Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
U.S.Iraq War Talking Points
Joseph Gerson
Thursday, December 17
1. This round of war designed to "degrade" the Iraqi military capacity and
to weaken
the Iraqi government is FUTILE as well as deadly.
It will not only end the ability of U.N. inspectors to monitor
weapons developments
in Iraq to the extent that they have been able to do so, but it
appears to commit the
U.S. to an endless policy of military containment of Iraq - i.e.
repeated wars and
military attacks over an indefinite period which will be of dubious
value.
There can be no assurances that US and British military strikes will
be able to find
and destroy what chemical and biological weapons the Iraqi government
may have.
And, should they be successful in so doing, they can be reconstructed
(if others will
export necessary materials to Iraq) within a matter of weeks. Thus,
whatever
"degradation" occurs is likely to be ephemeral.
The opposition to Saddam Hussein within Iraq is weak (in no small
measure due to
the brutal nature of his dictatorship) and divided. No respected
authorities believe
believe popular opposition will oust him in the near or even
intermediate future.
While there is always the possibility of a military coup, we should
not expect that
such successors would be any more committed to democratic values that
Hussein's
government, although it might be more willing to negotiate a modus
vivendi with
the U.S.
2. The Clinton war is reminiscent of George Bush's description of "the New
World
Order" in which "What we say goes." We've seen the failure of the
Bush's vision for
the past seven years (and in some ways longer). There is
no global coalition against
Iraq, with Saudi Arabia and other states refusing to allow the U.S.
to use bases in
their countries for the attacks, the condemnation from the Arab
League, sharp
opposition from other members of the U.N. Security Council (despite
their economic
and technological dependence on the U.S.) Russian has condemned the
U.S. for
taking on the position of "world policeman", cop of the world, and
this is not
without cause. The U.S. is relatively isolated in world opinion, and
U.S. fears of, and
preparations for, terrorist attacks in response to the U.S. initiated
war reflect that
retaliation in one form or another is quite possible.
3. Kofi Anan described the attack as a sad day for the U.N. and a sad day
for the world.
This is certainly true. It applies, as well, to the apparent (see the
Washington Post)
collusion between the Clinton Administration and UNSCOM Director
Richard Butler
in preparing Butler's report (If there was not evil here, it is at
the very least the appearance of evil.) Trust in the U.N. is thus
undermined for the future, will
likely be weakened, something which will impact on its ability to
work for peace -
including its role in the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction.
Diplomacy, not war, was and is the answer. The U.S. calls for, and
policy of,
overthrowing Saddam Hussein were/are in violation of the U.N.
Charter. They also
reinforced "hardline" approaches by the Iraqi government in that they
offered no
positive carrots to encourage cooperation with the UNSCOM process. An
endless
embargo, taking a U.N. estimated toll of 200 children's lives per
week, is not
incentive for cooperation in a society where "face" and "honor" are
of fundamental
importance.
4. The inconsistencies of U.S. policies related to weapons of mass
destruction,
U.N. Security Council resolutions and international law are
staggering. The U.S.
has long refused to honor its Article 6, Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty commitments
to work with other nuclear weapons powers to completely abolish
nuclear weapons
(according to John Deutch, former U.S. CIA Director, that's just
something we had
to say we support to get what we wanted out of a conference.)
Iraqis are deeply aware that Israel has weapons of mass destruction:
nuclear and
chemical, and that it continues to violate countless U.N. resolutions
calling for
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict and even its
commitments under the
Oslo and Wye agreements (that are likely to leave Palestinians little
more than
bantustans ruled in the short-term by the corrupt Arafat regime and
its likely
successors.
(Thankfully) the U.S. has given no indication that it intends to bomb
India,
Pakistan, or Israel for their violations of the nuclear
non-proliferation order.
Playing "cop of the world" will not work or endure for long. As
Joseph Rotblat
has observed, because no nation or people will long endure the
existence and
oppression of a discriminatory hierarchy of power, we face the stark
and simple
choice of either committing ourselves to and working for the
abolition of all
weapons of mass destruction or their global proliferation. Today,
tomorrow, and
perhaps next month, and after that quite possibly Iran, South Korea,
Algeria,
Germany, Japan and. in the future.
5. Just as the 1991 war was a demonstration war, designed to intimidate
all potential
challengers to U.S. hegemony by means of its awesome and deadly
high-tech
weaponry, this is a component of the current war. The manufacturers
of such
weaponry will also be using the war as a means of advertising their
products.
6. Accidents and the unexpected always happen.
7. We are not speaking in terms of the timing of the attack in relation to
the impeachment process. Instead we are urging people to focus on the
killing and destruction of the U.S. initiated war. We know that powerful
sectors in the U.S. military were deeply upset that the war against Iraq
was called off at the very last moment in November. One cannot help but
notice, however, that when in trouble Clinton has always given the Military
a green light, including support for increased military spending.
8. Please email, phone and write to your Congressional representatives and
the
White House (president@whitehouse.gov) protesting the U.S.-British
war against
Iraq.
9. AFSC and related groups can provide speakers, films and other resources to
assist you in your organizing.
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|