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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] "A Swede Called Rolf Ekeus"

Further, wrt 'WMD specialists' in Iraq:

Did David Kay Engineer WMD Evidence for Bush I -and
Now Bush 2?

Bush's Top WMD Inspector David Kay is NOT a scientist
of any kind

and today, 10 Downing "comments" on Dr Kelly:

No 10 dismisses Kelly as a 'Walter Mitty'
By Paul Waugh,
Independent Deputy Political Editor
04 August 2003

Downing Street will seek to defend itself over the death of David Kelly by
portraying the scientist as a Walter Mitty character who exaggerated his
role in the Government's intelligence case against Iraq.

Coming shortly before Dr Kelly's funeral on Wednesday, the description of
one of Britain's most respected weapons experts as a fantasist is certain to
spark fury among friends and former colleagues. ... ..

----- Original Message -----
From: "ppg" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: [casi] "A Swede Called Rolf Ekeus"

> Meet the Real WMD Fabricator
> A Swede Called Rolf Ekeus
> August 2, 2003
> Week after week Bush and his people have been getting pounded by newly
> emboldened Democrats and liberal pundits for having exaggerated the threat
> posed by Saddam Hussein and his still-elusive weapons of mass destruction.
> One day CIA director George Tenet, is hung out to dry; the next it's the
> turn of Paul Wolfowitz's platoon of mad Straussians. The other side of the
> Atlantic, the same sort of thing has been happening to Tony Blair.
> They deserve the pounding, but if we're to be fair there's an even more
> deserving target, a man of impeccable liberal credentials, well respected
> the sort of confabs attended by New Labor and espousers of the Third Way.
> give you Rolf Ekeus, former Swedish ambassador to the United States and,
> before that, the executive chairman of the United Nations Special
> (UNSCOM) on Iraq from 1991 to 1997. These days he's chairman of the
> Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a noted dovecote of the
> olive branch set.
> In the wake of the first Iraq war it was UNSCOM chief Ekeus, exuding
> disinterested integrity as only a Swede can, who insisted that Saddam
> Hussein was surely pressing forward with the manufacture of weapons of
> destruction. It was Ekeus who played a pivotal role in justifying the
> continued imposition of sanctions, on the grounds that these sanctions
> essential as a means of applying pressure to the tyrant in Baghdad.
> In 1996 Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, and a leading critic of
> the indiscriminate cruelty of these sanctions, wrote an open letter to
> beginning thus: "Dear Mr. Ekeus, How many children are you willing to let
> die while you search for 'items' you 'are convinced still exist in' Iraq?
> Every two months for the past half year, and on earlier occasions, you or
> your office have made some statement several weeks before the Security
> Council considers sanctions against Iraq which you know will be used to
> cause their continuation This cruel and endless hoax of new disclosures
> every two months must stop. The direct consequence of your statements
> are used to justify continuation of the sanctions against Iraq is the
> of hundreds of thousands of innocent and helpless infants, children and
> elderly and chronically ill human beings."
> Despite many such furious denunciations, till the day he handed over his
> as UNSCOM chief to the more obviously suspect and disheveled Australian,
> Richard Butler, Ekeus continued in the manner stigmatized by Clark and
> others. US ambassador to the UN Madeline Albright notoriously said to
> Stahl of CBS, of the lethal sanctions which killed over half a million
> children, "we think the price is worth it", but Ekeus was the one who
> furnished the UN's diplomatic cover for that repulsive calculus.
> It's fortunate for Ekeus's reputation among the genteel liberal crowd that
> public awareness of what he really knew about Saddam's chemical,
> and nuclear weapons is still slight. In fact Ekeus was perfectly well
> from the mid-l990s on that Saddam Ussein had no such weapons of mass
> destruction. They had all been destroyed years earlier, after the first
> war.
> Ekeus learned this on the night of August 22, l995, in Amman, from the
> of General Hussein Kamel, who had just defected from Iraq, along with some
> of his senior military aides. Kamel was Saddam's son-in-law and had been
> overall charge of all programs for chemical, biological and nuclear
> and delivery systems.
> That night, in three hours of detailed questioning from Ekeus and two
> technical experts, Kamel was categorical. The UN inspection teams had done
> good job. When Saddam was finally persuaded that failure to dispose of the
> relevant weapons systems would have very serious consequences, he issued
> order and Kamel carried it out. As he told Ekeus that night, "All weapons,
> biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." (The UNSCOM
> of the session can be viewed at
> In similar debriefings that
> August Kamel said the same thing to teams from the CIA and MI6. His
> aides provided a wealth of corroborative details. Then, the following
> Kamel was lured back to Iraq and at once executed.
> Did Ekeus immediately proclaim victory, and suggest that sanctions could
> abated? As we have seen, he did not. In fact he urged that they be
> intensified. The years rolled by and Iraqi children by the thousand wasted
> and died. The war party thumped the drum over Saddam's WMDs, and Kamel's
> debriefings stayed under lock and key. Finally, John Barry of
> Newsweek unearthed details of those sessions in Amman and in February on
> this year Newsweek ran his story, though not with the play it deserved. I
> gather that when Barry confronted Ekeus with details of the suppressed
> briefing, Ekeus was stricken. Barry's sensational disclosure was mostly
> ignored.
> And Ekeus's rationale for suppressing the disclosures of Kamel and his
> aides? He claims that the plan was to bluff Saddam and his scientists into
> further disclosures. Try to figure that out.
> For playing the game, the way the US desired it to be played, Ekeus got
> rewards: a pleasing welcome in Washington when he arrived there as Swedish
> ambassador, respectful audiences along the world's diplomatic circuits. To
> this day he zealously burnishes his "credibility" with long, tendentious
> articles arguing that Bush and Blair had it right. He betrays no sign of
> being troubled by his horrible role. He will never be forced to squirm in
> hearings by Democratic senators suddenly as brave as lions. He won't have
> wade through raw sewage to enter the main hospital in Baghdad and watch
> children die or ride in a Humvee and wait for someone to drop a hand
> off a bridge and blow his head off.
> Today he grazes peacefully in the tranquil pastures of the Stockholm Peace
> Research Institute. But if we're going to heap recriminations on Bush and
> Blair and the propagandists who fashioned their lies, don't forget Ekeus.
> played a worse role than most of them, under the blue flag of the UN.
> Alexander Cockburn
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
> To unsubscribe, visit
> To contact the list manager, email
> All postings are archived on CASI's website:

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]