|
| |
July-August 2003
Howard on a winner
The Federal Governments $15 million fridge magnet campaign to educate
Australians about terrorism has scooped an international award as one of the
most stupid security measures introduced since September 11.
The competition, run by Privacy International, which is best known for its
annual Big Brother awards received almost 5000 nominations from 35 countries.
The Government took out the most egregiously stupid award for the kit, which
urged Australians to report anything suspicious while asking them to be
"alert but not alarmed."
"There is a serious issue of respect for people's rights being eroded by
stupid security measures," said Tim Dixon, a judge on the Stupid Security
competition panel and a spokesperson for the Australian Privacy Foundation.
"Many of these measures do not make us any safer."
Mr Dixon said the Australian Government-backed public education scheme stood out
because of its scale, cost and its "meaningless nature."
Winners received a luxury package of Gunpowder tea.
APC to Howard
Most of the big cities in Iraq lie in ruins. Households have been without
electricity for weeks. No running water and some of the water that is available
has been contaminated by raw sewage. Streets littered with rotting corpses and
the stench is too terrible to allow people to walk there.
Hospitals bombed and looted, patients lying in filth and little or no medication
to help them. Operations done without the aid of anaesthetics. Mental
institutions ravaged, patients raped and mattresses stolen.
The history of Iraq and the history of the world have been destroyed with the
looting of the Museum of Antiquities. News to hand is that American soldiers
stood by and allowed this to happen. Looters, carrying precious objects, ran
past soldiers and no attempt was made to apprehend them.
Amazing that the Ministry of Oil building is about the only place that was
protected with no looting occurring there.
What was to be the great liberation of the Iraqi people from the evils of Saddam
has turned into chaos and anarchy. Where once there was cheering by the Iraqis
for their liberators now there are mass protests against them. Not thank you Mr.
Bush anymore but USA go home now.
On 5th December 2002 US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said," We know
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
April 17th 2003 Rumsfeld said, "The UN weapons inspectors didn't find
anything, and I doubt that they will. What we will do is find the people who
will tell us."
What on earth was in the maps that you spoke of and telling us you had proof of
Saddam's chemical and biological weapons. You, Blair and Bush said you had proof
and with that proof held high in your hand Australia went to war.
Why did we go to war? What was this exercise all about? Was it indeed in the end
all about oil?
PM's reply
Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning Iraq
The government decided to commit Australian Defence Force personnel to the
international coalition in Iraq in order to enforce Iraq's compliance with
successive United Nations Security Council resolutions and restore peace and
security to that area of the Middle East.
Australian military forces participated with just cause, in the national
interest, in an action properly based on international law, which resulted in
the liberation of an oppressed people.
Our defence personnel performed superbly in accordance with their fine
reputation for professionalism and courage. Every attempt was made by the
coalition forces to ensure that civilian casualties were kept to an absolute
minimum by adhering to strict targeting policies as well as relying on precision
technology. Tragically, despite these efforts there have been civilian
casualties. The death of innocent people - especially children - is always
shocking. But when we consider the civilian death and suffering in Iraq now, we
must not forget the deaths and suffering of millions of Iraqis over the last 25
years.
Now that the major combat phase is over, efforts in Iraq have rightly turned to
humanitarian assistance. Australia takes its rehabilitation responsibilities
very seriously. We have committed some $100 million in aid and provided highly
skilled personnel to contribute to humanitarian planning and reconstruction
programs. Our contribution is focussed in niche areas where we have expertise
and where a concentrated effort can make a difference.
In addition to providing security and humanitarian assistance, the coalition is
working hard to rid Iraq of all weapons of mass destruction [WMD]. Locating,
identifying and destroying Iraq's WMD capabilities will be a difficult and
lengthy process. We know that, in order to protect them from inspectors, the
Iraqi regime broke them up and hid them in their disaggregated condition in
different parts of the country. It is going to take considerable time and expert
resources to complete the investigation and destruction of the regime's
prohibited weapons programs. But at least we will no longer be obstructed by a
hostile regime.
It is our intention to ensure that the period of coalition control in Iraq is
kept to a minimum and that the responsibility for governing Iraq is taken up by
an Interim Iraqi Authority as soon as practicable. This will be the first step
toward a representative government. While it is not for the coalition to dictate
the form of Iraq's new government, we will seek to establish a representative
process so that the Iraqi's can, for the first time, choose their leaders via a
process that respects democratic principles and respects Iraq's religious and
ethnic mix.
I would remind you that this is the first time in my lifetime that the people of
Iraq have a real and genuine opportunity to have a free, open and democratic
society.
The government understands that many in the community hold strong views on this
matter.
Thank you for drawing your concerns to my attention.
This reply was exactly the same sent to many other people. The PM has not
taken the time to answer any of the concerns of the APC.
Project for the New American Century
By Bernard Weiner
In the early - 1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians
on the fringe of the Republican Party's far right. The members of this group in
1997 would found The Project for the New American Century, [PNAC]. Their aim was
to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House
- and it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well - so that their
vision of how the US should move in the world would be in place and ready to go,
straight off-the-shelf into official policy.
This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,
James Woolsey, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were
movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were,
while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and
clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken
seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.
Setting up PNAC
To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the
HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up
think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets - newspapers, magazines, TV
networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, in support of that day when all the
political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their
supporters could assume control.
This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W Bush in 2000.
The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders,"
placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on US
policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defence Secretary, Wolfowitz is
Deputy Defence Sectary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Eliot
Abrahams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council,
Dov Zakheim is controller for the Defence Department, John Bolton is
Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is Chair of the Defence Policy advisory
board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as
well. PNAC chairman Bill Kristol, is the editor of Rupert Murdock's The Weekly
Standard. In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy- creation in the Bush
Administration.
PNAC Paper Trail
Here is a shorthand summary of PNAC strategies that have become US policy.
Some of these you may have heard about before, but I've expanded and updated as
much as possible.
1. In 1992, then Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney had a strategy report drafted
for the Dept. of Defence, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of
Defence for Policy. In it, the US government was urged, as the world's sole
remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The
report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the
US should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be
orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a
new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our
leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance
capable of
"deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as
an action
necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf
oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
threats from terrorism.
Somehow this report leaked to the press; the negative response was immediate.
Senator Robert Byrd led the Democratic charge, calling the recommended Pentagon
strategy "myopic, shallow and disappointing….The basic thrust of the
document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the
world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk
the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so."
Clearly, the objective political forces hadn't yet coalesced in the US that
could support this policy free of major resistance, and so President Bush the
Elder publicly repudiated the paper and sent it back to the drawing boards.
2. Various HardRight intellectuals outside the government were spelling out the
new PNAC policy in books and influential journals. Zalmay M Khalilzad [formerly
associated with big oil companies, currently US special Envoy to Afghanistan and
Iraq] wrote an important volume in 1995, "From Containment to Global
Leadership: America & the World After the Cold War," the import of
which was identifying a way for the US to move aggressively in the world and
thus to exercise effective control over the planet's natural resources. A year
later, in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in their
Foreign Affairs article
"Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," came right out and said the
goal for the US had to be nothing less than "benevolent global
hegemony," a euphemism for
total US domination, but "benevolently" exercised of course.
3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and
remove Saddam Hussein from power. The January letter from PNAC urged America to
initiate that war even if the US could not muster full support from the Security
Council at the UN. Sounds familiar? [President Clinton replied that he was
focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorists cells.]
4. In September of 2000, PNAC, sensing a GOP victory in the upcoming
presidential election, issued its white paper on "Rebuilding America's
Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century." The PNAC
report was quite frank about why the US would want to move toward imperialist
militarism, a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture,
now is the time
most "conducive to American interests and ideals…The challenge of this
century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'." And how to
preserve the Pax Americana? The answer is to "fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major-theatre wars."
In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other
countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions
"demand American political leadership rather than that of the United
Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity
with the US when it comes to weaponry of influence; therefore, more US military
bases will be established in the various regions of the globe. [A post-Saddam
Iraq may well serve as one of those advance military bases.] Currently, it is
estimated that the US now has nearly 150 military bases and deployments in
different countries around the world, with the most recent major increase being
in the Caspian Sea/Afghanistan/Middle East areas.
5. George W Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly
thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on Foreign Relations
was prepared,
"Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," that
advocated a more
aggressive US posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the
role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly
cited as a "security imperative." [It's possible that inside Cheney's
energy-policy papers, which he refuses to release to congress or the American
people, are references to foreign- policy plans for how to gain military control
of oilfields abroad.]
6. Mere hours after the 9/11 terrorist mass-murders, PNACer Rumsfeld ordered his
aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence
officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection
between Iraq and the attacks. "Go massive," the aides' notes quote him
as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned
heavily on the FBI and CIA to find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq
government to 9/11, but they weren't able to. So he
set up his own fact-finding group in the Pentagon that would provide him with
whatever shaky connections it could find or surmise.
7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the
world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published its "National
Security Strategy of the United States of America." The official policy of
the US government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually
identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for
the New American Century and others like it over the past decade.
Chief among them are: 1] the policy of "pre-emptive" war, i.e.,
whenever the US
thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could provide some sort
of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region, it can be
attacked, without provocation. A later corollary would rethink the country's
atomic policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered defensive, but
could be used offensively in support of political/economic ends; so-called
"mini-nukes" could be employed in these regional wars. 2]
International treaties and opinion will be ignored whenever they are not seen to
serve US imperial goals. 3] The new policies "will require bases and
stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia." in short,
the Bush Administration seems to see the US. admiringly, as a New Rome, an
empire with its foreign legions [and threat of "Shock and Awe"
attacks, including with nuclear weapons] keeping the outlying colonies, and
potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't fully in accord with goals
better get out of the way; "you're either with us or against us."
This is an edited version of Bernard Weiner's article.
Bernard Weiner is a playwright and poet. Holder of a Ph.D. in government and
international relations, he has taught American politics and international
relations at Western University and San Diego State University. He has written
for The Progressive and other political journals and is co-editor of the new
online political site: http://www.CrisisPapers.org
Moving Nuclear Waste Across Australia
An Alice in Wonderland Affair
By Michael Priceman
The NSW government has set up an inquiry to examine the implications of a
current Federal government plan to transport and dump radioactive waste. The NSW
Inquiry is a good opportunity for people to express their own views on these
important issues.
Moving nuclear wast from one location to another doesn't solve the problem - it
merely passes it to another community and transportation adds to the risks. The
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [ANSTO] is the main
producer of radioactive waste in Australia and it is behind the push to move the
waste so it can claim to have 'solved the problem.' Out of sight - Out of mind.
The South Australian community and Parliament have actively opposed the plan and
committed to use all legal means to stop the dump, including legislation and a
possible state referendum on the matter before the next Federal election. Polls
in SA show over 80% of the indigenous and wider community oppose the dump plan.
Long-lived intermediate level wastes have half-lives and remain radioactive for
thousands of years. Along with the dump plan the Federal government plans to
build an above ground "store" - somewhere - in regional Australia.
South Australia has been ruled out as a store site for political reasons
following a strong opposition to the dump plan. NSW is the Federal governments
next preferred choice for a store site although sites in WA, Queensland and the
NT are also currently being considered.
The vast majority of the waste in terms of radioactivity would come from the
Lucas Heights reactor site. Since 1958 this has been - and still is -
Australia's de facto nuclear waste store. A new reactor, currently under
construction at the site, would continue to produce, store and transport
increasing amounts of waste for a further 50 years. In addition there would be
waste from the de-commissioning of 3 reactors that need a home.
Without the new reactor the waste problem would be halved. The NSW Government
needs to accept this and move to actively oppose the project. The best form of
waste management is reduction at the source.
Whatever the final outcome of the Sydney reactor issue nuclear wastes could be
carted through NSW en-route to a dumpsite in SA via the western highways. The
trucks would pass through the main streets of the many towns along the proposed
transport corridor including Sydney's western suburbs, Katoomba, Bathurst,
Orange, Dubbo and Broken Hill without the consent of these communities.
As is the custom of the international nuclear industry the dumps are sited on or
near to traditional owners of the land. The traditional Aboriginal owners and
custodians in South Australia are leading a powerful campaign against this
practice.
The NSW Government inquiry into the transport and storage of nuclear waste is
taking submissions and comment until July 31, 2003. It is important that as many
submissions as possible be sent to by the public.
Submissions / Comments should be addressed to:
The Committee Manager
Joint Select Committee on the Transport and Storage of Nuclear Waste
Parliament House
Macquarie Street
Sydney 2000
For further information on he inquiry contact Leslie Goyne, Clerk-Assistant
[Committees] 0n 02 9230 2224
For further information on the issues of radioactive waste generation,
transport and dumping you can visit:
http://www.foe.org.au
http://www.acf.org.au
http://www.reactnow.org.au
http://www.iratiwanti.org.au
http://www.greenpeace.org.au
Compiled by People Against a Nuclear Reactor [PANR] PO Box 595, Sutherland
1499 NSW. Phone 9521 8311 Email: panr@acay.com.au
Deadly Legacy - Cluster bomblets and unexploded ordnance
By David Johnson and Mark Zirnsak, International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Australian Network
Adbul Wali, aged 15, had his intestines and stomach shredded by a cluster
bomb - Dexter Filkins, "In a Functioning Hospital, Scenes of horror,"
26 April 2003
Saad Shalash Aday is a farmer from Al Mahmoodia in South Baghdad. He had a
fractured leg and multiple shrapnel wounds including a ruptured spleen,
perforated caecum, colon and small bowel, abdominal and leg wounds. Two of his
brothers, Mohammed and Mobden, were also injured and the ten-year-old twin boys
Ahmed and Daha Assan were killed in the same house when a cluster bomb exploded
two to three metres from the building. - Jo Wilding, journalist in Baghdad, 26
March 2003.
"War is not a tidy affair, it's a very ugly affair" General Richard
Myers, Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 25 April 2003.
Cluster Munitions release a quantity of bomblets [submunitions], which
disperse over a wide area. Cluster munitions can be dropped from aircraft, but
can also be delivered by rocket or artillery projectile.
The resulting ground area spread with bomblets [designed injury zone] is up to
200 meters X 400 meters, though may be up to 1 square kilometre in extent. The
size of the injury zone is influenced by the height of the release from the
aircraft, the setting of the mechanical timer, which releases the bomblets, the
spinning rate of the bomb, and other factors such as wind, speed, angle and
terrain.
There are many types of cluster bomblets and submunitions.
Deadly 'Duds'
Cluster bomblets pose a particular danger to civilians compared to other
weapon systems because of the broad area of effect they have, lack of accuracy
and the number of explosive duds left behind. Many of the bomblets do not
explode on impact and they can lie around until they explode when touched,
killing and maiming for years after a conflict ends. They are just as dangerous,
as insidious and as lethal as anti-personnel landmines. The volatility of armed
cluster bomblet duds makes them more dangerous than many other types of
unexploded ordnance. The quality of cluster bomblets fuses are usually inferior
to that used for other bombs, as the high number of cluster bomblets encourages
manufacturers to keep costs down. This increases the number of duds. The UN Mine
Action Coordination Centre office in Kosovo reported that the number of dud rate
for all types of cluster bombs was 8%-11%, though deminers quote up to 30%.
Bushes, trees and soft soil can minimise the initial impact, and result in more
duds. The height of the release from the aircraft, combined with the setting on
the mechanical timer, which releases the bomblets from the bomb, may also
influence the dud rate. The age of submunitions may affect the dud rate.
Laos
Laos was subjected to one of the most intense aerial bombardments ever made
between 1964-1975 when the USA dropped an estimated six to seven million bombs,
with one million of these being cluster bomb units [CBU]. The resulting bomblets,
from a dud rate estimated as high as 30% in some places, have caused around over
40% of all deaths from unexploded ordnance [UXO]. Individual bomblets used in
Laos contain 200-600 pellets, ball bearings or nails, which can kill or maim at
up to 200 metres radius.
The 1991 Gulf War
In the 1991 Gulf War US forces dropped over 13 million cluster bomblets on
Iraq and Kuwait from the air and over 11 million submunitions from ground based
rocket launchers. Dud rates were at least 10% leaving at least 2.4 million dud
submunitions.
Human Rights Watch [HRW] reports that by February 1993 unexploded bomblets had
killed 1,6000 Kuwaiti and Iraqi civilians and injured 2,500 and that 60% of the
victims were children under the age of 15. HRW further reported that even in
2002 clearance teams in Kuwait were still finding and destroying 200 'dud'
submunitions per month.
Kosovo and Serbia
HRW reports that in the war against Serbia, between 90 and 150 civilians were
killed by cluster bombs, representing an estimated 18-30% of all civilian
casualties even though cluster bombs were just 6% of ordnance used during the
war. The International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] reported that from June
1999 to May 2000 at least 50 civilians were killed and 101 injured by unexploded
bomblets in Kosovo and Serbia. ICRC data from the post-conflict period in Kosovo
found that cluster bombs were responsible for five times as many victims under
the age of 14 than anti-personnel landmines. Unexploded cluster bombs were six
times more deadly than other unexploded ordnance.
Afghanistan
Between October 2001 and March 2002 the US dropped approximately 1,228
cluster bombs on Afghanistan containing 248,056 bomblets. Human Rights Watch
reported that between October 2001 and November 2002 at least 127 civilians had
been killed or injured by cluster bomblets. Of the civilian casualties, 87 [or
69%] were children under the age of 18.
The 2003 Gulf War
The US Administration has admitted that at least 1500 cluster bombs were used
by US forces in Operation Iraq Freedom. However, they are yet to reveal how many
artillery and rocket launched submunitions were used in the war on Iraq. Human
Rights Watch has confirmed that submunitions were used in populated areas of
Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. The UK forces have admitted using some 11,800
cluster submunitions in the war on Iraq.
Media reports tabulated by independent research organisation 'Iraq Body Count'
indicates that at least 200 Iraqi civilians were killed by cluster bombs as of 7
May 2003, with a further 172 deaths possibly attributable to cluster munitions.
Of this number 147 were killed by unexploded dud submunitions, with
approximately half of those killed being children.
Failure to act
In the US Department Defence Report to Congress on the Kosovo Operation
Allied Force on 31st January 2000 it was admitted that "if the submunitions
are distributed or disassembled they may explode, thus, the need for early and
aggressive unexploded-ordnance clearing efforts." However, at a meeting of
governments that are parties to the UN Convention on prohibitions or
restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to
be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects in December 2002, the
US and UK were amongst the countries that rejected calls:
. To destroy existing stocks of cluster bomblets with high failure rates;
. To take responsibility for the clean up of any dud cluster bomblets that they
have
dropped; and
. To allow for further restrictions on targeting so that cluster bomblets are
not used
near civilian homes and buildings
What you can do
Write to The Hon Alexander Downer MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Parliament
House, Canberra, ACT 2060. and/ or Senator Robert Hill, Minister for Defence,
Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2060.
Points to make in your letter
. Express concern that the explosive remnants of war represent a similar
deadly legacy from armed conflicts as posed by anti-personnel landmines.
. Urge the Australian Government to support a moratorium on the production,
transfer and use of cluster munitions.
. Ask that the Australian Government demonstrate its support for basic human
rights
by seeking to minimise the impact of unexploded ordnance by giving its support
to
the development of a Protocol to the Convention on prohibitions or restrictions
on
the use of certain conventional weapons, which may be deemed to be excessively
injurious or to have indiscriminate effects containing the following elements:
[1] That the parties to any conflict promptly clean up, or arrange for clearance
of, all unexploded ordnance, bearing full responsibility for the munitions that
they have generated where that can be determined;
[2] Parties to the conflict are to inform demining and/or unexploded ordnance
clearance agencies of where specific sites of munitions strikes have been made
and technical data on all munitions used to enable to be rendered safe or
destroyed;
[3] Parties to the conflict are to provide appropriate information, including
pictures, and warnings to civilians, both during and after the conflict about
the dangers of unexploded ordnance;
[4] A prohibition on the use of weapons with large amounts of submunitions in or
near concentrations of civilians;
[5] That all munitions have quality fuses and detonation systems that ensure
explosion on impact, self-destruct within seconds of impact or that render
munitions safe if they fail to detonate; and
[6] A ban of submunitions that have already been demonstrated to generate large
humanitarian problems in places where they have been used.
The role of Richard Butler in the war against Iraq
by Jane Howarth *
Richard Butler is regularly presented as the 'expert' on Iraq's so called
weapons of mass destruction. But his questionable behind the scenes role as
chief of spies, abetting US interests, is never mentioned. Nor is the spy
scandal that erupted after the 1998 US attack [Desert Fox] on Iraq. One has to
wonder why?
In 1999 US papers including The Washington Post, ran front-page stories
revealing that the CIA had used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for
intelligence purposes of the US. This was an undercover operation, by UNSCOM,
without the knowledge of the UN. The spy scandal badly damaged the credibility
of the inspection process when it was found out that the data collected by
UNSCOM was used to select targets in the 1998 bombing of Iraq.
From the time, he replaced Rolf Ekeus as head of UN Inspection Missions [UNSCOM,]
to the day he withdrew the inspectors, Richard Butler played an active part in
the spying operation. In his book Endgame, Scott Ritter noted, ' Butler appeared
to have forgotten that he was a servant of the Security Council, not the United
States.'
The present role of Richard Butler should be noted. Following the spy scandal he
was shuffled off the world stage into obscurity. Now, resuscitated as resident
'expert'
he presents unsubstantiated claims on radio and TV. He insists there "is no
doubt" that Iraq has WMD. He asserts that "we know" and "I
believe" as if assertions alone are facts. He is never questioned or asked
for evidence in support of his claims.
As for the extensive, covert spying operation in Iraq, it is a dead issue. It is
as if what happened three years ago never happened. Is one to believe that the
spy scandal, which effectively ended the UNSCOM regime and had both China and
Russia calling for Butler's dismissal, will disappear down the memory hole?
Butler was in Iraq for a period of 17 months as the titular head of UNSCOM, he
maintains he held the position for 3 years. But he needs to re-do his sums. He
replaced Ekeus in July 1997. He pulled the inspectors out, Dec.16, 1998 without
informing the Security Council under which UNSCOM worked. He then sat in the US
until June 1999 when his contract ended. Butler, unlike Ritter, was not an on
the ground working inspector.
US gave the order
It also needs to be clear that the US, not the UN, gave the order for the
teams to leave. The order was given to Butler on Dec. 15. President Clinton, in
Air-Force 1, on his way home from visiting Israel and Palestine, gave the orders
for the strike against Baghdad to begin on Dec.16. Clinton informed Binyamin
Netanyahu before he left Israel of his plans to attack Iraq. He contacted Tony
Blair while on Air-Force 1, telling him he was ready to bomb. It should be noted
that the impeachment [of Clinton] debate was due to begin in the US on Dec.17.
Rolf Ekeus headed UNSCOM, in Iraq from1991-97. In a recent series of interviews
he publicly accused the US of manipulating the inspection mission for its own
political ends. Mr Ekeus, a Swedish diplomat, said the US sought information
outside the UN mandate. They were bent on tracking Saddam Hussein's movements,
which, he said, "could be of interest if one were to target him
personally." Ekeus said he learned, after he left his position, that the US
had placed its own agents in the inspection team. And, he said, attempts were
made to "provoke crises," which could then "form the basis for
direct military action."
On more than one occasion Iraq complained to the UN saying that there were spies
among the group of inspectors. This was always dismissed out of hand by America.
Iraq's claims were proved correct after 'Desert Fox,' the four day bombing of
Iraq in 1998.
Iraq was well aware what was going on. Two government ministers told this writer
in 1998 that the inspection teams were loaded with US and British intelligence
personnel, and on at least one occasion Israeli agents were included. The
ministers said that the persons in the teams had mapped most of the country. The
maps identified building, housing, the various ministries, warehouses, depots,
military barracks, infrastructure and even homes of prominent people.
As it turned out information was used to strike targets during the Dec attack.
Scott Ritter confirmed this after Butler withdrew the teams just prior to the
attack. Before the attack Butler presented a negative report to the US. He said
the teams were unable to carry out their work unhindered. Just hours before the
report was to be submitted to the UN Butler was asked by US officials to
strengthen the language. Butler, a willing accomplice did so. The US used the
report as the pretext for the four day bombing of Iraq.
Butler gave the first draft of his report to senior US diplomats at the UN. They
immediately sent it to President Clinton, in Israel. Clinton thought the
language too weak and officials of the administration played a "direct role
in shaping Bulter's text" in conversations with him.
War dossier a sham
Citing the dossier, entitled Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment,
Deception and Intimidation, in front of a world television audience, Mr Powell
said: "I would call my colleagues attention to the fine paper that the
United Kingdom distributed…which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception
activities."
But the day after Mr Powell speech it was revealed that four of the report's 19
pages had been copied - with only minor editing and a few insertions - from the
international version of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashit that appeared in the
Middle East Review of International affairs last September, 2002.
In a television interview Dan Plesch, a defence expert at the Royal United
Services Institute, said: "This document is clearly presented to the
British public as the product of British intelligence - and it clearly is
nothing of the kind. This appears to be obsolete academic analysis dressed up as
the best MI6 and our other international partners can produce on Saddam. The
word 'scandalous' is, I think greatly overused in our political life, but it
certainly applies to this."
With suggestions circulating that some of the data was 12 years old, the Liberal
Democrats' foreign affairs spokesperson, Menzies Campbell, said: "This is
the intelligence equivalent of being caught stealing the spoons. The dossier may
not amount too much, but this is a considerable embarrassment for a government
trying still to make a case for war.
This is from an article by Brian Whitaker and Michael White. It appeared in
the Guardian Weekly a month before Australia followed the US in their war
against Iraq.
If only our PM had read it, or even read the letter from the APC, which
contained this information.
Brian Miller
Brian Miller, peace activist, trade unionist, socialist and national
secretary of the Australian Peace Committee, died on 25th June.
Brian was compassionate person. He loved people and he wanted to make the world
safer place for them to live. He wanted the world to be free from the horrors of
war and a world free of political conflict. A world where people had the right
to education, food, housing and a job and the right to self determination. He
wanted the work place to be free from industrial manslaughter.
During the period of the Palm Sunday peace marches it was Brian who organised
our sound and stage for the rally. It was the same for the Hiroshima Day rally
and May Day. Brian made sure the APC was prominent in the May Day march.
The APC hosted many national and international peace conferences and it was
Brian who was always there with any back up help we needed. He also represented
the APC at many overseas peace conferences.
Brian was an integral part of the peace movement and he will missed by so many.
South Australia
APC
South Australian Branch Inc.
11 South Terrace
Adelaide 5000
Ph/Fax:[08] 8177 0490
Ans/mach 8212 7138
Email: grayle@bigpond.net.au
www.peacecourier.com
ABN: 70 456 726 685
Back to Top
| |
A Peace of the Action
Radio program A Peace of the Action
is dedicated to commentary on peace and social justice issues.
Radio Adelaide 101.5FM every Sunday at 12.30.
Ron Gray
Human Rights Foundation
Click here
for more information about the RGHRF
|
