by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 --the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a UN resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an "act of aggression" against the United States -- what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East -- many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, "I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, 'let's go bomb.'"
House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen "evidence" of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the "smoking gun" of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that "the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq." The Times goes on to suggest that the "Mohamad Atta" who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United States -- a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey -- have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts. Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN Chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter -- who lead some thirty inspection missions to Iraq -- come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, "In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing...Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none." Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?
The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some twenty years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq's invasion of Kuwait more than ten years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq's dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York Times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.
We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies -- critical in maintaining this coalition -- have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was "completely united" in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said, "...so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against." Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.
Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all Gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, "If we want to keep consensus...we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means."
I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?
In conclusion, this legislation, even in its watered-down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles.
(Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.)
Enough is enough: Leave the people of Iraq alone!!
by Jamal A. Shurdom
The story of Iraq is the most outrageous cover up in world history, where indeed it is the US State Department mandate against any Arab country that poses a potential threat to the Jewish state of Israel. In US perception, Iraq is the most direct threat to the national security and existence of Israel. The US, as defender of Israel's interests, wants to make sure that Iraq is left with nothing that might threaten the security of the Jewish state. They want to destroy Iraq's economic, military and more important, its human resources (brains) infrastructure.
As a consequence, the innocent people of Iraq have been paying a very high price for the unjustified US led, UN imposed, economic sanctions against Iraqis.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports have confirmed the fact that sanctions on Iraq have been responsible for the deaths of more than 670,000 children since they were imposed in 1990. (The most recent figures show even much higher numbers).
The impact of the sanctions has been documented and witnessed by non-Iraqi sources. After his eleventh trip to Iraq, in a letter to the UN Security Council, on February 28, 2001, entitled The Genocidal Effect of Sanctions on Iraq to January 20, 2001, former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, wrote: "Infant mortality from selected illnesses caused by the UN sanctions against Iraq has increased from a monthly average of slightly less than 600 deaths in 1989, to more than 6,700 in 2000, or eleven times. The percentage of total registered births under 2.5 kgs in 1990 was 4.5 per cent. In 2000 it was nearly 25 per cent, five times as much. For children under five years old the average number of reported cases of kwashiorkor, marasmus and other malnutrition illnesses caused by protein, calorie and/or vitamin deficiencies, rose from less than 8,550 in 1990 to 190,000 in 2000. "
Based on these facts, the children of Iraq do not deserve the pain of such a massive punishment. They are sentenced to death and life terms for sanctions that the UN says are justified and prudent under `Just War' ideals.
In reality the UN is in violation of its own "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", Article 25, and is also in violation of UN Resolution 44/215(Dec. 22, 1989): This resolution states that developed countries should refrain from threatening or applying trade and financial restrictions, blockades, embargoes, and other economic sanctions, incompatible with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 25 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Mothers and children are entitled to special care and assistance All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
The UN has enforced these standards in many countries but feels that these rights do not apply to its own actions. In reality the UN is responsible for every one of those children who are born into suffering, hunger or disease. No human action, no matter how horrible, can justify the torture and inhumane treatment of so many children. There have been many appeals from other countries to the UN, but no compassion has been shown.
The UN thinks these sanctions will continue until President Saddam and his government are gone, but Saddam continues to build on his popularity and support, and strengthen his nationalistic views of the conflict among the people of Iraq and the Arab and Muslim world. He is becoming the most popular Arab/Muslim leader in the region.
And much like the failure the US has had in long term sanctions imposed against Fidel Castro and Cuba, it will most likely fail in its attempt to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile over 5,000 children will die every month.
We, as a people of a democratic nation, must use our power of freedom and free speech to end the suffering the US government is causing to the innocent people and children of Iraq. Enough is enough! Leave the people of Iraq alone!
Justice is the foundation and the only road to human stability, security and peace. There will be no peace and security, where human justice doesn't exist.
The writer is a senior consultant on international affairs, national security, strategic studies and American Federal Government. He is the executive director of the Middle East Consultations and Research Analysis( MECRA ) as well as an adjunct professor of international affairs, Politics and International Law.
Don't blame Saddam for this one
There is no evidence to suggest Iraq is behind the anthrax attack
Scott Ritter
Friday October 19, 2001
The Guardian
The current spate of anthrax attacks on media and government buildings in the United States has heightened the undercurrent of concern since September 11 about the possibility of links between the perpetrators and the Iraqi regime. However, fears that the hidden hand of Saddam Hussein lies behind these attacks are based on rumour and speculation that, under closer scrutiny, fail to support the weight of the charge.
First, there is the history of UN weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. It is true that Iraq has not fully complied with its disarmament obligation, particularly in the field of biological weapons. However, this failure does not equate to a retained biological weapons capability. Far from it. Under the most stringent on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control, Iraq's biological weapons programmes were dismantled, destroyed or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice inspections. The major biological weapons production facility - al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq's anthrax - was blown up by high explosive charges and all its equipment destroyed. Other biological facilities met the same fate if it was found that they had, at any time, been used for research and development of biological weapons.
M oreover, Iraq was subjected to intrusive, full-time monitoring of all facilities with a potential biological application. Breweries, animal feed factories, vaccine and drug manufacturing facilities, university research laboratories and all hospitals were subject to constant, repeated inspections. Thousands of swabs and samples were taken from buildings and soil throughout Iraq. No evidence of anthrax or any other biological agent was discovered. While it was impossible to verify that all of Iraq's biological capability had been destroyed, the UN never once found evidence that Iraq had either retained biological weapons or associated production equipment, or was continuing work in the field.
Another mitigating factor is purely scientific: Iraq procured the Vollum strain of anthrax from American Type Culture Collection, a company based in Rockville, Maryland, which provides commercially available viruses - such as anthrax - to consumers worldwide. While Iraq had investigated other strains, including those indigenous to the country, it was the Vollum strain that Iraq mass-produced for weapon use. It is a unique, highly virulent form of anthrax, and its use would represent the kind of link needed to suggest Iraq as a likely source. That is not to say that the presence of a Vollum strain would automatically indict Iraq, or that a non- Vollum strain clears Iraq. However, federal investigators currently think that the anthrax used in New York and Florida is the same strain, most probably the Ames strain, a variety native to the US. The strain used in Washington is as yet unidentified, but it has been assessed as non-weapons grade and responsive to antibiotics. Based upon this information, it would be irresponsible to speculate about a Baghdad involvement.
There is also the political factor. Despite the ongoing efforts of the US and Great Britain to maintain economic sanctions, Baghdad has been very successful in developing a political and diplomatic momentum to get them lifted since weapons inspectors left three years ago. The events of September 11 brought this anti-sanctions momentum to a halt. It makes absolutely no sense for Iraq to be involved in a bio-terror attack that, in one fell swoop, undermines what has been Iraq's number one priority over the past decade: the lifting of economic sanctions.
There is another side to the political equation. America's policy towards Iraq continues to be one of abject failure, and President Bush's administration exhibits the same level of frustration and impotence shown by its predecessor in trying to piece together aviable plan for dealing with Saddam's continued survival. Washington finds itself groping for something upon which to hang its anti-Saddam policies and the current anthrax scare has provided a convenient cause. It would be a grave mistake for some in the Bush administration to undermine the effort to bring to justice those who perpetrated the cowardly attacks against the US by trying to implement their own ideologically-driven agenda on Iraq. Those who have suggested that Iraq is the source of the anthrax used in the current attacks - including Richard Butler, a former chairman of the UN weapons inspection effort - merely fan the flames of fear and panic. There is no verifiable link whatever and it is irresponsible for someone of Mr Butler's stature to be involved in unsubstantiated speculation. His behaviour has, it seems, been guided by animosity towards Baghdad, rather than the facts.
ˇScott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-8. His book Endgame is published by Simon & Schuster.
WSRitter@aol.com
Harbingers of death in the Gulf
The consequences of a US attack on Iraq would be devastating
George Galloway
Tuesday November 20, 2001
The Guardian
Last Wednesday, an Iraqi Airways Boeing 727 civilian airliner was climbing out from Basra, Iraq's southern port, when the ether crackled at 121.5 megahertz with an unmistakable American voice: "This is the United Nations [sic] no-fly zone enforcement patrol calling Iraqi airliner travelling at 21,000 feet proceeding at 400mph north-west from Basra. I warn you that you are subject to being fired upon - you continue to fly at your own risk."
Thus in the middle of a war against terrorism, falsely claiming a UN mandate - the "no-fly zones" are in fact imposed unilaterally by Britain and the US - an allied pilot was threatening 180 civilian passengers with airborne death. That would have created quite a desert storm.
I might not have believed this story if an Iraqi official had told me. But as chance would have it for the US pilot, I was on that flight, sitting in the cockpit with Captain Akram, who disdainfully ignored the warning. Also on the aircraft were Lord Naseer Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, and the solidly Blairite MP Kerry Pollard.
Together with Sunday's incident in the Gulf, when a tanker carrying Iraqi oil sank after being boarded by US servicemen - with the loss of up to six people, including two Americans - the signs are that US policy towards Iraq is poised on a bayonet point. Bombing, argue the hawks roosting on the Potomac, has achieved two regime changes in a row, in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, without the loss of a single American in action. Time to go for the hat-trick in Iraq, they say, closing the unfinished business left by Bush the father in 1991.
Having just returned from the Arab world, I would caution against it. In the first place, the Yugoslav triumph is not what it seems. Almost 65,000 Nato soldiers continue to garrison Bosnia and Kosovo. Albanian nationalism, as the weekend elections in Kosovo showed, is all dressed up with nowhere to go, except secession in Serbia and destabilisation in Macedonia. The soldiers police a protectorate liable to turn nasty at any time.
Nor is the Anglo-American "victory" in Afghanistan either remotely final or clear-cut. If possession of Afghan cities were the issue, Leonid Brezhnev would have been a hero. A decade of attrition from the mountains and on the plains cost the USSR much blood and treasure and arguably its very existence. And in those days the so-called Holy Warriors were united.
Now the ragtag and bobtail army of the Northern Alliance - for whom, like the KLA before them, we were the airforce - is a powder-keg of ethnic, religious and tribal loyalties waiting to blow up in our face. The alliance, a collection of heroin-dealing cut throats who laid waste to Afghanistan the last time they were in power, have not waited long before reverting to type. British television viewers have been largely spared their penchant for castration, mutilation and massacres of prisoners. Viewers of Arab stations have not.
Meanwhile, the network of Islamist terrorists said by Colin Powell to be ensconced in 50 countries can scarcely be expected to fold up their tents and take up Turkish tapestry. Contrary to the predictions of wild-eyed optimists, there is no reason to believe they will be demobilised or demotivated by search-and-destroy operations in the caves around Kandahar. If anything, Bin Laden dead is likely to be a more potent force than Bin Laden alive. And you don't need a redoubt in the Hindu Kush to learn how to be a killer, as the hijackers of September 11 showed. Florida or Hamburg will do just as nicely.
The Arab consensus against any widening of the conflict has helped force the first apparent chink of light between the shoulders of the Anglo-American alliance. Mr Blair has let it be known that Britain is opposed to an attack on Iraq. If sincere, that could be significant, for with the exception of Israel, no other country in the world is likely to support such an assault.
But, as Bob Monkhouse observed, "once you can fake the sincerity, the rest is easy". On Sunday, our most militant foreign minister, Ben Bradshaw, repeated the mantra about there being no evidence of Iraqi involvement in September's atrocities. But he added ominously that "of course if such evidence were to emerge, that would be a quite different matter". The cooks and spooks may even now be baking it.
Both the incidents at sea and in the air and the imminent security council decision on Anglo-American "smart sanctions" - with the demand for the return of weapons inspectors withdrawn before the 1998 Desert Fox fiasco - may be straws in the mistral, harbingers of a whirlwind to come. Iraq is girding itself for massive attack and counting on the political earthquake in the region which would ensue. It would not need to climb high up the Richter scale to topple some of our oldest and most quiescent friends.
ˇ George Galloway is Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin and a columnist for the Scottish Mail on Sunday.
gallowayg@parliament.uk