Monday, June 02, 2003

Afront to the world

by pv vivekanand

BRITISH officials are claiming that there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq possessed a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction although no trace of such armament has been found in post-war Iraq.
It is an affront to the international community to be continued to be fed such contentions without substantiation. Granted that the ouster of Saddam Hussein and American-British occupation of Iraq have become fait accompli and, in real terms, it does not matter whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction since it would not change the reality on the ground in Iraq today.
But the British claims sound hollow and the mounting world feeling today is that Washington and London knew from day one that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction of any size that would have posed a threat to its neighbours or any other country. Iraq's alleged possesion of such weapons was indeed one of the main reasons cited by the American-British alliance to justify the invasion and occupation that country.
Even if we were to accept the theory that the ouster of Saddam was a blessing to the long-suffering people of Iraq, there is nothing that would prompt us to digest the American and British postures and claims in the name the threat that his alleged weapons posed to world security.
If anything, countering the claims are fresh reports that Washington and London had doctored intelligence findings -- and indeed produced academic studies labelled as information gained through spying -- to convince their public that Saddam's alleged weapons posed the most severe terrorist threat the world ever faced after the Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Adding more to the growing belief that the US and UK took the world for a ride with their claims about Iraq's weapons are reports that French intelligence had established in early December that the transatlantic alliance had made up its mind to wage against Iraq no matter what.
That French finding, confirmed by the Paris government, was said to have been behind France's firm and persistent stand against the war on Iraq and block American-British moves to have the UN Security Council adopt a new resolution that would have legitmised the war against Iraq and occupation of that country. Obviously, Paris knew that Washington and London were not acting in good faith to secure UN endorsement of the war but were engaged in first-degree deception to legitimise military action against Iraq.
As such, the impression one gets is simple: The war against Iraq was a dead certainty and Washington and London were only interested in producing what they claimed to be evidence that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. That they would have gone to any extent to produce such "evidence" was established when the so-called intelligence findings they cited were proved to be unfounded and fabricated.
The impression one gets from Washington today is that the Bush administration could not care less if it was true that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld suggests that Iraq could have destroyed the alleged weapons before the war started; but the fundamental flaw in that assertion is that Saddam had known without any doubt that his country would be targeted for war and he needed every weapon he could muster to counter the invaders. There was never any realistic question of Saddam being caught alive and put on trial where the purported weapons of mass destruction seized by the invaders and produced in a international court as evidence against him. So why should Saddam destroy any weapon when he needed all the military power he could muster in order to inflict as much damage as possible to the invaders?
That the course of the war went in a surprisingly different direction as a result of American deals with Saddam's military generals who opted to take the easy way is a different story,
In event, the picture emerging from Washington on the issue is one that says that why should the world worry whether Saddam possessed such weapons or otherwise, and, after all, hasn't the war toppled a dictatorial regime and "liberated" the Iraqis? If anything, the US is suggesting, the international community should be glad and thankful to the US for having led the effort to topple Saddam and never mind what weapons he had.
That attitude fits in with the Bush administration's approach that the world should not question its actions anywhere in the world and take if for granted that whatever it does would be aimed at serving mankind. Indeed, there are questions heard here and there in the US Congress that the administration was not exactly very honest when it pumped home into the American heart that Saddam represented the largest single threat to the security of every American. However, those questions are not really bothering the administration since no mainstream American politician would dare raise touch upon an issue that has a highly pronounced Israeli angle.
But the Labour government of Britain led by Tony Blair does not have that leeway in London. The British democracy works differently and British politicians and media would not simply be silenced by whatever is being said in the name of "nationalism" and "security priorities" that are being touted by the Bush administration to ward off criticism from within.
Blair today faces the key question: He had insisted throughout that he had information that proved Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he could not have revealed that information before or during the war since it would have compromised intelligence sources. Now that the war is over, Saddam is gone and Iraq is occupied, what is preventing Blair from revealing the information he had?
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw cut and others justifying the war and Blair's decision to join the American camp cut a sorry figure when they try to borrow a leaf from the American book and argue now that producing physical evidence was not important then the perception that Saddam posed a threat to the world.
"What we did say was, this is a sufficient threat, that if we continue to sit on our hands, the threat will get worse and there'll come a moment where for sure Saddam will use these weapons against his own people and against
his neighbours, and will not only be a threat to international peace and security, but directly and very sinisterly affect international peace and security." said Straw.
What is even more pathetic than such a summary assertion that overlooks logic and even ridicules basic intelligence is that the British officials are citing a UN weapons inspection report of March 7, 2003 which said a dozen empty shells with traces of chemicals were found in Iraq and again a post-war report which said two vehicles could have been mobile laboratories to develop chemical weapons.
Under no circumstances could such claims be deemed as genuine, given that the American-British alliance had said Iraq had tens of thousands of litres of chemical weapons ready for use, and that Saddam had prepared them to be deployed and used at 45 minutes' notice. That assumption has also been dismissed as having come from a doctored document disguised as an intelligence finding, which has been disowned by Britain's prime spying agencies.
The entire episode not only leaves a sour taste but also a humiliating feeling that the world has been conned and that the powers that be are trying to force down their justifications and reasons down the throat of the international community; and, to make it worse, they are smirking to themselves knowing well that their "revelations" make little sense to themselves.