The United States and possible war on Iraq

CND opposes all nuclear weapons as well as all other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The possession or use of WMD cannot be justified under any circumstances. We oppose such weapons, whoever possesses them, whether it be the declared Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) of the United States , Britain , France , Russia and China or the undeclared states of India , Pakistan and Israel . It also includes the possession of chemical or biological weapons by any states.

CND believes that international nuclear disarmament can be brought about only by diplomacy and negotiation, not by military action. CND is alarmed at the recent rejection of such treaties by the US , for example the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. United Nations resolutions and international treaties, including the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), must be adhered to by all nations, not just Iraq .

Background When the Gulf War ended in 1991, there were many in the US Administration who felt that there was still ‘unfinished business’. The fact that Saddam Hussein remained in power rankled with many. Resolution 687, known as the ceasefire resolution and adopted by the United Nations Security Council, had called for many things (see below) but it did not include getting rid of Saddam.

After the horrific attacks of 11 September 2001 , initial suspicions centred on Iraq . But it soon became clear that there was no link. Indeed it was never likely that Iraq , a secular state, would support Islamic organisations. Speculation moved on to Iraq possibly sponsoring terrorist groups. But again, no proof was found. The reason for any possible war then moved on to Iraq ’s possession of WMD. There were conflicting reports from different former UN Weapons Inspectors as to whether this was possible. But again, no proof has been presented. So now the mission is described in the way that many thought it was all about in the first place, namely that a ‘regime change’ would be beneficial. This view was supported by news that an organisation named ‘Project for the New American Century (PNAC)’ published in September 2000 a report called ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’. It called for a regime change in Iraq , talked about how to achieve that and the US role in the future of the Middle East. It shows that plans to attack Iraq were there well before Bush was even elected. Another paper on the PNAC website was sent to Clinton in 1998 outlining how important it was for Saddam to be overthrown. The PNAC includes the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials and advisors such as Paul Wolfowicz, John Bolton, Lewis Libby and Richard Perle.

Many commentators also take the view that US strategic and resource priorities - especially securing access to the region's oil reserves - are a key factor in the US 's attitude towards Saddam's regime.

The current situation George W Bush and others in his administration are certainly keen to launch an attack on Iraq . Some of the US senior military personnel and those with military experience, such as US Secretary of State Colin Powell, were initially far more cautious. This has led to another ‘charm offensive’ whereby the US talks to as many countries as possible in an attempt to win their support. Pakistan , India and many countries in the Middle East are opposed while Britain and most of Europe are either undecided or would support action only if there were proof of WMD possession.

The possible consequences of an attack were highlighted by a number of speeches and comments during 2002. Iraq was one of the countries named on President Bush’s nuclear hit-list, those states that the US could consider attacking with nuclear weapons. The US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, spoke of not necessarily needing proof before attacking a state. Closer to home, Geoff Hoon talked about the possibility of Britain using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state. Although this was not really a change of policy ( Britain , along with the US , France and Russia , does not have a no-first-use policy) it was unusual for it to be made in public and particularly at such a time of tension. In addition to that, the threat to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state contravenes agreed Negative Security Assurances. UK nuclear weapons are part of the NATO nuclear arsenal, which also has a first strike policy, and has refused to give Negative Security Assurances.

A further concern is the development of new nuclear weapons by both the US and Britain . These ‘mini-nukes’ are meant to be for penetrating command bunkers and all deep-buried targets. They are clearly being seen as useable nuclear weapons. The danger of even contemplating using such weapons in Iraq is clear. But they would also lower the threshold generally.

UN Resolution 687
As with all resolutions of this type, there was a long list of events that were noted, or that caused concern, before getting on to what Iraq actually had to do. But this list contained many interesting clauses for us to examine. For example:

• That Iraq has subscribed to the 1925 Geneva Protocol held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons.
• That Iraq has signed, but not ratified, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972.
• The importance of all States adhering to this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the convention.
• The importance of an early conclusion by the CD of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto
• Concerned that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the NPT
• Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East ,
• Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons
• The resolution also called for Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the NPT.

While of course, CND would support Iraq adhering to all of the above, we would also support ALL states having to do the same. We fully support universal adherence to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the conventions banning chemical and biological weapons. However, countries like the US and Britain are hardly in a position to criticise anyone for breaking these treaties when they themselves do the same. In the summer of 2001, the US withdrew from the Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. They launched a diplomatic campaign that led to the ousting of the head of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Along with all the nuclear weapon states, they still have failed to carry out their obligations under the NPT. (For more details see the CND document ‘The United Kingdom’s Record on Nuclear Disarmament’ written in April 2002 for the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting in May 2002).

Of course, this also brings up again the idea that it’s acceptable for some countries to have WMD but not others. To have a situation where the country with more nuclear weapons than any other, and we don’t know how many chemical or biological weapons the US possesses, wants to stop another country from having any at all, is farcical. The hypocrisy is staggering. If the US , or anyone else, says that it needs WMD to protect itself, then why shouldn’t every country do the same? The only just situation is for no-one to have them.

This is a very strong resolution but many countries are selecting the bits that they support and ignoring others which they might find difficult. For example, the clauses concerning a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and all WMD. This cannot be achieved without considering Israel 's nuclear weapons. Indeed, if the criteria for this proposed war is possession of WMD and failure to comply with UN resolutions, Israel could be next on the list.

Halabja
Much is made of the fact that the threat from Saddam Hussein possessing WMD is clear as he once used them on his own people. Perhaps we can put to one side the fact that it is highly unlikely that Saddam considers Kurds to be his own people. The reference is to the chemical weapons attack on the town of Halabja in the 1980s. It is interesting to note how attitudes have changed. At the time, the attack was barely reported. CND and the peace movement tried hard to raise the issue. It should be remembered that when the attack happened, Iraq was on ‘our side’. The ‘enemy’ in the region was Iran and during the Iran-Iraq war, despite Britain at one point arming both sides, the West supported Iraq . This was why some reports from the US at the time blamed Iran for the attack. So Saddam may have been an ‘evil dictator’ but he was our ‘evil dictator’. At the time the idea of attacking civilians with chemical weapons wasn’t seen as a problem to the governments of the West. Now it’s convenient to use it as part of an excuse to go to war.

UN Weapons Inspectors
CND thinks that it is vital for weapons inspectors to be back in Iraq . However, there are problems. We were informed by Iraqi sources at the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting in May 2002 that the inspectors would be allowed back in if a timeframe could be agreed. Proposals from the UN wanted inspectors to go where they liked, when they liked and to stay as long as they liked. It’s difficult to see any country accepting such proposals. In November 2002, a resolution put by the US and UK was finally agreed by the UN Security Council. Provided there are no problems, this would mean weapons inspectors back in Iraq by December 2002, reporting back about a month after.

CND stressed that Islamic Holy Days should be respected, the inspection team should be truly international and there should be no repeat of earlier inspection teams containing spies. CND supports inspectors in ALL countries which have weapons of mass destruction.

Now that Saddam Hussein has accepted the UN resolution and UN inspectors are about to go back into Iraq, we await their report with interest, particularly in light of the comments of the former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He dismissed allegations that Iraq could have re-established its weapons programmes since inspectors withdrew in 1998. He explained that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gases that would have been detected by now if they existed and nuclear weapons emit gamma rays that would have been detected. As the US has been watching via satellite and other means, it would have seen the signs.

A report from the International Institute of Strategic Studies was held up as proof that action against Iraq was necessary. But two points in particular stood out. One was that Iraq could produce a crude nuclear device if it received enough weapons-grade material and extensive foreign help, but "there is no evidence that Iraq had done so". The other was that it said that Iraq 's chemical, biological and ballistic missile programmes are all far less potent now than 11 years ago.

Conclusions
Any war on Iraq is going to kill thousands of innocent civilians and as such would be illegal as well as immoral. If the British Government supported such a war, it would be guilty of a crime against humanity. CND agrees with Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark who said “An attack by the United States on Iraq to overthrow its government would be a flagrant violation of the UN charter, the Nuremberg charter and international law”.

So why do the US and Britain seem so keen to attack Iraq ? CND believes that the US and Britain are being hypocritical in their statements on Iraq .

If they want to attack Iraq because they may have WMD then why not condemn India , Pakistan , Israel and themselves? If it is because they have broken UN resolutions then what about Israel , Iran , Pakistan , among others? If it is simply a case of wanting a regime change, the quote from Ramsey Clark says it all.

The US , along with any other country, has the right to oppose the policies of any world leader. But that does not give them the right to go to war. It does not give them the right to bomb and kill thousands of innocent civilians.

It is also very clear that, despite the rhetoric, a war would not be about democracy. Saddam Hussein is a Sunni Muslim, a minority in Iraq . However, it is inconceivable that the west would allow either the Shia Muslims (who are considered to be more ‘fundamentalist’ with strong links to Iran ) or the Kurds (which would be unacceptable to Turkey , a member of NATO) to be in control. So it would not be left to the Iraqi people to choose a new government or leader.

CND supports all international treaties aimed at abolishing nuclear weapons and all WMD. We must use all forms of protest to bring tremendous pressure to bear on our government. Marches , lobbies, publicity, advertising and direct action. And we need to involve all sections of the community.

CND November 2002
(This briefing is accurate at the time of writing. However, the situation is changing fast and we will update this briefing as often as possible).

Help Support Us Today

Back to Top

privacy statement | Sitemap