Prime Minister Tony Blair was roasted for being in Bush's pocket, his intervention created the space for a wider debate on limiting war. The revolving members of the Security Council were more minor players, but their votes were politically and economically calculated. As Thalif Deen of the Inter Press Service suggests, the others voted in favor of the resolution, in part, due to extensive lobbying on behalf of the U.S. and knowing it would mean an increase (or a reduction) in aid. Many remembered the U.S. cutting about $70 million in aid to Yemen in 1990 following its vote against the U.S. sponsored Security Council resolution to oust Iraq from Kuwait. Specifically, the IPS article reported that Mauritius' UN ambassador Jagdish Koonjul was temporarily recalled by his government for conveying the impression that his country had reservations about the resolution. Deen wrote, "The US aid package to the impoverished country, authorized by the US African Growth and Opportunity Act, demands that the aid recipient 'does not engage in activities contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests.'" Syria voted in favor of the resolution, fearing that it could be targeted next if it didn't go along with the U.S. But it was also able to interpret the UN Resolution as holding off, instead of authorizing, war. As Syria's foreign minister, Farouk al-Sharaa also noted, "This resolution stopped an immediate strike against Iraq, but only an immediate strike." After the vote, the Arab League backed the resolution, saying it does not specifically authorize the use of force, and the League also proposed that the UN pay equal attention to Israel's WMD program. The U.S. is engaged in discussions with Turkish and Israeli officials, hoping to assuage one's concerns and curb the other's enthusiasm. In a New York Times article on November 18th, authors James Dao and Eric Schmitt provide insight into how cooperation is being bought. Turkey is concerned that in the heat of battle, their Kurdish population might set up a separate state. In order to reassure them, Washington is negotiating a "multibillion dollar aid package" to forgive Ankara's debts and providing military aid. The Bush administration is also advocating for Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union. As for Israel, U.S. warplanners are concerned that Israel might attack Iraq on its own. In order to secure assurances that they won't, Washington is considering intervening in Israel's ongoing water dispute with Lebanon and Syria. War Plans Continue As the inspectors begin their work, the Bush administration continues its preparations for an all-out war against Iraq. The New York Times reported on the "series of diplomatic and military steps that must be completed before the United States could go to war in Iraq." Included in these steps is securing access to bases in the Persian Gulf region, specifically Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman. The U.S. has already begun stockpiling tanks, precision-guided munitions and heavy equipment in the region, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will meet with NATO allies this week to clarify their role in an attack on Iraq. IRAQ RESOURCES Read the full UN resolution at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/07/international/middleeast/07NTEX.html Foreign Policy in Focus: "Stumbling Blindly Into War," by Frida Berrigan, November 15, 2002, http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211iraq.html "Good Cop, Bad Cop at the UN," by Ian Williams, November 12, 2002, http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2002/0211goodbad.html "Dollars yielded unanimous vote: Resolution against Iraq," by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service, November 11, 2002. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1111-02.htm The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms
