The United States vs. Iraq --

A Study in Hypocrisy

by William Blum

Feb. 9, 1998

"We have heard that a half million children have died,"

said "60 Minutes" reporter Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions

against Iraq. "I mean, that's more children than died in

Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"

Her guest, in May 1996, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine

Albright, responded: "I think this is a very hard choice, but

the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Today, Secretary of State Albright travels around the

world to gather support for yet more bombing of Iraq. The price,

apparently, is still worth it. The price is of course being

paid solely by the Iraqi people -- a million or so men, women and

children, dead and a previously well-off nation plunged into

poverty, disease, and malnutrition from the previous bombings and

seven years of sanctions.

Their crime? They have a leader who refuses to cede

all sovereignty to the United States (acting under its usual

United Nations cover) which demands that every structure in Iraq,

including the presidential palaces, be available for

inspection for "weapons of mass destruction". After more

than six years of these inspections, and significant destruction

of stocks of forbidden chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon

material, as well as weapons research and development programs,

the UN team still refuses to certify that Iraq is clean enough.

Inasmuch as the country is larger than California, it's

understandable that the inspectors can not be certain that

all prohibited weapons have been uncovered. It's equally

understandable that Iraq claims that the United States can,

and will, continue to find some excuse not to give Iraq the

certification needed to end the sanctions. Indeed, President

Clinton has said more than once that the U.S. will not allow

sanctions to be lifted as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.

It can be said that the United States has inflicted more vindictive

punishment and ostracism upon Iraq than upon Germany or Japan

after World War 2.

The Saddam Hussein regime must wonder at the high (double)

standard set by Washington. Less than a year ago, the U.S.

Senate passed an act to implement the "Convention on the

Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and

Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction" (Short title:

Chemical Weapons Convention), an international treaty which

has been ratified by more than 100 nations in its five-year

life.

The Senate act, Section 307, stipulates that "the

President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the

United States in cases where the President determines that

the inspection may pose a threat to the national security

interests of the United States." Saddam has asked for no more

than that for Iraq. Presumably, under the Senate act, the White

House, Pentagon, etc. would be off limits, as Saddam insists his

presidential palaces should be, as well as the military unit

responsible for his personal security, which an American colonel

demanded to visit.

Section 303 further states that "Any objection by the

President to an individual serving as an inspector ... shall

not be reviewable in any court." Again, this echoes a repeated

complaint from the Iraqis -- a recent team of 16 inspectors

included 14 from the US and Britain, Saddam's two principal

adversaries, who are, at this very moment, busily planning

new bombing raids on Iraq. The team was led by a U.S.

Marine Corps captain, a veteran of the Gulf War, who has been

accused of spying by Iraq. But the Iraqis do not have a

corresponding right of exclusion. The same section of the

Senate act provides, moreover, that an FBI agent "accompanies

each inspection team visit".

The wishes of the Iraqi government to place certain

sites off limits and to have less partisan inspectors have been

dismissed out of hand by U.S. government spokespersons and

the American media. "What do they have to hide?" has been the

prevailing attitude.

The hypocrisy runs deeper yet. In his recent State of

the Union address, President Clinton, in the context of Iraq,

spoke of how we must "confront the new hazards of chemical and

biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and

organized criminals seeking to acquire them." He castigated

Saddam Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical and

biological weapons" and called for strengthening the Biological

Weapons Convention. Who among his listeners knew, who among the

media reported, that the United States had been the supplier to

Iraq of much of the source biological materials Saddam's scientists

would require to create a biological warfare program?

According to a Senate Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not

earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological

materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers

pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department

of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow

and agonizing deaths, were:

Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs,

brain, spinal cord and heart.

Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major

organs.

Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria

causing systemic illness.

Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.

Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human

and bacterial DNA.

Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped

to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out:

"These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and

were capable of reproduction."

"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these

microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to

those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the

Iraqi biological warfare program."

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite

the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical

warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds,

and Shiites since the early 80s.

During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave

military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping

that each would inflict severe damage on the other, in line

perhaps with what Noam Chomsky has postulated:

It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy

since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy

resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by

the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no

independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a

substantial influence on the administration of oil production

and price.

Indeed, there is evidence that Washington encouraged Iraq

to attack Iran and ignite the war in the first place. This policy,

as well as financial considerations, were likely the motivating

forces behind providing Iraq with the biological materials.

(Iran was at that time regarded as the greater threat to the

seemingly always threatened U.S. national security.)

As the American public and media are being prepared to

accept and cheerlead the next bombing of the people of Iraq,

the stated rationale, the official party line, is that Iraq is

an "outlaw" state (or "rogue" state, or "pariah" state -- the

media obediently repeats all the White House and State Department

buzz words), which is ignoring a United Nations Security Council

resolution. Israel, however, has ignored many such resolutions

without the U.S. bombing Tel Aviv, imposing sanctions, or even

cutting back military aid. But by some arcane ideological

alchemy, Israel is not deemed an "outlaw" state by Washington.

Neither does the United States regard itself as such for turning

its back on a ruling of the U.N.'s World Court in 1984 to cease

its hostile military actions against Nicaragua, or for the

numerous times the U.S. has totally ignored overwhelming General

Assembly resolutions, nor for its repeated use of chemical and

biological agents against Cuba since the 1960s.

In any event, the weapons monitoring disagreement is between

Iraq and the United Nations, not Iraq and the United States. And

the UN has not authorized any of its members to use force. "What

gives Britain and the United States the right to go it alone on

this?" asked an unusually brave reporter at a Feb.6 Clinton/Blair

press conference.

Neither President Clinton nor Prime Minister Blair responded.

The bombing looks to be inevitable. The boys are busy moving

all their toys into position; they can already see the battle

decorations hanging from their chests. Of course, no one knows what

it will accomplish besides more death and destruction. Saddam will

remain in power. He'll be more stubborn than ever about the

inspections. There may be one consolation for the Iraqi people. The

Washington Post has reported that Secretary of Defense William Cohen

has indicated that "U.S. officials remain wary of doing so much

military damage to Iraq as to weaken its regional role as a counterweight

to Iran." In the not too distant future, when Iran begins to flex its

muscles a bit more, in ways not to Washington's pleasure, it may then be

their turn for some good ol' American "diplomacy".

{1} U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports

to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of

the Persian Gulf War (May 25, 1994)

Written by William Blum

Author: Killing Hope: U.S. Military

and CIA Interventions Since World War II

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

(Note capital "A" and underline _)

email: bblum6@aol.com

William Blum page