[casi] article re. state of the union address

["Salwa de Vree" <sdevree@DELETETHISemail.com>]

[ Converted text/html to text/plain ]


Dear Casi list members, Please forgive me for sending this article again, but
I think it's better to send the text as well as the link.
 - Salwa.



Published on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W.
Bush’s State of the Union Address
by Stephen Zunes

"This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century,
small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and
arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each
case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the
ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of
free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the
United States of America…. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of
our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."

The attempt to put Baathist Iraq on par with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is
ludicrous. Hitler’s Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation in the
world when it began its conquests in the late 1930s and Soviet Russia at its
height had the world’s largest armed forces and enough nuclear weapons to
destroy humankind. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor Third World country that has
been under the strictest military and economic embargo in world history for
more than a dozen years after having much of its civilian and military
infrastructure destroyed in the heaviest bombing in world history. Virtually
all that remained of its offensive military capability was subsequently
dismantled under the strictest unilateral disarmament initiative ever, an
inspection and verification process that has been resumed under an even more
rigorous mandate. By contrast, back in the 1980s, when Iraq really was a major
regional power and had advanced programs in weapons of mass destruction, the
United States did not consider Iraq a threat at all; in fact, the U.S.
provided extensive military, economic and technological support to Saddam
Hussein’s regime.

"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We
have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its
demand that Iraq disarm."

There is nothing in the UN Charter about the unilateral disarmament of a
member state. By contrast, articles 41 and 42 of the Charter – reiterated in
the final article of UN Security Council 1441 – make clear that the UN
Security Council alone has the authority to authorize the use of force to
enforce its resolutions. It should also be noted that there are over ninety UN
Security Council resolutions currently being violated by governments other
than Iraq, most of them by such U.S. allies as Morocco, Israel and Turkey. The
United States has blocked the United Nations from enforcing these resolutions,
however.

"We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its
mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world."

The IAEA has received very little support from the Bush Administration. For
example, the U.S. has blocked the United Nations from enforcing UN Security
Council resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities
under the safeguard of the IAEA. In addition, administration spokespeople have
repeatedly belittled the organization and its effectiveness.

" We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the
former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production
and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction."

The Bush Administration has actually blocked efforts to strengthen
international treaties preventing the spread of biological and chemical
weapons and successfully instigated and led an effort to remove the
highly-effective director of an international program overseeing the
destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles around the world. In addition, the
Bush Administration has cut funding for programs to remove nuclear materials
from the former Soviet Union and rejected a proposed treaty by Russia that
would have destroyed thousands of nuclear weapons, insisting that they instead
simply be put into storage. Finally, the Bush Administration has rejected
calls for a nuclear-free zone for all the Middle East.

"We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out
for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a
right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and
the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom."

It was the United States, through its Central Intelligence Agency, that
overthrew Iran’s last democratic government, ousting Prime Minister Mohammed
Mossadegh in 1953. As his replacement, the U.S. brought in from exile the
tyrannical Shah, who embarked upon a 26-year reign of terror. The United
States armed and trained his brutal secret police – known as the SAVAK – which
jailed, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iranians struggling for
their freedom. The Islamic revolution was a direct consequence of this
U.S.-backed repression since the Shah successfully destroyed much of the
democratic opposition. In addition, the repressive theocratic rulers that
gained power following the Islamic Revolution that ousted the Shah were
clandestinely given military support by the U.S. government during the height
of their repression during the 1980s. As a result, there is serious question
regarding the United States’ support for the freedom of the Iranian people.

"Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to
keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime
was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the
North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek
concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed."

Indications are that North Korea kept its commitment during the 1990s but
ceased its cooperation only recently. It is widely believed that North Korea
decided to renege on its agreement as a direct result of last year’s State of
the Union address, when President Bush declared North Korea to be part of an
"axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran. Seeing the United States prepare to
invade Iraq and increase its bellicose rhetoric against Iran and themselves,
the North Koreans apparently decided that they needed to create a credible
deterrent in case they were next. They have offered to end their nuclear
program in return for a guarantee that the United States will not invade them.

"America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan,
China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean
government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic
stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean regime will find respect
in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its
nuclear ambitions."

Actually, the United States has been at odds with North Korea’s neighbors,
taking a far more hard-line position toward the communist regime than those
who have far greater grounds for concern about any potential threat. Perhaps
more significantly, given that the United States has good relations with other
countries that have developed nuclear weapons in recent years – such as India,
Pakistan and Israel – and has demonstrated hostility toward North Korea well
prior to the start of its nuclear program, the North Koreans may have reason
to doubt that curbing their nuclear ambitions will make much of a difference.

"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and
not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a
history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential
wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the
United States."

There was a very real threat of Iraq dominating the region in the 1980s.
During this period, however, the United States provided Saddam Hussein’s
regime with military, economic and technological assistance, even as it
invaded Iran and its internal repression and support of terrorism was at its
height. Now that the country is only a fraction of its once formidable
military prowess and it has little direct access to its oil wealth, it is hard
to imagine how it could realistically dominate the region again, much less
threaten the United States.

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam
Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for
the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors
were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a
country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that
Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is
hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and
destroy them as directed."

UNMOVIC director Hans Blix and IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei have expressed
concerns that Iraq was not sufficiently forthcoming in some potentially key
areas, though they also noted areas where there had been a high level of
cooperation in some other areas. This is far short of "utter contempt."
Similarly, their mission is far from being a scavenger hunt, given the
extensive records from the eight years of UN inspections during the 1990s. It
is noteworthy that the UNSCOM inspectors did not find any more hidden
materials during their last four years of operations despite expanding the
scope of their searches. Though these inspectors were withdrawn under pressure
from President Bill Clinton in late 1998 before they could complete their job,
satellite surveillance and other intelligence gathering since then has given
this new round of inspections – which have an even tougher mandate regarding
the timing and extent of their searches – a good idea of where to look and
what to look for. Furthermore, they have equipment that can detect radioactive
isotopes and other telltale signs of WMD development at a great distance from
their source. It is noteworthy that after insisting that Iraq’s four-year
refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return was cited as grounds for an
invasion, the Bush Administration has suddenly challenged the inspectors’
effectiveness since they resumed inspections. Furthermore, the United States
has yet to put forward any proof that Iraq currently has any banned weapons.

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological
weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to
kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given
no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam
Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of
botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by
respiratory failure."

This is like saying that a man has enough sperm to impregnate several million
women. Theoretically true, but if you don’t have sufficient delivery systems,
it simply cannot be done. There is no evidence that Iraq has any delivery
systems that can effectively disseminate biological weapons in a way that
could endanger large populations.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not
accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed
them."

This figure is far higher than most independent estimates. The former chief
weapons inspector for UNSCOM stated that at least 95% of Iraq’s chemical
weapons had been accounted for and destroyed by 1998. With the embargo
preventing the import of new materials, satellites eyeing possible sites for
new production, and the return of UN inspectors, it is highly dubious that
Iraq could develop an offensive chemical weapons arsenal, particularly since
virtually all of their ballistic missiles capable of carrying such weapons
have also been accounted for and destroyed. In addition, if Saddam Hussein’s
possession of chemical weapons is really such a major concern for the U.S.
government, why did the United States send Iraq tons of toxic chemicals during
the 1980s, even when it became apparent that they were being used for weapons?

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam
Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for
a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching
uranium for a bomb."

True. What the president failed to mention is that in 1998 the International
Atomic Energy Agency also reported that Iraq’s nuclear capability had been
completely dismantled. More recently, IAEA director El-Baradei, in his January
27 report to the UN Security Council, reported there was no evidence to
suggest that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program.

" Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

As "60 Minutes" and other independent investigations have revealed, these
aluminum tubes also have commercial applications. The IAEA has investigated
the matter and has reported that there is no evidence to suggest they were
intended for a nuclear program.

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous
sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But
why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for
those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack"

This is hardly the "only possible explanation." The most likely reason for a
country in a heavily-armed region within missile range of two nuclear powers
to pursue weapons of mass destruction is for deterrence. Even the CIA has
reported that there is little chance that Iraq would use WMDs for offensive
purposes in the foreseeable future. By contrast, so says this CIA analysis,
there is a far greater risk that Saddam Hussein would use whatever WMDs he may
possess in the event of a U.S. invasion, when deterrence has clearly failed
and he no longer has anything to lose.

"And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat.
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by
people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists,
including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could
provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their
own."

Reports from the State Department, the CIA and other intelligence agencies
have found no credible proof of any links between the Islamist al Qaeda
movement and the secular Iraqi government. In fact, they have been at odds
with each other for many years. Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism peaked
in the 1980s, when the U.S. dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring
terrorism in order to make the regime eligible to receive U.S. military and
technological assistance. Furthermore, most biological weapons – the only WMDs
threat that Iraq realistically might possess at this point – do leave
fingerprints and could easily be traced to Iraq.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein
could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist
networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other
weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take
one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of
horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to
make sure that that day never comes."

Again, there is no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden, who has called the Iraqi dictator "an apostate, an infidel, and a
traitor to Islam." Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack
against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks
against American interests since 1991. It is always easy to think of worst
case scenarios, but no country has the right to invade another on the grounds
that the other country might some day possess weapons that they might decide
to pass on to someone else who might use these weapons against them.

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already
used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead,
blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are
obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch.
International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the
torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping
acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and
rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

The use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi armed forces against Kurdish villages
took place in the 1980s when the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein’s government.
The U.S. even covered up for the Halabja massacres and similar atrocities by
falsely claiming it was the Iranians – then the preferred enemy – who were
responsible. Human rights organizations have indeed reported torture and other
human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime and did so back in the 1980s when the
U.S. was supporting it. As a result, one can only assume that this professed
concern about human rights abuses is insincere, particularly since the Bush
Administration is currently sending military and police aid to repressive
regimes such as Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Egypt and others that are
guilty of similar human rights abuses. If President Bush really thinks that
this constitutes evil, why does he support governments that engage in such
crimes?

"We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does
not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world,
we will lead a coalition to disarm him".

To invade Iraq without authorization of the United Nations Security Council
would be direct violation of fundamental legal norms and would make the United
States an international outlaw. A unilateral U.S. invasion and the
repercussions of such an act of aggression would be a far greater threat to
the safety of Americans and the peace of the world than maintaining the
current UN strategy of rigorous inspections, military sanctions and
deterrence.

"Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace,
members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near
the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the
success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your
honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you."

No doubt the thousands of armed forces personnel currently assembling in that
region do believe in America. Hopefully, America will believe in them enough
to not abandon them as they did the veterans of the previous war against Iraq
who suffer the debilitating effects of Gulf War Syndrome without the support
and recognition of the government that sent them into combat. It is also
ironic to hear such high praise of the men and women readying for combat from
a man who – despite his support for the Vietnam War – refused to fight in it,
instead using family connections to get into a National Guard unit from which
he was AWOL for much of his time of service. In addition, it is Orwellian to
claim that an army poised to bomb and invade a sovereign nation are there to
"keep the peace." The best way American servicemen and servicewomen can keep
the peace would be to refuse to obey any illegal orders of their
commander-in-chief that command them to fight in an illegitimate war.

"We seek peace. We strive for peace... If war is forced upon us, we will fight
in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the
innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and
might of the United States military -- and we will prevail."

The palpable eagerness of the Bush Administration to go to war belies any
claims of seeking peace. Iraq has neither attacked nor threatened the United
States, so it cannot be said that war is being forced upon the country.
Virtually all of America’s allies oppose this threat of war. In the United
States, the Catholic bishops and every mainline Protestant denomination have
gone on record declaring that a U.S. invasion would not constitute a just war,
a sentiment echoed by religious leaders around the world. The U.S. record of
sparing the innocent in its recent wars has been quite poor, with upwards to
5000 civilians killed in the first Gulf War, an estimated 500 civilians in
Yugoslavia and approximately 3000 civilians in Afghanistan. Most scenarios
predict a far higher level of civilian casualties in a U.S. invasion of Iraq,
particularly should American troops have to seize Baghdad – a city of five
million – by force.

"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring
to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom".

The United States has spent only a miserly amount of money for food, medicine
and other humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan relative to the billions of
dollars spent to bomb that country. Despite greater political pluralism in
Afghanistan under the post-Taliban regime, most of the country is not enjoying
freedom, but is subjected to the abuse of war lords, opium magnates and ethnic
militias that have gained in power since the U.S. intervention.

"Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time.
Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to
ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our
strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty
of strangers."

The character and resoluteness of the American people is worthy of praise.
Unfortunately, the United States government has frequently used its military
and economic power to suppress liberty, such as supporting the overthrow of
democratically-elected governments in countries like Guatemala and Chile while
backing scores of dictatorial regimes throughout the world. The United States
has also used powerful international financial institutions to force poor
countries to weaken environmental and labor laws to enhance the profits of
U.S-based multinational corporations.

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every
person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's
gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."

What would God think of a government that supplies more weapons, training and
logistical support to more dictatorships and other human rights abusers than
any other? If freedom and liberty are indeed the will of God, the foreign
policy of the Bush Administration is nothing short of blasphemy.

Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace &
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East
editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the author of the
recently released book Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism www.commoncouragepress.com[1].

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm[2]

















* --

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com[3]
Meet Singles[4]

===References:===
  1. http://www.commoncouragepress.com
  2. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm
  3. http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
  4. http://corp.mail.com/lavalife

_______________________________________________
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