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]
Dear List, Brian requested some feedback. I am sorry to say that I found the whole logic of the argument twisted... The "new agreement" does not differ from the MOU, because it is based on the same SC resolutions, unjust as they may be. The world has been demanding that Iraq complies with SC resolutions, even though everyone knows that UNSCOM has violated its mandate, and the US and the UK continue to violate Iraq's sovereignty and the UN Charter. When Iraq finally accepts, no one is satisfied.. In 1998, UNSCOM's Scott Ritter accused Iraq of hiding WMDs in Presidential Palaces. Ritter knew very well that that was not true, simply because Saddam Hussein uses those palaces sometimes, and he is not known to be self-destructive or suicidal. Ritter was carrying out orders from his superiors, because the US is not interested in lifting sanctions no matter what happens. And thus, whenever there is a remote possibility that sanctions could be lifted, a new crisis has to be created. In 1998, the inspectors went in and DID NOT find evidence that Iraq had hidden WMDs in those palaces. If the inspectors are "unable to get enough information to determine whether or not the Iraqi government is engaging in deception at presidential sites or sensitive sites", then that should mean that Iraq is not guilty of that accusation. Or is this a repetition of Donald Rumsfeld's famous declaration: "the absence of evidence in not evidence of absence"? So, even though we can not prove that Iraq is NOT HIDING WMDs, that does not mean Iraq is NOT hiding them? Well, how about this: even though we can not prove that Israel was behind the WTC attacks, that does not mean Israel was NOT behind them?? There seems to be a lack of apprehension of a very important factor in all of this WMDs issue. Instead of proving the existence of WMDs, the US demands that Iraq prove IT DOES NOT HAVE WMDs. That is an impossibility, and that is at the heart of the problem. When you accuse someone of something, you have to produce evidence. You can not just present your "suspicions", then demand that the defendant prove he is not guilty. I am sure that is the case in British courts too!! It is not enough for the prosecution to demand a conviction simply on the grounds that "I don't believe you"... In 1998, the inspectors DID NOT find ANY evidence at the Palaces "of possible deception" by Iraq. Before that, Ekeus accused Iraq of making copies of Soviet missile engines and destroying them, while hiding the original ones. Tests by US labs supported his allegations, but tests by Swiss labs proved him wrong. Of course, such revelations do not reach the public.. Who was deceiving the UN and the world?? The reason for attacking Iraq in 1998 was not because Iraq refused "to comply and open up", but because Butler and his staff were carrying out US orders to torpedo the whole inspections operations, with the spying accusations having become evident. Thus by bombing Iraq, the US also destroyed even evidence that Iraq WAS NOT developing WMDs at the sites that were being monitored, and it can now say: we don't know what Iraq has been doing during the last 4 years.. So the reason for the 1998 attacks was NOT that Iraq "put its foot down", but because the US refused, and continues to refuse, to lift sanctions unless the Iraqi regime is overthrown. Brian's view of the "strengths" of the US draft SCR seems to stem from his belief that "disarming Iraq" is a legal act, and not a violation of its sovereignty. I just wonder what Brian would say if his own country were at stake... I think Richard Butler's "late awakening" speech at the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies regarding double standards tells a lot... This "late awakening" is becoming like an epidemic among UNSCOM's staff... Brian seems to believe the US allegations that inspectors have been harassed. We only have Butler's words for that, and Butler has been proven to be a liar by Ekeus, Ritter and even Kofi Annan. Only now he is talking of Iraq's legitimate grievances. Too late... Brian therefore believes that Iraq is hiding WMDs, and thus wants to have "no-fly and no-drive zones" to ensure that " equipment/ materiel of possible interest can NOT be transported out the back door as inspectors come knocking at the front." Interesting, but how about international law and the sovereignty of states? Should we apply that regime to EVERY COUNTRY in the world, or only to selected ones? I wish Brian could elaborate on that a bit.. Should there be, for eample, "no-fly and no-drive zones" in Britain, coupled with inspections, to prevent it from developing WMDs, or are we going to hear the same explanation that "this is a different case"?? Why does Brian think that inspectors should have "unrestricted access to Presidential and sensitive sites" in Iraq alone? Should we have inspectors at 10 Downing Street or Buckingham Palace?? Brian also wants to have "diplomatic representation" during inspections limited to the P-5, because that would provide the opportunity for "checks and Balances". I found that statement bordering on racism, and very insulting to those countries which had representatives in the '98 MOU Special Group. Brian's statement left me with the understanding that representatives of the P-5 are all honest people, who would be objective and truthful, while those of other countries could be influenced by Iraq through "in-roads"... Did I read that right?? Was Scott Ritter from Sudan, or was Richard Butler from Romania, or was Duelfer from Gambia??? Those were the people who spied on Iraq for the the US and Israel..Didn't Ekeus admit that UNSCOM was subjected to pressure specifically from the P-5? I don't believe that the US has any right, legal or moral, to demand from Iraq what it does not demand from Israel, from its allies or from itself. The fact that the SC made a wrong and illegal resolution (687) to disarm Iraq, does not mean that we should submit to it and accept it. That is what we should try to fight and oppose, not find justifications for the US or the UK to attack Iraq, or make it look that it is Iraq's duty to submit to the will of the US. Where is our morality? What has happened to it?? Brian admits his "biased" views in the last paragraph, by demanding a punishment if Iraq chooses to not comply... I find that very strange. Israel has refused to comply with EVERY SINGLE SC RESOLUTION since it was illegally created in 1947. What punishment would a "political realist" suggest we should have for it?? I believe that it should be spelled out clearly what would happen if Iraq complies (and not only threats by the world's worst bully), and that is exactly what Iraq has been requesting since 1991, to no avail. The conditions for lifting the sanctions keep changing all the time, in clear violation of Iraq's rights and the UN charter. The US-drafted SC resolutions, do not lay out any time table or system for lifting the sanctions, because the US is not interested in lifting sanctions... The sanctions can not be lifted automatically upon UNSCOM or UNMOVIC declaring that Iraq is rid of its WMDs. Lifting sanctions is subject to another SC resolution, and it is evident that no matter what Iraq does, sanctions would not be lifted until the Zionists ruling the US and the UK have their man in Baghdad. Hassan _________________________________________________________ A perfect card for every occasion from Maktoob Cards at your fingertips! http://www.maktoob.com/ _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk