>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "International"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >U.S. strategy vs. Iraq & UNSC Resolution 1284 > >By Richard Becker, >Western Regional Co-Coordinator, International Action Center > >It should be apparent by now to even the most casual observer that a major >goal of U.S. foreign policy is to overthrow the government of Iraq, deprive >that >country of its sovereignty, and reduce it to the status of a colony. > >They even have a name for it in Washington: "regime change." > >There is virtually no debate at the top on the legitimacy and desirability of >this >aim--just some minor differences of opinion over how best to achieve it. > >For nearly a decade the U.S. rulers have waged war against Iraq and its people >by military, economic, financial, political and diplomatic means. The United >States funds, sponsors, trains and organizes political and military opposition >to >the Iraqi government. > >What drives U.S. policy, which has remained virtually unchanged under both >the Republican Bush and Democratic Clinton administrations? > >In short, it's for domination and profit: domination of the key >Persian/Arabian >Gulf, which holds up to two-thirds of the world's petroleum reserves, and the >immense profits to be made by exploiting those fabulous resources. Iraq itself >sits atop a sea of oil. It is ranked second in the world in reserves. > >This reality, of course, must be concealed to the greatest degree possible, >especially from the U.S. public. It wouldn't go over very well to tell people >that >the Pentagon is spending $50 billion to $60 billion a year to blockade and >starve >Iraqi children in order to safeguard the present and future profits of Exxon, >Chevron and Citibank. > >So the modern-day incarnations of Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels in >the State Department and White House have spun a different story. They are >motivated by their deep "concern" over "human rights violations" and >"weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, is >relentlessly presented in their bought media as the personification of all >that is >evil--"worse than Hitler," they sometimes say. > >As if the U.S. ruling class, with its blood-drenched history at home and >abroad, >and armed to the teeth with every imaginable nuclear, chemical, biological and >conventional weapon, could really be "concerned" about either Iraq's internal >policies or armaments. > >Anti-sanctions movement > >Unfortunately, some in the anti-war and anti-sanctions movement have taken a >position that, unintentionally or otherwise, lends credence to the imperialist >policy makers' arguments. > >This viewpoint can be summarized as follows: 1) Economic sanctions are wrong >because they are causing great suffering among the Iraqi people, while not >hurting the regime; 2) Saddam Hussein should be indicted as a war criminal and >removed from office; and 3) economic sanctions should be "delinked" from >military sanctions, meaning that economic sanctions should be ended while >military sanctions are kept in place. > >A letter currently circulating in Congress argues this line. > >This position implicitly credits the U.S. government, and the United Nations >Security Council which it dominates, as qualified to sit as judge and jury on >Iraq. In other words, the U.S. government is legitimate and the Iraqi >government >is not. > >Moreover, this position gives credit to U.S. policy's stated and phony aims by >agreeing with them. "Yes," this perspective says, "Saddam is evil. He must be >replaced by a democratic government and Iraq must be disarmed so that it >cannot threaten its neighbors." > >This view disregards, in addition to Iraq's right to self-determination, the >fact >that it is the United States, not Iraq, which is the greatest military threat >and >violator of human rights--in the Middle East and around the world. > >There is no greater proof of the U.S. leaders' criminality than the sanctions >themselves. > >Nine-and-a-half years of near-total blockade have killed at least 1.25 million >Iraqis and inflicted unimaginable suffering on a whole country and people. To >call the sanctions genocidal is no exaggeration. > >Opposition to sanctions > >Opposition to the sanctions has grown around the world, especially in the two >years since the February 1998 crisis that brought the United States to the >brink >of a major new military attack on Iraq. In the Middle East, the opposition is >so >wide, deep and bitter that even some of the most pliant U.S. client regimes >feel >compelled to call for the blockade to be lifted. > >Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council--Russia, >China and France--favor ending the sanctions. > >But the U.S. leaders want to keep the sanctions, which they see as a vital >element in their "regime change" strategy. As they were designed to, the >sanctions have destroyed or severely weakened much of Iraq's infrastructure, >industry and agriculture, as well as the country's military capacity. The >latter >had always been wildly exaggerated in the Western media. > >The sanctions, along with continued bombing raids, are intended to grind >down Iraq and its people. The United States, as President Bill Clinton, >Secretary >of State Madeleine Albright and other top U.S. officials admitted during the >1998 crisis, intends to keep sanctions in place until the current government >is >removed or overthrown. > >To do this, they must keep alive the myth that Iraq possesses fearsome >weapons or the capacity to produce them, with which it threatens its neighbors. > >Enter UN Security Council Resolution 1284. > >The Security Council passed Resolution 1284 in December 1999, after nearly a >year of rancorous debate. It supposedly provides for lifting the sanctions on >Iraq if the country agrees to allow UN weapons-inspection teams to return and >verify that Iraq no longer has any more "weapons of mass destruction." > >For eight years, Iraq was the most inspected country in history. Hundreds of >UN weapons-inspection teams, known as UNSCOM, made thousands of visits >to every corner of the country. > >Twenty-four-hour video cameras were set up in every factory that was deemed >to have "dual-use technology." "Dual-use" means that a facility has the >potential to produce military as well as civilian goods--as does much of >modern >industry anywhere. > >Yet the sanctions and the horrific suffering of the Iraqi people remained >unchanged. In the fall of 1997, Iraq halted the inspections, declaring they >would >not be allowed to resume until it was made clear how and when they would lead >to an end to the blockade. > >In addition, the Iraqis charged that many of the inspectors were actually >spies >for the government most committed to maintaining the sanctions indefinitely: >the United States. While U.S. officials and media at first ridiculed this >charge, >even they were forced to admit that it was true a few months later. > >Weapons inspection began again in March 1998. They continued until >December, when the UNSCOM teams fomented a new crisis, leading to the >intensive U.S./ British bombing of Iraq for four days, Dec. 16-19, 1998. Since >that time, there have been no inspectors in the country. > >Resolution 1284--a tactic to maintain sanctions > >Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, speaking to delegates from the Iraq >Sanctions Challenge in Baghdad on Jan. 18, described the U.S. position as >"pretending to seek a solution" in the year-long Security Council >negotiations. > >Resolution 1284, Aziz said, "presents that sanctions would be suspended if >Iraq cooperates. But Iraq has cooperated for many years, from 1991 to 1998, >and >got as a reward missiles and bombs. > >"If you watch CBS News or read the New York Times," Aziz continued, "you >would hear that there is a resolution to end sanctions, but the Iraqi >government >of Saddam Hussein refuses and so is responsible for the miserable situation. >It's propaganda." > >Under Resolution 1284, Aziz explained, Iraq would be subject to even more >strict controls than under the old system. The resolution invokes all the past >UN resolutions against Iraq, and adds the word "verification" to the mission >of >the weapons inspection team. This means that Iraq must prove that no >"weapons of mass destruction," nor the capacity to produce them, exists. > >Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general who headed the recent >Sanctions Challenge to Iraq, points out that "it's impossible to prove a >negative, to prove that no weapons exist in an area as large as Iraq." And in >fact, as Clark explained, that is exactly the point: to set conditions that >cannot >be met, thus allowing the sanctions to continue without limit. > >There are no provisions for financial arrangements or controls in Resolution >1284. The subject was left for later discussions. Given that Iraq has received >less than one-third of the value of the $19 billion in petroleum it has sold >under >UN Resolution 661--the so-called "Oil for Food" deal--the new financial >arrangements are likely to be even less satisfactory, according to Aziz and >other Iraqi officials. > >Clearly, Resolution 1284's real objective is to keep the sanctions in place >while >making it appear that Iraq itself is responsible for their continuation. > >'Dual-use' bulls > >At the same time, $6 billion in contracts under the "Oil for Food" resolution >remain blocked by the Security Council. The vast majority of contracts to >repair >the damaged water, sewage, electrical and other infrastructure have been >denied or put on hold. > >The usual excuse given by the United States and Britain, which lead the way in >blocking contracts, is that the commodities in question could be "dual use." >So >neither pipes nor chlorine, both desperately needed to rehabilitate the water >system, have been allowed into the country. > >The extreme to which the "dual-use" pretext can be taken was illustrated by >Iraq's recent attempt to import 15 breeding bulls. The contract was denied. >When asked why, State Department mouthpiece James Rubin replied, "It's not >the bulls we have a problem with, it's the vaccine that goes with them." > >Rubin claimed that the vaccines, necessary for modern animal husbandry, >could be used to make biological weapons. > >The story of the 15 bulls shows just how bankrupt the "delinking" argument is. >In reality, it plays into the hands of those who want to perpetuate the >sanctions >forever, or until a government to their liking is established in Baghdad. > >The anti-war and anti-sanctions movement needs to call for the unconditional >lifting of the genocidal sanctions, an end to the constant assaults on Iraq's >sovereignty, and for the United States to get out of the Middle East, where it >has done so much damage over the past half-century. > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
