Institute for Policy Studies - Talking Points on the U.S.-Iraq Crisis

It is not surprising, and like everyone else we anticipated that some Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and cheer their arrival. Many have already tempered their welcome with urging the U.S. not to stay in Iraq for long. Most Iraqis are almost certainly relieved and thrilled at the imminent end of a terribly repressive regime and an end to crippling sanctions. But if yesterday was the party -- today the hangover begins. There are already reports of Iraqis saying the Ba'athist regime was bad, but that the current lack of authority and its resulting looting and chaos are worse -- "at least before we had security," one said.

The fact that many Iraqis are pleased with the destruction of the regime does not mean the U.S. war was legal, justified or appropriate. All of the violations of the UN Charter inherent in this war are still violations. All of the human costs paid by Iraqi civilians and unwilling conscripts alike -- death, grievous injury, loss of family members, destruction of property -- are still being paid. We don't have any idea yet -- and may never -- of the human toll from this war.

U.S. officials have again shifted the political justification they are asserting for the war; now we are supposed to believe the war's main objective was always the "liberation of the Iraqi people" -- no one is mentioning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which was the official basis of the war. So far, of course, no such weapons have been found. Rumsfeld's unsubstantiated accusations of phantom WMDs moving across Iraq's border into Syria could provide both explanation for the
embarrassing lack of WMDs found so far in Iraq, and potentially new justification for attacking Syria.

The most urgent needs are for water and electricity, especially in cities in the south, as well as medical supplies. Hospitals in Baghdad over the last several days were treating as many as 100 new casualties each hour, until they were overwhelmed and stopped trying to count. Surgical supplies, anesthetics and electricity were all in short supply even in Baghdad, presumably worse in smaller cities. The U.S. and UK, as the occupying powers, are obligated under the Geneva Conventions to immediately provide for those needs. UN agencies have said that the looting -- even of hospitals -- may prevent the resumption of humanitarian assistance.

The long-term legitimacy of any new government in Iraq will be measured by its authority and support at home, and by international recognition as determined by the UN General Assembly and individual governments. The key to any legitimacy will be determined by the process of how a new government, and even any interim authority are chosen. Any such process orchestrated by the Pentagon (such as the preemptive move to insert Ahmad Chalabi and dozens of his Iraqi National Congress cohorts into the fighting to jump-start his bid for a U.S.-sponsored 'presidency' of Iraq) stands in complete violation of international law or any democratic legitimacy. Chalabi-backer and vice-president Cheney announced a conference of Iraqi exiles and some from inside Iraq to discuss an interim authority; within hours his description of the meeting was challenged by the White House and State Department, indicating a heightened conflict within the administration over how to orchestrate governance in Iraq.

The United Nations is still the only legitimate authority to orchestrate a process to select an interim authority. If the U.S. were serious about democratization in Iraq it would move quickly to turn even preliminary authority over to the UN to identify an interim authority and move towards a more permanent indigenous process. The divisions within the administration between supporters of Chalabi and the INC (largely the neo-cons in the Pentagon and Cheney's office) and those advocating broader participation are so far largely tactical. For example, the new proposal for sharing authority in post-war Iraq that came from former officials including Eagleburger, Haig, Perry, Woolsey, Gingrich, Kerrey and Thompson, does not recognize UN authority, but calls for "helping Iraqis build a new Iraq" only so the U.S. "will have moral authority to promote its other objectives in the region." The UN should have the central role -- but only if it has real decision-making power from the beginning of the process. That means re-opening to the whole world the already closed bidding process that allowed only a few U.S. corporations to bid on construction contracts; insuring that the UN is at the center of all moves to create an interim administration, recruit Iraqis to participate, set the dates for conferences and elections, etc. If UN authority is compromised, or the UN is brought into the process only to provide legitimacy to continuing U.S. control, the UN should not take it on at all.

Oil remains a key consideration. The Israeli press reports negotiations are underway to reopen the British colonial-era oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa. The pipeline was closed in 1948 with the creation of Israel; its reopening would dramatically increase Israel's oil independence and lower its energy costs (oil now imported largely from Russia). This is particularly significant given Ahmad Chalabi's longstanding support for Israel and interest, like that of his Pentagon backers, in normalizing
Israeli ties with the Arab world and maintaining its military power. Further, U.S. special forces moved within one mile of the rich Kirkuk oil fields; some reporters in the region indicate it appears that may be their main objective in the area. The U.S. has also just agreed to allow Turkish military observers into Kirkuk "to verify that Iraqi forces have withdrawn" -- something Washington promised the Kurds it would never allow.

SO, WHAT DO WE CALL FOR?

We call for an end to U.S. occupation of Iraq.
We call for the United Nations, not the U.S., to help Iraq create a new, representative and indigenous government. The UN's central role must involve real decision-making power; it must not be a fig-leaf designed to provide political cover to unilateral U.S. action. General Jay Garner's authority should be turned over to a United Nations special representative.
We call for the U.S. to immediately provide for the urgent needs of the Iraqi population, including water, electricity, medical supplies.
We will hold the U.S. accountable for its claims that this war is about democratization and not about empire, oil, and the expansion of U.S. power.

WHO RULES THE PEACE WHEN THE RULERS BREAK THE RULES?

Background & Talking Points for United for Peace & Justice
by Phyllis Bennis
3 April 2003

The U.S. war is being waged without United Nations authority, and in violation of the UN Charter. It is a war of aggression. According to the Geneva Convention, as the occupying power the U.S. and UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population, including food, medicine, water, shelter, etc. (Article 55 of the 4th Geneva Convention and Article 69 of the 1st Protocol). This obligation is unquestionable during the period of hostilities, as well as during any period of post-war U.S. occupation.

Because the war itself is illegal, any post-war U.S. occupation will be illegal too. That means the United States should not be allowed to claim any power to rule or determine economic, political or social arrangements in post-war Iraq. The U.S. and UK are still, however, obligated to pay the cost of providing for the humanitarian needs of the occupied Iraqi people during the war and its aftermath. Only the United Nations has the legitimate authority to provide governance and to help rebuild a new Iraqi government and civil society if the current Iraqi regime is overthrown.

The UN itself is pushing for a central role in emergency relief (particularly through the large international humanitarian agencies such as UNICEF and the World Food Program). In a difficult meeting with Kofi Annan, in the first days of the war, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice essentially claimed the right to issue a dictat for the role of the UN in post-war Iraq. Annan indicated he did not believe the UN should be co-opted into providing the U.S. with ex post facto legitimation for its illegal war. According to Secretary of State Powell, however, two weeks into the war, "what we have to work out is … how the UN role will be used to provide some level of endorsement for our actions, the actions of the coalition in Iraq."

The U.S. is determined that its military will rule Iraq when the war has ended. There is disagreement within the administration as to the balance of power between the overall Pentagon-chosen viceroy, and the State Department nominees to head the various shadow ministries, each of which will be assigned several advisers from among the U.S.-anointed Iraqi exiles. State Department officials have indicated fear that Pentagon ideologues are trying to replace the State nominees with people like former CIA chief James Woolsey, a long-time campaigner for war against Iraq. But there is no recognition of the international obligations incumbent on what UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the "belligerent powers occupying Iraq."

Testifying in Congress on March 26, Secretary of State Powell described the limits of what the potential United Nations role could be in decision-making regarding governance of post-war Iraq. A member of Congress asked him, "it seems to me it's one thing for there to be a future UN resolution about a role for the UN, particularly humanitarian. But it would be another thing for the UN resolution to lay out some road map for post-war Iraq in such a way that it [the UN] would basically grab that decision-making and control from the coalition.… Can you give us some assurance that whatever UN resolutions are in the future will not do that?" Powell replied "I don't even see a possibility of that right now. … We would not support …essentially handing everything over to the UN, for someone designated by the UN to suddenly become in charge of this whole operation." Later in his testimony Powell said that, "we didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."

On the parallel question of paying the costs of emergency assistance and reconstruction, Powell was equally explicit. In the same March 26th testimony, he said, "the UN has a role to play. If we want to get help from other nations, and we ask these nations to go get funds from their parliaments or their legislatures, it makes it a lot easier for them to get those funds and to contribute those funds to the reconstruction/redevelopment effort if it has an international standing, if I can put it that way, as opposed to 'just give us money to give to the Americans.' That will not work. And so there are a number of advantages to having a UN role in this effort." But the U.S. remains very clear that while it expected international financial support to cover its own humanitarian obligations, it has no intention of sharing actual authority, power, or decision-making with anyone. BBC World quoted a high-ranking Bush administration official who was asked whether France should have a role. Referring to France's alleged "anti-americanism," the official said "if they want to participate, they can pick up the garbage."

European governments, including key U.S. ally Tony Blair of Britain, strongly oppose the plans for U.S. military control of Iraq. Blair is leading a European-wide effort to push for greater UN involvement in and perhaps even control of the reconstruction process, apparently viewing it as a way of repairing his damaged relations with European opponents of the war, particularly in France and Germany. UN officials have indicated they see the British proposal as a useful starting point for determining the UN role in Iraq beyond purely humanitarian relief. But, according to a UN staff member, "Even on that, the Americans have more or less signaled to us, 'forget about it.'"

Two weeks into the war senior Bush administration officials, responding to the "overly optimistic" assumptions that governed their post-war planning (especially that military operations would be over within 30 days), acknowledged that "the American military will likely need to retain tight control over the country for longer than they anticipated." (New York Times, 2 April 2003) Plans for announcing the "Iraqi Interim Authority" have been shelved. Turning over any local power to Iraqis will be delayed until variously-defined conditions are met -- ranging from the complete pacification and defeat of military and paramilitary forces in Basra and other cities, to the seizure of Baghdad and destruction of the Iraqi regime. Secretary Powell did hint, however, that U.S. might ask the NATO military alliance to play a role.

On the question of organizing emergency humanitarian assistance, U.S. military planners anticipate aid organizations will flood into Iraq as soon as the military fighting is over, providing sufficient food, medicine, shelter, water purification, etc., for the Iraqi population and operating under U.S. military authority. The Pentagon wants humanitarian workers to wear identification badges issued by the U.S. Department of Defense. However, aid organizations themselves identify key problems: 1) if the fighting ends very soon, there is at the moment insufficient food, medicine and water inside Iraq to provide for the population's needs once the immediate family-stored stocks have been used up; 2) the U.S. is refusing to grant permission for aid organizations to enter Iraq now to assess needs and begin bringing in material -- essentially the U.S. has seized control of much of Iraq's border control and is determining who may enter; 3) the continued existence of U.S.-controlled economic sanctions means that aid organizations cannot get licenses to move significant amounts of goods into Iraq even to the limited degree they could safely do so; 4) aid organizations in general are not prepared to work under military control -- such an arrangement compromises their mandatory neutrality, and places at risk all their counterparts elsewhere in the world who then become identified with the U.S. military attack on Iraq.

The Pentagon created the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance to be run by former General Jay Garner, who is currently based in Kuwait and answers to General Tommy Franks, CentCom chief and head of the U.S. military attack. Garner remains, despite his new Iraq post, the President of SY Technology, which provides technical support for missile systems currently in use in the Iraq war. The appointment of Garner reflects several layers of problems: 1) he represents the intersection of military brass and weapons manufacturers that is inherently suspect; 2) he has made provocative statements regarding the capability of weapons (including a widely disputed claim about the Patriot missile) and about Israel ("Israel has exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian authority") and is
certain to provoke extreme reactions in the Arab world; 3) he is known to have "frosty" and "strained" relations with the United Nations; 4) appointing any American to act as pro-consul in Iraq following an illegal war represents further defiance of the UN Charter and the authority of the United Nations.

The U.S. plans for the Agency for International Development (AID) staff to work under Pentagon control in coordinating aid efforts after the war, essentially relegating even Washington's own premier aid agency to becoming an arm of the military.

Philip E. Carroll, the former CEO of the giant Shell Oil Company is the likely appointee of the Bush administration to "oversee" post-war Iraqi oil production. He recently retired as chairman and CEO of Fluor Corporation, a construction company singled out as one of the five U.S. firms offered massive contracts by the Pentagon for rebuilding Iraq. According to the New York Times, Carroll is known for not micro-managing people, something the Times says would serve him well "IF the administration decides to let the Iraqis control their oil."

WHAT DO WE CALL FOR?

The UN must be in charge of emergency and post-war reconstruction efforts, not the U.S.

The U.S. & UK as belligerent occupying powers are liable under the Geneva Conventions for costs of emergency and post-war reconstruction efforts.

During hostilities the belligerent powers are obligated to provide for the needs of the civilian population. Humanitarian organizations must be given free access to the country and allowed to do their work, to bring in people and supplies unhindered by military restrictions or the limitations imposed by sanctions, and must be allowed to make their own decisions regarding when it is safe to enter the country. They must be independent of, not under the control of, the U.S. military.

No U.S. officials with ties to the Pentagon or to arms manufacturers whose weapons are currently deployed against Iraqis should be allowed to participate in any post-war humanitarian position.

The Humanitarian Aid Conundrum
27 March 2003
by Phyllis Bennis

The UN Security Council is likely to vote tomorrow (28 March) on a resolution outlining how emergency humanitarian aid will be provided to Iraqis.

The U.S.-UK are pushing for a new Security Council resolution that would

(1) identify the U.S. as one of the "relevant authorities" in Iraq;

(2) call for use of Iraq's oil-for-food funds to pay for emergency relief and rehabilitation;

(3) call on the UN to re-start the oil-for-food program and "endorse" the U.S. aid effort in order to facilitate other countries' participation in (read: payment for) the aid campaign

The Humanitarian Challenge:

Make sure emergency assistance and general relief reaches desperate Iraqi civilians AND make sure the U.S. takes responsibility for its obligations under international law AND make sure the U.S. doesn't get credit/legitimation for its illegal war AND make sure the United Nations isn't marginalized but remains at the international center of decision-making in the Iraq crisis. All at the same time.

The Scenario:

There is a generalized intimidation campaign underway at the UN, and many countries are too frightened to challenge U.S. demands. Examples of the pressure include:

U.S. letters --

In a move which may have been used against many other countries as well, the U.S. ambassador to South Africa sent a letter to the deputy foreign minister explicitly demanding that South Africa (and perhaps other countries) not participate in or support any effort to call to convene an emergency General Assembly meeting on the Iraq war. The language was harshly threatening: "Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States. Please know that this question as well as your position on it is important to the U.S."

Attack on Canada --

In a similar move, the U.S. ambassador attacked Canada for not supporting the war. Amb. Paul Celluci acknowledged that "Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel in the Persian Gulf …who are fighting terrorism will provide more support indirectly to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully [sic] supportive of our efforts there. But he went on to say "many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now." The ambassador said the damage would be short-term, but "Canada might face repercussions."

Powell statements --

In the 26 March congressional hearing, Rep. Vitter challenged Powell about the potential UN role. "It seems to me it's one thing for there to be a future UN resolution about a role for the UN, particularly humanitarian. But it would be another thing for the UN resolution to lay out some road map for post-war Iraq in such a way that it [the UN] would basically grab that decision-making and control from the coalition.… Can you give us some assurance that whatever UN resolutions are in the future will not do that?" Powell replied "I don't even see a possibility of that right now. … We would not support …essentially handing everything over to the UN, for someone designated by the UN to suddenly become in charge of this whole operation."

The Issues:

1) Should oil-for-food funds be released and used to pay for emergency supplies?

No -- international law, specifically Geneva Conventions, requires belligerent --and occupying power -- to take responsibility (meaning pay) for humanitarian needs of civilian population under occupation. Currently that includes most of Iraq. The oil-for-food money is Iraqi money; it belongs to the people of Iraq, and should remain in the bank until there is a functioning government in Iraq to whom it can be turned over.

2) Then how should emergency food, medicine, other needs be paid for?

The U.S., the occupying power and belligerent, should pay all costs for emergency care and initial rehabilitation efforts, at least during period while hostilities continue.

3) Why should poor and working people in the U.S. support their tax dollars being used to pay for rebuilding schools, roads, hospitals destroyed by the U.S. in Iraq, when those things are also crumbling in U.S. cities?

They shouldn't. The program should be funded through a special 50% Excess Profit/ Windfall for War tax on all contracts offered to U.S. corporations (Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.) for rebuilding post-war Iraq.

4) How should the provision of food, medicine, shelter, refugee assistance, etc. be organized and provided?

The UN and UN agencies (WFP, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, etc.) should organize and provide the aid, paying for it with U.S. funds. The actual work of procurement and distribution should be carried out, as much as possible, by the Iraqi civil servants who ran the oil-for-food program until March 2003. There should be a clear demand on the U.S. (beyond the overall demand to stop the war and withdraw the troops now) to protect and maintain the Iraqi technocratic civil service in much the same way the Pentagon talks about maintaining the bulk of the Iraqi military that survives the war in order to maintain order later. While the debate continues on the large-scale aid program needed, there is no question regarding sole U.S.-UK responsibility for immediate urgent crisis demands, such as restoring water access in Basra. While the ICRC may have had the operational staff to get the water facilities up and pumping again there, it remains Washington and London who are ultimately solely responsible for the consequences of either short-term or near-permanent catastrophes.

5) What is the UN position?

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has repeatedly affirmed that the "belligerent powers" occupying Iraq are responsible for the wellbeing of its people. He has not, however, specifically stated that releasing the oil-for-food funds from the UN-controlled bank account would constitute a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions that put the obligation directly on the U.S. (The oil-for-food funds belong to Iraq; they should remain frozen until a functioning independent government is in power in Baghdad, and then those funds should be turned back over to Iraq.)

Annan did announce a new appeal from the UN's humanitarian agencies to raise $2.1 billion for humanitarian aid ($1.2 billion of which is for food); he specifically called for new aid to be pledged without disadvantaging donors' other commitments to other impoverished countries. At the same time, UN circles expressed skepticism about the willingness of many countries to give money, indicating that donations might be limited because many countries believe paying for aid is primarily the task of the U.S. and UK. UN agencies indicated that this war will require humanitarian help far beyond the capacity of the oil-for-food program, because there will be no way to anticipate how many wounded, how many will have fled from villages or cities, how many will have no access to food, water, sanitation, other basic commodities. In a difficult meeting with Kofi Annan, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice essentially claimed the right to issue a dictat for the role of the UN in post-war Iraq. Annan indicated he did not believe the UN should be co-opted into providing the U.S. with ex post facto legitimation for its illegal war.

6) What is the U.S. position?

The Bush administration has been trumpeting its provision of some limited aid (food and water primarily) to some parts of Iraq, but has refused to acknowledge its absolute legal obligation under the Geneva Conventions to provide for the full humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population. They have urged the UN to release Iraq's oil-for-food funds to begin larger-scale emergency aid, and have also been urging an official UN endorsement of the U.S. war, perhaps in the form of some sort of a recognition of the U.S. as one of the legitimate authorities. Colin Powell described insuring that "the UN has a role to play. If we want to get help from other nations, and we ask these nations to go get funds from their parliaments or their legislatures, it makes it a lot easier for them to get those funds and to contribute those funds to the reconstruction/redevelopment effort if it has an international standing, if I can put it that way, as opposed to 'just give us money to give to the Americans.' That will not work. And so there are a number of advantages to having a UN role in this effort." But the U.S. remains very clear that while it expected international financial support to cover its own humanitarian obligations, it has no intention of sharing actual authority, power, or decision-making with anyone. BBC World quoted a high-ranking Bush administration official who was asked whether France should have a role. Referring to France's alleged "anti-americanism," the official said "if they want to participate, they can pick up the garbage." And in his 26 March testimony in Congress, Powell made clear that "we didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."

As War Begins

20 March 2003

by Phyllis Bennis, author of Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: A Primer, and John Cavanagh, director of IPS

This preventive war (it isn't even preemptive because there is no imminent threat to preempt) is among the most dangerous and reckless actions ever taken by a U.S. president. It isn't the first time the U.S. has launched an unjustified illegal war. But it is the first time such a war has been justified through a "doctrine" of preemptive war that abandons all understandings that war, with all its horrors, can be used only as the last possible resort when a nation's security and survival are threatened.

The war at home

This war threatens Americans. We are now at greater risk. This war will increase anti-American sentiments around the world, and will serve as a recruiting poster for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

This war is based on a false linkage to the September 11 attacks. Bush's speech spoke of "going after outlaw regimes that have weapons of mass murder with the army, navy, etc., so we don't have to go after them with police and doctors on the streets of our cities. Clearly implying Iraq is responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, this lie is designed to keep Americans frightened and willing to accept a new war in the hopes it will make us safer.

This war threatens our Constitution. The cover of war will lead to even greater shredding of our civil liberties than ever before.

This war isolates our country. As ranking diplomat John Brady Kiesling said in resigning his post in protest of the war, "We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."

The War Abroad

This war will be devastating for Iraq and Iraqis. The Pentagon's plan of "shock and awe" to open the main air attack against Baghdad will send 3,000 cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs into a crowded city of 6 million people. That is ten times the number of such bombs used in the entire Gulf War in 1991.

The humanitarian consequences will be severe. Beyond those killed or injured directly by bombs and other weapons, many more will likely be killed by denial of clean water, hospital systems knocked out, insufficient food, etc. The Pentagon's much-vaunted "non-lethal" weapons (e-bombs, micro-wave based weapons, etc.) may not kill people directly, but they act to wipe out all computer chips in a given area (thus knocking out hospital machinery, ambulances, cars - as well as journalists' digital cameras and computers) or destroy electrical generating capacity (including water pumps, hospitals, etc.)

Media attention is focused almost entirely on strategy, U.S. mobilization, U.S. troops -- the effect is to sideline any concern about Iraqi civilians.

The U.S. is thoroughly isolated internationally. The "coalition to disarm Iraq" that has replaced the inaccurately-named "coalition of the willing" is not serious. If not for Britain and Australia it would not pass the "laugh test." Key allied countries -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- are not listed; they are too embarrassed and under too much domestic pressure. Israel is not listed; the U.S. is too afraid of international reaction. Those listed --- from Afghanistan (no need to say more) to Uzbekistan
(whose human rights record is barely better than that of Iraq). Includes only two African countries, the European contingent are all NATO wannabes (Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macdenoia, Romania, Slovenia). Virtually none are actually providing military assistance. (see also A Militarily Limited Coalition By Col. Dan Smith (Ret.), from Foreign Policy In Focus)

Key focus points

This is an illegitimate war, and stands in violation of the UN Charter and international law. We hold the U.S. accountable for this illegal war.

The United Nations and Security Council members did not collapse under U.S. bribes and threats, because of what the New York Times called the "second super-power" -- global public opinion opposed to this war. The UN actually emerged more relevant than ever as a venue for grouping international opposition to Washington's unilateral push towards war. While the UN leadership's response was disappointing -- the inspectors andaid workers should not have all been pulled out so soon -- this is not a UN war, even in name.

We should demand that Congress refuse to pay for waging an illegal war. We should also be clear that the U.S. is accountable for paying the costs of rehabilitating Iraq's war-shattered infrastructure as well as the emergency costs of refugees, food aid, etc. That money should be channelled through the UN humanitarian agencies, not paid to U.S. corporations, especially those (like Halliburton - already offered a $1 billion + contract) with direct links to the Bush administration. The U.S. should not be allowed to seize Iraqi oil funds for that use. As Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Council, the U.S. is responsible for Iraqi
civilians during the war, and "in any area under military occupation, responsibility for the welfare of the population falls on the occupying power."

We should urge the General Assembly to convene in emergency session under the terms of the Uniting for Peace precedent at the UN. That allows the Assembly to take up issues ordinarily reserved for the Security Council - such as war in Iraq -- when the Council is paralyzed because of disagreements among the five veto-wielding permanent members. A General Assembly resolution (where there is not veto) could condemn the U.S. war (important for delegitimating future such wars), demand an immediate halt to the war, request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the war, or more.

This is a crucial moment for this country, a turning point in what the U.S. will be in the future. Local areas, states and cities, will be at the forefront in both determining and being affected by those changes. We should work with local campaigns -- particularly the Cities for Peace and city council members -- to organize teach-ins across the country on the choice between democracy and empire.

As we fight to stop this war, we should begin to frame our arguments in the context of opposing the entire trajectory, domestic and international, of Bush's unilateral drive towards power and empire. Such a framework might include such issues as the primacy of internationalism, the UN and international law; disarmament of ALL weapons of mass destruction, including our own, as the best route to real security; commitment to democracy and open societies with civil liberties protected; reorient
national priorities to meet human needs rather than military expansion.

We urge you all to check out unitedforpeace.org for a list of peace activities around the country today and in the forseeable future.

by Phyllis Bennis
5 March 2003

Around the world Bush's war is as much the object of derision as it is the target of a newly empowered global opposition movement. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters continue to fill the streets, particularly in the capitals whose support is most crucial to White House and Pentagon plans -- Turkey, the Philippines, Pakistan, Egypt. Mainstream media outlets are describing unease, fear of humiliation within the administration. The pope is telling Bush that God is not on his side.

The escalating pace of the war drive is starting to show up in the foolish (as opposed to the strategic) lies put forward by top Bush administration officials. Ari Fleischer's latest gaffe (claiming that Iraq had denied ever having Samoud-2 missiles and therefore how could you believe that they're being destroyed, when in fact Baghdad itself announced the existence of the missiles in their December 7 declaration, and the destruction now is under the watchful eye of UN inspectors) is part of this process. So is the recent leak regarding the NSA bugging the offices of Security Council diplomats.

There is unbalance at the top, despite the unswerving military build-up and unequivocal war cries under the control of the Bush ideologues -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. Powell reemerged from his undisclosed location to challenge, in a Radio France International interview, Fleischer's claim that both disarmament AND regime change were required. The second in command of the U.S. embassy in Greece resigned with a powerful statement of opposition to U.S. arrogance, war and empire, potentially the first among many more.

Tony Blair still needs a second resolution more than anyone else, but increasingly it is becoming doubtful he will get one. (And without Tony Blair and the UK, any U.S. "coalition" starts to look pretty lame.) Despite the intense pressure, lucrative bribes and frightening threats characterizing current U.S. "diplomacy" at the United Nations, Washington can still claim only the same four votes it had weeks ago when it began its crusade for a second resolution. Offers of billions of dollars AND control of half of northern Iraq weren't enough to bring Turkey on board (while the Turkish military is eager for the deal since it would increase their authority in the country, the new government is not looking forward to giving the powerful military even more influence). Fear of losing their long-negotiated free trade agreement and potential arrangement on immigration wasn't enough to force Chile's and Mexico's hand. The threat of losing Africa Growth & Opportunity Act aid by "undermining U.S. foreign policy interests" with a negative vote hasn't been enough so far to frighten Cameroon and Guinea. France (seriously) and Russia (probably for show, but still) are both asserting their intention to at least consider vetoing the resolution if the U.S.-UK position gains the critical nine votes. On March 4th the BBC reported that if there is a veto, France, Russia and China will veto together; that would undermine Washington's goal of isolating France by persuading Russia and China first, leaving France on its own. And the newly public debate over the consequences of expanding NATO and the European Union to include the pro-U.S. countries of "new Europe" has reinvigorated reconsideration of Europe's role as a counter-weight to U.S. power.

The New York Times was right: there are once again two superpowers in the world: the United States, and global public opinion. The battle is joined.

Massive mobilization must continue, under the demand that "the world says no to war." The timeline will likely be as follows:

Friday, 7 March -- Blix and el Baradei present their next report to the Council. It is likely Blix's report will be nuanced and ambiguous, recognizing and perhaps even praising recent Iraqi moves towards greater compliance (destruction of the missiles, scientists interviewed in private, continued cooperation on access, etc.), while re-stating that Iraq has not yet fully complied. A strongly critical report, while very unlikely, could set in motion a very different scenario.

Monday or Tuesday, 10 or 11 March -- the U.S. will begin a final vote count behind the scenes. If they calculate that they have found nine votes, they will call for a rapid vote on the new resolution submitted last week; if they do not have nine votes, they will withdraw the resolution. Although they will not allow a vote in which they would publicly fail to win the minimum nine-vote support, it is possible Washington may be prepared to go forward with a vote even under threat of a French (or, much less likely, French and Russian) veto. The thinking would be that it would be easy to dismiss a French veto as being driven by competitiveness in Europe, French arrogance, etc., and that it simply proves France, not the U.S., is out of step with the rest of the world. So the resolution would still fail, but Washington would claim the moral victory of having a majority on the Council.
The voting may be delayed till the end of the week, but is unlikely to go much past that.

Friday or Monday, 14 or 17 March -- if the decision for war is final, Bush will likely make some announcement by this time. Some among Bush's ideologues would likely prefer to go to war without the United Nations -- viewing the price of international opprobrium as worth the advantage of asserting the legitimacy of U.S. unilateralism once and for all.

Possible compromise--
This war is still not inevitable. It is still possible that diminishing support, and the weight of public opinion -- the second super-power -- will convince the Bush administration to pull back from the brink. If the pragmatists in the administration (whoever they are these days) interested in re-election, win out over those driven by conquest and empire, there is still the possibility of a last-minute face-saving way out. They are likely all weighing the statement yesterday of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said, "We have never been as isolated globally, literally never, since 1945."

U.S. isolation, dropping poll numbers, allied opposition, military problems particularly after Turkey's rebuff -- all could lead to new openness in Washington to a stand-down if face-saving could be insured. While the chances of averting this war are tiny, and growing even smaller by the day, they are not completely absent. The possibility of the second super-power, global public opinion, defeating the United States, remains alive.

The earlier Canadian compromise proposal, though rejected by Washington, is still in play, and back-channel indications are that the U.S. rejection was not as definitive as it was presented. There is also a Russian compromise initiative underway.

The form could be either a new resolution, or more likely, a Council presidential statement. That would not be taken under Chapter VII of the Charter (required to authorize force) and does not carry the same force of law as a resolution, but it does require a unanimous Council decision and therefore provides international political cover. At this moment, the components of a possible face-saving package to avert war will likely include some version of the following, reflecting parts of both the Canadian and Russian efforts.

1) Extension of the time, and intensification of the intrusiveness of inspections. An end date for the inspection process would be set, probably between the end of April and early June. Bush would say that his victory is that he "got the UN to act" through deployment of U.S. military force, and that now forced inspections made possible regime change in Iraq without war.

2) France and Russia agree that if the final reports indicate continuing problems with Iraq's compliance, that "automaticity" will prevail and war against Iraq will be accepted without any further resolutions.

3) Deployment of UN blue helmets, ostensibly to secure the inspection regime. (Details have remained obscure -- how many, what mandate, would they go in before the final reports or after, etc. The role appears to be much more political than military, reflecting the political need of all sides to appear tough on Iraq.)

4) The U.S. and UK agree that if the final UNMOVIC/IAEA reports at that Iraq is in full compliance, they will agree to lift the economic sanctions. (France and Russia insisted on this provision.)

5) Unofficial agreement, not in writing but with a clear understanding of the parties, that Saddam Hussein would have to leave power, most likely but not certainly going into exile. Face-saving for Saddam Hussein would be based on an announcement about "accountability to the increasing chorus of opinion in the Arab world…" or something like that.

Key Pressure points -- besides the mobilizations already underway

1) Publicize the outrage of U.S. spying on UN missions, as well as the brutal arm-twisting, bribes and threats characterizing the current round of "persuasion" to win Council approval and/or create a "coalition of the coerced". Keep up the pressure and thanks to the representatives of the key governments-- embassies, consulates, trade missions, cultural centers, etc.

Thanks to Germany and especially vive la France! "Keep it up" to Mexico, Chile and Pakistan -- delay is good, the longer they refuse to commit to one side or the other, the better; if Washington punishes them with trade-related sanctions, we'll launch "Buy Chilean" and "Buy Mexican" campaigns to compensate "We know you're under pressure, we're with you, the Non-Aligned Movement is behind you, you're the symbols of African independence" to Cameroon, Guinea, Angola.

2) Broaden the circle of identified opposition -- including political leadership beyond the Beltway. The goal is to discredit the administration, undermining the credibility of their war. Cities for Peace campaigns -- there are now almost 300 cities involved in the campaign, over 124 have already passed resolutions -- keep expanding the network. If your city has already passed a resolution, move to your county or state, or into major institutions within the cities (universities, inter-faith councils, professional organizations, etc.) for new resolutions.

Letters to the editor, statements, ads, sign-on letters, etc. from political, cultural, business, sports, financial, academic elites .
Keep the pressure on the mainstream media -- divisions re-emerging, take advantage of them. Keep asking questions -- why is there not more coverage of Bush/Powell/Blair etc assertions about the importance of Hussein Kamal's "revelations" of Iraq's "unaccounted for" WMDs when it turns out he told UNSCOM and the CIA that Iraq had in fact destroyed all the weapons? Why isn't there more discussion of Powell's reliance on the "fine document" in his UN speech, when referring to the British dossier of Iraqi atrocities that turned out to be plagiarized from a California graduate student's on-line paper? With all the journalists "embedded" into U.S. military units, why are we hearing nothing from journalists already functioning on their own inside Iraq -- particularly about the consequences of the war build-up on vulnerable Iraqi civilians?

3) Keep up the pressure on Congress -- Urge members to sign the most recent Dear Colleague letters, as well as to support the pending legislation to repeal the congressional authorization for war, and to demand that the White House answer key questions before launching war.

TALKING POINTS -- 14 February 2002

INSPECTIONS ARE WORKING. This was the message of both Mohamed el-Baradei (very clear: in the future we WILL….) and Hans Blix (less definitive: in the future we COULD…).

WORK SHOULD CONTINUE. Iraq has accepted a South African offer to provide experts for talks about future disarmament tasks. We should support this initiative.

THE U.S. IS ISOLATED. As of now the U.S. STILL has only four certain votes in the Security Council -- the U.S. and UK, plus Spain and Bulgaria. Both those European countries have huge anti-war majorities; in Spain alone, there will be demonstrations tomorrow in more than 65 cities.

THE FRENCH - GERMAN INITIATIVE IS REAL; WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN ONLY WAR AND "DOING NOTHING". The French foreign minister proposed strengthening the inspection regime, and called for the inspectors to report back to the Council on March 14th. That date for a report is also required in resolution 1284, one of the earlier inspection resolutions, which is specifically referred to in the language of the new resolution 1441 from last December. The French response, by Foreign Minister Villepin, was greeted with long sustained applause, something almost unprecedented in the Security Council; Powell's response was greeted with silence.

THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE OF A LINK WITH AL-QAEDA. Powell made more assertions, no evidence. Mainstream U.S. (and ALL the international press) is filled with reports of intelligence analysts from the U.S. and a host of other countries denying that Powell's claims are proved by any of the evidence he provided. IT'S ALL SPECULATIVE -- AND WE DON'T GO TO WAR ON SPEC.

PUBLIC OPINION MATTERS MORE THAN EVER BEFORE. Public opposition to war is keeping the French and German governments honest. WE'RE NOT ISOLATED AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE -- WE ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Yesterday in Washington 35 mayors and city councilmembers came to present to the White House & Congress some of the 92 city council resolutions passed in cities across the U.S. -- including giant cities (Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.), smaller cities (Cleveland, Syracuse, etc.) and tiny little towns. Even though the organizing focus of tomorrow's
demonstration was New York, there are parallel demonstrations in 225+ cities across the U.S. There are now more than 600 cities around the world where "The World Says No to War" mobilizations will take place.

THE U.S.-EUROPEAN DIVIDE IS REAL. WHILE 18 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SIGNED TWO DIFFERENT LETTERS THAT IMPLY, TO DIFFERENT DEGREES, ACCEPTANCE OF WASHINGTON'S WAR STRATEGY, THEY STAND COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM THEIR OWN PEOPLE. They are primarily (though not all) poor, NATO wannabes, and eager for U.S. support. According to some polls, there is not a single European country where the opposition is less than 70%; most are above 80%. (In Turkey, key U.S. "ally," public opposition is at 96%.)

ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER VICTIMS WE KNOW OF IN IRAQ AND THE REGION, THIS WAR WILL UNDERMINE THE UNITED NATIONS. We reject the Bush administration claim that the UN's "relevance" is defined by its willingness to follow the U.S. into war. We stand with the overwhelming majority of the world's people in saying that THE UN'S RELEVANCE IS DETERMINED BY ITS ABILITY, REFLECTING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE'S OF THE WORLD, TO STAND DEFIANT OF US PRESSURES FOR WAR.

On Nuclear weapons -- IAEA had documented the elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program back in 1998. His inspectors found "no evidence of an on-going nuclear program in Iraq" now, that would indicate any rebuilding. When asked if how much more time is needed to complete the task, he said that "inspections and monitoring are on-going until the Council decides otherwise." There are still outstanding questions to be resolved, but the process of disarming Iraq "could still be short" if they get more cooperation.

On chemical & biological weapons -- Inspectors have not found any evidence of any viable weapons programs. There is "no convincing evidence" Iraqis ever knew that inspectors were coming. The inspectors are "helping to bridge the knowledge gap" left during the 4 years with no inspections.

5 February 2003 -- RESPONSE TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL'S PRESENTATION TO THE UN
SECURITY COUNCIL

Powell's presentation wasn't likely to win over anyone not already on his side. He ignored the crucial fact that in the last several days (in Sunday's NYT & yesterday's briefing of UN journalists) Blix denied key components of Powell's claims. Blix said UNMOVIC has seen "no evidence" of mobile biological weapons labs, has "no persuasive indications" of Iraq-al Qaeda links, no evidence of Iraq hiding and moving WMD material either outside or inside Iraq, none of Iraq sending scientists out of the country, none on Iraqi intelligence agents posing as scientists, none on UNMOVIC conversations being monitored, none on UNMOVIC being penetrated.

Further, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with al-Qaeda, U.S. intelligence officials told the New York Times, "we just don't think it's there."

The most compelling part of Powell's presentation (though short), was his ending section of the al Qaeda link with Iraq, and the dangers posed by the al Zarqawi network. The problem is that he segued disingenuously, from the accurately scary information about what the al Zarqawi network could actually do, to a not so accurate claim about its link with Iraq -- which is tenuous and unproven at best.

A key component of the alleged Iraq-al Qaeda link is based on "detainees tell us…". That claim must be rejected. On December 27 the Washington Post reported U.S. officials acknowledged detainees being beaten, roughed up, threatened with torture by being turned over to officials of countries known to practice even more severe torture. In those circumstances, nothing "a detainee" says can be taken as evidence of truth - people being beaten or tortured will say anything to stop the pain. Similarly, defectors' stories cannot be relied on alone, as they have every legitimate basis for exaggerating their stories and their own involvement in order to guarantee access to protection and asylum.

Powell said one thing at least partially true: "1441 is to try to preserve the peace." (Although it's not true that the U.S. "wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace...") We should take that commitment to peace as the right approach, continue inspections.

Final - the "even if" rule applies. "Even if" everything Powell said was true, there is simply not enough evidence for war. There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat, no evidence of containment not working. Powell is asking us to go to war, risking the lives of 100,000 Iraqis in the first weeks, hundreds or thousands of U.S. and other troops, political and economic chaos, and more, because he thinks MAYBE in the future Iraq might rebuild its weapons systems and MIGHT decide to deploy weapons or MIGHT give those weapons to someone else who MIGHT use them against someone we like or give them to someone else who we don't like… We reject going to war on spec.

ASSESSMENT OF POWELL'S DESCRIPTION OF IRAQ- AL QAEDA LINKS

This section of Powell's presentation was arguably the most compelling. He played on the very real and reasonable fears of Americans and others about the capacity of al Qaeda, focusing specifically on the potential threat posed by the al Zarqawi network.

But the disingenuous component was his clever segue from al Zarqawi-as-danger to Iraq-is-harboring al Zarqawi, a claim that is far less clear, that is fundamentally unproven. There is simply no clear evidence of these links; U.S. intelligence officials (both CIA and FBI), have accused the Bush administration of politicizing - cooking - the evidence to bolster the political case for war. UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix said that there are other countries with far greater links to al Qaeda than Iraq.

Powell did acknowledge that the al Qaeda-linked Islamist organization operating in Northern Iraq is "outside Saddam Hussein's control." But he does not mention the crucial matching factor, that that area is INSIDE U.S. control - and in fact the U.S. has troops entering Northern Iraq on a daily basis, who presumably could deal with that group if it indeed posed such a danger. Powell quotes an alleged associate of al Zarqawi saying that "the situation in Iraq is good," as evidence of al Zarqawi's links with the government in Iraq. In fact, such a remark, if it occurred at all, could as easily have referred to al Qaeda operatives being pleased that the likelihood of a U.S. attack in Iraq could well lead to increased support for them, as the population in Iraq and across the region turns against a U.S. invasion.

It was in this section that Powell returned again and again to "detainees tell us," "senior al Qaeda operatives now detained," "detainees tell their story…" In this context, we have particular need to be vigilant regarding the question of torture. Detainees may indeed tell "a story;" given that they may well be undergoing or threatened with torture, their stories must be taken with significant caution.

And finally, the fear-mongering regarding the potential power of al Qaeda networks should not be broadened to sweep Iraq into its orbit.

4 February 2003 -- on the eve of Powell's presentation

In a briefing for UN journalists this afternoon, Hans Blix denied or discounted four major claims made by various Bush administration officials. Some of these claims, particularly the one regarding the mobile biological laboratories, are likely to be central to Colin Powell's presentation at the Security Council tomorrow.

The four discounted claims include:

1) Mobile biological laboratories: Blix said his inspectors had reports about the claim, but no evidence. "We have never found one," he said.

2) UNMOVIC providing info to Iraq: Blix denied that any information had been leaked from any of his inspectors to any Iraqis.

3) Iraq intercepting UNMOVIC conversations: Blix said it was "impossible" that Iraq had been able to spy on UNMOVIC telephone conversations because of the high level of security of UNMOVIC communications operations.

4) Iraq hiding weapons material inside or outside Iraq: Blix said his team had seen no evidence that Iraq had moved weapons material just before inspectors arrival in order to hide it from inspectors.

February 3, 2003

Colin Powell's presentation at the UN Security Council on Wednesday is likely to be strong on quantity and weak on quality - with little or no new information, and little or no actual proof of the presence of WMDs in Iraq, or links between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda. There will be lots of photographs, charts, and barely-audible sound-bites ostensibly demonstrating links between Iraq and al Qaeda or other terrorists.

Powell will likely try to apply the Pentagon's new favorite battlefield strategy of "shock and awe" to the Security Council, overwhelming the foreign ministers and ambassadors present (as well as the global television audience) with massive amounts of material.

To answer Powell's presentation, challenges will likely need to focus on:

1) Photographs of people cleaning a "suspect site" do not equal proof of hidden weapons

2) Satellite photos of trucks with equipment on the back do not equal proof of "mobile WMD production facilities"

3) Snippets of intercepted telephone conversations of such remarks as "can you believe they missed that one?" or the equivalent do not prove links with al Qaeda or proof that Iraqis are trying to hide WMDs from inspectors

4) U.S. officials admit some of their "evidence" comes from interrogation of detainees held incommunicado at Guantanamo Bay. The Washington Post (Dec. 26) quoted Bush administration officials suggesting detainees held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, some of whom may now be in Guantanamo, have been tortured or threatened with being sent to countries which routinely practice torture. Any information resulting from torture (or threat of torture) is not only illegally obtained but of questionable veracity.

Other challenges to the U.S. position:

1) Hans Blix himself has denied recent Bush administration claims of Iraqi violations, some of which officials claimed were based on the inspectors' reports. He denied Powell's claim that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving WMD material inside and outside Iraq, saying inspectors had not found any such incidents. He said he had not seen convincing evidence Iraq was sending scientists out of Iraq. He denied Bush's State of the Union claim that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists or that UNMOVIC had been penetrated by Iraqi agents. Crucially, he said he had "seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda." (New York Times, 1 Feb. 2003)

2) Both the CIA and FBI have questioned the veracity of Bush administration claims that intelligence backs up their claims of Iraq-al Qaeda links, or of clear WMD presence in Iraq. "Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that
senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said. At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. 'We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there,' a government official said. … "Mr. Bush asserted in his State of the Union address this week that Iraq was protecting and aiding Qaeda operatives, but American intelligence and law enforcement officials said the evidence was fragmentary and inconclusive." --New York Times, 2 February 2003

3) MOST IMPORTANT: EVEN ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF IRAQI VIOLATION(S) OF UN RESOLUTIONS, INCLUDING 1441 OR THE ORIGINAL DISARMAMENT/SANCTIONS RESOLUTION 687, DO NOT REPRESENT A BASIS FOR WAR.

The U.S. and Britain have agreed to a "good cop/bad cop" formula, with Britain taking the lead urging a second Security Council meeting as provided for in resolution 1441, and some version of a second resolution aimed at gaining UN support for war on Iraq. The timeline will likely look something like this:

FEBRUARY 5 -- Powell presentation to Council, prepared responses from Council members.

FEBRUARY 14 - Blix & el Baradei present next interim reports on inspectors' findings. At that meeting or soon after, Council will accept British proposal for setting an ultimatum for Iraqi compliance, without specifying what the consequences would be for non-compliance. Deadline will likely be 30 days. This vote might be close to unanimous; the language will not explicitly authorize a military response.

FEBRUARY 28 - Next UNMOVIC & IAEA interim reports; will likely still be equivocal. Council may determine at that meeting Iraq still not in full compliance. They will likely call on Baghdad to comply with the demands of the ultimatum.

MID - MARCH - Last UNMOVIC & IAEA interim reports issued. If reports do not confirm full Iraqi compliance, the U.S. & Britain will claim a free hand to attack Iraq under authority of the February 14 ultimatum resolution, claiming there is no need for any further authorization. France, Germany, Russia, China (and several other Council members) will state that the Feb. 14 resolution does NOT authorize a military strike. They will then stand aside, allow the U.S. and Britain to attack Iraq, while telling their respective outraged publics that they do not endorse military action. They will make no move to challenge the U.S.-British war in the Council. Inspectors will be pulled out of Iraq "for their own safety." (The question will be raised whether this time the UN's humanitarian staff will be withdrawn as well, or left under the bombs as they were during Desert Fox in December 1998.)