Law not War
Primary tabs
Transfered from old site
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
LAW NOT WAR
-Jon Greenbaum, Metro Justice,
Rochester, NY
As the cracks continue to develop in the Bush administration’s “consensus” regarding Iraq it is crucial that we make our voices heard and present a grassroots resistance to the invasion of Iraq.
We need to call on Senators Schumer and Clinton and on the western NY Congressional delegation to provide leadership to:
· Resist George Bush’s Policy of Preemptive Attack
· Enforce the War Powers Act.
Bush’s Preemption Policy- During a June 1 commencement speech to West Point, President Bush rolled out his Doctrine of Preemptive Attack which states that the US can strike first or invade another nation if the administration merely interprets that a country poses a threat—even if that country has not presented a threat (Bush: “If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.” Cheney: “Wars are not won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy and, where necessary, preempt grave threats to our country before they materialize.”). [NPR 6/7/02] Such a policy is a radical departure from the policy of deterrence in which security was sought through the threat of overwhelming retaliation. This Doctrine of Preemptive Attack is in direct violation of the United Nations charter which accepts the legitimacy of “self defense” and “collective self defense.” Bush’s policy of preemption legitimizes the principle of international lawlessness, undermines diplomacy, encourages global instability and gives ultimate power and authority to the President.
Weapons of Mass Destruction and UNSCOM inspections- Of course President Bush needs the Doctrine of Preemptive Attack to justify his aggression towards Iraq because there is no evidence that Iraq presents a threat to the United States. According to former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) chief inspector Scott Ritter, “Iraq has, in fact, been disarmed. The chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range ballistic missile programs that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless.” [Boston Globe 3/9/00] Ritter resigned in protest over US politicization of the weapons inspections. In its most recent report, the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program.
At an August 20th Congressional briefing former UNSCOM Chief Inspector Scott Ritter commented on Clinton Administration political manipulation of the UNSCOM weapons inspection process, “Contrary to popular mythology weapons inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam Hussein. Weapons inspectors were ordered out by the United States government 2 days before the United States began a unilateral bombing campaign, ‘Operation Desert Fox,’ that did not have authority of the Security Council.” [President Clinton ordered the bombing just before his impeachment hearings. Ironically, legal scholars now note that the illegal bombing itself served as more of a grounds for impeachment than his handling of the Lewinsky affair]
Before “Operation Desert Fox” Iraq insisted that, after eight years of inspections, the sanctions should be lifted. International calls for the lifting of sanctions started to gain momentum. But Clinton argued that the U.S. had no choice but to bomb Iraq because it was blocking meaningful inspections.
In fact, according to the International Action Center, the United Nations Special Commission--UNSCOM--cited only five "obstructions" to the 423 inspections conducted between Nov. 18-Dec.12, 1998. One was a 45-minute delay before allowing access. Another was Iraq's rebuff to a demand by a U.S. inspector that she be able to interview all the undergraduate students in Baghdad University's Science Department.
Two other cases of Iraq's alleged non-compliance had to do with UNSCOM's request to inspect two establishments on Friday--the Muslim holy day. Since the establishments were closed, Iraq asserted that the inspections must be held another day or that an Iraqi official would accompany the inspectors--in accordance with an agreement between UNSCOM and Iraq regarding Friday inspections.
Less than 48 hours after the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq, the Pentagon began the massive bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox on Dec. 16-19, 1998. U.S. and British warplanes dropped more than 1,000 missiles and bombs on the country during those four days.
Two weeks after Operation Desert Fox, U.S. officials publicly admitted the weapons inspectors were intelligence agents who provided Pentagon bombing planners with bombing coordinates. (New York Times, Jan. 7, 1999)
Predictably--and justifiably--the Iraqi government announced that it would no longer cooperate with the UN weapons inspections.
Former UN Chief of Weapons Inspection, Rolf Ekeus, accused the US and the UN Security Council of manipulating UN inspection teams for their own political ends. [BBC News 7/30/02] Since then negotiations to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq to finish the verification process have not borne fruit. On Meet the Press, Chief UN Inspector Hans Blix warned against the use of force, emphasizing that inspectors should be given every opportunity to do their job first.
Ties to Terrorism- Nor can President Bush point to Iraqi ties with Al Qaeda. The Czech Foreign Intelligence Service has laid to rest the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague. The US State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism report does not document any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism. Moreover, ties to Al Qaeda are unlikely, given Hussein and Osama Bin Laden’s mutual animosity. In 1990 Bin Laden approached Saudi Prince Sulfa and volunteered to organize 100,000 mujahideen to expel Iraq from Kuwait. It is also unlikely that Hussein, a secular leader paranoid about maintaining power, would share any weaponry with fundamentalist terrorists.
(It should also be pointed out that we deemed Hussein trustworthy with the Anthrax that we gave him in the 1980’s when he was our ally against Iran. [NY Times 8/18/02] Several US senior military officers now also claim that during a covert American program to provide Iraq with battle plan assistance against Iran, officers were aware of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons but raised no objections. [NY Times 8/18/02] Iraq did not use these weapons against the US during the Persian Gulf War)
Political Assassination- In 1976, after public outrage over revelations coming out of the Church Committee of the US Senate about CIA assassination attempts in the 50’s and 60’s, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassination. This order has been maintained (or at least paid lip service) by US Presidents since then. Preemptive political assassinations are specifically outlawed in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The current Bush administration, however, has declared its intent to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders in countries around the world and has allowed for the possibility for covert operations forces to “remove” Saddam Hussein. With Hussein fearing for his life, and remembering the CIA infiltration of UNSCOM, this policy of assassination undermines the possibility of successful negotiations with Hussein for the return of UNSCOM weapons inspectors.
· Sanctions- End US obstruction of international calls to lift UN sanctions that target civilians in Iraq
Reports from UNICEF, WHO, FAO World Food Program have increased pressure on the US to lift sanctions. Calls for an end to the sanctions started to gather momentum with the resignation of Dennis Halliday, head of the Oil for Food Program. Halliday went public with the gross inadequacy of the program. His successor, Han Von Sponeck also resigned in protest. Von Sponeck’s resignation was then followed by the resignation of the World Food Programs coordinator in Iraq. Halliday, in a speech to Capitol Hill, cited a “child mortality rate for children under five years of age is from five to six thousand per month… There are many reasons for these tragic and unnecessary deaths, including the poor health of mothers, the breakdown of health services, the poor nutritional intake of both adults and young children and the high incidence of water-born diseases as a result of the collapse of Iraq’s water and sanitation system—and, of course, the lack of electric power to drive that system, both crippled by war damage following the 1991 war.” The chlorine that might clean up the water has been banned by the sanctions. People are contracting preventable 19th century diseases like cholera, dysentery, tuberculosis, and typhoid, diseases that had been brought under control by the Iraqi government prior to the Gulf War. In 1998 the World Council of Churches found that malnutrition and illness of Iraqi civilians was in crisis proportions. Deaths due to malnutrition have increased eight fold since 1989. There is a lack of vaccines, antibiotics and anesthesia and surgeries have been reduced by 70%. According to UN reports, the sanctions have directly and indirectly killed more than 1 million Iraqi citizens. The World Health Organizaqtion estimates that 250 to 300 people die per day as a result of the sanctions. The literacy rate has dropped from 90% to 66%.
Negotiations
· Ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty
· Use the ICC and other existing international institutions to resolve conflicts involving Iraq
· Begin negotiating with Iraq over UNSCOM inspections by taking seriously Iraq’s offer to allow inspectors
Inflammatory messages from certain members of the Bush Administration undermine the possibility of peace and security of US citizens. On the BBC, Condoleeza Rice proclaimed Saddam “an evil man who left to his own devices will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors, and if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us.” In the NY Times Richard Perle said, “The failure to take on Saddam after what the President said would lead to a collapse of confidence.”
Last spring the Bush administration obstructed international efforts to inspect Iraq’s chemical weapons. Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was in the midst of negotiating with Iraq to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention in order to allow weapons inspections when the US threatened to withhold its UN payment until Bustani was fired. [Washington Times 3/21/02] The U.S. succeeded and Bustani was fired. There have been no talks between the OPCW and Iraq since Bustani’s ouster.
The No Fly Zones that the US Air Force is enforcing in the South and North of Iraq are not sanctioned by the UN. We are flying over Iraqi sovereign air space. Nonetheless, in early August, USA Today reported that Iraq had invited “Congressional visitors and weapons experts of their choice… (to) visit any site in Iraq alleged to be used for development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.” The Bush administration dismissed the offer as a ploy. "Inspection is not the issue, disarmament is ... we have seen the Iraqis fiddle with the inspection system before," Powell said dismissively while stopping over in the Philippines. (The Observer, Aug.4) John Bolton, Undersecretary at the State Department stated, “Let there be no mistake, while we also insist on the reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the same time insists on regime change in Baghdad- and that policy will not be altered whether inspectors go in or not.” (Guardian, 8/3/02)
· Consistent Foreign Policy- Provide a consistent foreign policy based on equal enforcement of UN resolutions
Article 14 of UN Resolution 687 states that the disarmament of Iraq is a step towards “the goal of establishing in the Middle East, a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons.” As long as Iraq is surrounded by heavily armed countries Iraq will have the motivation and means to get weapons.
Negotiations with Iraq over the return of weapons inspectors are not likely while the US pursues a policy of singling out Iraq. Pakistan, for instance, does have nuclear weapons, and there is also evidence that Al Qaeda is operating there. And according to a Rand Corporation report, “The Saudi’s are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, to cadre to foot soldiers, from ideologist to cheerleader.” Osama Bin Laden and many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Yet Bush says, “Saudi Arabia is a long-standing friend and a long standing ally. We very much appreciate the way they are cooperating in the global war against terrorism.” [US News and World Report 8/7/02] Although Hussein has not honored UN resolutions (after the discovery that the UNSCOM team contained Americans and the head of it was a former CIA agent), Iraq is not alone in that regard. Israel has ignored dozens of UN resolutions and so has the US. This lack of consistency undermines the possibility of negotiations.
The US, however, should be negotiating with Iraq just as it is now negotiating with North Korea, a nation that does have nuclear weapons.
· Depleted Uranium- End the use of depleted uranium munitions
The US military presently uses bombs and bullets laced with depleted uranium, recycling the waste from nuclear reactors and nuclear weapon production. Despite the term “depleted” uranium-238 (DU) is radioactive. These munitions were used in Iraq and Bosnia. In Iraq the incidence of Leukemia has increased 600% in areas in which the DU munitions were used. In Sarajevo the leukemia rate has tripled in the last five years. NATO and UN peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia are coming down with cancer. Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction.