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]
Strange that the irate Mr. Spence is not angry at the US for usurping the UN inspection role. He doesnt even seem to notice this! He also ignores the fact that no force was authorised by the UN. Is it the Heritage of Lies Institute he hails from? Cheers, Ken Hanly Finding banned weapons in Iraq irrelevant, British official claims War's legitimacy debated: Straw says Saddam's defiance of UN was reason enough Steven Edwards National Post Saturday, April 26, 2003 UNITED NATIONS - Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, lashed out at critics yesterday for claiming the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was necessary to justify the U.S.-led invasion. Mr. Straw said they were twisting the facts and suggested the coalition's failure to uncover illicit weapons in Iraq was irrelevant. Several legal analysts and defence experts agree with his assessment, pointing out the most recent UN Security Council resolution on Iraqi disarmament said nothing about having to find weapons. Rather, it gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to work with UN weapons inspectors to prove it was free of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's determination to deceive UN weapons inspectors was laid bare on Wednesday as six Iraqi scientists working at different Baghdad research institutions told how they were ordered to destroy bacteria and equipment just before inspections. George Bush, the U.S. President, said on Thursday that Iraqi officials and scientists have told how Saddam Hussein ordered chemical and biological weapons destroyed or dispersed just before the war. Mr. Straw's outburst came after Robin Cook, who resigned his Cabinet post in the British government to protest the war, claimed failure to find banned weapons would destroy the war's legitimacy. "People are now trying to suggest that somehow the decision to take military action was entirely conditional on subsequently finding chemical and biological weapons material,'' Mr. Straw told BBC radio. "That wasn't the case.'' "[The international community] accepted that Saddam had these weapons and they posed a threat," he added. "Did we overstate the threat? I don't think we overstated the threat.'' Iraq's "final opportunity" to comply is part of Security Council Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on Nov. 8. It came after more than a decade of widespread sanctions trying to get Iraq to honour its disarmament commitments in the 1991 truce ending the first Gulf War. The resolution said Iraq would face "serious consequences" if it did not declare all its weapons programs and help weapons inspectors verify it had no weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, said Iraq fell short on both tasks, though he argued its co-operation improved as war appeared imminent. The United States and Britain, meanwhile, said the rest of the Security Council knew "serious consequences" meant war because military action is stated in the UN Charter as the next level of enforcement after sanctions. "As a legal matter, an inability to find large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction does not mean there is no just cause for the war," said Lee Casey, a Washington-based international law expert and former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "If everything the other side does leads you to conclude that they are a threat, then you are covered." The testimony of the six Iraqi scientists indicates the Iraqi dictator violated Resolution 1441 on several levels. They said orders to destroy their experiments came just before inspections, suggesting secret police had been spying on the inspectors, because schedules were supposed to be secret. The scientists also said they had not been working on weapons programs, but were told to destroy their experiments anyway. Destroying even innocent experiments would be considered non-compliance For Mr. Casey, however, it is natural to believe something much more sinister was afoot. "Researchers would be expected to work, at least sometimes, on dangerous experiments," he said. "So it is logical to believe that the Iraqis were afraid the inspectors would make a connection between this work and research work elsewhere. They thought the inspectors would start to connect the dots and find out that something forbidden was underway." Some of the information about Iraq destroying weapons just before the war came from an Iraqi scientist who led U.S. officials to buried ingredients and equipment that could be used to make a chemical weapon. The same scientist, who has not been identified to protect his safety, also said many of Iraq's recent programs were restricted to research and development work, which is relatively easy to conceal. This could explain why coalition forces have uncovered little evidence of programs so far. It also suggests Saddam was preparing the ground to re-start programs if sanctions were lifted. "Saddam had a whole army of scientists able to go back into action," said Jack Spencer, defence analyst with the Heritage Institute, a Washington-based think-tank. He argued Saddam's lack of co-operation with weapons inspectors was rightly the benchmark for military action. "No inspectors have said he cooperated fully. That in itself justifies military action under the UN's own rules," he said. "It defies logic that Saddam would have given up billions in potential oil revenues during more than a decade of sanctions if he did not have something to hide." Expressing anger that coalition forces are already being criticized for not finding banned weapons, Mr. Spencer added: "I find it odd that when the UN weapons inspectors were in there, critics of the Bush administrations said, 'Give them more time.' "But now that the coalition forces are in there, they say, 'We want proof now.' " © Copyright 2003 National Post _______________________________________________ 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