|
Vol.
XXVII No.
February
|
No
Smoking
Gun
in
Iraq
Raghu
WHEN
UN
chief
weapons
inspector
in
Iraq,
Hans
Blix,
returned
from
the
first
round
of
inspections
in
late
January
and
reported
that,
based
on
these
inspections
and
despite
various
problems
that
remained
regarding
weapons
of
mass
destruction
(WMD)
in
Iraq,
he
did
not
think
that
Iraq
was
in
material
breach
of
the
relevant
UN
resolutions,
US
National
Security
Advisor
Condoleeza
Rice
reacted
furiously.
She
is
said
to
have
telephoned
Blix
and
rebuked
him
saying
his
job
was
merely
to
report
on
the
inspections
but
the
determination
as
to
compliance
with
the
UN
resolutions
would
be
done
elsewhere.
There
can
be
little
doubt
that,
had
Blixs
findings
been
more
to
the
US
liking,
they
would
have
been
latched
on
to
immediately
as
the
green
signal
to
launch
war
on
Iraq.
The
Bush
administration
continues
to
argue
aggressively
that
Iraq
is
indeed
in
possession
of
substantial
quantities
of
WMD
and
continued
to
pose
a
threat
to
peace
and
security
around
the
world,
and
that
further
inspections
would
be
pointless
since
there
was
already
overwhelming
evidence
against
Iraq
which
therefore
needs
to
be
disarmed
by
force.
Germany,
France,
Russia,
China
and
a
host
of
other
countries
emphasised
that
more
effective
UN
inspections
could
indeed
not
only
establish
whether,
in
fact,
Iraq
was
in
possession
of
WMDs
but
also
provide
means
towards
totally
disarming
Iraq
of
such
weapons.
In
unprecedented
open
display
of
differences
with
US
policy,
the
foreign
ministers
of
Germany,
France
and
Belgium
had
extremely
sharp
public
exchanges
with
US
Defence
Secretary
and
known
hawk
Donald
Rumsfeld
and
made
equally
sharp
public
declarations
that
they
were
simply
not
convinced
by
the
evidence
so
far
available
and
refused
to
be
bulldozed
by
the
US
into
a
war
on
Iraq.
NO
SMOKING
GUN
In
a
bid
to
persuade
an
increasingly
sceptical
world,
the
Bush
administration
started
releasing
evidence
in
its
possession
about
Iraqs
WMD
capability,
the
Blair
government
prepared
and
released
a
dossier
and
finally
the
US
fielded
its
arguably
most
credible
spokesperson,
Secretary
of
State
Colin
Powell,
to
put
forward
the
evidence
in
a
dramatic
and
unprecedented
audio-visual
presentation
at
the
UN
televised
live
to
an
estimated
worldwide
audience
of
1
billion
people.
In
substantial
terms,
Colin
Powells
presentation
produced
very
little
by
way
of
concrete
evidence.
Just
a
few
snippets
of
taped
conversations
of
minor
significance,
some
satellite
photographs
of
doubtful
vintage
including
one
supposedly
showing
certain
tell-tale
facilities
having
been
shifted
in
order
to
hide
them
from
UN
inspectors
which
even
Hans
Blix
said
proved
nothing
since
such
movements
could
easily
be
routine.
Powell
also
dramatically
displayed
a
small
vial
to
demonstrate
how
lethal
such
small
quantities
could
be
but,
beyond
his
statement
that
Iraq
possessed
lots
of
such
material,
did
not
produce
any
evidence
to
prove
his
claim.
No
smoking
gun,
indeed
very
little
smoke
at
all!
And
this
despite
the
US
administration
having
pulled
out
all
the
stops
and
playing
numerous
tricks
and
mind
games.
Powell
was
supposed
to
have
come
armed
with
latest
intelligence
including
several
items
de-classified
just
the
night
before!
CIA
Director
George
Tenet
was
personally
brought
from
his
hotel
to
the
UN
building
by
Powell
in
his
limousine
so
they
could
be
photographed
together,
and
deliberately
seated
immediately
behind
him
to
convey
a
united
Administration
which
everyone
knows
not
to
be
the
case,
with
the
CIA
scarcely
making
a
secret
of
its
differences
with
the
Defence
and
State
Departments
assessments
of
the
Iraqi
WMD
and
threat
capability.
The
Bush
Administration
the
next
day
also
upgraded
the
US
terrorist
alert
status
from
yellow
to
orange,
the
second-highest
level,
citing
intelligence
reports
of
impending
Al
Qaida
terrorist
attacks
in
the
continental
USA,
a
stratagem
cleverly
designed
to
form
an
association
between
Iraq
and
Al
Qaida.
However,
Powells
laboured
efforts
at
emphasising
this
association
and
the
potential
threat
posed
by
Iraqi
WMD
falling
into
terrorist
hands
was
widely
perceived
to
be
the
weakest
aspect
of
his
presentation
at
the
UN.
In
the
absence
of
any
hard
evidence,
it
was
no
surprise
that
Powells
presentation
changed
few
minds
among
the
audience
at
the
UN
or
worldwide.
Even
in
the
US,
most
polls
such
as
that
by
CNN-Time
Magazine
showed
that
Powells
speech
had
made
little
impact,
with
only
36
percent
of
the
US
public,
as
against
33
percent
before
the
speech,
favouring
war
against
Iraq,
a
shift
well
within
margins
of
statistical
error.
It
was
left
to
the
incorrigible
Blair
government
in
Britain
to
provide
the
comic
touch
to
these
efforts
at
producing
intelligence
secrets
as
evidence
and
to
score
an
own
goal
in
the
Anglo-US
campaign
against
Iraq.
The
British
dossier
which
was
said
to
contain
damning
revelations
against
Saddam
Hussein
was
released
a
day
before
Powells
speech
at
the
UN,
and
was
praised
by
him
there.
The
dossier
was
soon
found
to
have
been
drawn
almost
entirely
on
material
contained
in
Janes
Intelligence
Review
and
plagiarised,
including
whole
sections
lifted
verbatim,
from
a
journal
article
by
a
California-based
student,
Ibrahim
al-Marashi,
itself
based
on
a
graduate
thesis
written
in
2001
based
on
material
collected
during
1991!
IRAQ
&
WMD
THREAT
The
Bush
administration
and
pro-US
media
at
large
have
also
virtually
ignored
the
extremely
important
findings
of
the
other
half
of
the
present
UN
team
of
Inspectors,
the
Head
of
the
International
Atomic
Energy
Agency
(IAEA),
Mohammed
ElBaradei.
He
has
been
categorical
in
asserting,
as
he
indeed
did
before
the
UN
Security
Council,
that
Iraq
no
longer
has
any
nuclear
weapons
nor
does
evidence
show
the
existence
of
any
credible
nuclear
weapons
programme.
CIA
studies
themselves
state
that,
in
the
face
of
the
current
sanctions
regime
and
extant
Iraqi
capabilities,
Iraq
would
take
till
well
after
2005
to
develop
enough
fissile
material
to
make
even
one
nuclear
bomb!
Further,
unlike
biological
or
even
chemical
weapons,
these
cannot
be
developed
in
small
or
backroom
facilities
and
can
easily
be
detected.
An
objective
assessment
of
the
threat
from
Iraq,
even
if
it
did
possess
nuclear
weapons
or
other
WMD,
would
show
that
it
is
in
no
position
to
pose
dangers
to
the
US,
Europe
or
even
perhaps
to
its
neighbours
given
the
present
state
of
its
military
capabilities.
The
Iraqi
military
today
has
been
reduced
to
roughly
a
third
of
its
strength
during
the
Gulf
War.
The
Iraqi
air
force
is
virtually
grounded
due
to
the
aggressive
Anglo-US
enforcement
of
the
no-fly
zone
theoretically
meant
to
cover
only
a
part
of
Iraq
but
effectively
being
applied
all
over
the
country.
Under
the
UN
inspections
imposed
after
the
Gulf
War,
the
then
entire
known
Iraqi
arsenal
of
48
short-medium
range
ballistic
missiles
was
destroyed
along
with
6
missile
launchers.
The
UN
Special
Commission
(UNSCOM)
set
up
in
1991
itself
recorded
having
destroyed
817
out
of
the
total
819
Scud
missiles
in
Iraqs
possession
at
that
time,
leaving
Iraq
with
only
a
few
short-range
Scud
missiles,
restricted
again
by
UN
mandate
to
a
range
of
150
kilometres
deemed
sufficient
only
for
defensive
rather
than
offensive
purposes,
apart
from
field
artillery
weapons
with
which
it
can
lob
shells
over
a
few
kilometers.
Hardly
a
picture
conjuring
up
visions
of
a
heavily
armed
and
dangerous
threat
to
world
peace!
With
no
missile
capability
except
for
what
are
derisively
known
as
dud
Scuds,
no
deep
penetration
aircraft
and
in
any
case
no
possibility
of
penetrating
the
Anglo-US
no-fly
barrier,
it
is
clear
that
Iraq
possesses
no
delivery
capability
for
nuclear
weapons
which,
in
any
case,
it
does
not
appear
to
have.
In
the
spectrum
of
WMD
threats
from
Iraq,
that
leaves
biological
and
chemical
weapons.
And
here
the
tale
gets
very
murky
indeed,
with
more
skeletons
in
the
US
cupboard
than
WMD
weapons
in
Iraqs
armoury!
US
INVOLVEMENT
IN
CHEMICAL
&
BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS
It
has
been
known
for
many
years
that
Iraq
had
an
active
chemical
and
biological
weapons
(CBW)
programme
during
the
late
80s
and
90s.
What
is
less
widely
known,
or
at
least
remembered,
is
that
the
Iraqi
CBW
programme
was
built
through
direct,
active
and
sustained
US
support,
a
fact
the
Bush
administration
and
its
media
friends
are
heavily
suppressing
since
this
would
severely
compromise
the
US
campaign
against
the
evil
regime
of
Saddam
Hussein.
While
Iraq
had
an
active
CBW
programme
since
the
60s,
weapons
production
began
in
earnest
in
the
mid-80s.
Iraq
focused
on
producing
mustard
gas
along
with
lesser
quantities
of
sarin
and
other
nerve
gases.
Mustard
gas
requires
ethylene
or
thiodiglycol
as
precursor
chemicals
and
these
were
purchased
by
Iraq
from
US
and
European
firms
through
the
80s,
with
the
other
main
ingredient
hydrochloric
acid
being
widely
available.
During
the
outbreak
of
the
Iran-Iraq
war,
the
world
watched
with
horror
as
both
sides
resorted
to
extensive
use
of
chemical
weapons
and
some
biological
weapons
as
well.
The
then
US
administrations,
led
by
Ronald
Reagan
and
George
Bush
senior,
the
present
Presidents
father,
provided
tactical
and
battlefield
assistance
to
Iraq
led
by
Saddam
Hussein
against
Iran
which
the
US
then
regarded
as
the
main
enemy.
Contrary
to
the
holier-than-thou
image
the
US
now
seeks
to
portray,
painting
Iraq
as
a
monster
for
not
only
possessing
but
actually
using
CBWs,
US
supplies
of
CBW
materials
continued
apace
during
this
period
despite
full
knowledge
of
their
use
against
both
military
and
civilian
targets.
The
US
in
any
case
has
no
moral
ground
from
which
to
accuse
Iraq
of
evil-doing
in
respect
of
possession
and
use
of
CBWs.
The
US
itself
has
over
1
million
litres
of
mustard
gas
and
31,000
tons
of
chemical
weapons
munitions
besides
huge
stocks
of
CBW
material
and
munitions
distributed
in
99
sites
in
the
US
not
included
in
the
above
figure
declared
in
1986.
The
US
has
also
itself
used
huge
quantities
of
chemical
weapons
such
as
Agent
Orange
in
Indo-China
during
1962-70.
A
US
Senate
Committee
Report
of
1994
on
US
Chemical
and
Biological
Warfare-related
Dual
Use
Exports
to
Iraq
has
documented
the
huge
shipments
of
chemical
and
biological
weapons-related
materials
to
Iraq
continuing
throughout
the
80s.
With
regard
to
biological
materials,
the
Senate
Committee
recorded
the
shipment
of
bacillus
anthracis
(causing
anthrax),
clostridium
botulinum
(causing
botulism),
histoplasma
capsulatum
(causing
attacks
on
lungs,
brain,
spinal
chord
and
heart),
brucella
melitensis
(a
bacteria
that
can
damage
major
organs)
and
many
other
items
in
a
veritable
witches
brew
of
pathogenic
biological
agents.
Worse,
the
Committee
recorded
that
these
micro-organisms
exported
by
the
United
States
were
identical
to
those
the
UN
Inspectors
found
and
removed
from
the
Iraqi
biological
warfare
program.
Senator
Donald
Riegle,
Chairman
of
the
Senate
Committee
also
recorded
that
between
January
1985
and
August
1990,
the
executive
branch
of
our
government
approved
771
different
export
licenses
of
dual-use
technology
to
Iraq
[which
is]
a
devastating
record.
As
a
result
of
these
and
other
revelations,
US
Senator
Robert
Byrd
recently
stated
that
the
United
States
is,
in
large
part,
responsible
for
the
very
Iraqi
weapons
of
mass
destruction
[it]
now
seeks
to
destroy.
Donald
Rumsfeld
has
denied
any
knowledge
of
the
earlier
US
shipments
of
CBW
materials
to
Iraq.
In
fact,
Rumsfeld
also
does
not
remember
that,
as
a
businessman
then,
he
was
the
personal
emissary
of
Ronald
Reagan
to
meet
Saddam
Hussein
in
Baghdad
in
December
1983
to
reassure
him
of
continued
US
support
against
Iran!
Questioned
on
this
on
the
Senate
floor,
Rumsfeld
had
promised
to
review
Pentagon
records
and
revert
to
the
house
which
he
has
not
done
for
over
a
year.
All
those
involved
in
these
dealings
such
as
then
Presidents
Reagan
and
George
Bush,
apart
from
present
President
George
W.
Bush
and
Defence
Secretary
Donald
Rumsfeld,
have
over
the
years
all
displayed
collective
amnesia
regarding
these
events,
much
like
the
Watergate
perpetrators
who
could
not
recollect
at
the
present
point
of
time!
WHERE
HAVE
ALL
THE
CBWs
GONE?
The
question
may
still
be
raised
as
to,
whatever
their
origin,
where
are
all
these
CBW
materials
and/or
weapons?
After
its
defeat
in
the
Gulf
War,
Iraq
had
accepted
UNSCR
687
calling
for
destruction
and
neutralisation
of
nuclear,
biological
and
chemical
weapons.
Iraq
had
itself
acknowledged
its
production
of
100
botulinum
bombs,
50
anthrax
bombs,
7
aflatoxin
bombs
and
16
missile
warheads
with
botulinum,
5
with
anthrax
and
4
with
aflatoxin.
The
UNSCOM
set
up
in
1991
under
UNSCR
715
and
headed
by
Scott
Ritter
oversaw
the
detection
and
destruction
of
all
these
among
38,000
chemical
munitions,
480,000
tons
of
chemical
warfare
agents
and
precursors
and
30
CBW
warheads
which,
according
to
UNSCOM,
represented
90-95
percent
of
all
such
material
in
Iraq.
As
against
US
claims
reiterated
by
Powell
that
Iraq
retained
vast
amounts
of
chemical
weaponry,
UNSCOM
at
that
time
and
the
present
UN
Inspection
Team
under
Hans
Blix
have
found
no
firm
evidence
that
Iraq
still
retains
[CBW]
weapons
or
material.
Nor
have
the
UN
inspectors
found
the
upto
a
few
dozen
Scud-type
missiles
which
Powell
claimed
Iraq
has.
Former
UNSCOM
Chief
Scott
Ritter,
a
self-confessed
card-carrying
Republican
who
voted
for
George
W
Bush
has
repeatedly
stated
that
UNSCOM
had
destroyed
most
of
Iraqs
CBW
capability
and
materials
and
has
called
President
Bush
a
liar
for
propagating
otherwise.
Former
UN
Under
Secretary
General
and
Co-ordinator
in
Iraq,
Hans
von
Sponeck
also
termed
the
Anglo-US
charges
that
certain
Iraqi
factories
are
producing
CBWs
as
lies.
The
Al-Dora
and
Faluja
factories
near
Baghdad
had
been
destroyed
by
UN
inspectors
in
1999
and
were
visited
by
von
Sponeck
who,
upon
re-visiting
these
sites,
saw
them
still
in
a
state
of
total
wreck.
US
CORNERED?
OR
WAITING?
Despite
all
these
weaknesses
in
the
Anglo-US
case,
however,
in
the
weeks
to
come
one
aspect
pertaining
to
CBWs
in
Iraq
are
likely
to
come
to
the
fore.
Hans
Blix
has
several
times
pointed
to
the
need
for
Iraq
to
provide
concrete
evidence
as
to
its
destruction
of
any
remaining
CBWs
and
related
materials.
If
such
action
has
been
taken,
such
evidence
is
possible
to
produce
and
can
be
scientifically
verified.
This
is
the
one
aspect
that
the
UN
Inspections
and
Europeans
are
likely
to
focus
on
in
the
near
future.
If
Iraq
co-operates
in
this
regard,
or
brings
forth
any
remaining
stocks
so
that
the
UN
team
can
verifiably
confirm
their
destruction,
then
the
US
drive
to
war
can
be
firmly
checked,
at
least
for
now.
Some
commentators
have
pointed
out
that,
in
the
face
of
mounting
and
massive
opposition
from
friendly
governments
and
from
public
opinion
worldwide,
the
US
is
already
backtracking
on
immediately
launching
a
war
on
Iraq.
However,
others
have
speculated
that
the
US
may
just
wait
out
the
current
impasse
at
least
for
one
important
reason.
White
House
insiders
are
pointing
out
that
George
Bush
Senior
won
the
previous
Gulf
War
two
years
before
the
election
by
which
time
the
victory
euphoria
had
worn
off
and
the
economic
after-effects
had
set
in,
allowing
Bill
Clinton
to
win.
By
this
logic,
they
argue,
George
W
Bush
should
go
to
war
not
now
but
sometime
next
year,
closer
to
the
US
elections.
