On the new UN "agreement" with Iraq - 3/98

We are glad that the U.S. wasn't able to drop its bombs on Iraq, but we don't feel that the agreement represents a retreat on the part of the U.S. Some people have said, "If the settlement holds, thousands of lives will be saved." While this is a good sentiment, and one that we unite with, it would be wrong to minimize the fact that 5,000 children a month are dying from the effects of sanctions which are still in place. For the Iraqi people, lives lost by other means, whether slow death or fast death, is death all the same.

The UN agreement further chips away at Iraq's sovereignty. The main problem in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein. It is U.S. imperialism. It's up to the people of Iraq to struggle over and decide their own fate. The UN agreement forces Iraq to open its country up anytime, anywhere for inspection. Iraq has given U.S. stooges "immediate unconditional and unrestricted access" to their country. This is an outrage! This isn't a great deal! It's a deal the Iraqis were forced to take -- an offer they couldn't refuse. The U.S. government has made known that it's working on a plan to overthrow Hussein (NY Times 2/26/98). Would you give them the blueprints to your house if you knew that?

The UN is not a neutral body. The U.S. dominates and controls it. U.S. secretary of state Madeline Albright even met with Kofi Annan a few days before he traveled to Iraq, handing him a secret document detailing what he could and could not negotiate. As The Times reported, the "fingerprints on the deal" belong to Madeline Albright.

We wholeheartedly congratulate those in the anti-war movement, especially the students in Ohio, for their immediate and escalated opposition to U.S. war plans. The movement quickly reformed, and at a higher level. But while we congratulate ourselves, we don't think that "Annan's skillful diplomacy would have fallen on deaf ears" were it not for the peace movement. While playing a role in limiting the U.S. government, the peace movement was not the reason the U.S. was unable to drop its bombs -- yet. We think it is more a result of the unraveling of their New World Order which they launched with the first Gulf Slaughter in 1991. And that gets to the heart of one of their main reasons for drawing the line with Iraq: U.S. threats are a message to other major powers that the U.S. still has the biggest military, is still the top power in the region, and is still the "top cop of the world." The U.S. government has a lot of problems -- and that's a good thing -- but they may well use the time this "deal" buys them to force world support for further military attacks and continuing the sanctions.

Remember that Iraq only has to have the "capacity" or "ability" to make weapons. And weapons are only "suspected." Iraq has materials that could have a "dual use." This means pharmaceuticals or fertilizer plants that "might" produce "chemicals" or food processing plans that "might" produce "dangerous bacteria." According to these definitions, only by sending Iraq back to the times of flint and mortar could the U.S. insure that Iraq doesn't have the ability to produce so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Or as one person said: "Only by killing Iraqi scientists could the U.S. have done more".

As for the U.S. military, troops are still in the region, poised to strike. During the last Gulf War, one U.S. general said, "The army carries the morality of society with them." We disagree. The U.S. army carries the U.S. government's morality -- a morality that treats people like "collateral damage", that sees targets in schools, hospitals and sewage plants. That's why we say "U.S. Troops Out of Iraq. No U.S. Troops Anywhere, Anytime."

We also applaud the Canadian peacekeeping team that demanded to inspect U.S. weapons facilities, and those who were arrested in Tucson for refusing to leave a military base after demanding access. As they said, "Only rogue states stockpile and conceal weapons of mass destruction." In Washington state this team visited Bangor submarine base. Analysts suspect that 1,600 active weapons are based in Washington state -- more active weapons than in Britain, China and France combined. In focusing on Bangor, the home port of 8 trident submarines, they exposed that a Trident can carry 24 missiles and 200 nuclear bombs -- enough to destroy a whole country. And given that the U.S. is the only country to ever have used such weapons, we have much to worry about here at home. Clinton calling Saddam Hussein a "repeat offender" does not disguise the fact that the U.S. invented the whole game.

The threat of war still hangs over the Iraqi people's heads. The U.S. is looking for any excuse to go in. We must be vigilant and not believe any lie or provocation used to justify an attack. Most of all, we should demand U.S. troops out of the region and an immediate end to the sanctions.