International Opposition Growing to US Aggression against Iraq

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

International Opposition Growing to US Aggression against Iraq
Government Fails to Give Assurance over Iraq despite Movement in Opposition
Britain’s Preparations for War with Iraq

Vietnamese President Backs World Efforts against Nuclear War

Guyanese President Warns of Globalisation

George W Bush and Tony Blair are facing growing domestic and international opposition to their planned war against Iraq as world leaders, British and American politicians, and religious leaders openly voice objections.

Gerhard Schroeder, the German Chancellor, launched his re-election campaign with an outspoken attack on American military adventures, and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, declared that an invasion of Iraq would be unwise. Herr Schroeder pledged that Germany would not participate in an attack without UN authority. "Pressure on Saddam Hussein, yes. But toying with war and military intervention – I can only warn against that," he told 10,000 supporters in Hanover. "Under my leadership Germany will not be available for adventures."

Jordan and Turkey, key allies from which any invasion would be launched, have emphasised their strong opposition during a visit of the Turkish Foreign Minister to Amman.

Patriotic Union for Kurdistan (PUK) leader Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the PUK would not take part blindly in a possible US operation against Iraq, according to a report in English by Turkish news agency Anatolia.

Responding to questions of journalists after meeting Foreign Ministry Under-secretary Ugur Ziyal in the Foreign Ministry, Talabani said that he did not yet know the aim of a possible US operation against Iraq and whether or not they would have a role in such an operation.

Noting that PUK is against the division of Iraq, Talabani said that they fight for a democratic, parliamentary and secular Iraq which would meet the demands of Kurds, not for an independent Kurdish state. Talabani said that Turkey should not believe in rumours claiming that Iraq would be divided, adding: "We are first of all Iraqi and we want a united Iraq."

The Arab League restated on Monday its absolute rejection of US threats to launch a military strike against Iraq, stressing that any such military action would be "dangerous and unwise". The Arab League's Secretary General's spokesman, Hisham Youssef, welcomed the Iraqi approval to invite the Chief of the International Inspectors team to visit Baghdad, hoping that such movement and the Iraqi-UN contacts would lead to the lifting of sanctions against the people of Iraq, news agency SANA reported.

However, the US under-secretary for arms control, John Bolton, has warned that the US wants to topple the Iraqi dictator's regime regardless of such issues as whether United Nations weapons inspectors are allowed back into the country. President Bush also rejected the latest Iraqi offer to the UN. "Nothing's changed," said Bush. "I'm a patient man. I'll use all the tools at our disposal." On Monday the American energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, called for allies including Britain to build up oil reserves to prevent an economic slowdown should there be a war in the Middle East.

US Administration officials have tried to resurrect suggestions of an Iraqi link to September 11, repeating claims that Mohammad Atta, the lead hijacker, held meetings with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague, a claim that US Intelligence has already dismissed.

The issue is critical for George Bush in the build-up to US military action because it could allow the White House to go over the head of Congress and send in troops and argue that approval from the United Nations was irrelevant. If the White House could possibly fabricate a link between President Saddam and al-Qaida, George W Bush would argue that Congress had already approved military action and no approval was needed. A resolution which passed both Houses on September 14 last year authorised the President to use all necessary force against "those nations, organisations or persons he determines planned, authorised, committed or aided" in the September 11 attacks.

However, Congressmen and women are reported to be increasingly sceptical about President Bush's plans to remove President Saddam Hussein by force and are demanding the right to veto sending US troops. Republican Arlen Specter introduced a bipartisan resolution with Tom Harkin, a Democrat, to require that any decision to go to war be authorised by Congress, which according to the US Constitution is the only body that can declare war. Arlen Specter also questioned claims of an al-Qaida link to Iraq. He said: "The resolution passed on September 14 to act against al-Qaida does not apply to Iraq unless there is some evidence that al-Qaida and Iraq are tied together, and that hasn't been forthcoming." Richard Lugar, a key Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that removing Saddam Hussein might make the region more dangerous and increase the terrorist threat to the US. Chuck Hagel, a Republican member of the same committee, said it was vital that President Bush answered questions about how he proposed to handle the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow, or the US risked being sucked into another Vietnam.

In Britain, Christian churches have said that the prospect of British involvement is provoking greater opposition among Christians than any military action since the Suez crisis of 1956. Four senior Anglican bishops led by Dr Rowan Williams, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, signed a petition which was presented to Downing Street proclaiming that an attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal. At least eight other bishops have said that they did not believe an assault on Iraq would at present constitute a "just war".

A number of retired military chiefs have also cautioned the government against becoming involved in another Iraqi campaign. Concerns expressed by Field Marshal Lord Bramall, a former Chief of Defence Staff, and General Sir Michael Rose, former Adjutant-General and ex-commander of UN forces in Bosnia, have been shared by Lord Hurd of Westwell.

Whitehall sources said that President Bush had to decide "within a few weeks" for the military to have time to plan and train for a land-sea-air campaign against Iraq early next year.

The British government denied that British troops were being readied for an attack on Iraq. However, the deployment of HMS Ark Royal to the Mediterranean for a NATO exercise next month means the Royal Navy will be in a position to offer the aircraft carrier for operational service if a decision is taken to attack.

Despite the massive opposition, it is by no means certain that it will deflect the US and Britain’s aggressive actions. As Bush is seeking to bypass Congress, so is Blair seeking to bypass Parliament. Both are assuming arbitrary authority. Their argument that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein is not meant to convince anyone. It is meant to buy time, while they leak one invasion plan after another to judge the response, and try feverishly to neutralise international governments, particularly in the Middle East, to their aggression. Even the counter that an attack would make the Middle East more unstable is not necessarily carrying weight in Washington. Provided the hawks convince themselves that the US would benefit from such a conflagration, the Bush administration would not heed the warnings in its barbarous course of imposing the "New World Order".

However, both Blair and Bush would do well to heed the people’s opposition. It is this opposition which is the decisive force, in the Middle East, internationally and in Britain and the US. To deepen and broaden this opposition is the crucial task of the moment. The people’s movement against war and aggression will strengthen itself through posing to itself the task of creating the alternative to the agenda of the "war against terrorism", which includes the danger of aggression against Iraq. The working class and progressive forces must take up this task as one of first-rate importance.

Downing Street has refused to say whether parliament will be recalled in the event of British involvement in a war against Saddam Hussein. Speaking on Monday as pressure for a recall grew, Number 10 refused to give an assurance that MPs would be called back from their summer recess.

Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister might recall Parliament before the point of decision on Iraq or after, his Spokesperson repeated that the Prime Minister would not be pinned down on any specific form of consultation. Asked whether the Prime Minister felt "morally bound" to consult Parliament in light of the fact that the American President was required to consult Congress, the Spokesperson again replied that, as Tony Blair had said in his press conference, he did not wish to be pinned down to any specific form of consultation.

The Father of the Commons, Tam Dalyell, said Blair had "a moral obligation to ask for the recall of parliament in early September". He said, "It is always supposedly too early to make a decision to recall parliament – until it is too late.".

Last Sunday a former chief of the defence staff opposed Britain’s involvement in US plans to remove Saddam Hussein. Field Marshal Lord Bramall said the government should be cautious about going along with any American plans for "regime change" in Iraq. He said that any US-led invasion might not be legally or morally justifiable.

With Tony Blair citing Iraq's drive to develop weapons of mass destruction as the key reason for his possible support for any military action, Lord Bramall said the evidence for any weapons programme was "remarkably sparse". "This is a potentially very dangerous situation, in which this country might be swept into a very, very messy and long-lasting Middle East war," he said.

Lord Bramall, who was Britain's top-ranking military chief from 1982 to 1985, said Western governments did not have a "licence to attack someone else's country just because you don't like the leadership". He told Radio 4’s World This Weekend, "Nowadays, you are supposed to get UN backing for all this. Some lawyers will say you already have that, because Saddam has defied certain UN resolutions, but I think the moral question is not an open-and-shut one. We are supposed to be taking a lead on the moral issues of the world."

British participation in the war against Iraq "could provoke more severe domestic division than Britain has seen since the Suez crisis", a former head of the Ministry of Defence warned on Wednesday. Sir Michael Quinlan, a nuclear weapons expert and former permanent secretary at the MoD, argued that the justness of an American war against Iraq would be "deeply questionable".

Writing in the Financial Times, he said that an assault on Iraq "looks like an unnecessary and precarious gamble, unless there emerges new evidence against Saddam altogether more compelling than any yet disclosed". He urged Tony Blair to give a clear signal to Washington that British military and political support should not be assumed.

"To oppose the US administration would be a very serious step. But this is a very serious matter; and what is influence for?" writes Sir Michael, 71, a visiting professor at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College, London.

He writes: "Why should the international containment that has held for over a decade be now thought likely to break down? It might if his survival were threatened, but to pre-empt the use of biological or chemical weapons by adopting the one course of action most apt to provoke it seems bizarre."

A US war on Iraq would be "deeply questionable" against the tests of the doctrine of a just war, which "rests on centuries of reasoned reflection and underlies much of the modern law of war". Among the tests it would fail are those of "just cause, proportionality and right authority". Though a United Nations Security Council vote "cannot be the sole and imperative condition" for an attack, previous UN resolutions "cannot be an adequate basis for a regime-changing assault over a decade later in circumstances in which the Security Council would certainly refuse assent if consulted now".

One Whitehall source said that if the United States was seriously considering an operation against Iraq early next year, the military would need time to ensure that the right forces were trained and available. "There will have to be a political decision within a few weeks," the source said.

The Glasgow Kelvin MP George Galloway said, before beginning a visit to Baghdad for talks with senior members of the Iraqi regime: "We have a political dispute with the Iraqi leadership and we have killed one million of their children under sanctions and we are planning a quarter-million man crusader invasion of their country because that particular dictator doesn't obey our orders. I just think that is completely immoral. I think it stinks."

That Tony Blair, in the teeth of the opposition ranging from senior establishment figures to the broad masses of the people, is refusing to commit himself even to "consulting" with parliament speaks volumes about the kind of democracy which exists in Britain. While having no scruples about branding governments as "undemocratic" which do not share Western values, Tony Blair is concentrating authority in his own hands. While the people are declaring, Not In Our Name, the political processes and institutions are being further adapted to ensure this declaration is of absolutely no account.

With Tony Blair supporting George W Bush's declared policy of forcing "regime-change" in Iraq, every training schedule of the British armed forces can be viewed in the light of a possible invasion of Iraq. Aircraft carrier Ark Royal is due to take part in an annual NATO exercise in the Mediterranean in October. However, its readiness might well be as significant as the military exercises in the Gulf of Oman prior to the assault on Afghanistan. HMS Ark Royal has a sophisticated command and control capability, as well as being armed with Sea Harriers and RAF ground-attack Harrier GR7s. It is the first British carrier to be equipped with the new Merlin helicopter.

HMS Illustrious, another carrier, is in "extended readiness" in Portsmouth but could be made available with sufficient notice, and HMS Ocean, the Navy's helicopter carrier, is going in for extensive maintenance. The ship, which will not be ready for operations until November, is to be fitted with special platforms attached to the hull to facilitate loading and offloading of landing craft.

Four of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines are now equipped with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and are likely to play a significant role in any form of military attack on Iraq, whichever option is selected by President Bush. The Tomahawk submarines are HMS Splendid, HMS Triumph, HMS Turbulent, and HMS Trafalgar.

Other British armed forces are also engaged in training that could be viewed as a precursor to action in Iraq. Armoured and artillery units, involving about 1,200 troops, are involved in two exercises in Canada at the British army training facility at Suffield, in Alberta.

The 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, which has just returned from a tour of duty in Northern Ireland, is soon to be deployed on training exercises in Jordan, Belize and Kenya. The 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is also assigned to 16 Air Assault Brigade Task Force, based at Colchester. This force would be among the first to be selected for any type of operation overseas requiring rapidly deployed troops. The 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment is training for Northern Ireland for a tour due to last from September until March next year.

Unlike Britain, the United States has a huge stock of pre-positioned equipment in the Gulf, and the Pentagon would be able to deploy thousands of troops to the region at relatively short notice.

Vietnamese President Tran Duc Luong has expressed Vietnam's strong support for the on-going global struggle to ward off the danger of a nuclear war and to eliminate all kinds of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.

The president expressed this in a message to the 2002 international conference against A-bombs and H-bombs being held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, from August 2-9.

"A nation that has made great sacrifices and suffered huge losses during its resistance wars for national independence, Vietnam fully supports the just struggle of the progressive and peace-loving people in Japan and around the world to prevent a nuclear war and eliminate all kinds of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction as well as to demand compensation to nuclear arms victims," Mr Luong said in his message.

The Vietnamese leader also expressed his sincere thanks to the peace-loving people of Japan, and the world as a whole, for their valuable support to Vietnam in its historical struggle for national independence, as well as its current period of peaceful national reconstruction.

Guyanese President Bharrat Jagdeo warned on August 3 in Jamaica that, far from confirming the optimist forecasts that globalisation would eliminate world poverty, the march of this process demonstrates otherwise.

Jagdeo, in charge of agriculture in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), expressed that during the 80s of the last century, when the philosophical principles of globalisation were introduced, poverty, hunger and grievances increased on the planet.

When talking at an international business meeting at the Jamaican tourist centre of Negril, the Guyanese President expressed that it is essential for the Caribbean to move vigorously ahead in the process of regional integration, to face the international negative trends.

Jagdeo stated that the need to unite the area is more important now due to the attitudes of the US and Europe that "are deporting criminals to the Caribbean and taking teachers and nurses".

Amid the participants’ applause, Jagdeo considered that, at least, the developed countries that entice technicians from developing countries should pay for their cost of schooling.

Another negative example exposed by the Caribbean leader was the persecution of the Organisation of Co-operation and Economic Development, the so-called Rich club, against countries from the Third World that give attractive fiscal rates.

Likewise, Jagdeo considered that trade liberalisation and decisions on the environment imposed by the powerful states are provoking serious difficulties for the weaker economies.

According to his opinion, the industrialised states continue operating according to their own interests, as is the case with pressure to eliminate agricultural tariffs and force Third World nations to compete with their products with others from countries where production has fallen. (Prensa Latina)