No to the Warmongering of Britain and the US!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

No to the Warmongering of Britain and the US!

British and US Warplanes Continue their Violation of Iraq's Airspace

France Calls for Active Role against US

Iraq War Carries Huge Risks Says Briefing Paper

In the face of increasing world-wide opposition to their warmongering, the US and Britain are pressing ahead with their plans to effect an invasion and "regime change" in Iraq. The war plans of the US and Britain are being made under the guise that it is necessary to inspect and destroy weapons of mass destruction, which it is alleged are being stockpiled in Iraq. These plans for war are being made while at the same time the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is claiming that the US and British governments do not want war or "regime change". According to Jack Straw, if Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction are disarmed peacefully, "there will as a result of that not have been regime change per se, but certainly a profound change in the nature of the regime and other things may then happen".

The British government is still attempting to promote the view that it is acting under the auspices of the United Nations. It therefore continues to demand that the members of the UN Security Council agree to a new "tough resolution or resolutions". The government argues these are necessary to give "new powers" to UN weapons inspectors, even though the government of Iraq has already agreed that inspectors will be admitted into Iraq. Are these inspectors answerable to the UN or to the US?

The UN resolution, drafted by the US and supported by Britain, attempted to rob Iraq of its sovereignty, was clearly designed as a provocation and would be impossible for any government to accept. It was framed in such away as to make any opposition from Iraq the justification for an invasion by the US and its allies and was quickly rejected by the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, France, Russia and China. The plans of Anglo-US imperialism for a war against Iraq have been and are being condemned by millions of people throughout the world. Britain and the US were left isolated during the recent debate in the UN General Assembly.

The US and Britain have therefore had to launch a lengthy campaign to attempt to bully and cajole the other members of the Security Council into acting according to their wishes. Both the French and Russian governments have put forward alternative resolutions, and the French government in particular has publicly expressed its opposition to the Anglo-American plans for war. In an interview this week, Jack Straw was forced to admit that Britain and the US had made slow progress. Now there are reports that a compromise has been reached following a demand by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that a decision had to be reached this week, and renewed threats by the US that it would take unilateral action against Iraq if it did not get UN backing. Jack Straw expressed the view that there had now been "a meeting of minds" amongst the permanent members of the Security Council. It is now reported that there may be French support for a new resolution imposing new demands on Iraq but also requiring "consultation" within the Security Council before any subsequent military action against Iraq could be sanctioned. But such consultation would in no way be binding on the US.

The bullying and horse-trading within the Security Council are a graphic illustration of the way in which in which the big powers manipulate the UN for their own purposes, while being ready to ignore it and its resolutions if this suits their purposes. Britain and the US are already in violation of the UN Charter, for example, in regard to the so-called "no-fly zones" and their constant bombardment of Iraq during the last ten years. At the same time it is clear that the governments of Britain, the US and the other big powers are increasingly using force and the threat of force as the means to conduct international affairs and to resolve their growing rivalry and contention throughout the world. This situation is creating growing instability throughout the world and brings ever nearer the danger of a war of catastrophic and global proportions.

The working class and people must take a stand of principle. As regards Britain, they must fight for a foreign policy independent of the US, and one based on peace and justice, and respect for the sovereignty of nations. Britain must end its warmongering now!

Iraqi defence forces have continued repulsing the aggressive attacks launched by British and US warplanes that have targeted civilian areas and installations.

In a statement to the Iraqi News Agency INA on Monday, a military spokesman for the Iraqi Air Defence Command said that the aircraft carried out 36 armed sorties on Sunday coming from their bases in Kuwait backed by AWACS inside the Saudi Arabia airspace.

The spokesman added that the hostile warplanes flew over areas in Ishbisha, Al-bessiya, Al- Juleba, Al- lassaf, As-salman, Al- Qurna, Al-Riffa’I, Kala't Saleh, Al-samawa, Artawi, Al-Rumetha, Affak, Al-Dewaniya, Al-najaf, and Al- Imara.

The Iraqi Anti-Aircraft Defences intercepted the planes and forced them to retreat, the spokesman went on to say.

The spokesman concluded that the total number of armed sorties carried out by the US and British warplanes coming from Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia since December 17, 1998, now totalled 43,963.

The US-British draft UN resolution declares Iraq in "material breach" of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire and warns of "serious consequences" if it fails to live up to UN demands.

France is opposing the declaration of "material breach", warning that this might give a legal basis for a military strike.

Former French Defence Minister Jean Peer Shufinman has called on France to take an active stance towards the US schemes and threats against Iraq.

In an article issued by the Liberation daily entitled "France should take an active role in regard to Iraq'', Shufinman said that someone should have the courage to be able to reject the idea of war. He raised that France's interests and honour would be served through a clear-cut rejection of the idea of war. He warned that war would be a very destructive to the region and to the US itself.

He demanded that France should take an active role to avert war. ''France should play an active role, not just for its sake, but for the sake of the west as a whole and the Americans themselves,'' he said.

Regarding the role of the Danish EU presidency, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the former Danish premier, has said that it had not done enough to pull Europe together on Iraq.

He warns that a UN role is vital to maintain momentum in the "war on terror".

"What is fundamental, right from the beginning, is that the United Nations is the legitimate basis for the process," he said.

"Secondly it is fundamental that the fight against terrorism is based upon insisting that your global alliance is still there. If the global alliance falls apart then we have problems, serious problems, which we will have among our ordinary people also. I would say that the Iraqi question doesn't need to be a distraction in ordinary people's mind from the fight against terrorism". He added, "As long as it is closely connected to the UN and as long as the process is handled through the UN."

A US-led war to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is highly likely to be launched early in 2003 but risks the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, a briefing paper from the Oxford Research Group warned on Monday.

The report, "Iraq: Consequences of War", says that war with Iraq:

• is likely to result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians,
• carries a high risk of the use of weapons of mass destruction, and
• will lead to substantial regional instability, and increased support for al-Qaida.

The report, a detailed 10,000-word analysis by Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University, one of the foremost authorities on international security and consultant to Oxford Research Group, using the most up-to-date information on how the US might fight the war, and how the Saddam Hussein regime might respond, concludes:

• the regime will aim to draw the US forces into urban warfare in Baghdad. A civilian death toll of at least 10,000 is likely, three times as many as died in the 11 September attacks;
• this is a low estimate, the experience of urban warfare in Beirut and elsewhere suggests even higher casualties;
• evidence of Iraqi military tactics in 1991 shows that the survival of the regime is the core policy and that chemical and biological weapons are almost certain to be used, certainly against attacking troops and possibly against targets in neighbouring countries;
• severe casualties arising to Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons could result in a nuclear response - the first use of nuclear weapons since August 1945.

Even on the "best-case" outcome of regime destruction with minimal loss of life, the effect of replacing Saddam Hussein with a client regime would be deeply counterproductive.

A pro-American regime in Baghdad would be seen across the region as a puppet government through which the US seeks to control Iraq's oil, currently four times the size of total US oil reserves including Alaska.

This would be a "gift" to al-Qaida and other paramilitary groups who have longed claimed that the United States in the Gulf solely because of the region's oil reserves. Support for such groups would rise, with an increased risk of further paramilitary attacks on the US and other states involved in the war. The report concludes that destroying the Iraqi regime by force is a highly dangerous venture and that alternative policies should be urgently developed.