Linda S. Heard: America should stop
calling the kettle black Athens | |
11/03/2003
Isn't there a certain irony attached to the U.S. and Britain's
pronouncements on Iraq's attempts to comply with United Nations
Resolution 1441? "Lies and deceit" or "too little too
late" is the way that American and British ministers invariably
des-cribe such efforts.
Such disparaging comments no doubt prompted Hans Blix, Executive Chairman
of UNMO-VIC, to stress during his recent report to the UN Assembly that
"missiles are not toothpicks" illustrating that the destruction
by Iraq of its Al Samoud variety was real disarmament.
Britain, not content with public mortification over Blair's infamous
plagiarised dossier, was ex-posed by Mohammed El Baradei as having handed
forged documents to the IAEA, which it maintained proved that Iraq sought
to purchase uranium from Niger.
An article in Britain's Guardian quotes an IAEA official as saying:
"Close scrutiny and cross-checking of the documents, the
letterheads, and the signatures led us to conclude with absolute
certainty that the documents were false".
American intelligence imparted by Colin Powell has fared little better
under scrutiny. His attempts to link the Iraqi regime with Al Qaida have
failed dismally and suspect sites shown in satellite imagery during his
presentation to the UN Assembly, were confirmed benign.
Powell's contention that high strength aluminum tubes had been imported
by Iraq for the purpose of manufacturing nuclear centrifuges was also
disproved by the inspection teams.
Despite positive reports concerning Iraq's co-operation with the
inspectors, both on process and substance, and Blix's request for a
further three months to complete his work, America and Britain, with a
little help from Spain, were not to be deterred from pushing for a new
resolution, which would offer Iraq just 10 days – until March 17 – to
disarm.
The allies have yet to explain their indecent haste. Although the most
likely reasons are the approaching heat, the morale of allied troops
stationed near theatre of action and the sheer cost of keeping some
300,000 military personnel cooling their heels.
Both George W. Bush and Tony Blair know that there is little support for
war among UN member states. But America, in particular, has shown itself
not averse to dangling bribes and using threats to garner Security
Council votes. American and British diplomats are currently wooing
Angola, Cameroon, Mexico, Chile, Guinea and Pakistan.
The French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has indicated that
France would use its veto even if the U.S., Britain and Spain managed to
garner the requisite nine votes needed. The French position is backed up
by Germany and also by veto wielding Russia and China.
So if the Bush administration knows in advance that its resolution will
be vetoed, why is it proceeding? George Bush said that he wants to see UN
member countries showing "their cards". Sounds like another
implied threat on the lines of "you are either with us
or...".
Recent U.S. attempts to bribe Turkey were so blatant that American
newspapers ran cartoons depicting that country as a carpet seller – one
of the kinder representations. As a result the Turkish public and many of
its politicians were incensed. At the time of writing, the U.S. does not
have permission to base 62,000 of its troops on Turkish soil, although
this could, and probably will, change.
Irony
But the irony doesn't end here. While the U.S. and Britain condemn
Iraq for not conforming to United Nations resolutions, both countries are
threatening the very fabric of the UN by insisting that even without the
approval of the Security Council they will continue with their invasion
plans.
Tony Blair has repeatedly stated that he would not be swayed from his
support of the American position by one "unreasonable" veto,
yet during an MTV programme, Blair told a group of teens that even if the
new resolution was blocked by several "unreasonable" vetoes he
would still stick to his guns, literally.
We must, therefore, surely ask: why should Iraq be expected to adhere to
United Nations resolutions when Bush and Blair feel no compunction to
abide by a Secu-rity Council decision? Further, by what standard does
Britain decide whether or not the use of a veto is "reasonable"
or otherwise?
Bush has threatened the United Nations with irrelevance if it doesn't
conform to America's wishes and perhaps that is just what he wants. If
the UN was to be dismantled then the chains of constraint would be
released and the U.S. would feel able to proceed on its merry way
unhampered.
Another of America's double standards is its threatening of Iraq with the
possible use of nuclear weapons while, at the same time, condemning
Baghdad for developing weapons of mass destruction.
Reports further suggest that the U.S. may be preparing to use CS gas and
deadly sedative chemicals during the probable upcoming conflict, similar
to those used by Russian forces in a Moscow theatre.
Usage of some of these chemical agents contravenes The Chemical Weapons
Convention, but U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has apparently
given the green light anyway.
The Leader of Britain's Liberal Democrat Party Charles Kennedy said:
"If the argument with Saddam Hussain is over disarming him of
weapons of mass destruction, it is perverse of the U.S. to push the
boundaries of international chemical warfare conventions in order to
subdue him."
A further anomaly rests in the fact that while the American President and
his coterie of right-wing neo-Conservatives grandi-osely advocate the
imposition of democracy throughout the Mid-dle East; they are planning to
either temporarily or semi-permanently carve Iraq into three sectors
whether the Iraqis like it or not.
Former U.S. army generals will control the North and South, while Baghdad
is to be "ruled" by Barbara Bodine, a former U.S. Ambassador to
Yemen. Like Israel, America is likely to be perceived as a detested
occupier and a legitimate target for freedom fighters, although any such
freedom fighters will no doubt be labelled by the U.S. as
"terrorists".
Some 10,000 young Russians have applied for Iraqi visas so as to defend
that country from aggression. Will they be called "terrorists"?
Will they be taken off to Guantanamo Bay as "detainees"? Do
American human shields stand to be divested of their nationality under
Ashcroft's Patriot II?
It is surely of concern that while America is pursuing its "war on
terror", it is at the same time laying down the very soil in which
terrorism blooms?
The American President said during a recent press conference: "One
of the things we love in America is freedom." Those Iraqis destined
to live under the yoke of Pax Americana, for goodness knows how many
years to come, will surely take that statement with a fistful of
salt.
During the same question and answer session the president condemned the
Iraqi regime for the use of torture. Yet this week we heard of two Afghan
prisoners who were in the U.S. custody in Bagram when they were allegedly
beaten to death.
It is also an open secret that the U.S. has handed over detainees to
countries, which are less than squeamish about using all and any methods
of torture, in its search for information about Al Qaida.
Controversial remark
Perhaps Bush's most controversial statement is his "liberty is
not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every
person." It is liberty, which the anti-war protestors – dismissed by
Bush as a "focus group" – are fighting to preserve. Liberty for
the Iraqi people and for the people of other countries, which the Bush
administration could well have in its sights.
It is clear that the Bush administration is prepared to ignore the will
of the international community, as well as a host of international laws
and treaties, while trumpeting democracy even as it is planning to invade
and dominate a sovereign nation.
The opposition, which the U.S. faces now from France, Russia, Belgium,
Germany and China over its plans for Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg
– one that could lead to a meltdown of stability and security or even, in
the worst case scenario, the third World War.
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/print.asp?ArticleID=80204
