|
April 28,
2003
Repeat After
Me
Iraq is Weapons Free
By LINDA S. HEARD
Now that the Bush administration has realised
that unless Iraq is certified as having no weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) the UN sanctions cannot be permanently lifted and the Oil
for Food Program will remain in force, the US President is changing
his tune.
During a recent speech in Ohio, George
W. Bush hinted for the first time that Iraq's infamous WMD might
never be uncovered. "It's going to take time to find them,
but we know he (Saddam Hussein) had them. And whether he destroyed
them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth,"
he said.
"One thing is for certain,"
Bush added. "Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America
with weapons of mass destruction." As if he ever did!
So there you have it. We were told to
believe that Saddam Hussein was a modern-day Stalin who wouldn't
hesitate in holding the world to ransom with his deadly weapons
when it suited the Washington hawks.
Now that it doesn't, we are being told
that Saddam might have destroyed those weapons, which was exactly
what Tariq Aziz, General Amer Al-Saadi, Mohammed Al-Douri and
other Iraqi representatives were saying in the first place.
In the absence of WMD was the invasion,
therefore, illegal, as Kofi Annan has suggested?
Is it proper that handpicked American
companies with links to the US administration have been given
reconstruction contracts?
Would it be right for the Occupier to
be responsible for selling Iraq's oil?
Should the Iraqi people be free to choose
their own style of government, even an Islamic theocracy if they
so choose?
Was the use of cluster bombs on a civilian
neighbourhood a war crime? Did the US breach the Geneva conventions
when it failed to protect hospitals and re-connect water and
electricity?
Why were US Marines told to stand back
while Baghdad's museum and library were looted and burned? And
why was the Oil Ministry the only one, which was surrounded by
American tanks, to emerge unscathed?
Why is Britain's Ministry of Defence
arranging tests to see whether its returnee soldiers have been
subjected the harmful effects of Depleted Uranium when Defence
Minister Geoff Hoon has stated that DU is harmless?
And while British soldiers are offered
urine tests, both America and Britain refuse to clean up their
own DU, which could adversely affect the health of Iraqi civilians
for generations to come, due to cost concerns.
It seems to me that given that 'regime
change' does not figure in the Charter of the UN as a casus belli
for invasion, in a just world the US should be apologising to
the former Iraqi regime and liable for any reparations caused
by American aggression. Otherwise, this means that anytime a
nation doesn't like the leader of another, it can feel free to
come up with spurious, unproven accusations before launching
an attack.
This precedent means that China could
grab Taiwan at any time of its choosing, Russia could attempt
to claim back some of its lost territory and the US could annex
Canada. Ridiculous as that may sound, there is nothing now to
stop it. After all, the Canadian government was anti-war too.
Bush and his cohorts will stop at nothing.
They have spun, lied, and intimidated their way out of the tentacles
of international laws and treaties. The United Nations and NATO
are under threat, and the European Union in a shambles. The only
law now worth noting is: might is right.
There are so many questions yet to be
asked. But who is going to ask them and what's more, who is going
to ensure that consequences ensue under international laws and
treaties?
Will dissenting countries and individuals
continue to speak up or turn the other cheek in case the Superpower,
its client states and its jingoistic supporters turn their intimidating
spotlight on them?
In case you hadn't noticed we have entered
a brand new era. Not only must we be with the Bush administration
or be considered as buddies of 'the terrorists' but we must also
follow the dictates of America's current leaders, or face punishment.
Those behind-the-times nations or individuals who haven't yet
cottoned on to this new reality are in for a nasty surprise.
This rule is being applied from the top
down. France, which led the nations blocking a Security Council
resolution, which would have paved the way for an invasion of
Iraq, has already been punished.
Tony Blair and some of his Commons' toadies,
publicly and hypocritically, coloured France's pacifist stance
as having caused the war in the first place.
The New York Post plastered photographs
of American graves in Normandy across its pages with the headline
"Has France Forgotten?" while phrases like "cheese-eating
surrender monkeys" were clarion calls of the Franco-phobic
masses.
Chefs in Congress began calling their
French fries 'freedom fries' while Congressmen childishly took
the lead in pouring fine French wines down the drain. French
exporters are already feeling the pinch.
You would think those French had learned
their lesson by now, wouldn't you? But no, there they go again
obstructing US ambitions by agreeing only to the temporary lifting
of sanctions on Iraq and asking for Hans Blix to continue with
his mandate, despite US objections.
There is only one thing for it from the
point of view of the US State Department. France will have to
be prepared for yet more punishment. Ways of doing this are being
discussed but are likely to include France being sidelined in
NATO with names of its delegates crossed off Washington's invitation
lists.
Syria had to be punished too. After all,
it dared to adopt an anti-war position, which flew in the face
of America's demands. Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian President,
actually suggested that the Anglo-American invasion was illegal
and immoral, and like France, was another Security Council member
vehemently opposed to the war.
As a neighbour of Iraq, Syria was easy
to punish. All America had to do was throw around a few insinuations
that Syria was developing chemical weapons and was harbouring
Baath Party leaders, backed up with a couple of implied threats
and that put Syria in its place.
Now, another neighbour of Iraq, Iran
is being threatened with punishment should it dare to send Shia
fifth columnists into southern Iraq to urge Iraq's majority Shia
population into demanding an Islamic state. Both Iran and Syria
now have a red, white and blue damaclesian sword hanging over
their heads with a US military presence firmly ensconced in the
region.
Individuals have been punished too, starting
with those reporters and cameramen who dared to oppose the Pentagon's
instruction to stay out of Baghdad. Al Jazeera lost one of its
own when its Baghdad office was bombed, two members of the international
media were killed when a US tank fired at the Palestine Hotel.
US tanks surrounded the offices of Abu Dhabi television, forcing
it to send an SOS to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Voices in the Wilderness, a human rights
group - with members in Baghdad - was punished after it dared
to publish critical accounts of the American presence. Its members
are being physically prevented from talking with reporters in
the Palestine Hotel and from getting their stories out. Volunteer
American human shields had been threatened with a gaol term for
treason or even with being stripped of their nationality for
'providing aid and comfort to the enemy'.
Leader of the anti-war movement in Britain,
the parliamentarian George Galloway, has been put in the negative
spotlight shortly after describing both Bush and Blair as 'wolves'.
A long-time defender of the Palestinian cause and an opponent
of the crippling sanctions on Iraq, Galloway is now being accused
of accepting indirect payments from the former Iraqi regime in
the form of oil contracts.
All of a sudden, files containing documents
'incriminating' Galloway are being discovered by reporters -
employed by right-wing publications - in burnt-out ministries
and looted leadership homes. 'Coincidentally' Blair had recently
called Galloway's verbal attacks on the war 'disgraceful' and
had been searching for ways in which Galloway could be deprived
of the Labour Party Whip, meaning that he would no longer be
effective as a party member.
Documents discovered by a Daily Telegraph
reporter - another Blair - are all photocopies and could not
stand up in court but the damage against Galloway has been done.
Whatever happens now, a slur has been forever cast on his name
and other would-be dissenters will be taking note. It could happen
to them too.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix - formerly
feted by Washington and London - is being punished for daring
to challenge US 'intelligence' concerning Iraq's WMD and for
pointing out that Powell's assertions concerning the import of
aluminium tubes and uranium from Niger was either erroneous or
fabricated. He has been told in no uncertain terms by Arie Fleischer
that his comments have been unhelpful and his expert inspections
team has been pushed aside.
Anti-war entertainers have fallen victim
to a McCarthy-type atmosphere, which prevails throughout Bush's
America. The Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Michael
Moore have all fallen foul of a flag-waving public, high on nationalistic
ideals and the will to power. Invitees to this year's Academy
Awards ceremony, including Oscar nominees, were warned not to
elucidate political views for the first time.
Hackers have attacked anti-war websites.
'Patriotic' servers have removed others, while the owner of Al
Jazeerah (not connected to the network) Hassan al-Najjar has
received death threats, forcing him to take his site off-line.
<YellowTimes.com>, which has featured articles by the Iraqi
former nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri asserting that Iraq destroyed
its WMD more than a decade ago, has been forced to close on several
occasions.
Anti-war writers barely find their work
reproduced in America's mainstream media with the views of that
nation's finest intellectuals such as Naom Chomsky and Edward
Said being firmly kept away from the public screen.
In a half-hearted attempt to look as
though they are being fair and balanced, American networks invariably
invite pro-Western so-called Mid-East experts, like Mamoun Fandy
or Fadhil Chalabi to appear on their programs. Neither of these
erstwhile gentlemen can find a good word to say about Mid-East
governments, Arabic culture or Arab achievements.
Interestingly, Russia and China, which
both opposed the war, are not being subjected to intimidation
and neither is North Korea, which has blatantly announced that
it does have nuclear weapons and is ready to use them. Conclusions
can be drawn that only those with military might - and are judged
likely to use it - are protected in America's New Century. What
kind of message is this putting out?
Who will be punished next? Only those,
who believe that silence equals death. The rest will continue
saying "yessir", "three bags full, sir",
and hope against hope that their turn won't come.
Linda S Heard
is a specialist writer on Mid-East affairs and welcomes feedback
at questioningmedia@yahoo.co.uk
Yesterday's
Features
Elaine
Cassel
The Other War: Bush, Ashcroft and
the End of Civil Liberties
Saul
Landau
Iraq War: a Policy of Christian and Jewish Fundamentalism
William
A. Cook
Sharon Recruits US as Mercenaries Against Syria
William
S. Lind
Now the Real War Starts
John Chuckman
In Jesus's Name:
Franklin Graham's Christian Empire
David
MacMichael and Ray McGovern
Ex-CIA Analysts on WMD: Where? Find?
Plant?
Gary Leupp
Why the War on Iraq was (and Remains) Wrong
Robert
Sandels
Cuba Crackdown: a Revolt Against Bush's National Security Strategy?
CounterPunch
Wire
An Open Letter to Jerry Brown on Oakland Police Violence Against
Peace Activists and Dock Workers
Mickey
Z.
Our Ba'athists
Anthony
Gancarski
Nader Plays Pullman
Scott
Handleman
The Mumia Abu-Jamal Case in Its True Colors
Claud Cockburn
Evelyn Waugh's Ear Trumpet
Poets'
Basement
Matt Simon, Sam Hamod, Hammond Guthrie and Stew Albert
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 4/26
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|