Iraq, the necessary U.S. enemy

George Monbiot, Guardian News Service, London

There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House as the singing of the birds.

Our role is confined to the task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all those states perceived to offend U.S. strategic interests. No task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies contained in Bush's radio address on Saturday: That "the United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war" and "we hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands".

Bush appears to have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that military conflict becomes inevitable.

On July 4, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN inspections for three and a half years, but now it felt the screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to the New York Times. The U.S., a Pentagon official revealed, was preparing "a major air campaign and land invasion" to "topple President Saddam Hussein". The talks immediately collapsed.

Eleven days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re-entering the country. The U.S. airforce launched bombing raids on Basra, in southern Iraq, destroying a radar system. As Russia pointed out, the attack could scarcely have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this time the Iraqis agreed to let the UN back in. The State Department announced that it would "go into thwart mode".

The following day, it leaked the draft resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan for unopposed invasion. The decisions about which sites should be "inspected" would no longer be made by the UN alone, but also by "any permanent member of the Security Council", such as the U.S.

The inspectors could also be chosen by the U.S., and they would enjoy "unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq" and "the right to free, unrestricted and immediate movement" within Iraq, "including unrestricted access to presidential sites". They would be permitted to establish "regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq", where they would be "accompanied ... by sufficient U.S. security forces to protect them". They would have the right to declare exclusion zones, no- fly zones and "ground and air transit corridors". They would be allowed to fly and land as many planes, helicopters and surveillance drones in Iraq as they want, to set up "encrypted communication" networks and to seize "any equipment".

The resolution could not have failed to remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the UN team in 1996. Both Iraq and the former inspector Scott Ritter maintain that the inspectors were joined that year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the UN's special access to collect information and encourage the republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain and the U.S. instructed the weapons inspectors not to enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.

As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the U.S. has been undermining disarmament for years. The UN's principal means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the Security Council's resolution 687, which promised that economic sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to possess weapons of mass destruction. But in April 1994, Warren Christopher, the U.S. secretary of state, withdrew this promise. Three years later his successor, Madeleine Albright, insisted that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power.

The U.S. maintains that Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true. On Oct. 30, 1998, the U.S. rejected a new UN proposal by again refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On the following day, Iraq announced that it would cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it permitted them to continue working, and over the next six weeks they completed around 300 operations.

On Dec. 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection team, published a curiously contradictory report. It recorded that "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation", but his well-publicized conclusion was that "no progress" had been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On Dec. 15, the U.S.ambassador to the UN warned him that his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled out, and on the following day the U.S. started bombing Iraq.

From that point on, Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offered to send in his own inspectors.

The U.S. demanded Bustani's dismissal. The other member states agreed to depose him only after the U.S. threatened to destroy the organization if he stayed. Now Hans Blix, the head of the new UN inspectorate, may also be feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take his orders only from the Security Council. On Thursday he agreed with the Americans that there should be no inspections until approval of a new resolution.

For the past eight years the U.S., with Britain's help, appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution of the crisis in Iraq. It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice, as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion demands. Today, as the economy slides and Osama bin Laden's latest mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, the peaceful means have been averted.