>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "International" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >UNMASKING CLINTON'S LATEST MOVES TOWARDS IRAQ > >WHAT THE SCOTT RITTER REVELATIONS MEAN: >An analysis of the most recent developments in the U.S./Iraq >confrontation > >September 14, 2000 >By Brian Becker and Sarah Sloan for the International Action Center > >With great fanfare, Madeleine Albright announced on September 12 >that the United States would not use "military force" to try to force Iraq >to allow a new weapons inspection operation (UNMOVIC) into Iraq. > >The backdrop to this is the political bombshell dropped by the former >lead U.S. weapons inspector, who has now confirmed that Washington >has been lying about the status of Iraq's "disarmament." > >The former inspector is none other than Scott Ritter, who had worked >as a U.S. intelligence official and functioned throughout the 1990s as a >key member of the UN weapons inspection team. > >Ritter has broken with the administration and revealed that "Iraq had >been disarmed" of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons >capabilities and that this was known by the administration since early >1997. > >Ritter's statement blows away the public position that the U.S. insists >on economic sanctions as a condition for eliminating Iraq's weapons of >mass destruction. > >Let's leave aside for the moment the obvious problem that it is the U.S. >that has the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction of any >country. That it is the United States and it alone which has ever used a >nuclear weapon (and on a civilian population as well). And that it is the >United States, which is the aggressor that bombs Iraq and not the >other way around. > >Let's leave aside the fact that the sanctions themselves are the greatest >weapon of mass destruction. That 8,000 civilians will die this month >from sanctions as they do every month and that 5,000 of those people >will be children under the age of 5. > >And leave aside the question as to whether Iraq has the right to >possess weapons needed to defend its country and people from outside >aggression. > >Ritter's revelations confirm what anti-sanctions activists have asserted, >that this rationale for sanctions was simply a pretext. > >WHAT DOES RITTER SAY SPECIFICALLY? > >"Iraq had been disarmed, [it] no longer possessed any meaningful >quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and >the industrial means to produce these agents had either been >eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring [since as early as >1997]. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile >capabilities," Ritter reports in an article published in Arms Control >Today (June 2000). > >Ritter writes that "from 1994 to 1998, Iraq was subjected to a >strenuous program of ongoing monitoring of industrial and research >facilities � [which] provided weapons inspectors with detailed insight >into the capabilities, both present and future, of Iraq's industrial >infrastructure. It allowed UNSCOM to ascertain, with a high level of >confidence, that Iraq was not rebuilding its prohibited weapons >programs�." > >Ritter's admissions are remarkable. From the horse's mouth, so to >speak, we have verification that the assertions of the International >Action Center and other anti-sanctions crusaders have been accurate. >While the anti-sanctions movement has been accused of "being na�ve" >for "believing Iraqi propaganda," it turns out that the only na�ve people >are those who actually believed the U.S. government's propaganda that >its main goal was "disarmament" in Iraq. > >LATEST TURN IN U.S. PROPAGANDA > >The anti-sanctions movement is now the majority sentiment throughout >the world, and it is only U.S. military and economic power that prevents >the sanctions from being lifted. > >Pushed on the defensive by the incontrovertible evidence that the U.S. >has been lying, the Clinton Administration has taken a new tack. It is >now attempting to launch a political counterattack using diplomatic >subterfuge to maintain its position while embarking on an intensified >propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting the chorus of anti- >sanctions voices. > >Albright's announcement that the U.S. will foreswear a major military >attack if Iraq does not allow in a new weapons inspection team is only >an attempt to quiet the situation so that the U.S. can regain the >initiative in isolating Iraq. > >Does this indicate a new "peaceful" orientation towards Iraq? A sign >that there will be a lessening of tension? > >On the contrary, the United States government is perfectly happy with >the status quo. The U.S. wants the current situation to stay frozen. >Clinton would like to avoid a big military campaign that would bring >thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of people into the streets >around the world in opposition both to U.S. aggression and the >genocidal sanctions that have been in place now for more than a >decade. > >So, rather than creating another major incident or internationally >riveting drama--such as happens during a full scale aerial bombing--the >U.S. wants to change the political climate. They want to make it >appear that Iraq isn't really suffering that much from sanctions and, if it >is, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government. > >The U.S. plan includes the following elements: >The creation of a new UN weapons inspection commission under > the leadership of Swedish official Hans Blix. The U.S. expects that > Iraq will predictably not allow the UN to return with weapons > inspection teams. Thus, the U.S. will be able to blame Iraq for its > "refusal to comply" with the UN. >A major propaganda campaign to prove that Iraqis are really doing > "pretty well" and that the anti-sanctions movement is simply a > manipulated force by the Iraqi government. Clinton stated in a > recent address that Iraq is actually selling more oil than before > 1991. And a rash of well-placed media stories have appeared > showing that Saddam Hussein is really happy about sanctions > because his "family can profit" from the export and sale of scarce > commodities in an underground economy. > >This is not the first time in history that the victim has been made to >appear as the criminal. It is a time tested propaganda technique >employed by those who commit aggression. > >In 1942, for instance, the Hitler regime held a war crimes tribunal >against the French socialist president Leon Blum, and found Blum guilty >of war crimes and held him responsible for the start of World War II. >Blum was then sent to a concentration camp. > >THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE BIG LIE > >Even school children are taught today that Hitler's crimes against >humanity were accompanied by a sophisticated propaganda campaign >designed to turn the truth on its head. Goebbles, the Nazi propaganda >chief, made famous the strategy of the "Big Lie": The bigger the lie >and the more frequently it is repeated, the more acceptable it >becomes. > >Few in the U.S. press corps conceive of themselves as the moral >equivalent of Nazi propagandists. They think of themselves as urbane, >sophisticated, democrats--not as apologists for genocide. > >But self-deception aside, a large number of U.S. journalists play exactly >that role. Barbara Crossette, the New York Times reporter at the >United Nations, for instance, routinely writes articles that function as >pure State Department propaganda regarding Iraq. > >On September 11, the New York Times carried a front-page piece by >Crossette signal the start of the latest U.S. diplomatic offensive against >Iraq. The theme: It is Iraq's continued non-compliance that is >responsible for the maintaining of sanctions, and that the Iraqi >government is the main cause of misery for the people. How do we >know this? > >Crossette cites unnamed "European diplomats [who] said there were >'pretty solid reports' that Iraq had been exporting medical supplies, >some of which appear to have found their way to Lebanon, and has >sold food from the oil-sales program to Syria and Jordan." > >Again without identifying her sources, Crossette says "diplomats say >several large aid organizations have been turned away when they >responded to Iraqi needs." She complains that the UN Security Council, >responding to persistent reports of undue suffering because of the >embargo, was denied access to the country by Iraqi authorities after >they requested to send an inspection team to review the plight of >individuals. > >How dare the Iraqis turn down a "humanitarian mission" from the >Security Council, the same agency that is under the thumb of the >United States and has been directly responsible for the strangulation of >the country. > >The New York Times and the other major corporate media have a >symbiotic relationship with the U.S. government and a shared world >outlook regarding U.S. domination of the Middle East. The New York >Times fully supports the efforts by the U.S., CIA and Pentagon to crush >the current Iraqi government and replace it with a pro-U.S. client >regime, akin to those that rule Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. > >Interesting, isn't it, that while Barbara Crossette is reporting on State >Department related stories, she is--along with Madeleine Albright--the >honored guest on Monday, September 18, 2000, at a luncheon in New >York City, sponsored by the New York Times and the "White House >Project." > >TIME TO REVIEW THE FACTS > >We reiterate, the U.S. is happy with the current status quo. They have >constructed a new weapons inspection team, not with the goal of >eliminating Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction. Those >weapons do not exist and the U.S. knows it. What is involved now is a >multi-layered campaign to dissipate the growing worldwide pressure >against the sanctions, to keep Iraq in a box, and to continue to >demonize the "enemy" as a justification for U.S. crimes against >humanity. > >In the next few months, thousands of people will participate in taking >the anti-sanctions movement in the United States to an even higher >level of mass mobilization. > >In January 2001, the largest delegation ever, led by former U.S. >Attorney General Ramsey Clark, will travel to Iraq carrying a huge >shipment of donated medicine in violation of the sanctions. This >international act of defiance--the Iraq Sanctions Challenge IV--will >bring together 100 activists from around the country who represent the >burgeoning anti-sanctions movement. > >It will include those who have been working for the past ten years to >show that sanctions are war. And it will include those who are just >learning about t his example of what U.S. imperialism is doing all over >the world, such as the hundreds who demonstrated against the >sanctions as part of the protests against the Democratic National >Convention in Los Angeles this summer. > >Below are some points of review in the U.S./Iraq conflict, especially for >the last two years: > >1) Iraq has been subject to the tightest trade embargo or sanctions in >human history for ten years. The sanctions were to be in place, >according to the UN resolutions, "until it was verified that all of Iraq's >'weapons of mass destruction' were eliminated." Inspection teams >have received access to inspect nearly every inch of the country to >discover any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program. > >2) More than 9,000 inspections by the UN inspectors (UNSCOM) have >taken place. At each and every stage, in spite of Iraqi cooperation, the >weapons inspectors always insisted that they "weren't sure" if they had >discovered all of Iraq's weapons capabilities. Thus, the weapons >inspections turned out to be an endless pretext for the economic >strangulation of the Iraqi people. > >3) In 1998, Iraq asserted that the weapons inspectors were not a >neutral arms reduction organization, but in fact an intelligence >operation by the CIA and Pentagon, designed to collect data on Iraq's >more sensitive military, political and industrial installations and >facilities. And that the data collected by the weapons inspectors were >actually used to target cruise missiles and other high tech weapons that >later rained down on the country. > >U.S. officials later admitted that Iraq's accusations about CIA/Pentagon >intelligence infiltration of the weapons inspection teams was accurate. > >4) In December 1998, the U.S. and UN abruptly pulled the inspection >teams out of Iraq after Iraq was accused of not "fully cooperating." >Immediately, the Pentagon began a four-day terror bombing campaign >of Iraq between December 16 and 19. More than 1,000 bombs and >missiles crashed into the country during Operation Desert Fox, the >Pentagon code name for those four days. Hundreds of people were >killed. It was then that Iraq announced that it would not allow the UN >weapons inspection team to return. > >5) Since the end of Operation Desert Fox, U.S. and British war planes >have regularly bombed Iraq. In fact, the bombing takes place several >times a week. More than 20,000 bombs and missiles have landed on >Iraq since December 1998. > >U.S. and British warplanes have no legal justification from the UN or >elsewhere for over-flying Iraqi airspace in "no fly zones" created >exclusively by the United States and Britain. > >6) The U.S. government and CIA are engaged in an covert and overt >attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government and replace it with a client >regime that will do the bidding of U.S. oil companies, such as exists in >Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Between speeches against Iraq at the UN >Millenium Summit, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with >several members of the "Iraqi opposition," who are openly engaged in >an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government. The Clinton >Administration has promised to provide them with $4 million in aid--on >top of $97 million granted in 1998 when President Clinton signed into >law the "Iraq Liberation Act." This includes schooling by the U.S. >Defense Department and funding for "a newspaper, radio transmitters >and other media operations," as well as for administration. (AP, >9/15/00, "U.S. plans to give $4 million to Iraqi opposition") > >BENEATH IMPERIALIST STRATEGY -- THE REAL GOAL OF THE U.S. > >If the U.S./UN sanctions are not to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass >destruction, what is their purpose? They want to weaken Iraq, to stop >its forward progress, to delay its economic development. Why? >Because the United States officials are so "shocked" at the human >rights record of the Iraqi government? Because the United States >officials have a tender concern for the people of the region? > >Simply put, the United States wants to weaken and degrade Iraq for >about the same reason that it wanted to weaken Iran after the >revolution in 1979 ousted the U.S. puppet, the Shah. > >Iraq, like Iran, has the oil resources, water resources, population and >geographic size to develop as a regional power. The region in >question, the Persian/Arab Gulf, contains two-thirds of the worlds >known oil reserves. The strategy of U.S. imperialism for many decades >has been to seek and maintain U.S. domination and hegemony if >possible over this oil-rich region. > >Prior to the Iraqi and Iranian Revolutions (1958 and 1979 respectively), >United States and Britain maintained colonial and near colonial control >over these two important countries. U.S. oil profits from the region >forty years ago accounted for fifty percent of all U.S. corporate profits >from overseas investments. > >This is the historic and political context for the Reagan Administration's >decision to support Iraq initially in the Iran/Iraq War. U.S. government >officials encouraged Iraq, and the U.S. sent Iraq weapons and shared >intelligence during that bloody eight-year-long war. The U.S., >however, also sent high tech weapons to the Iranian side, as was >revealed in the Iran Contra Scandal (1986-88). The U.S. cynically >manipulated longstanding territorial disputes between Iran and Iraq so >that both sides would become weakened. "We wanted them to kill >each other," stated Henry Kissinger, former U.S. secretary of state >during the Nixon Administration. > >THE DUAL ROLE OF OIL IN WORLD POLITICS > >Oil is not only a source of spectacular profits, it is considered a strategic >resource. Those who control the oil, control the world economy, or at least >its central arteries. Japan and Germany, for instance, do not possess oil. > Although they are the central economic competitors to U.S. capitalism, control >over oil reserves becomes a critical issue, especially during times of crisis >and conflict. > >Thus, the real goal of the United States is to weaken Iraq and any other >country that can stand as an impediment to the undiluted control of this >region. The U.S. would like to replace Saddam Hussein with a puppet >government, but short of accomplishing that objective, the U.S. prefers to >strangle, subvert and starve the country. > >People in the United States have a political responsibility to challenge the >genocide that is carried out in their name by the U.S. government. The >Iraqi people are not our enemies. They are the victims of the greatest >weapon of mass destruction. > >JOIN THE IRAQ SANCTIONS CHALLENGE IV > >If you are interested in joining the fourth Iraq Sanctions Challenge led >by Ramsey Clark that will travel to Iraq in January 2001 (on the tenth >anniversary of the start of the Gulf War), contact the International >Action Center at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or call 212-633-6646. > > >International Action Center >39 West 14th Street, Room 206 >New York, NY 10011 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >web: www.iacenter.org >CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org >phone: 212 633-6646 >fax: 212 633-2889 > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
