- 22 Mar 2003 23:50
#198021
Source: http://members.aol.com/bblum6/usvsiraq.htm
The US vs. Iraq - A Study in Hypocrisy
William Blum
Written February 1998
"We have heard that a half million children have died,"
said "60 Minutes" reporter Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions
against Iraq. "I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"
Her guest, in May 1996, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine
Albright, responded: "I think this is a very hard choice, but
the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Today, Secretary of State Albright travels around the
world to gather support for yet more bombing of Iraq. The price,
apparently, is still worth it. The price is of course being
paid solely by the Iraqi people -- a million or so men, women and
children, dead and a previously well-off nation plunged into
poverty, disease, and malnutrition from the previous bombings and
seven years of sanctions.
Their crime? They have a leader who refuses to cede
all sovereignty to the United States (acting under its usual
United Nations cover) which demands that every structure in Iraq,
including the presidential palaces, be available for
inspection for "weapons of mass destruction". After more
than six years of these inspections, and significant destruction
of stocks of forbidden chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon
material, as well as weapons research and development programs,
the UN team still refuses to certify that Iraq is clean enough.
Inasmuch as the country is larger than California, it's
understandable that the inspectors can not be certain that
all prohibited weapons have been uncovered. It's equally
understandable that Iraq claims that the United States can,
and will, continue to find some excuse not to give Iraq the
certification needed to end the sanctions. Indeed, President
Clinton has said more than once that the U.S. will not allow
sanctions to be lifted as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.
It can be said that the United States has inflicted more vindictive
punishment and ostracism upon Iraq than upon Germany or Japan
after World War 2.
The Saddam Hussein regime must wonder at the high (double)
standard set by Washington. Less than a year ago, the U.S.
Senate passed an act to implement the "Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and
Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction" (Short title:
Chemical Weapons Convention), an international treaty which
has been ratified by more than 100 nations in its five-year
life.
The Senate act, Section 307, stipulates that "the
President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the
United States in cases where the President determines that
the inspection may pose a threat to the national security
interests of the United States." Saddam has asked for no more
than that for Iraq. Presumably, under the Senate act, the White
House, Pentagon, etc. would be off limits, as Saddam insists his
presidential palaces should be, as well as the military unit
responsible for his personal security, which an American colonel
demanded to visit.
Section 303 further states that "Any objection by the
President to an individual serving as an inspector ... shall
not be reviewable in any court." Again, this echoes a repeated
complaint from the Iraqis -- a recent team of 16 inspectors
included 14 from the US and Britain, Saddam's two principal
adversaries, who are, at this very moment, busily planning
new bombing raids on Iraq. The team was led by a U.S.
Marine Corps captain, a veteran of the Gulf War, who has been
accused of spying by Iraq. But the Iraqis do not have a
corresponding right of exclusion. The same section of the
Senate act provides, moreover, that an FBI agent "accompanies
each inspection team visit".
The wishes of the Iraqi government to place certain
sites off limits and to have less partisan inspectors have been
dismissed out of hand by U.S. government spokespersons and
the American media. "What do they have to hide?" has been the
prevailing attitude.
The hypocrisy runs deeper yet. In his recent State of
the Union address, President Clinton, in the context of Iraq,
spoke of how we must "confront the new hazards of chemical and
biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and
organized criminals seeking to acquire them." He castigated
Saddam Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons" and called for strengthening the Biological
Weapons Convention. Who among his listeners knew, who among the
media reported, that the United States had been the supplier to
Iraq of much of the source biological materials Saddam's scientists
would require to create a biological warfare program?
According to a Senate Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not
earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological
materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers
pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department
of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow
and agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs,
brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major
organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria
causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human
and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped
to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out:
"These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and
were capable of reproduction."
"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these
microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to
those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the
Iraqi biological warfare program."
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite
the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical
warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds,
and Shiites since the early 80s.
During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave
military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping
that each would inflict severe damage on the other, in line
perhaps with what Noam Chomsky has postulated:
It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy
since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy
resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by
the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no
independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a
substantial influence on the administration of oil production
and price.
Indeed, there is evidence that Washington encouraged Iraq
to attack Iran and ignite the war in the first place. This policy,
as well as financial considerations, were likely the motivating
forces behind providing Iraq with the biological materials.
(Iran was at that time regarded as the greater threat to the
seemingly always threatened U.S. national security.)
As the American public and media are being prepared to
accept and cheerlead the next bombing of the people of Iraq,
the stated rationale, the official party line, is that Iraq is
an "outlaw" state (or "rogue" state, or "pariah" state -- the
media obediently repeats all the White House and State Department
buzz words), which is ignoring a United Nations Security Council
resolution. Israel, however, has ignored many such resolutions
without the U.S. bombing Tel Aviv, imposing sanctions, or even
cutting back military aid. But by some arcane ideological
alchemy, Israel is not deemed an "outlaw" state by Washington.
Neither does the United States regard itself as such for turning
its back on a ruling of the U.N.'s World Court in 1984 to cease
its hostile military actions against Nicaragua, or for the
numerous times the U.S. has totally ignored overwhelming General
Assembly resolutions, nor for its repeated use of chemical and
biological agents against Cuba since the 1960s.
In any event, the weapons monitoring disagreement is between
Iraq and the United Nations, not Iraq and the United States. And
the UN has not authorized any of its members to use force. "What
gives Britain and the United States the right to go it alone on
this?" asked an unusually brave reporter at a Feb.6 Clinton/Blair
press conference.
Neither President Clinton nor Prime Minister Blair responded.
The bombing looks to be inevitable. The boys are busy moving
all their toys into position; they can already see the battle
decorations hanging from their chests. Of course, no one knows what
it will accomplish besides more death and destruction. Saddam will
remain in power. He'll be more stubborn than ever about the
inspections. There may be one consolation for the Iraqi people. The
Washington Post has reported that Secretary of Defense William Cohen
has indicated that "U.S. officials remain wary of doing so much
military damage to Iraq as to weaken its regional role as a counterweight
to Iran." In the not too distant future, when Iran begins to flex its
muscles a bit more, in ways not to Washington's pleasure, it may then be
their turn for some good ol' American "diplomacy".
The US vs. Iraq - A Study in Hypocrisy
William Blum
Written February 1998
"We have heard that a half million children have died,"
said "60 Minutes" reporter Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions
against Iraq. "I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"
Her guest, in May 1996, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine
Albright, responded: "I think this is a very hard choice, but
the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Today, Secretary of State Albright travels around the
world to gather support for yet more bombing of Iraq. The price,
apparently, is still worth it. The price is of course being
paid solely by the Iraqi people -- a million or so men, women and
children, dead and a previously well-off nation plunged into
poverty, disease, and malnutrition from the previous bombings and
seven years of sanctions.
Their crime? They have a leader who refuses to cede
all sovereignty to the United States (acting under its usual
United Nations cover) which demands that every structure in Iraq,
including the presidential palaces, be available for
inspection for "weapons of mass destruction". After more
than six years of these inspections, and significant destruction
of stocks of forbidden chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon
material, as well as weapons research and development programs,
the UN team still refuses to certify that Iraq is clean enough.
Inasmuch as the country is larger than California, it's
understandable that the inspectors can not be certain that
all prohibited weapons have been uncovered. It's equally
understandable that Iraq claims that the United States can,
and will, continue to find some excuse not to give Iraq the
certification needed to end the sanctions. Indeed, President
Clinton has said more than once that the U.S. will not allow
sanctions to be lifted as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.
It can be said that the United States has inflicted more vindictive
punishment and ostracism upon Iraq than upon Germany or Japan
after World War 2.
The Saddam Hussein regime must wonder at the high (double)
standard set by Washington. Less than a year ago, the U.S.
Senate passed an act to implement the "Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and
Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction" (Short title:
Chemical Weapons Convention), an international treaty which
has been ratified by more than 100 nations in its five-year
life.
The Senate act, Section 307, stipulates that "the
President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the
United States in cases where the President determines that
the inspection may pose a threat to the national security
interests of the United States." Saddam has asked for no more
than that for Iraq. Presumably, under the Senate act, the White
House, Pentagon, etc. would be off limits, as Saddam insists his
presidential palaces should be, as well as the military unit
responsible for his personal security, which an American colonel
demanded to visit.
Section 303 further states that "Any objection by the
President to an individual serving as an inspector ... shall
not be reviewable in any court." Again, this echoes a repeated
complaint from the Iraqis -- a recent team of 16 inspectors
included 14 from the US and Britain, Saddam's two principal
adversaries, who are, at this very moment, busily planning
new bombing raids on Iraq. The team was led by a U.S.
Marine Corps captain, a veteran of the Gulf War, who has been
accused of spying by Iraq. But the Iraqis do not have a
corresponding right of exclusion. The same section of the
Senate act provides, moreover, that an FBI agent "accompanies
each inspection team visit".
The wishes of the Iraqi government to place certain
sites off limits and to have less partisan inspectors have been
dismissed out of hand by U.S. government spokespersons and
the American media. "What do they have to hide?" has been the
prevailing attitude.
The hypocrisy runs deeper yet. In his recent State of
the Union address, President Clinton, in the context of Iraq,
spoke of how we must "confront the new hazards of chemical and
biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and
organized criminals seeking to acquire them." He castigated
Saddam Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons" and called for strengthening the Biological
Weapons Convention. Who among his listeners knew, who among the
media reported, that the United States had been the supplier to
Iraq of much of the source biological materials Saddam's scientists
would require to create a biological warfare program?
According to a Senate Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not
earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological
materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers
pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department
of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow
and agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs,
brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major
organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria
causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human
and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped
to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out:
"These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and
were capable of reproduction."
"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these
microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to
those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the
Iraqi biological warfare program."
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite
the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical
warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds,
and Shiites since the early 80s.
During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave
military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping
that each would inflict severe damage on the other, in line
perhaps with what Noam Chomsky has postulated:
It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy
since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy
resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by
the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no
independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a
substantial influence on the administration of oil production
and price.
Indeed, there is evidence that Washington encouraged Iraq
to attack Iran and ignite the war in the first place. This policy,
as well as financial considerations, were likely the motivating
forces behind providing Iraq with the biological materials.
(Iran was at that time regarded as the greater threat to the
seemingly always threatened U.S. national security.)
As the American public and media are being prepared to
accept and cheerlead the next bombing of the people of Iraq,
the stated rationale, the official party line, is that Iraq is
an "outlaw" state (or "rogue" state, or "pariah" state -- the
media obediently repeats all the White House and State Department
buzz words), which is ignoring a United Nations Security Council
resolution. Israel, however, has ignored many such resolutions
without the U.S. bombing Tel Aviv, imposing sanctions, or even
cutting back military aid. But by some arcane ideological
alchemy, Israel is not deemed an "outlaw" state by Washington.
Neither does the United States regard itself as such for turning
its back on a ruling of the U.N.'s World Court in 1984 to cease
its hostile military actions against Nicaragua, or for the
numerous times the U.S. has totally ignored overwhelming General
Assembly resolutions, nor for its repeated use of chemical and
biological agents against Cuba since the 1960s.
In any event, the weapons monitoring disagreement is between
Iraq and the United Nations, not Iraq and the United States. And
the UN has not authorized any of its members to use force. "What
gives Britain and the United States the right to go it alone on
this?" asked an unusually brave reporter at a Feb.6 Clinton/Blair
press conference.
Neither President Clinton nor Prime Minister Blair responded.
The bombing looks to be inevitable. The boys are busy moving
all their toys into position; they can already see the battle
decorations hanging from their chests. Of course, no one knows what
it will accomplish besides more death and destruction. Saddam will
remain in power. He'll be more stubborn than ever about the
inspections. There may be one consolation for the Iraqi people. The
Washington Post has reported that Secretary of Defense William Cohen
has indicated that "U.S. officials remain wary of doing so much
military damage to Iraq as to weaken its regional role as a counterweight
to Iran." In the not too distant future, when Iran begins to flex its
muscles a bit more, in ways not to Washington's pleasure, it may then be
their turn for some good ol' American "diplomacy".
- By Pants-of-dog
- By FiveofSwords