|
www.iraqconflict.org www.iraqconflict.org www.iraqconflict.org www.iraqconflict.org |
||||||||||
|
April 23, 2003 CONTENTS
The official
justification for the coalition's use of military force
against Iraq was to disarm that country of its weapons of mass
destruction because they posed a threat to international peace
and security and because the inspection process was not
working. On 17 March,
the former UK Foreign Secretary and then Leader of the House
of Commons, Robin Cook, resigned from the Cabinet and told
Parliament that "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood
sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being
delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still
has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but
it has had them since the 1980s…" [Hansard, col.727] This
begs a number of questions. For instance, to describe
battlefield chemical munitions as "weapons of mass
destruction" would stretch the meaning of the term beyond
credibility, but what of the biological toxins? Exactly to
what extent did these biological and chemical agents represent
a realistic threat that could not be dealt with by vigorous
international inspection? And since the collapse of
centralized state control in Iraq, how confident can we be
that such capabilities have not been spirited away, perhaps to
reappear in terrorist hands?
Notwithstanding
the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein's detested regime,
the reason why the United States and Britain went to war now
needs to be re-visited, carefully analysed and objectively
re-assessed on both sides of the Atlantic. It is
important that the
UK Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee begins that
process when it questions the Foreign Secretary next Tuesday. It
is also vital that weapons inspections recommence as soon as
possible to verify whether Iraq does have weapons of mass
destruction. If these are to be credible and have the
confidence of the international community, it is essential
that they are carried out under the auspices of the UN. Dr.
Stephen Pullinger, Executive Director, ISIS QUOTES OF THE WEEK “It
is obvious that the US administration has a role to play…it
is useless to go back to what divided us…let us turn to the
future” “The President is looking forward, not backward.” “In the beginning,
our opposition to foreign occupation will be expressed by
peaceful means. If,
after a certain point, non- violence produces no result, we
will then have to decide what to do.” "The importance of the
war in Iraq is that it has demonstrated for the
first time in history the capacity of one country,
the United States, to destroy
a totalitarian regime without destroying the country. That's
never been done in
human history." “Washington
has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will forever
believe that it paved the road to war with lies”. AidUN aid agencies have stated that the situation in Iraq is improving but still precarious. The World Food Programme (WFP) announced the opening of a new food corridor into Iraq, its fourth, with the departure of 20 trucks from Damascus, Syria, for Mosul with 1,000 tons of wheat flour, enough for more than 110,000 people for a month. According
to the UK Department for International Development there
are an average of 20 humanitarian missions each day, mostly
entering Southern Iraq and 40% of which are by UN agencies.
However, latest
reports from ICRC staff in Baghdad, Basra and Arbil conclude
that gradual improvements in some areas belie enormous needs
in others and that security is
still a major problem, preventing much-needed hospital
staff from getting to work. There have also been reports
that war damage to the water system and lack of power to run
purification plants have led to outbreaks of cholera and
typhoid. US
contractor violates human rights. DynCorp, the US company awarded a multimillion contract to police Iraq, has been exposed as violating human rights and civil liberties whilst performing a similar role in Bosnia. The corporation, which has donated some $100,000 to the US Republican party, was forced to pay £110,000 to a UN police officer it unfairly sacked for whistle blowing on colleagues involved in an illegal sex ring. UN Security Council meetsThe UN Security Council (UNSC) held two informal
sessions on 22 April to discuss Iraq’s WMD programme and the
Oil-for-Food programme. Hans
Blix addressed the UNSC for the first time since 19 March,
and took the opportunity to emphasise the need for inspections
to take place under a UN mandate and be conducted by UN
inspectors. Amid
growing concern that inspections had been taken over by the
US, Blix argued that the return of UN inspectors would
guarantee the credibility and independence of such
inspections. He asserted that UNMOVIC could resume limited operations
within two weeks of the return of staff. In a surprising turnaround, France – which had
demonstrated its reluctance to support US calls for the lifting
of the sanctions against Iraq – decided that it would
support their removal. The
French Ambassador to the UN, Jean-Marc de la Sabiere, also
recommended the gradual phasing out of the Oil-for-Food
programme. More funds available from Oil-for-Food programme It was announced that the programme had identified a further
$60 million worth of supplies that could be shipped to
Iraq within the 45-day time frame under which the it was
extended by the UNSC. Executive
Director of the UN Office of Iraq programme, Benon Sevan is
now seeking a three-week extension of the Oil-for-Food
programme to deliver further supplies. The hunt for Iraq’s weapons
US
and British forces in Iraq continue to be frustrated in their
search for conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons it was
banned from possessing after the 1991 Gulf War. US officials
hope scientists and other Iraqis will feel free to provide
information now that the regime is gone. US
officials are questioning several top Iraqi
officials who were involved in former weapons programmes and
the Pentagon has offered rewards of up to $200,000 for
information on weapons of mass destruction. A US-led Iraq
Survey Group, a largely civilian team of around 1,000
scientists, technicians, intelligence analysts and other
experts is also waiting to be deployed in Iraq (Wall Street
Journal, 17 April). Britain’s premier scientific institution calls for removal
of depleted uranium
On 16 April, the UK’s Royal
Society said that hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium
used in British and US weapons in Iraq should be removed to
protect the civilian population, contradicting Pentagon claims
that it was not necessary. US
wrangling over Iraqi Truth and Reconciliation Commission Plans to set up a South African-style Truth and
Reconciliation Commission for Iraq could be wrecked by
disagreement between the Pentagon and the US State Department
over how to try war criminals and members of Saddam
Hussein’s regime suspected of human rights atrocities,
reported The
Observer (20 April).
The Transitional Justice Project in Iraq, sponsored by
the State Department, was set up by a group of exiled Iraqi
lawyers, and Indict, a British-based human rights group, seven
years ago. The project is keen to establish a tribunal in Iraq
and staff it with Iraqi lawyers and officials. The Pentagon is
known to prefer a military tribunal model, with senior figures
from Saddam’s regime being flown out of the country for
questioning. US army fail to protect looted museum Leaked documents cited by The
Observer (20 April) suggest that the US Army ignored
warnings from its own civilian advisers that could have
stopped the looting of priceless artifacts from Iraq’s
national museum in Baghdad. The Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), set up to supervise the
reconstruction of postwar Iraq, identified in March the museum
as a ‘prime target for looters’ and the second top
priority for securing by coalition troops after the national
bank. More than 270,000 artifacts are reported to have been
taken during the looting of the museum. “It’s a tragedy
and a disaster for our image and for rebuilding Iraq”, said
one ORHA official. Regional and Strategic Impacts Israel to
get oil lifeline? The Israeli government is negotiating with the US, Jordan and future Iraqi leaders over the possibility of resurrecting a plan to supply Israel with Iraqi oil, thus cutting their energy costs by 25%. The plan, which would see the rebuilding of the pipe line from Mosul to Haifa, was last used in 1948. Taliban revival sounds warning on future of Iraq According to reports Afghanistan is witnessing a resurgence of the Taliban and seeing active targeting of westerners and Aid agencies in a bid to halt reconstruction of the country. The killings of four foreigners in the last month has seen aid companies abandon areas of the country as reports continue that the Taliban has used the war in Iraq to regroup and launch offensives against outside agencies. Large reconstruction projects that were promised after the war have yet to materialise, and there are fears that the lack of international aid, which is lower per head than in Kosovo and East Timor, will lead to more support for the resurgent Taliban. (The Times 23/04/03) Permanent
US military bases in Iraq?
Senior Bush administration officials have said that the US Government is planning to maintain four military bases in Iraq at: the international airport just outside Baghdad; Taail, near Nasiriya in the south; an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert; and the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north. Arab
reaction to US in Baghdad
King
Abdullah of Jordan has warned in a BBC
interview that there are continuing apprehensions in the
Arab world about American intentions following the invasion of
Iraq. He said that there was concern over who would next be
targeted by the United States, and that the coalition would
have to be very careful how it described what it wanted from
Iraq. The only way to remove apprehension, King Abdullah said,
was by moving fast on the roadmap promised by President Bush
for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Arafat-Abbas row threatens road map to peace The row between Palestine Authority leader Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Prime Minister designate, Mahmoud Abbas, over the makeup of the Palestinian cabinet has increased fears that there will be no negotiated peace with Israel. The dispute centres on Abbas’s desire to confront Palestinian organisations linked to Arafat's Fatah party which are involved in attacks on Israel. It has been made clear to Arafat by the international community, and personally by Blair, that the row stands in the way of peace in the region. European debatesEuropean commissioner Paul Nielson is planning to visit Iraq to assess the humanitarian situation, possibly with Kenzo Oshima, head of the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in early May. According to Mr Nielson, the visit will prove that ‘it’s a question of showing Iraq that it's business as usual in terms of delivering humanitarian aid.’ Nielson has also written to Kofi Annan suggesting that the UN should take accreditation for relief workers operating in Iraq since they currently have no legal status as visas issued by Saddam Hussein are no longer valid. His response was triggered by fears that the US might decide which aid agencies can be based in the country, thereby hindering their impartiality. (European Voice 17-23 April ) The Italians are to prioritise rebuilding EU US relations during their forthcoming presidency of the EU according to Gianfranco Fini in the Milan newspaper Corriere della Sera. Italy has provided political support for the war in Iraq and believes that its good relationship with the US will offer the opportunity to rebuild transatlantic bridges. UK debatesLabour MP George Galloway has been accused of receiving £375,000 on a yearly basis from Saddam Hussein. Documents found in the Iraqi foreign ministry by a Daily Telegraph journalist allegedly reveal that Galloway asked an Iraqi official for cash from the oil for food programme back in 1999. Galloway has launched a libel action against the newspaper. US debates In the wake of US calls for the immediate lifting of sanctions on Iraq, suspicions remain in Washington regarding the role of the UN in the governing of post-war Iraq and regarding the return of weapons inspectors. Such suspicions were confirmed with the US announcement of its own team of about one thousand specialists to assess the extent of an Iraqi WMD programme (see above). The wide-spread anti-American sentiments expressed by many of Shia pilgrims to the city of Karbala this week appears to have caught the Bush administration off-guard. A Washington Post article asserted that officials had underestimated the strength of this majority of the Iraqi population and quoted one official as claiming that 'the US government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out.' Before
leaving for a two-week recess, on April 12 Congress approved a
$78.5 billion "emergency spending" bill to pay the
initial costs of the Iraq war and its aftermath. With support
of Republican leaders, Congress did limit the wide latitude
that President Bush had sought in dispensing the money. In one
significant interagency
battle, Congress
did allow the president to distribute $2.4 billion in Iraqi
reconstruction funds to the Pentagon in addition to
non-military agencies (especially the State Department) –
this concession came only after intense lobbying by Vice
President Dick Cheney. There
are reports
of increasing tensions between the Departments of State and
Defence on the control of foreign policy in the aftermath of
Iraq. One specific source of tension has been the role in Iraq
for Iraqi exile leader Ahmed Chalabi which the State
Department initially sought to limit, but Defence strongly
supports. In the US, support for the war and the UN remains steady The number of polls has diminished in the last two weeks, and those that have been conducted reveal no radical changes of opinion. In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, support for the US having gone to war with Iraq was at 78%, down a mere 2% from the week previous. When asked about stability within Iraq, 65% believed the US to be doing enough to restore civil order, while 31% felt it should be doing more. Interestingly, support for UN (rather than US control) over post-conflict Iraq continued, although barely. Nearly half those polled, favoured the UN for maintaining civil order – 49%, with 45% preferring the US. A full 51% favoured the UN to award contracts to companies for the rebuilding of Iraq with 41% believing that role should lie with the US. Finally, 55% believed the UN to be the preferred body for helping to establish a new government in Iraq, with 39% believing the same of the US. However, a Gallup poll revealed that, for all the talk of reconstruction, the majority of Americans (69%) still do not believe the war to be over. This poll broadly corroborated the other in terms of the level of support for the war, placing it at 73%. Finally, 60% of those polled considered the war to have gone very well for the US, with 33% believing it to have gone moderately well. British public still cautious In the United Kingdom, there are signs that support for the war has dropped somewhat, with the latest Daily Telegraph/ITV News poll placing it at 60%, down from 66% a few days earlier. When asked to rate President Bush’s handling of the crisis thus far, 52% considered it to be excellent or good, and 46% considered it poor or very poor. Tony Blair commanded slightly higher approval, with 62% considering his handling of the situation to have been excellent or good and 37% believing it to be poor or very poor. Approval of both men has dropped slightly. Another poll, prepared for the Mail on Sunday and released on 14 April, showed broad support (44%) for the UN taking charge of running Iraq until a new Iraqi government takes over. A further 19% believed that the UN should have the power to decide on the running of Iraq, but should allow Britain and the US to do so. Nearly a third – 31% - believed that the UN should provide only humanitarian help. If you would like to unsubscribe from these email updates, please email: unsubscribe@iraqconflict.org. If you would like to subscribe another email address, please email: subscribe@iraqconflict.org and include your name and affiliation (optional). We welcome any comments
or feedback. Home - Mission - News - Opinion - Publications - Links - Search
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
