Editorial

U.S. Duplicity on UN Weapons Inspections

After two months of negotiations, blackmail and arm-twisting which led to the unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council of a U.S. resolution on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, a top Bush advisor has admitted that the United States intends to attack Iraq regardless of whether or not weapons of mass destruction are discovered. Richard Perle, George Bush's top security advisor told British parliamentarians last week that even if the UN weapons inspectors gave Iraq a "clean bill of health", the U.S. military would not halt its planned invasion.

Repeating the line of U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence of weapons of mass destruction", Perle stated: "I cannot see how Hans Blix can state more than he can know. All he can know is the results of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction." Perle went on to assert that unverified allegations that such weapons may exist would be accepted by the Americans as sufficient evidence to warrant an attack, even if the weapons inspectors found nothing.

Any first year logic student would be able to point out the flaws in the American "logic", since it is impossible to prove a negative. However, the U.S. is driven by a desperate need not only to re-establish its previous position as the "leader of the free world", but to extend its empire to every corner of the globe. It will not allow mere logic to get in its way.

Perle's assertion that a U.S. military invasion of Iraq will take place despite the findings of the weapons inspectors and despite the will of the international community proves that the issue of weapons of mass destruction is a red herring. It is generally recognized that the vast majority of the weapons of mass destruction supplied to Saddam Hussein by his then American allies to use in his war against Iran have been destroyed. If he still possesses some weapons of mass destruction, he is certainly in no position to use them against either his neighbours or his own people. On the other hand, the Americans and various of their allies, such as Israel, Britain and Pakistan, not only admit to possessing weapons of mass destruction, but have also declared their intention to use them to attain their political and military goals. The U.S. and Israel have even announced a willingness to use nuclear weapons in a first strike role if they deem it "necessary" to protect their interests.

Despite the arrogant declarations of American officials, a U.S. war against Iraq is not yet a foregone conclusion. The Bush administration is not totally immune to international or domestic opinion. In recent weeks we have witnessed anti-war rallies of hundreds of thousands of people in cities throughout the United States and Europe. A recent demonstration in Florence, Italy held in conjunction with the European Social Forum attracted over one million protesters. Last weekend, thousands of Canadians in every major city added their voices to this opposition to U.S. war plans. In remains to be seen whether this massive international mobilization against American imperial aggression and war will be capable of stopping the U.S. war machine. However, this movement is already comparable in size to the movement of the 1960s and 1970s in opposition to the U.S. aggression against the people of Vietnam. A U.S. invasion of Iraq would provide further impetus towards transforming this movement into a formidable force against U.S. imperialism and in favour of sovereignty, democracy and peace.