Dokumente und Materialien des Arbeitskreises
"US-Americans for Peace and Truth in Europe" 
1. Irak - verhinderbarer Krieg?
1. Irak - ein verhinderbarer Krieg?

I would like to point out several things. 
First, Ritter said repeatedly in his recent speeches that the Weapons of MassDestruction (WMD) issue is bogus. He explains that the issue of disarmament was brought up by the US after the end of the Gulf War 1991, in that terrible Resolution 687 full of gobble-dygook, not as an end in itself but as a means to keep up the pressure on Iraq. If we look at the very different approaches of the US government to other nations that possess WMD, this claim rings true. We should keep this in mind, especially whenever we hear politicians talk about the importance of disarming Iraq etc. The only question is if they somehow believe what they're saying or if they know full well that the whole issue is a fake.

Second, many people say that the countdown to war is running. But what
exactly does this mean? In the Junge Welt article Ritter said there is a
slight possibility that a war can be stopped. Yesterday, however, AP ran a
story with the headline. "Former weapons inspector says war with Iraq
inevitable". What is this all about? How can he first say there is a slight
chance to avoid war and only 5 days later he says war is "inevitable"?  

Well - if you actually read the AP-report, Ritter says no such thing. This is
typical PR, as it is produced on a daily basis. In this case, the obvious
purpose is to support the propaganda claim that somehow war is "inevitable",
which makes us all feel a bit better, since then there's nothing we the
people can do anyway for some higher powers are at work. The quote from
Ritter reads: "We're going to war, and there's not a damn thing the
inspectors can do to stop it, and that's a shame. Inspections worked once
and they can work again". Now don't get me wrong. It is clear that Ritter
was not very optimistic in the JW interview, and his (alleged) claim that
"there's not a damn thing the inspectors can do to stop it" sounds pretty
bad. But the quote is just two sentences taken out of context. Moreover, he
already knew last week that the US doesn't really want weapons inspectors to
return to Iraq. Nevertheless, he did not say then that war is "inevitable".
The AP-report also says this: "The wording of the U.N. resolution will allow
the United States to attack by mid-December, said Ritter." I bet he did not
say this. In previous statements, he has made clear that any unilateral US
attack will be an act of aggression. So how can he now say the resolution
"allows" an attack?

The whole issue takes yet another turn with the second direct quote
attributed to Ritter is this: "The U.S. has a policy regarding Iraq of
regime removal. The last thing Bush wants is a weapons inspection regime
that works. That would mean lifting economic sanctions and Iraq coming back
into the fold with Saddam Hussein still at the helm." All of this was true
before the SC resolution. But let's continue with AP: 

>>He said the U.N. resolution carries a hidden trigger allowing Bush to attack after the Dec. 8 deadline for a weapons declaration from Iraq, and noted that there will be four U.S. aircraft carriers in the region in December. If Iraq does not declare any weapons on Dec. 8, it will constitute the false declaration
described in the resolution. Ritter said this would trigger a Security
Council meeting to consider serious consequences.<< 

This is cute. Suddenly something triggers - a SC meeting. Sounds quite different than "war is inevitable". What is going on here? !

But let's leave the PR aside and look at the facts, since Ritter is quite
right: the key date at the moment is December 8. Iraq accepted the
resolution (although the text is really a humiliating piece of crap) and has
30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. This
will be a problem. 
From a story on MSNBC, Nov. 9, 2002: "Blix, the chief
weapons inspector, said Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of
its large petrochemical industry in that time, but the United States decided
against giving Baghdad more time."

So indeed: there is the first trigger, though it is not "hidden". The US
could say: "Hey, the report is not complete!" or "We know from our
intelligence sources that you have more goodies in store!" or something else
to the same effect. This was acknowledged publicly on a Talk Show (they call
it Discussion Round, but there is not much substantial discussion going on)
by a person from the Council on Foreign Relations, immediately after the
resolution was approved last Friday. The arrogant Patrick Clawson from the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy says the same: once Iraq makes the
declaration, U.S. officials will be able to match it up against their
intelligence and determine whether it is a "full and complete declaration".
"We should be in a position to say he hasn't accounted for his stuff,"
Clawson said.

But there are two options, not one. War is not inevitable. Of course, the US
and its lackey Britain might start bombing a few days later. But it is
also possible that they will "give diplomacy another chance" (I knew you all
would love that phrase!) at the Security Council. Much will depend on what
the first dozen of inspectors, who plan to go to Iraq in the next few days
will do.

Here is another excerpt from the same MSNBC story from Nov. 9. 2002, this:
>>But other experts and some administration officials said that 30 days
after the passage of the resolution would be too soon to force a
confrontation. Under the resolution, the Security Council is obligated to
discuss any potential breach by Iraq. Other members of the council may be
reluctant to so quickly take up the question, especially if the inspectors
have barely started their work. The declaration would be "an early test of
his cooperation and a tool for the inspectors," said Lee Feinstein, senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But to immediately go to
military action would undercut the diplomatic clout we had built."<<

A lot will depend on Hans Blix. Here is an AP-report from today, Nov. 15:

>>"UN: Iraq must declare all weapons"
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said
Friday, on the eve of his departure for Baghdad, that inspections will
likely resume Nov. 27 and Iraq must declare all of its weapons programs
to the United Nations "Iraq's declaration is a very important document
that we hope they take very seriously," Blix told reporters. The
declaration, laid out in the terms of a tough new Security Council
resolution on Iraq, will be compared with previous data inspectors have
on Iraq. Still Blix said: "We are not contending that Iraq as weapons
mass destruction, we have a great many questions." 
Blix said that if Iraq were to declare no such weapons programs, then
countries that claim to have evidence to the contrary must make it
public. "It will be the moment for those who claim they have evidence
... to put it on the table." [...] <<

Aha! So just to say to Iraq "you're lying" is not enough, according to Blix.
The Bush gang will not like this.

Here is the link to the full text:

"Blix: War with Iraq not inevitable"
MSNBC News Service
Nov. 17, 2002
War is not inevitable if Iraq cooperates with U.N. weapons inspectors, the
chief inspector said Sunday..."It's a chance for Iraq, and that's what the
Security Council has said," Hans Blix said. Asked if he felt war were
inevitable, Blix replied simply: "No, it's not."

Das Dolle ist: der entsprechende link ( ist
aktualisiert worden und hat jetzt einen neuen Titel. Und das, obwohl im
MSNBC-Archiv Zeugs von vor 3 Jahren herumliegt. Zum Glück hatte ich's


(c) Andreas Hauß, 2002,