U.S. CONTINUES TO PUSH FOR WAR OF AGGRESSION / MANDELA SPEAKS OUT
By Richard Becker
Sept. 17, 2002
The Bush administration wants a new war against Iraq. And Bush and company want the people of the U.S. and the world to believe it's because of a "grave threat" posed by Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
That phony pretext for war went up in smoke on Sept. 17.
On Sept. 16, Iraq's government sent an official letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stating that Iraq would allow UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq without conditions, "to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."
But Washington wouldn't take "yes" for an answer.
The White House's predictably arrogant response was to denounce Iraq's offer for the unconditional return of the inspectors. For those who have believed that Iraq's weapons were the real issue, this denunciation might have seemed somewhat surprising.
What Washington's reaction shows is that Iraq's purported weaponry is not the issue at all. If it were, the Bush administration would have welcomed Iraq's statement. Instead, the White House, in its official statement demanded: "a new, effective UN Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to the world . . .
"This is not a matter of inspections," the Sept. 17 White House statement continued. "It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolution. This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail. It is time for the Security Council to act."
The White House statement is just more disinformation and propaganda. Iraq, a country severely weakened by 12 years of war and blockade poses no threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. Iraq has nothing to match up with the Pentagon's vast array of high tech -- including nuclear -- weaponry.
All of the surrounding governments have spoken out in opposition to a new U.S. war, an unlikely position if they believed themselves threatened by Iraq.
Its imperial arrogance aside, the only real content of the U.S. statement is that it makes clear that Washington is vastly expanding its demands on Iraq.
The Bush administration's plan for a new UN Security Council resolution would be to impose conditions on Iraq that no sovereign state could accept. One much-discussed idea is so-called "muscular inspection," i.e., sending in up to 50,000 heavily armed U.S. and British forces to do the "inspecting."
The objective of such a resolution would not be to resume weapons inspections, but instead to start a war. The Bush plan is to make the conditions so intrusive and onerous that Iraq would have only two choices: Surrender its sovereignty as an independent state or refuse to accept the resolution. Washington would then try to make it appear that Iraq itself was responsible for the war.
Such a Security Council resolution would be like the Rambouillet accord, the U.S./NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) proposal that preceded the Yugoslavia war.
In Rambouillet, France in February 1999, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proposed a "peace agreement" to the Yugoslav government that called for the U.S. and NATO to have free and complete access to all of Yugoslavia. In other words, NATO and U.S. troops would have been authorized to occupy Yugoslavia immediately.
Albright told Yugoslavia that Rambouillet was a take-it-or-leave-it deal -- "no negotiations." When the Yugoslav federal parliament voted to accept all of the Rambouillet accord except for the U.S./NATO occupation, the bombing began.
A similar scenario appears to be in the making in relation to Iraq. Hours after the release of the White House statement, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CNBC: "Saddam Hussein has got to go, there's got to be a regime change,"
MANDELA CONDEMNS WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT
The UN weapons inspectors left Iraq on Dec. 15, 1999 after 8 years at the orders of the Clinton administration. The following day, the U.S. and Britain began an intensive bombing campaign -- labeled "Operation Desert Fox" -- against Iraqi cities, towns and military sites. A few weeks later it was revealed that the weapons inspectors had been also acting as spies, providing the Pentagon with information used for targeting Iraqi facilities and personnel in Desert Fox.
Given the constant U.S./British bombing raids on Iraq since the end of the Gulf war in 1991, and the threat of a new all-out attack, it is not hard to see why Iraq has been opposed to allow the UN inspectors/spies to return.
Contrary to the impression conveyed by the corporate media here, most of the world is strongly opposed to a new U.S. war against Iraq. Few have spoken out more strongly that former South African president and liberation fighter Nelson Mandela.
On Sept. 12, Mandela said in an interview that, "the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace." Mandela said a decision to attack Iraq was "clearly... a desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America".
Mandela, citing former chief UN arms inspector Scott Ritter said that it was known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and that Israel possessed such weapons, but no one was saying anything about it.
Mandela's response to the White House statement of Sept. 17 was quoted by Reuters News Service: "We must condemn this because they think they are the only power in the world. They are not, and they are following a dangerous policy," Mandela, 84, told reporters at his home in Johannesburg.
"What right has he (U.S. President George W. Bush) to come in to say that offer is not genuine? We must condemn that very strongly," Mandela said. "That is why I criticize most leaders all over the world of keeping quiet when one country wants to bully the whole world."
The South African government said it hoped that Iraq's announcement "should lead to the lifting of sanctions against Iraq."
REAL AIMS OF A NEW U.S. WAR
The real aims of Washington's war drive have nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or human rights violations, and everything to do with control of the world's oil supply. The U.S. rulers have wanted to take control of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region, which holds two-thirds of global petroleum reserves, for more than six decades.
Control of world oil resources not only means unimaginable profits, it is also a key factor in the U.S. drive for unchallenged global domination.
An article in the Sept. 15 Washington Post, entitled "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is Key Issue," points to what U.S. oil companies hope to gain: "A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition."
Iraq has more than 10% of the world's proven oil reserves, 112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia.
The Post article makes it clear that the aim of a new war will be the recolonization of Iraq. A new puppet regime in Baghdad would be ordered to de-nationalize Iraq's oil and turn it over to U.S. oil companies.
Ahmed Chalabi, the notoriously corrupt exile leader of the "Iraqi National Congress (INC)," a CIA-funded operation, who is working to burnish his credentials in Washington as a possible future puppet ruler, told the Post that he "favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields."
"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," said Chalabi.
No statement could better express the real reason the Bush administration is so anxious to get on with the invasion.
Report on Sept. 14–16 ANSWER EMERGENCY ACTIONS to STOP the WAR
Between September 14 and 16, thousands demonstrated against a new U.S. war on Iraq, in Emergency Actions called by the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition. Protests took place in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Fresno and other cities.
In Washington DC, over 100 protesters arrived at 8 am to picket outside of the hotel where over 100 military contractors were buying and selling their latest weapons of mass destruction and Donald Rumsfeld was set to be their honored guest. On the West Coast, 3,000 marched in San Francisco, 2,000 in Los Angeles, and many more in other cities.
The Emergency Actions were initiated as part of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s campaign to Stop the War on Iraq Before it Starts, which will culminate with the National March in Washington DC and joint action in San Francisco, set for October 26, which will be a massive national mobilization.
To read the SF Chronicle article on Saturday's protest in SF: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file==/chronicle/archive/2002/09/15/BA244626.DTL
or check SF Indymedia: http://www.indybay.org/
To view a PHOTOGRAPH of the Washington DC demonstration from the Washington Post, go to http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/post_bizare.pdf . (Acrobat Reader is required to view this photograph.)
To read Washington Post article on the Sept. 16 protest in Washington: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26764-2002Sep16.html
To read the AP article on this weekend's actions: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl==story&u==/ap/20020915/ap_on_re_us/anti_war_protest_2
UPCOMING ANTI-WAR VOICES IN THE MEDIA
Please tune in to see Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center, on MSNBC at 9:30 am EST on Thursday, September 19. Spokespeople for A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition member organizations have been frequent guests on various MSNBC shows over the last two weeks, so please stay tuned for upcoming appearances.
JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!
See http://www.internationalanswer.org for information about how you can get involved in the October 26 National Marches in Washington DC and San Francisco.
Your help is needed! You can support the work of the International Action Center online at www.progressunity.org You can make a donation via credit card over the phone by calling us at (415) 821-6545. To volunteer, call (415) 821-6545 or email iac@actionsf.org .
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: mailto:iacenter@action-mail.org
En Espanol: iac-cai@action-mail.org
Web: http://www.iacenter.org
Support Mumia Abu-Jamal: http://www.millions4mumia.org/
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
Make a donation to the IAC and its projects
The International Action Center
Home ActionAlerts Press
Share this page with a friend