"Saying No To Another War--

US Double Standards on Iraq"

By PRAFUL BIDWAI

IF Mr Bill Clinton is to be believed, Mr Saddam Hussein not only has huge chemical and biological weapon arsenals, but ``some day, some way, I guarantee, he'll use'' them. If Mr Richard Butler, UNSCOM (UN Special Commission) chief is right, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) can -- as he provocatively said -- ``blow away Tel Aviv.'' If Mr Tony Blair is to be believed, Mr Hussein has enough WMDs to destroy ``the whole world''! Therefore a ``substantial attack'' on Iraq, comparable to the 2,000 sorties-a-day, 88,500 tonnes-of-explosives bombardment of 1991, still seems probable despite UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's ``UNSCOM-Plus'' deal - unless the US changes its mind which it appears reluctant to do even as the military build-up continues at press time.

WMD Arsenal

The US and British governments should know a lot about Mr Hussein's WMD arsenal. In the eighties, they -- or their corporations -- made billions helping him build it, and condoned his use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians. He was, after all, fighting the West's crusade against ``Islamic fundamentalism''. In the nineties, he suddenly became a villain -- not because he had metamorphosed into a dictator (which he always was), or invaded Kuwait, but because he represented, however perversely, a stream of Arab nationalism defiant of the US and Israel. Seven years and thousands of inspections on, he still does. Iraq enjoys great sympathy among the Arab people on account of its people's suffering under harsh sanctions and UNSCOM's injustices -- just as the Palestinians do.

     To punish him, the West must employ double standards. Consider this: Despite seven-year-long intrusive inspections of thousands of military and civilian facilities, there is no firm, clinching evidence -- unlike before 1991 -- that Iraq has a WMD arsenal, distinct from a WMD potential or precursors to such weapons. It certainly does not possess delivery vehicles. The US and Britain, on the other hand, have not just potential, but full-fledged WMDs in overkill numbers: their nuclear weapons alone can destroy the world 10 times over. The US treats Iraq's refusal of unfettered inspections as a casus belli. But its own Congress is passing a law blocking international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention--an international treaty Washington has ratified -- on ``national security'' grounds.

     The West accuses Iraq of violating the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.  But the US has conducted biological weapons research after 1972. (Susan Wright, Preventing a Biological Arms Race, MIT Press). The West insists on prolonging anti Iraq sanctions because they will weaken Mr Hussein and forment a revolt. In reality, they are hurting innocent people and strengthening Mr Hussein. Examples of such double standards can be multiplied.

     A military attack on Iraq would be unjust, immoral and violative of international law, despite Mr Hussein's attempt to resist inspections and his dishonourable intentions (mere intentions are surely benign in relation to the superpowers' fully weaponised capabilities).

     First, as Marc Weller of Cambridge University's Centre of International Law argues, even if Iraq's refusal of unlimited inspections constitutes a ``clear violation'' of Security Council Resolution 687, ``there does not exist an express... Council mandate to use force in response to such violations...In the absence of a Council mandate or overwhelming humanitarian crisis, Washington has no right to enforce unilaterally the demands of the international community.''

Second, use of force without Security Council authority is illegal except in ``self-defence''. But Iraq has committed no aggression since 1990; and America cannot possibly claim to be acting in ``self-defence''. Third, ``preventive wars directed against the future military potential of a state are unlawful.'' Washington cites Resolution 687 to demand unfettered inspections. But surely it would not like some other UN resolutions (e.g. 242 on vacating Israel's occupation) to be implemented. Illegality, sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy apart, Washington's case for war is deeply flawed. US apologists cite three reasons: Iraq, a ``terrorist'' state, cannot be ``trusted'' with WMDs; second, there is a reliable military method of eliminating Iraq's WMD potential; and third, Mr Hussein must be killed or his regime weakened for defying the ``international community''.

Untenable Arguments

These arguments are untenable. WMDs -- nuclear bombs, binary chemical weapons, or biological agents -- are not ``safe'' in anybody's hands; no state can be ``trusted'' with them. Such weapons are illegal and indefensible -- whether under the BWC, CWC or the 1996 World Court anti-nuclear weapons judgment. Those who exaggerate the danger of WMDs falling into ``terrorists'' hands end up legitimising their possession by ``democracies''. However, the only state that has ever used nuclear weapons is ``democratic'' America -- an act of massive terrorism.  Secondly, as two former CIA directors, Mr John Deutch and Mr James Woolsey, say, military attacks cannot reliably eliminate Iraq's WMDs. Mr Woolsey testifies that the destroyed WMDs could be quickly replaced: ``It is only a little harder to make anthrax than it is to run a small microbrewery.'' Chemical and biological weapons knowhow cannot be unlearnt. So destroying Iraq's presumed stockpiles will not eliminate its WMD potential. It might make sense to eliminate delivery systems. But Iraq's missile programme has already been systematically dismantled. Washington's attack could turn out to be a terrible misadventure. There is a high risk that bombing WMD facilities will lead to dispersal of toxins over long distances, exposing civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, including Israel, to grave danger.

Harsh Penalties

The third reason cited for war -- viz. toppling Mr Hussein -- is simply incompatible with international law and cannot be a valid military-strategic-diplomatic objective. States cannot wage war to eliminate individuals, however distasteful. A 1973 presidential directive prohibits US forces from targeting individuals. Above all, the ``collateral'' costs of such targeting would be unconscionable. Thousands of babies would die. There would be horrific suffering. 

     The US has already inflicted harsh penalties on Iraq by misusing 687 in disregard of its rationale, which was ``establishing in West Asia a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for delivery''. This entailed denuclearising Israel and dismantling the WMD and missile programmes of all concerned states. Instead, the US singled out Iraq, and detached the issue from the larger Middle Eastern crisis involving Palestine. Sanctions have grievously hurt Iraq's people. A million have perished since 1991. Airline pilots and doctors are forced to drive taxis.   Schoolchildren have no pencils.  Life-saving medicines are scarce: many patients receive only half the required dose. Surgical operations are performed without anaesthesia. About 4,500 children under five die prematurely every month.

     New Delhi has done well to urge restraint upon the US. It must maintain an independent stand, and not cave in as it did in 1991 by refuelling US warplanes. It should not underestimate the scope for mounting diplomatic pressure on the US in favour of Mr Annan's formula with support from Russia, France and China and several Arab states. It must take a firm stand and not genuflect before ``realist' pleas against ``ruining'' the prospects of a ``strategic dialogue'' with Washington.