When a Concession is No Concession
by
Kim Petersen
Dissident Voice
March 8, 2003
The
UK portrayed the hawks as making a concession when they agreed to a new
deadline of 17 March for Iraqi disarmament. To depict this as a concession is
nonsense. International security correspondent Paul Rogers wrote in
mid-February that all the pieces of war wouldn’t be in place until about the
middle of March. Strategically the launching of an attack would most likely
take place on 25 March. (1)
So this is no concession and
surely France, Russia, Germany, and China are aware of this. Diplomatic
niceties preclude mention of such a thing. French Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin did, however, say of the British amendment: “We don't accept this
logic.” (2)
This is a deadline which
falls quite a bit short of the time that UNMOVIC Chief Hans Blix said is
required. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair offered the inspectors a
colossal ten days more but Mr. Blix declared that: "It will not take
years, nor weeks, but months." (3)
Mr. Bush declaimed that the
inspectors were not receiving full co-operation of the Iraqi regime, something
that Mr. Blix gainsaid when he stated that co-operation was now "active or
even proactive." (4)
Yet Mr. Bush, the same man
who along with Mr. Blair demanded that President Saddam Hussein let the
inspectors in, in an astounding self-contradiction called into the question the
efficacy of the inspections. Mr. Bush asserted that, according to the now less-than-vaunted
US intelligence, Iraq was rearming as its was being disarmed.
He further claimed that
Iraqi scientists, being interviewed by UNMOVIC, were surreptitiously being
recorded by Iraqi intelligence by concealed recording devices. This is obviously
bluster only for show as counter espionage measures could easily be effected so
that interviewees are physically searched and the premises are debugged.
Bugging would certainly constitute non-cooperation and a material breach of UN
Security Council Resolution 1441. If the US had true evidence of such then they
would have presented it.
In his speech before the
compliant media on 7 February, Mr. Bush summed it up as: “The world needs him
to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally
disarmed as required by Resolution 1441 or has it not?” This is disingenuous.
There was no timetable laid out in Resolution 1441. Truly the question should
be: “Is the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarming as required by
Resolution 1441 or not?”
France, Germany, Russia, and
China see no need for a second resolution. China, the least vehement of the
veto-wielding UN Security Council doves, through its Foreign Minister Tang
Jiaxuan contended: “Much progress has been made in the weapons inspections
thanks to the unremitting efforts of UNMOVIC and IAEA.” (5)
This is denied by Mr. Bush
who pontificated: “Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot
be denied.” In the rhetoric of Mr. Bush it is Mr. Hussein who must disarm not
Iraq. Mr. Bush is not known for his refined speech but in this case he is
certainly playing to the US media. He might further be playing to the home
audience when he inaccurately stated: “The only acceptable outcome is the one
already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total
disarmament.” There is no call for a total disarmament of Iraq. Iraq is
required to disarm of weapons of mass destruction and longer-range missiles.
A short deadline is what the
UN Security Council hawks seek. Although the US and UK maintain that a second
resolution is not needed, a second resolution would make things easier. It
would provide the guise under which an invasion could be launched. It seeks to
placate much of the anti-war sentiment calling for a second resolution.
Even though Mr. Bush said
that he prays for peace, it is a peace predicated upon regime change. That is
the only way the hawks can halt the war machine. (6) Mr.
Rogers is much less than optimistic. He wrote: “The war is going to happen.
Given the absolute determination of people such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz
and others, it is going to be very difficult to stop it.” (7)
Kim Petersen is an English teacher living
in China. Email: kotto2001@hotmail.com
References
(1) Paul Rogers, “War by timetable,” openDemocracy, 19
February 2003: http://opendemocracy.com/debates/article.jsp?id=2&debateId=89&articleId=989
(2) CBC Online Staff, “Britain
suggests March 17 Iraq disarmament deadline,” CBC News, Friday 7 March 2003:
http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/07/blix_react030307
(3) CBC Online Staff, “Iraq
taking significant steps, says Blix,” CBC News, Friday 7 March 2003:
http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/07/blix030307
(5) Agencies, “UN Council split
in three groups over Iraq,” CHINAdaily, 8 March 2003:
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/news/2003-03-08/107231.html
(6) Kim Petersen, “Preparing to
Unleash Violence,” Dissident Voice, 5 March 2003:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Petersen_Unleashed.htm