| |
THE ROVING EYE
A resolution of
question
By Pepe Escobar
PARIS - From London to Brussels, the verdict is
practically unanimous on the report prepared by British
premier Tony Blair, supposed to be the smoking gun
against Saddam Hussein: it's nothing more than
"sanitized intelligence" presented as a political
document. Most of the material had already been
published in the US. Only two pieces of hard news stand
out: that Iraq tried to get uranium in Africa, and that
it is capable of deploying chemical weapons in 45
minutes.
Even Terence Taylor, director of the
London-based Institute of International and Strategic
Studies, who could be characterized as a supporter of
Washington's hawks, says that the report is based on a
"substantial body of evidence" already produced by the
United Nations. He also stresses a "sense of urgency"
about the whole matter - but insists on a resolution by
the UN first. Some European diplomats in private express
doubts about suspicious black and white photos of
suspected missile launching sites - something that
reminds them of Soviet propaganda. Others suspect that
the whole drama surrounding the report was choreographed
by the US.
The assumption is that the Blair
report is not telling a big lie, therefore it is telling
the truth. But reading the report we come across a mass
of "maybes", "unclears", "probables" and "unaccounted
fors". The report's guesses are as good as any. There's
no hard evidence of a single new Iraqi missile. And the
report does not establish Saddam's motives or intention
to use the weapons that he may or may not have. Only if
he is attacked by the US will he be offered a solid
motive.
George W Bush has stuck to his guns: for
months the distinction has been absolutely clear between
renewed UN weapons inspections and "regime change". It
is patently obvious that it is absolutely impossible
that Washington will agree to any finding that Baghdad
has fulfilled its obligations under Security Council
resolutions.
The precedents do exist. In 1998,
the US blocked the closure of the Iraqi nuclear file by
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the
agency said that it could certify that Iraq's ability to
produce nuclear weapons had been neutralized and
eliminated. Scott Ritter, the American former chief of
UN inspectors in Iraq, has been stressing for years that
Iraq did not close its doors to the inspectors in 1998.
It was the US that told them to leave after the failure
of a crude manipulation to provoke a crisis between the
inspectors and Iraqi officials. The US then used the
crisis to once again bomb Iraq - without even bothering
to consult the Security Council. Ritter also stresses
that this bombing campaign was not concentrated on
Iraq's capacity to build weapons of mass destruction,
but on Saddam's security apparatus. The American bombs
were directed to targets identified by CIA agents
disguised as inspectors. Even Washington recognized some
of the "inspectors" were not the real thing.
European and Arab world diplomats comment in
private that apparently now Iraq simply has to comply
with UN demands, and if it does so, the whole problem
will be solved. Not really. The US will find any
imaginable reason to reject Iraqi compliance as falling
short of UN demands. This is what has been happening
since 1991 - as Asia Times Online learned in Iraq from
many academics, and also from other players, such as
Denis Hallyday, former director of the "oil for food"
program in Iraq.
The whole world is now
anxiously waiting for the new, magic US-proposed UN
Security Council resolution. This was solemnly announced
by Bush himself almost two weeks ago. The Americans
started writing it with the help of the British. Then
came the crucial visit of the Russian foreign and
defense ministers to Washington. And then came the Blair
dossier. But nobody actually knows which members of the
Security Council really want to examine a text before
chief weapons inspector Hans Blix meets an Iraqi
delegation in Vienna next Monday.
Most observers
would bet on this resolution being extremely vague on
what Iraq actually needs to do, but it will be extremely
specific on what Iraq will face if it does not comply.
There is a simple test to verify the real US intentions:
the US-inspired resolution has to be absolutely
transparent, with unambiguous mechanisms and procedures,
stating exactly what Iraq has to do to get the elusive
all-clear certificate that will lead to the end of the
sanctions that are currently imposed on it.
There is a consensus among European and Arab
diplomats - supported by the views of an insider like
Scott Ritter - that if Iraq fulfills its obligations,
the international community should end the oil embargo
and give the control of the Iraqi economy back to the
Iraqi government, even if this means that Saddam Hussein
will retain power. As much as Iraq has the obligation to
allow the inspectors back without any conditions, the
international community has the obligation to conduct a
rigorous and fair investigation.
But any realist
knows that this scenario is absolutely unlikely. And
that's why the whole waiting game for a "magic"
resolution is a non-event. For Washington's hawks,
regime change is infinitely more crucial than
disarmament. In other words: whatever the UN does, it
does not matter.
The British ambassador to the
UN, Jeremy Greenstock, has stressed that the resolution
will emphasize disarmament: "Whatever the US decision on
anything else, it will only concern the US." Europe
remains totally divided about the war. Tony Blair wants
it, but his Labor Party is totally split. According to
the latest British military estimates, a land invasion
of Iraq by 250,000 troops would yield a figure of 37,000
casualties on the US-British side - not to mention the
other side. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was
re-elected at the weekend, capitalizing on the deep
anti-war sentiment in Germany. And as far as the
Franco-German alliance - the main engine that moves
Europe forward - is concerned, the controversy on Iraq
has once more made clear that the German public is more
anti-American than the German elite, while the French
elite is more anti-American than the French public.
Jean-Herve Bradol, the founder of Doctors
Without Borders, has observed that Western societies
have always presented their most brutal military
expeditions as enterprises of civilization: "To the wars
of the 'others' rests the privilege of barbarism." What
has just happened in Afghanistan is the latest example
of how the "defense of peace and civilization" is
conducted: apocalyptic prophecy, demonization of the
enemy and a totally asymmetric war. Saddam is the
"ultimate evil" who will destroy us all (yesterday it
was one Osama bin Laden, the day before that it was
Muammar Gaddafi).
The Russian war against
Chechnya and the Israeli war against Palestine follow
the same pattern. And so will the next inevitable war of
the US against Iraq - even though Mesopotamia was the
cradle of civilization itself.
(©2002 Asia Times
Online Co Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contactcontent@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
