The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
thanks to Gerri Haines of PSR for this. Safe and happy New Year to all, felicity a/ >From Lebanon. met ~~~~~~~~ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/31_12_01/art23.htm Where Ritter finds fault with the get-Saddam campaigns Former UN chief weapons inspector says US needs legal basis for attacks George S. Hishmeh Special to The Daily Star WASHINGTON: Scott Ritter is a straight arrow. He prides himself for telling it like it is, recognizing that he is a lone wolf caught in the midst of an international argument that could ultimately precipitate a war much bloodier than the one underway in Afghanistan. The former UN chief weapons inspector who hounded Iraq°¶s Saddam Hussein for nearly a decade has shifted his target, and now aims his guns at his government°¶s °ßunilateral policy ú a policy of regime removal in Iraq.” Is this a new Scott Ritter? “There is no such thing as an old Scott Ritter or a new Scott Ritter,” he insisted. “If I am anything, I am the most consistent person out there on Iraq. I have never cut Saddam Hussein any flack. As a weapons inspector my job was not to worry about (him). My job was to worry about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. If people ask me my opinion … I would say he is a brutal dictator. That’s putting it mildly.” The views of the former American Marine stick out like a sore thumb in the debate now underway in Washington between hawkish officials of the Bush administration, particularly those in the Defense Department and the less combative State Department over what some see as the unfinished war against the Iraqi strongman. What remains unsettled, some reportedly believe, is only the question of timing and military strategy, now that the rout of the Taleban and Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network has made these two points seemingly moot. “I take comfort in one thing and one thing only, and that is the truth, the facts,” Ritter told The Daily Star. “Whether people rally around me … I couldn’t care less. I’d like them to, I’d like them to see who is speaking the truth, I’d like them to challenge people who make statements. I get challenged every time I make a statement. But I can back it up. “Am I isolated? Certainly. Do I feel alone? Yes. Does it bother me? No, not at all.” Ritter explained the problem his inspection team had with Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, noting that UN Security Council Resolution 687 required total disarmament, and so “90-95 percent was not good enough, although it meant that fundamentally Iraq has been disarmed.” From a qualitative standpoint, Ritter said, “Iraq no longer possessed a weapons program under the law (but) that 90-95 percent was not good enough.” This meant his team had to investigate how Iraq hid its programs in the past, and how it might continue to do so ú “what we called a concealment mechanism.” This effort, he continued, “has put us in conflict with the Iraqi government on a number of fronts, primarily over the issue of national sovereignty and Iraqi national security,” because the inspectors tried to gain access to presidential security, intelligence services, sensitive military facilities, even presidential palaces. “A lot of people misconstrued that work as somehow Scott Ritter (was) waging his own private war against Saddam Hussein,” he said laughing. “All I am doing today is going forward in the same way I went forward as a weapons inspector, mindful of the facts and operating with high integrity.” Here, Ritter fired his first salvo. “The big problem is that the US government seems not to understand that, in order to have international support to confront Saddam Hussein, the US has to be operating within the framework of international law. It cannot do this by itself. And we definitely can’t do it if we are going to ignore legal fundamentals such as the UN Charter.” The Security Council has never passed a resolution which targeted Saddam Hussein, he said. “And yet the United States pursues, as its own unilateral policy, a policy of regime removal in Iraq ú and we are using Security Council disarmament provisions as a means of facilitating our own policy. We are … creating a situation which brings immense suffering to 22 million innocent people caught in the middle.” Ritter attributed this misguided US stance to the “private, political agenda” of some key officials in the US government who, “frankly, have hijacked US national security for their own purposes.” He identified these as Defense Secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, along with Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Advisory Board, a non-governmental group, and James Woolsey, the former CIA director. “It appears they will do anything it takes to make just cause for the United States to go to war, even though, legally, there is no just cause.” Elaborating on the “propaganda mills” engaged in this anti-Hussein campaign, Ritter cited the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy as “just one of many voices clamoring” for the past decade for the removal of the Iraqi leader. “They have yet to put forth a consistent argument. Their reasons for his removal continue to change as the political scene.” This “war of rhetoric,” as he put it, just demonizes a demon but “without any substantive facts … on the table … that are worthy of going to war with.” Ritter also minced no words about Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM, the UN agency overseeing Iraq’s disarmament and who can be seen regularly on television castigating the Baghdad regime. He said he found Butler to be a “complicated character” who in time “disgraced himself” as the head of the UN commission for which Ritter worked until 1998. “(Butler) destroyed his reputation as a diplomat,” Ritter, who now serves as a news analyst with Fox television, claimed. “He destroyed his reputation as a politician … The man is a liar. The man has been exposed as somebody who has no ability to maintain integrity in positions of high responsibility. He betrayed the special commission, he destroyed the weapons inspection process almost unilaterally.” In turn, Ritter has been taken to task for seemingly contradictory assessments about Iraq’s weapons potential. Statements he made before two Senate committees in 1998 seem to contradict his current position. “Once (the) effective inspection regime has been terminated,” he was quoted as saying then, “Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capability within a period of six months.” He explained in the interview: “Now … I would say it’s unlikely that it is the case. It’s unlikely that these plans are in place, it’s unlikely that Iraq would seek to implement them. But the most important thing to point out is that even if Iraq had these plans, it can’t implement them if you had weapons inspectors in Iraq. And that’s why I have always argued for the return of weapons inspectors (for monitoring purposes).” Where he parts way with the Bush administration is in the next step. “If you want to confront Saddam, you have to do so based on the foundation of legality. Now, if you pass (at the UN Security Council) a finding of compliance under (Resolution) 687 and you offer to lift the oil embargo, then in accordance with the law ú now the United States is adhering to the law ú you demand that Iraq adhere to its obligations which are to allow monitoring inspectors under (UN resolutions) 785 and 1051. Should Iraq refuse to do so, now you have a clear case against Saddam. Now you can start making the case that Iraq is a rogue nation, a lawless nation, a nation that refuses to adhere to international standards, and you can start making the case for war. But you cannot make that case if you, the United States, are yourself operating outside the framework of international law.” Ritter believes Iraq has no choice but to accept this offer. “Saddam’s days would be numbered (if) the entire world … recognized that Iraq has no intention of complying with international law,” he said. According to Ritter, Iraq at present can make the argument that “we did what we are supposed to do. We got rid of our weapons and now it is up to the Security Council to do what it’s supposed to do and, until the Security Council does that, we do not want to deal with weapons inspectors.” “Right now,” he added, “the United States has so clouded the situation with its own ridiculous policy of overthrowing Saddam Hussein that it is very difficult to make an argument that Iraq is the bad guy. Iraq right now looks very much like the nation that is being pursued relentlessly and irresponsibly by the United States.” George S. Hishmeh, a one-time editor-in-chief of The Daily Star, is an Arab-American journalist now based in Washington |