November / December 2002
No Threat -- A
former weapons inspector rejects Bush's evidence (back to
top)
by Jon Weiner from L.A.Weekly
Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. For
the last couple of years, the former US Marines major has been a high-profile
critic of US policy against Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein represents no
military threat. When President Bush and Prime Minister Blair claimed to have
evidence of new activity at a suspected Iraq nuclear-weapons facility, Ritter
travelled to Iraq and visited the site with a group of journalists and TV
cameramen to demonstrate that Bush and Blair were wrong. He also spoke to the
Iraqi parliament in Baghdad, urging it to head off US military action by
re-admitting UN inspectors and letting them do their job. A few days later, Iraq
told the UN it was willing to submit once again to inspections.
This is an edited version of Jon Weiner’s interview with Ritter after his
visit to Baghdad.
L.A. Weekly: What can you tell us about Saddam and nuclear weapons?
Ritter: Clearly Iraq had a nuclear-weapons program. Of the four categories of
prohibited weapons, nuclear is the one we most thoroughly eradicated. Especially
the part of their nuclear program that was dedicated to enrichment, to producing
the highly enriched uranium needed for the fissile core of a nuclear device.
This was wiped out. there was nothing left of it. For Iraq to reconstruct that
would require not only tens of billions of dollars of investment but also the
reconstruction of entire industrial facilities that are easily detected by our
intelligence services. It would also require technology to be purchased abroad,
which is tightly controlled and not something Iraq could do without being
detected. I find it hard to believe the US Vice President when he says Iraq is
close to developing a nuclear weapon – they weren’t anywhere near close in 1998,
when inspectors left. If some new development has transpired in the last four
years, I wish the white house would share that evidence with the American
people.
What about chemical weapons? We know that in the Iran-Iraq war Saddam used
mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the Iranians, and he also used chemical
weapons on the Kurds at that time. What happened to that chemical-weapons
capability when you and the UN inspectors were there from 1991 to 98?
Iraq had a massive chemical-weapons industry, with gigantic factories
dedicated to the production of these deadly agents. They did use them against
the Iranians and the Kurds, which is one reason why the international community
outlawed them in 1991. Once inspectors went into Iraq, we not only destroyed the
factories and equipment that produced theses agents, we also rounded up the
weapons and precursor chemicals that are mixed together to produce the deadly
agent, and we eliminated them. We achieved tremendous success in the area. We
eradicated their mustard-agent and their sarin - and tabun-agent production
capability. If Iraq managed to hide some of their nerve agent from us, it has a
shelf life of only five years, so today, with their factories destroyed, Iraq
has no nerve-agent capability – unless they reconstituted their manufacturing
base, which no one has demonstrated.
The third category of weapons of mass destruction [wmd] is biological. I
wanted to ask you especially about anthrax.
For a biological weapon to work, you have to either turn it into an aerosol,
with particles of a certain size which can be inhaled into your lungs, or a dry
powder of a certain size, such as we found in letters. Iraq successfully
produced biological agents. They produced anthrax and botulism toxin. But they
never successfully produced a biological weapon. They did out agent – liquid
sludge – into bombs and warheads, but the fact is, the only way that was going
kill you was if it actually landed on you. They had no way of disseminating the
agent, it would have simply soaked into the ground where it landed. We destroyed
the factories that produced this agent, we destroyed the production equipment,
and we destroyed the pieces of technology that Iraq could have used to weaponize
this agent.
There was some concern that Iraq might have produced more anthrax than they
declared. But liquid bulk agent of the type that Iraq produced has a maximum
shelf life under three years, after that it germinates and produces useless
sludge. For Iraq to have biological weapons today, they would not only have to
reconstitute the manufacturing base to produce a biological agent, but they
would have to perfect the technology to turn that agent into a weapon, to
aerosolise it or turn into dry powder. They didn’t have that capability in
December 1998, and no one has demonstrated that they have the capability today.
Vice President Cheney in a recent speech said, "Saddam Hussein devised an
elaborate program to conceal his programs to develop chemical and biological
weapons. The inspectors missed a great deal." And then he said, "The inspectors
were actually on the verge of declaring that Saddam’s programs had been fully
accounted for, a shutdown, then Saddam’s son-in-law suddenly defected and began
sharing information. Within days, inspectors were led to an Iraq chicken farm.
Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq’s most
secret weapons program." What’s your comment on that?
A harsh comment. Either the Vice President has been misinformed or lied to by
his own intelligence services, the CIA and others, or he himself is lying. Let’s
set the record straight: In the spring of 1995, the executive director of UNSCOM
[United Nations Special Commission], my boss, was prepared to give them a clean
bill of health. But we wanted to progress the issue of disarmament to the point
where we could talk about lifting economic sanctions. They were crippling Iraq,
causing hundreds of Iraq children to lose their lives. We had fundamentally
disarmed Iraq: That meant 90to 95% of Iraq’s weapons capability had been
accounted for.
Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected in August 1995. We achieved our final
breakthrough prior to his defection. I have transcripts of the debriefs of the
son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. Listen to what he said: "I ordered in 1993 that all
remaining weapons be destroyed. Today in Iraq there are no weapons. We destroyed
them all." How does Dick Cheney turn that statement into one saying Saddam
Hussein’s son-in-law spilled the beans about Iraq’s weapons program? All he did
was confirm that in fact these weapons had been destroyed.
So Dick Cheney is misleading the American public.
What if we are shown evidence that Iraq now possesses weapons of mass
destruction?
I believe that not only would the Security Council approve military action
against Iraq under those circumstances, but we would have a large and viable
coalition supporting us. But if Iraq has these weapons, the Bush administration
needs to back up its rhetoric with evidence to support it. The fact that they
haven’t suggests they don’t have the evidence, and that is strictly about
American politics.
Source: Save the Iraq children.
This issue of the Peace Courier is devoted to peace actions and statements by
Australians who are saying No to War on Iraq.
There is an anti-war Petition Online to the Australian Government
"War is no longer an acceptable solution to resolving international
conflicts".
Sign on at
www.PetitionOnline.com./v1o1o3ri/
This petition was organised by the South Australia APC.
Thanks to all the members who have written to either the Prime Minister,
their local MPs, the Greens and the Labor Party voicing their opposition to
Australian invovlement in the proposed war gainst Iraq. And thank you for
sending in the copies of all those letters. Thank you for all the peace poems
and songs.
We have come to the end of another year when we reflect on our joys and
sorrows, the good times and the purple patches but the peace bonus we expected
still eludes us. The APC still hopes that peace will prevail in the new year, if
not, see you all at the peace rallies and keep those letters rolling.
"Thank you for your letters of 23 August and 11 September to the Prime
Minister regarding Australia’s possible involvement in an attack on Iraq. The
Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf. I hope that you find the
following comments on government’s approach to these issues helpful. I believe
these points cover the scope and substance raised in your letters.
The Government has not received any request to participate in possible
military action against Iraq nor has it made a commitment in advance to be
involved in such action. If the government were to receive such a request, it
would be considered at the time on its merits and according to circumstances.
This government views the question of possibly committing the country’s
military forces as the most serious course of action it may take. Let me assure
you that any decision on military action by the government would take into
account Australia’s key national interests. Part of this calculation will be
importance of our close alliance with the United States based on our long
history of common interest and values. The government will, however, only take a
decision to participate if it firmly believes that such a commitment is
essential to protect Australia’s immediate and long-term interests, including
the preservation of our national security.
Australia and other members of the international community view very
seriously Iraq’s unwillingness to comply with the mandatory requirements of the
UN Security Council that it fully and completely abandon its weapons of mass
destruction [WMD] program. In defying these obligations, Iraq is in
contravention of the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire as set out in UN
Security Council Resolution 687. The UN Security Council has since passed
numerous resolutions reconfirming the obligation that Iraq end its WMD programs.
Iraq has systematically defied these resolutions. The government believes Iraq’s
development and possession of WMD is a potential threat both to the region and
to the entire international community – including Australia. Unless and until
Iraq allows inspections and destroys its WMD, Australia has a responsibility to
consider its possible involvement in any appropriate action to ensure that these
important international obligations are being met.
Australia has long shown its commitment to achieving these outcomes through
diplomatic means and has made a significant contribution to UN efforts, through
participation in the Multinational Interception Force policing sanctions in the
Persian Gulf, and our involvement with the former UN Special Commission on Iraq
which sought to destroy Iraq’s WMD program and materials. This government is, of
course, hopeful that diplomacy, including UN sanctions and international
pressure, can end Iraq’s WMD programs and peacefully bring about Iraqi
compliance with UN requirements.
Footnote: While the Federal government condemns Iraq for not complying with
UN Security Council resolutions they would do well to condemn Israel for not
complying with over 60 UN resolutions they have ignored going back to 1955.
These resolutions all relate to Palestine."
A great number of APC members, including the APC wrote to Simon Crean, Leader
of the Opposition, opposing Australia’s likely involvement in Bush’s war.
These members have passed on Mr Crean’s reply to the APC, which was in every
case identical.
"Thank you for writing to me regarding Labor’s position in regard to Iraq.
Labor believes that the UN processes are the most effective mechanism for
resolving the standoff in Iraq and that it is essential that the UN processes
continue to be pursued. We must get a diplomatic solution on Iraq to avoid the
necessity for war, and we must ensure that the UN resolutions are complied with
fully and effectively. That’s why Labor has been calling for a United Nations
solution to the Iraq issue based on a full disclosure of the evidence.
Labor’s position remains clear and consistent:
. Work through the UN system.
. Allow a full and formal debate in the Parliament, led by the Prime
Minister.
. Produce the evidence if further action is needed.
We believe the Howard Government has badly mis-read the Australian people.
They have left the impression that they will only follow the US.
We need a Prime Minister prepared to stand up for Australian interests. While
we have always been a strong ally of the US and always will be, it is in our
national interests to promote an international framework for peace and security.
The prime Minister’s failure to understand this crucial point explains why the
Government has been unable to project a consistent position on this issue."
"We, whose names appear below, declare our opposition to the use of war to
solve differences between nations.
We call on the Federal Government and all Federal MP’s and Senators to:-
- declare that no Australian military forces will breech international law
by taking part in a pre-emptive military operation against Iraq.
- recognise that such a war, as well as causing massive destruction and
civilian deaths, will intensify conflict in the Middle East and worsen the
problem of world-wide terrorism.
- welcome Iraq’s decision to admit unconditionally a UN inspections team.
- ensure that such an inspection is not compromised by other states’ efforts
to collect intelligence information.
- instruct Australian representatives at the United Nations to work for the
convening of a world conference to eliminate all biological, chemical and
nuclear weapons".
This statement, which was placed in the Newcastle Herald, was authorised by
the Newcastle Trades Hall Council Solidarity Committee and paid for by concerned
citizens. There were over two hundred signatures on the statement.
A peace rally held in Wollongong against a war in Iraq attracted hundreds of
peace activists.
Doreen Borrow, President of the South Coast APC, was one of the speakers, she
said
" My responsibility is to present to you the "NOT IN OUR NAME" pledge on
behalf of the Australian Peace Committee.
Before I do so I would like to say some words about terrorism and weapons of
mass destruction.
All of you here today know what the impending attack on Iraq is about. It can
be summed up in one word OIL.
It is not about destroying weapons of mass destruction [WMD]. It is not about
bringing democracy to the suffering millions of Iraq. It is not about making the
world a safer place for us all.
The pretext of bombing terrorists and destroying WMD does not stand up under
close scrutiny. If the objectives are as stated then perhaps those who advance
this proposition should look no further than the United States itself.
The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts intended to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population, influence the policy of a government or affect the conduct
of government".
For the past fifty-five years the US has been running a terrorist training
camp in Fort Benning Georgia. It is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for
Security Co-Operation. Among its graduates are many of the continent’s most
notorious torturers, mass murders and State terrorists whose victims far
outnumber those killers on September 11th. Over decades they have
ripped apart many countries in Latin America by destroying democratically
elected governments, bombing and murdering those who speak out against the
atrocities perpetrated by these US trained terrorists.
Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State during the Nixon years, reacted
to the bombing of the Twin Towers with the following statement.
"Those who provide support, financing and inspiration to terrorists are as
guilty as the terrorists themselves".
Using that criteria the US should begin bombing Henry Kissinger who is guilty
of more crimes than bin Laden or any other terrorists in the world.
Kissinger provided support and finance to state terror in Indonesia,
Cambodia, Iran, South Africa, Bangladesh and all the South American countries
that suffered the dirty war of Plan Condor. The hundreds of thousands of people
who died during these years as a direct result of American policies did not
receive mass television or newspaper coverage.
They died with the world paying little attention.
The US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in supporting the UN resolution
on terrorism stated;
"That this action obligates all member states to deny financing, support and
a safe haven for terrorists".
It must have slipped his mind that twenty years ago when he was Ambassador to
Honduras he and his government were financing, supporting and giving safe haven
to the Contra death squads who used sabotage and murder in their efforts to
overthrow the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.
Are these men and many like them not terrorists?
If it is WMD President Bush wants to destroy then he need look no further
than the military machine of the US of A.
Their WMD have wrought havoc in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor, the
Congo, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia
Iraq, Yugoslavia and many other countries.
The US supplies WMD to Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year to
enable them to continue their shameful, cruel and unjust assaults on the
Palestinian people. They prop up the government of Ariel Sharon who should be
before the World Court as a war criminal for his role in the slaughter that took
place in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila in Lebanon in 1982.
Is it any wonder that some people are prepared to strap explosives to their
body and become human bombs as a way of extracting some measure of revenge?
Whilst in no way condoning terrorism it is understandable that some are driven
by desperation to commit these terrible acts. And as always it is the innocent
on all sides that suffer the consequences of these actions whilst the guilty go
unpunished.
A succession of administrations of the US has brought death and destruction
to millions of people. Using death squads they have been successful in
destroying reformist and democratic movements in scores of countries.
These facts are never mentioned in the corporate media who portray Bush and
his cohorts as the champions of peace, freedom and democracy. They should be
seen for what they are…the perpetrators of terror and state murder.
During the first eight weeks of the war on Afghanistan over three thousand
civilians were killed and thousands of others injured either by cluster bombs,
cruise missiles equipped with 1000-pound shrapnel warheads and B52 carpet
bombing with depleted uranium bombs.
Are these not weapons of mass destruction?
Over one million depleted uranium bombs were used during the Iraq war in
1990.
More than a decade later thousands of Iraqi children are lying in hospitals
awaiting death from cancer, Hodgkin’s disease and leukaemia as a result of being
exposed to those dreadful weapons of mass destruction.
To compound this obscenity these children are being denied proper medicine
and other aids due to the embargo placed on Iraq at the instigation of the US
government.
How do these facts relate to Human Rights, Freedom and Democracy? Words so
often spoken about by Bush, Blair and Prime Minister Howard.
There are already forty million refugees throughout the world and most of
them are living in appalling circumstances. Are we prepared to add to this pool
of misery by allowing another attack upon Iraq that will greatly increase these
numbers and lead to more deaths and suffering?
This pledge that I am about to read will serve notice that we will not be
part of the shameful actions that Bush and his lap dogs are intent on carrying
out.
I appeal to you to take up our pledge, distribute it widely among your work
mates, friends, family and all you come in contact with.
Let it be known
That there are many Australian who do not go along with Howard’s
unquestioning support for the Bush administration’s stated intentions of bombing
Iraq.
That we do not support terrorism from whatever source it comes.
That we oppose sending our young people to die in defense of global capital.
That we will not stand aside and see our Muslim sisters and brothers vilified
and persecuted.
And that there will be no more blood spilt in the quest for oil ".
It was only a matter of time before Australian lives were sacrificed over the
Howard Government’s support for the position of the United States on Iraq, said
the Anglican Primate, Dr Peter Carnley.
Addressing the annual Synod of the Anglican Diocese, he suggested the Bali
bombings resulted from Australia’s foreign policy.
"Given the bombing of Afghanistan and the dispersal in disarray of al-Qaeda
and Taliban forces, and Australia’s high profile support of President Bush’s
stance in relation to a possible war on Iraq, it was surely only a matter of
time before Australian lives were sacrificed in some form of retaliatory
action."
Townsville and Thuringowa Peace Group Statement
(back to top)
We oppose the United States’ "war on terrorism" and its threat to widen its
military campaign to include other nations eg. Iran, North Korea, Iraq.
We declare violence is not the solution to the world’s conflicts and merely
serves to perpetrate grief injustices and loss of life. If peace is really our
goal, then our leaders must stop killing and instead challenge the world to
adopt more sophisticated means of resolving our differences.
We urge that a full campaign be conducted under UN auspices exposing all
forms of terror and that a full debate should take place within the UN General
Assembly enabling all the nations of the world to make their contributions
towards a term of reference. We stand for and urge nations to fully respect the
intent and underlying integrity of the UN and its process a forum for
international co-operation and dispute resolution.
In line with international aspirations we call on all Governments,
particularly our own, to respect all people’s religious and cultural diversity.
As well, we political belief and expression are inalienable human rights and all
governments need to guarantee these rights. The current crisis should not be
used as a pretext for diminishing civil rights or curbing freedom of association
under the guise of "security" or "the national interest".
We believe that Australia should urgently develop an independent foreign
policy promoting the values of co-operation, inclusiveness, equality, social
justice and fairness for future generations.
We seek the prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction, the ending of the
arms race and a cessation of the international arms trade.
We call for a new set of global trade and investment rules that promote and
give priority to human rights, the environment and cultural diversity. We oppose
any new World Trade Organisation negotiations or "free trade" agreements until
this is achieved.
We respect the dignity and the right of all Australians, as members of the
global village, to respond humanely to global situations. We strive to carry on
our proud Australian tradition of helping victims of persecution resulting from
cultural, political, economic or religious persuasion.
We support community education at a local level about the choices we make and
how these choices affect others.
We urge local people to join with us for peace and social justice.
The Townsville and Thuringowa Peace Group meet at the Migrant Resource Centre
on the first Thursday of the month at 7.00 pm.
Policy Concern
At its July meeting the Townsville/Thuringowa Peace Group expressed concern
at the Howard Government’s policy of unquestioning support for the United States
in its anti-terrorist ventures, in particular the proposed action against Iraq.
In the opinion of the group, the Howard policy of unquestioning support is a
threat to Australia’s independence and will potentially damage our international
relations, including trade.
The group is concerned by the many expressions of arrogance of the Bush
administration to the United Nations and its many members.
This is evident in the following: the mistreatment of prisoners of war
through the violation of the principles of the Geneva Convention; unilateral
first-strike proposals; contempt for the International Criminal Court; lack of
understanding of Muslim culture; and the Israeli bias in the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict.
The group calls on Prime Minister Howard to address the nation on these
issues and for the opposition and other political parties to be invited to
respond to the address so that public debate and opinion can be enhanced.
Signed Stan Hielbronn. Mal McLean, Frank Costanzo on behalf of the Peace
Group.
The Peace Group managed to have their statement published in the Townsville
Bulletin.
Resolution of NSW Teachers Federation
Council (back to top)
That the NSW Teachers Federation Condemn the war-mongering policies of the
Howard government against Iraq and calls upon the Prime Minister to show real
national leadership on this issue and stop acting as a lap dog to the Bush
Administration. Federation to convey this message to the Federal Government,
local Federal MP’s, Federal Opposition and other major political parties
including the Democrats and The Greens.
Resolution of the NSW Teachers Federation Executive
The NSW Teachers Federation expresses its deep concern over moves by hawks in
the Bush Administration to have launched a pre-emptive unilateral military
action against Iraq, notwithstanding international Law and the United Nation’s
structures and processes.
Accordingly Federation:-
* Expresses concern that unilateral military action could destabilise the
Middle East and at worst, cause a chemical,
biological or nuclear disaster and would have a devastating effect on civilians
* Opposes any first strike.
* Affirms its continuing support for the United Nations Security Council
initiatives to resolve the Iraq issue and,
* Opposes any military action against Iraq that is not sanctioned by an
explicit and current resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations.
* Calls for the lifting of sanctions on non-military and humanitarian
assistance to Iraq.
There is no evidence available directly, linking the Government of Iraq with
the events of September 11 or a rapid escalation of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons capacity.
A diverse range of former prominent Republican advisers and congressional
sources have joined US Democrats and European leaders challenging the direction
of President Bush’s policy. Arab governments have warned of dire consequences
throughout the region if such action is taken. It is also obvious that extreme
doubts exist within the US military establishment about President Bush’s
suggested line of action.
Australia needs to have an independent voice, which should be raised urging a
peaceful resolution of the issues in dispute. The government must open a public
and parliamentary debate on these issues now.
Notwithstanding the totalitarian and repugnant nature of the Iraqi regime, it
is not for the United States, Australia or any other country to act in an
imperial way to dictate "regime change" in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to
do with freeing the Iraq people from tyranny. Saddam Hussein was supported and
armed by the United States and Britain when he was at war with Iran. If
possession of weapons of mass destruction is the central argument, the hypocrisy
of the US Government must be highlighted with particular emphasis on why action
is not being taken against other countries, both in the region, and others
including the USA itself.
Mr Howard, innocent civilians will pay the cost of another war against Iraq,
as they did in the 1991 Gulf war.
It is estimated that 111,000 civilians died in1991 from the effects of the
war, and 70,000 of these were under the age of 15. The deaths were largely from
the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, especially its electricity
generating, water purification and sanitation systems, which have resulted in
outbreaks of infectious illnesses. By the end of the war, much of Iraq’s health
care system had been eliminated. Landmines and unexploded ordnance left behind
from that conflict have maimed many children and adults since the war.
Nearly 2 million Kurds, the vast majority of them women and children, fled
northern Iraq. An estimated 10,000 to 30,000 of them died in refugee camps.
The psychological impact of the war on children was severe.
Weapons of mass destruction are inhumane weapons. Do not promote further
inhumane military methods to eliminate them.
Risk to Australians from our involvement in this war include the death of
Australian troops, an increased risk of terrorist attack here and the diversion
of scarce funds from health care and other essential services to war-fighting.
We Australian health professionals urge that Australia counsels its allies
against military intervention in Iraq, and takes no part in further war against
the people of Iraq.
Authorised by Dr. Sue Wareham for a coalition of health professionals opposed
to military action against Iraq, including the Medical Association for the
Prevention of War [Australia] the Doctors Reform society, the Public Health
Association of Australia, the Association of Social Workers, Psychologists for
the Promotion of World Peace – an interest group of the Australian Psychological
Society and individuals.
This advertisement appeared in the Australian last October.
We of the Annual General Meeting of the Union of Australian Women, Newcastle
Branch, deplore the stand the Australian Government is taking in its support of
the US of A’s intention to invade Iraq. We should remember that the west
accepted the Indonesian seizure of East Timor and the atrocities that occurred
there for over two decades. It accepted the Shah’s repression of dissidents of
Iran, and accepted the US support in brining General Pinochet to power in Chile.
Richard Nixon, in 1970 ordered the illegal secret bombing of Cambodia. Ronald
Reagan in 1983 ordered 6,000 troops to invade a British Commonwealth country,
Grenada, whose defence forces numbered less than 1000. George Bush, in December
1989 ordered 24,000 troops to invade the sovereign country of Panama in order to
arrest one man, its notorious President. Somewhere between 3,000 to 5,000
non-combatant civilians were killed there and zipped into body bags and then
buried into unmarked graves.
Let us also not forget US involvement in Korea and Vietnam where Agent Orange
not only affected the population of Vietnam but many of our own veterans who are
still suffering as a result of this deliberate and inhumane act.
We call on the Federal Government to rethink their position and bear in mind
that the majority of Australians are opposed to Australia sending troops to take
part in and invasion of Iraq.
Why we oppose a war on Iraq
1 The United States, with the support of the Australian government, is
threatening
all-out war on Iraq that will cost thousands of innocent lives and further
destabilise the Middle East.
2 The people of Iraq suffered through war against Iran from 1980-88. An
estimated 205,000 people died in the 1991 attack by a US-led coalition -
over 70% were civilians.
3 Over the past decade, economic sanctions – enforced in part by the Royal
Australian Navy – have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of
thousands of people, especially children and the elderly.
4 This is not about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which former weapons
inspector Scott Ritter says have been "rendered harmless". There is talk about
‘evidence’ but it is simply a public relations stunt to justify war. US Defence
Secretary Rumsfeld recently paraphrased Winston Churchill: "Sometimes the truth
is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies".
5 This is not about Iraq’s military strength, which was severely disabled by
the 1991 Gulf war and a decade of sanctions. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
has stated:
"T he policy of the US is regime change, with or without [weapons]
inspectors". Iraq has the world’s second largest oil reserves, and America wants
to bully its way into controlling them. This is a war about oil, not democracy.
6 When George W Bush talks about ‘regime change’ he means replacing a brutal
dictator he doesn’t like with a brutal dictator who will do his bidding, as in
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
7 UN resolutions on disarmament and human rights will only work if they are
applied equally, without fear or favour. All nuclear powers and all Middle East
states must abolish their stocks of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
[including Israel, which has over 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal]. The USA
and Israel have defied UN resolutions on Palestine for decades, and the US has
refused to sign, ratify and abide by numerous international conventions on
weapons of mass destruction, including the test ban treaty.
8 Concern about weapons of mass destruction means a worldwide move to reduce
armaments and arms sales, not selling huge amounts of weapons into Middle East
countries and then bombing them to oblivion. Another war on Iraq would be a
high-tech massacre, creating a toxic regional swamp of biological and chemical
residues, plus radiation form depleted uranium-hardened warhead We must not
inflict another war on the people of Iraq and neighbouring states, with
ecological and humanitarian devastation, and a flood of new refugees Australia
is already supporting this rush to war.
9 We must not inflict another war on the people of Iraq and neighbouring
states, with ecological and humanitarian devastation, and another flood of
refugees.
10 Australia is already supporting this rush to war. Australian ships are in
the gulf, enforcing sanctions. Defence Minister Robert Hill says the Pine Gap
intelligence base near Alice Springs "would be utilised in the event of military
action against Iraq".
Speak out, talk to friends and neighbours. We will only stop the war in the
Middle East if thousands of people show their opposition.
Victorian Peace Network, 03 9659 3582.
www.vicpeace.org
Meanwhile our man from the Central Coast, Jack Forward, continues to write to
the media.
"President Bush demands that Saddam Hussein obeys UN directions. But the US
has failed to obey UN resolutions on many occasions.
The UN has never been given the means or the power to enforce its directions
except when they are required to give respectability to US actions. The US picks
and chooses what issues it will act on.
It is in a froth about Iraq, but it has not done anything about the
annexation and occupation by Indonesia of West Papua and it actually helped the
Indonesians to take over East Timor.
Selective short-term peace keeping by the USA instead of consistent,
long-term peace keeping by an empowered UN is not what the world community set
up the organisation for in 1945.
What happens when the next tyrant emerges somewhere? Will we be able to
depend on the US for an impartial response?"
Jon Edwards, Advisor Senator Kerry Nettle
Australia's greatest contribution to the coming war in
Iraq will not be the pledging of SAS troops, or ships in the Gulf but rather in
the use of the joint defence facility, just a few kilometres down the road from
Alice Springs at Pine Gap.
Senator Kerry nettle and myself joined the hundreds of
other concerned Australians over the weekend of October 5th and 6th to protest
against the role of this facility in providing the vital targetting and
intelligence information for the ongoing campaign of bombing in Iraq and, of
course, in preparation for an invasion in the coming months.
Pine Gap was established in the late 60s and has been a
feature of the US intelligence gathering network ever since. This facility
has played and continues to play a key role in the war making of the USA.
The facility controls satellites that monitor the Middle East as well as our own
region. These satellites intercept electronic communications, provide
imagery of infrastructure and movements of people and monitor weapons uses in
that region and others.
It's easy to see how important such a base is to the US
military, and intelligence agencies, it's not so easy to identify the benefits
for Australians. Australia should of course be free to enter into
alliances military or otherwise in its own defence. But this freedom is
abused when our ally uses permanent bases on Australian soil to prosecute
aggressive military campaigns about which the Australian people have had no say.
This is clearly the situation with the use of Pine Gap.
The Greens ask: In agreeing to the provision of Pine Gap for US military
use was the Government really agreeing to the use of Australia as a military
tool for any and all future wars undertaken by the US government? Surely,
the Australian people have the right to question any support for such wars
undertaken in our name?
This situation puts the Government rhetoric claiming that
Australia has not agreed to any involvement in any war in Iraq into perspective.
The real issue is perhaps Australia's commitment to the ANZUS treaty and
consequent inability to take independent decisions in regard to foreign and
defence policy.
The Greens support a non-aligned independent defence
policy that would allow this country to play a positive role, both in our region
and on the world stage. The role of "deputy sheriff" whilst unrealistic
and damaging, also represents a serious lost opportunity for Australian
leadership in bringing a peaceful approach to international relations.
In regard to Pine Gap in particular the situation is
likely to become even more serious (if that's possible) as the Republic
administration in the US presses ahead with its military ambitions regarding the
"Star Wars" programme.
It's entirely likely that Pine Gap will be playing a
significant role in the development of the Missile Defence System or "Star Wars"
which is billed as a defensive system to intercept incoming Inter Continental
Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) but which in fact could be used to dominate space in
defence of US military and economic interests.
The strategists have a pretty hard time convincing anyone
that there exists a compelling threat from ICBMs in the future, but this is the
justification used to sell this system to the American people. Threats are
far more likely to come from small-scale delivery devices, terrorist groups are
hardly likely to invest in the highly visible, and expensive hardware required
to effect an ICBM launch. The real justifications for such a system are
far more to do with economic pressures and strategic control issues than such an
unlikely threat.
It was all the more important then that hundreds of
protestors from all corners of Australia made the long trip to Pine Gap to raise
these issues, putting the Australian role in the militaristic activities of the
US back in the public eye.
The Greens will continue to take up these peace issues in
Parliaments across the country and out on the streets at the rallies and at
gatherings like that seen in Pine Gap this October. We commend all those
involved and look forward to continuing success in building the opposition to a
war in Iraq, to US militarism and Australian involvement in either.
The Greens position on the War
(back to top)
The Australian Greens oppose the war on Iraq.
Our position is clear:
- No attack on Iraq;
- No Australian involvement in war on Iraq;
- No ‘pre-emptive strikes’ by any nation against another.
Why shouldn’t we go to war?
There are many arguments against launching a war on Iraq. These include:
- There is no evidence of an imminent threat by Saddam Hussein, and
therefore no call for action in "self defence".
- A pre-emptive strike against any country is completely against
international law.
- There is no consistency in the application of moral arguments. Saddam
Hussein was supported and armed by the United States for many years, as are
other undemocratic governments all over the world. The United States itself
holds the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction on earth.
- This is not justice. Many other states, including Israel, Pakistan and
Turkey, are in breach of UN resolutions and still attract US support. The US
should reinforce not undermine the United Nations.
- It will not lead to peace. The United States has no plan for how an attack
on Iraq will lead to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East and the
world.
The Greens believe that all non-violent means for the resolution of conflict
must be exhausted before military action is even considered. This is clearly not
the case in this conflict.
Back to Top
| 
