U.S. strategy vs. Iraq & UNSC Resolution 1284
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By Richard Becker,
Western Regional Co-Coordinator, International Action Center

It should be apparent by now to even the most casual observer that a major
goal of U.S. foreign policy is to overthrow the government of Iraq,
deprive that country of its sovereignty, and reduce it to the status of a
colony.  They even have a name for it in Washington: "regime change."
There is virtually no debate at the top on the legitimacy and desirability
of this aim--just some minor differences of opinion over how best to
achieve it.

For nearly a decade the U.S. rulers have waged war against Iraq and its
people by military, economic, financial, political and diplomatic means.
The United States funds, sponsors, trains and organizes political and
military opposition to the Iraqi government.

What drives U.S. policy, which has remained virtually unchanged under both
the Republican Bush and Democratic Clinton administrations?  In short,
it's for domination and profit: domination of the key Persian/Arabian
Gulf, which holds up to two-thirds of the world's petroleum reserves, and
the immense profits to be made by exploiting those fabulous resources.
Iraq itself sits atop a sea of oil. It is ranked second in the world in
reserves.

This reality, of course, must be concealed to the greatest degree
possible, especially from the U.S. public. It wouldn't go over very well
to tell people that the Pentagon is spending $50 billion to $60 billion a
year to blockade and starve Iraqi children in order to safeguard the
present and future profits of Exxon, Chevron and Citibank. So the
modern-day incarnations of Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels in the
State Department and White House have spun a different story. They are
motivated by their deep "concern" over "human rights violations" and
"weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president,
is relentlessly presented in their bought media as the personification of
all that is evil--"worse than Hitler," they sometimes say.

As if the U.S. ruling class, with its blood-drenched history at home and
abroad, and armed to the teeth with every imaginable nuclear, chemical,
biological and conventional weapon, could really be "concerned" about
either Iraq's internal policies or armaments.

Anti-sanctions movement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unfortunately, some in the anti-war and anti-sanctions movement have taken
a position that, unintentionally or otherwise, lends credence to the
imperialist policy makers' arguments. This viewpoint can be summarized as
follows:
1) Economic sanctions are wrong because they are causing great
suffering among the Iraqi people, while not hurting the regime;
2) Saddam Hussein should be indicted as a war criminal and removed from
office; and
3) economic sanctions should be "delinked" from military sanctions,
meaning that economic sanctions should be ended while military sanctions
are kept in place.

A letter currently circulating in Congress argues this line. This position
implicitly credits the U.S. government, and the United Nations Security
Council which it dominates, as qualified to sit as judge and jury on Iraq.
In other words, the U.S. government is legitimate and the Iraqi government
is not.  Moreover, this position gives credit to U.S. policy's stated and
phony aims by agreeing with them. "Yes," this perspective says, "Saddam is
evil. He must be replaced by a democratic government and Iraq must be
disarmed so that it cannot threaten its neighbors." This view disregards,
in addition to Iraq's right to self-determination, the fact that it is the
United States, not Iraq, which is the greatest military threat and
violator of human rights--in the Middle East and around the world.

There is no greater proof of the U.S. leaders' criminality than the
sanctions themselves. Nine-and-a-half years of near-total blockade have
killed at least 1.25 million Iraqis and inflicted unimaginable suffering
on a whole country and people. To call the sanctions genocidal is no
exaggeration.

Opposition to sanctions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Opposition to the sanctions has grown around the world, especially in the
two years since the February 1998 crisis that brought the United States to
the brink of a major new military attack on Iraq. In the Middle East, the
opposition is so wide, deep and bitter that even some of the most pliant
U.S. client regimes feel compelled to call for the blockade to be lifted.
Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council--Russia,
China and France--favor ending the sanctions.

But the U.S. leaders want to keep the sanctions, which they see as a vital
element in their "regime change" strategy. As they were designed to, the
sanctions have destroyed or severely weakened much of Iraq's
infrastructure, industry and agriculture, as well as the country's
military capacity. The latter had always been wildly exaggerated in the
Western media.

The sanctions, along with continued bombing raids, are intended to grind
down Iraq and its people. The United States, as President Bill Clinton,
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other top U.S. officials
admitted during the 1998 crisis, intends to keep sanctions in place until
the current government is removed or overthrown. To do this, they must
keep alive the myth that Iraq possesses fearsome weapons or the capacity
to produce them, with which it threatens its neighbors.

Enter UN Security Council Resolution 1284
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Security Council passed Resolution 1284 in December 1999, after nearly
a year of rancorous debate. It supposedly provides for lifting the
sanctions on Iraq if the country agrees to allow UN weapons-inspection
teams to return and verify that Iraq no longer has any more "weapons of
mass destruction."

For eight years, Iraq was the most inspected country in history. Hundreds
of UN weapons-inspection teams, known as UNSCOM, made thousands of visits
to every corner of the country.  Twenty-four-hour video cameras were set
up in every factory that was deemed to have "dual-use technology."
"Dual-use" means that a facility has the potential to produce military as
well as civilian goods--as does much of modern industry anywhere.

Yet the sanctions and the horrific suffering of the Iraqi people remained
unchanged. In the fall of 1997, Iraq halted the inspections, declaring
they would not be allowed to resume until it was made clear how and when
they would lead to an end to the blockade.

In addition, the Iraqis charged that many of the inspectors were actually
spies for the government most committed to maintaining the sanctions
indefinitely:  the United States. While U.S. officials and media at first
ridiculed this charge, even they were forced to admit that it was true a
few months later.

Weapons inspection began again in March 1998. They continued until
December, when the UNSCOM teams fomented a new crisis, leading to the
intensive U.S./ British bombing of Iraq for four days, Dec. 16-19, 1998.
Since that time, there have been no inspectors in the country.

Resolution 1284--a tactic to maintain sanctions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, speaking to delegates from the
Iraq Sanctions Challenge in Baghdad on Jan. 18, described the U.S.
position as "pretending to seek a solution" in the year-long Security
Council negotiations. Resolution 1284, Aziz said, "presents that sanctions
would be suspended if Iraq cooperates. But Iraq has cooperated for many
years, from 1991 to 1998, and got as a reward missiles and bombs. "If you
watch CBS News or read the New York Times," Aziz continued, "you would
hear that there is a resolution to end sanctions, but the Iraqi government
of Saddam Hussein refuses and so is responsible for the miserable
situation.  It's propaganda."

Under Resolution 1284, Aziz explained, Iraq would be subject to even more
strict controls than under the old system. The resolution invokes all the
past UN resolutions against Iraq, and adds the word "verification" to the
mission of the weapons inspection team. This means that Iraq must prove
that no "weapons of mass destruction," nor the capacity to produce them,
exists.

Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general who headed the recent
Sanctions Challenge to Iraq, points out that "it's impossible to prove a
negative, to prove that no weapons exist in an area as large as Iraq." And
in fact, as Clark explained, that is exactly the point: to set conditions
that cannot be met, thus allowing the sanctions to continue without limit.

There are no provisions for financial arrangements or controls in
Resolution 1284. The subject was left for later discussions. Given that
Iraq has received less than one-third of the value of the $19 billion in
petroleum it has sold under UN Resolution 661--the so-called "Oil for
Food" deal--the new financial arrangements are likely to be even less
satisfactory, according to Aziz and other Iraqi officials.

Clearly, Resolution 1284's real objective is to keep the sanctions in
place while making it appear that Iraq itself is responsible for their
continuation.

'Dual-use' bulls
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At the same time, $6 billion in contracts under the "Oil for Food"
resolution remain blocked by the Security Council. The vast majority of
contracts to repair the damaged water, sewage, electrical and other
infrastructure have been denied or put on hold. The usual excuse given by
the United States and Britain, which lead the way in blocking contracts,
is that the commodities in question could be "dual use." So neither pipes
nor chlorine, both desperately needed to rehabilitate the water system,
have been allowed into the country.

The extreme to which the "dual-use" pretext can be taken was illustrated
by Iraq's recent attempt to import 15 breeding bulls. The contract was
denied.  When asked why, State Department mouthpiece James Rubin replied,
"It's not the bulls we have a problem with, it's the vaccine that goes
with them."  Rubin claimed that the vaccines, necessary for modern animal
husbandry, could be used to make biological weapons.

The story of the 15 bulls shows just how bankrupt the "delinking" argument
is.  In reality, it plays into the hands of those who want to perpetuate
the sanctions forever, or until a government to their liking is
established in Baghdad.

The anti-war and anti-sanctions movement needs to call for the
unconditional lifting of the genocidal sanctions, an end to the constant
assaults on Iraq's sovereignty, and for the United States to get out of
the Middle East, where it has done so much damage over the past
half-century.

International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@iacenter.org
http://www.iacenter.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax:   212 633-2889

BACK TO PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION TOPICS