Tony Blair again Supports New US Aggression against Iraq to Widespread Opposition

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Tony Blair again Supports New US Aggression against Iraq to Widespread Opposition

Arms Control Is Not Decided on the Basis of Cats

Iraqi Newspaper Condemns US Spies and Provocations

Completing the European NATO Jigsaw

UN Estimates on Required Funding for Social Programmes World-wide

Travelling to Australia for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) on Thursday, Tony Blair said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, "I certainly agree with him (President Bush) very strongly that weapons of mass destruction represent a real threat to world stability."

He added: "It is an issue that those who are engaged in spreading weapons of mass destruction are engaged in an evil trade and it is important that we make sure that we take action in respect of it. Tony Blair went on: "We do constantly look at Iraq... Saddam Hussein's regime is a regime that is deeply repressive to its people and is a real danger to the region. The accumulation of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq poses a threat, a threat not just to the region but to the wider world, and I think George Bush was absolutely right to raise it. Now what action we take in respect of that, that is an open matter for discussion."

Top Bush administration officials are setting the stage for a new round of overt and covert US intervention against Iraq. Their aim is to replace the independent Iraqi government with one serving US corporate and strategic interests.

They themselves admit they have found no connection between Iraq and the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, nor between Iraq and the anthrax threat. Neither can they prove that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, like the thousands of nuclear weapons the Pentagon holds.

The last time Baghdad let UN inspectors – in November 1998 – the inspectors created provocations to justify a new round of heavy US/British bombing. Even the former chief weapons inspector, Australian Richard Butler, who is violently anti-Iraq, complained about five of the 427 inspections in Iraq between November 17 and December 12, 1998.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, after talks in Downing Street with Tony Blair, also said that the US would be unwise to attack Iraq.

Speaking outside Number 10, Mr Annan was asked about reports George W Bush is considering an attack on Iraq as the next step in the war on terrorism. Kofi Annan said: "I don't think Washington has taken any decision yet as to what to do about Iraq. But I myself am on record as saying that any attack on Iraq at this stage would be unwise."

A rift between Germany and Britain has also opened up over how to conduct stage two of the "war on terrorism" after Chancellor Gerhard Schroder's Social Democrats criticised Tony Blair for backing military strikes against Iraq. Professor Gert Weisskirchen, the Social Democrat foreign policy spokesman in the German parliament, said Tony Blair's current position was "very regrettable". He said he believed that it would be wrong for Tony Blair to depart, without consultation, from a policy agreed with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy and Spain at a meeting in London last November. At that mini-summit in Downing Street, the European leaders decided to apply maximum pressure on Baghdad to comply with international weapons inspectors but to hold back on threats of military action.

Of particular concern in Berlin have been reports that Mr Blair and President Bush will finalise details of an attack on Iraq at a meeting in Washington in April. "If these reports are right, I see a danger that these discussions will change the current European line, which is that Europe builds up threats but takes no military action, at least not before all other means have been tried," said Professor Weisskirchen.

"I see dangers on two levels. First, the international coalition against terrorism could be destroyed – it is possible that the Arabic members would not feel loyal to the coalition any more – and secondly, depending on the level of escalation, Israel could be threatened by Iraq. We have to discuss this carefully before any change is made."

Giving warning of a rift in Europe over the war on terrorism, Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, also appeared to have Tony Blair in mind when he spoke of the need for European Union partners to stick to the same policy.

"Only when Europe has a common foreign and security policy, as we have a single market and single currency, will we be taken seriously," he said. EU nations would be as powerful as America only if they were united.

Labour MPs also warned Tony Blair not to "roll over" to Washington by giving British support to a US military campaign against Iraq.

Alice Mahon said: "Unease over Britain's uncritical support for President Bush's military adventures is growing every day. The British public has the right to know if the Prime Minister is likely to commit the government to backing an onslaught against Iraq."

Donald Anderson, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: "The parliamentary Labour party would be very cautious in all circumstances."

In the light of the hysteria being stirred up now by Anglo-US imperialism on the question of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of the so-called "axis of evil", particularly Iraq, the speech by Jack Straw earlier this month can be looked at once more.

The Foreign Secretary gave a speech on February 6 at King’s College, London, on "The Future of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation".

The thrust of his speech was to condemn those states such as Iraq and North Korea which allegedly threaten humanity with weapons of mass destruction and are not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He contrasted these states with the development of the National Missile Defence (NMD) programme of the US which he alleged, in conjunction with the US Deputy Defence Secretary, "is not Star Wars", because it "may pave the way for greater progress on disarmament, not an arms race".

Jack Straw backed up this somewhat bizarre argument, which he called "tailored approaches to non-proliferation", with a quotation from Deng Xiaoping, that "it matters not whether the cat is black or white, but whether it catches mice". He called this a "fundamental principle" of the British government’s policy on arms control. Presumably the military deals this week being concluded by Jack Straw in India, with British companies now able to own 26 per cent of such joint ventures in that country, was decided on the basis of this fundamental principle of cats and will help the cause of arms control.

The British government would like to apply the principle of "limited sovereignty" to all countries except Britain and the US. On the basis of this fundamental principle of cats, countries do not have the sovereign right to defend themselves and oppose the nuclear blackmail of the big powers which themselves refuse to give up their weapons of mass destruction.

An Iraqi newspaper commentary has said that the United Nations Special Commission, Unscom, which operated in Iraq for seven years, had deliberately manufactured lies and crises with the aim of maintaining suspicion about Iraq's weapons capability and thus implementing a US plan. The paper said it was part of Unscom's method to start asking questions about "petty and secondary issues" in order to waste time and procrastinate. The paper said Unscom had now completed its work and examined all the pending issues, and the results showed that Iraq had met its commitments. Therefore, it said, the UN Security Council should lift the sanctions on Iraq. The following is the text of a commentary by Malik Mansur entitled: "America and the scandals of the Special Commission of spies"; published by Iraqi newspaper Al-Thawrah web site on February 25:

The Special Commission of spies began its operations in June 1991 and left Iraq in the middle of December 1998 at Washington's orders and without consulting the UN. During all that time, this Special Commission of spies stalled and procrastinated and fabricated crises and lies. All its activities and operations were deliberately geared towards keeping the weapons files open and prolonging the time, without giving any indication that these files would be closed despite the fact that they were complied with.

Each time it realised that one of the weapons files had reached its end and that fair and just professionalism required it to announce the closure of the file and notify the Security Council, this Special Commission of spies stalled and claimed that some points in this or that file were still pending. After patient efforts and waste of time, this Special Commission of spies would explain what it considers to be the reasons for not closing the file. It would then present anew the points that it claims to be still pending and start asking questions about petty and secondary issues. Thus the vicious circle of stalling and procrastination became complete and more time would be wasted without reaching any decisive outcome. This is true although all the work had been done and although this Special Commission had verified that Iraq is clear of any banned weapons or any elements or components for producing such weapons.

As an example, let me refer to the crisis that the Special Commission of spies fabricated regarding what was then called the VX crisis. It fabricated this crisis in order to keep the chemical file open, despite the fact all the work pertaining to this file had been done and despite the fact that all the points and topics pertaining to this file were clarified and finished. The Special Commission of spies made up a lie with the intention of keeping the chemical file open and prolonging the work of the spies for as long as possible. It claimed that US army laboratories analysed and found traces of the VX agent on the remains of the warheads that had been destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991. In August 1998 and after Iraq rejected the analyses of the US laboratories, 40 samples were tested in Swiss laboratories, 43 samples were tested in US laboratories and 39 samples were tested in French laboratories. All these tests showed that the samples had not been contaminated with any chemical material used in chemical warfare. Thus, the neutral and fair professional tests that were carried out, distant from the interference of the Special Commission of spies, corroborated the veracity of the information that had been given by Iraq. They also unmasked the scandalous involvement of the Special Commission of spies with the US and Zionist intelligence agencies.

The above is not all. There is another aspect to the scandal that exposed the biased lack of professionalism of this Special Commission of spies and its subservience to the directives of the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Zionist Mossad, which are determined to prolong the work and leave the finished files open. The spies of this commission smuggled VX into Iraq in order to use it to contaminate the samples of rockets that were sent abroad for analysis. This was their way of trying to propagate the big lie that Iraq has produced VX and used it as a weapon. When this scandal was exposed, Richard Butler, the head of the special spies, was forced to confess in 1999 that VX samples were left behind in the offices of the Special Commission in Baghdad. He then followed that up with another big lie in which he claimed that the VX levels that were left in the laboratory in Baghdad were not high enough to contaminate a small piece of metal.

Scandalous espionage has been the task and function of the Special Commission of spies throughout its operations, which lasted more than seven and a half years. It resorted to stalling and procrastination in order to delay the work and keep the weapons files open in implementation of the will of the USA and in harmony with the aggressive and reckless policies against Iraq. These scandals reveal that the Special Commission ended all its work and completed all the files years ago. They show that Iraq complied with all its commitments in accordance with Section C of Resolution 687. Thus the Security Council must admit this fact and comply with international demands. The Security Council must lift the savage blockade that was imposed on Iraq more than 11 years ago in implementation of Paragraph 22 of Resolution 687 as a prelude to lifting all the other blockades.

Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) are the last two empty spaces on the projected European NATO map. Yugoslavia is particularly a concern for the NATO powers, since Bosnia has had the NATO-led SFOR troops on its territory since 1995.

Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic has said that joining NATO's Partnership for Peace in 2002 is a fundamental goal. Predrag Simic, adviser to Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica, also supports the step, saying that the country, encircled by partnership members, cannot remain outside the NATO alliance. On the path to membership, however, Yugoslavia will have to satisfy several requirements, including the question of the future of Serbia and Montenegro.

NATO's Director for Crisis and Operations Management Robert Serry says NATO recognises the important role Yugoslavia plays in the region, asserting that the speed of admission depends largely on Yugoslav officials. He notes that the unsettled matter of Belgrade's co-operation with the UN war crimes tribunal and the relationship with Republika Srpska's army remain issues between NATO and Yugoslavia.

There is also the question of Yugoslav Army Chief of Staff Nebojsa Pavkovic, of whom Brussels diplomats have said that Yugoslavia will not be able to join while he heads the army. His replacement has been sought by 17 of the 18 parties in the ruling Serbian coalition, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. The crucial eighteenth voice belongs to President Kostunica. Under the Yugoslav constitution, the chief of staff may only be dismissed by the federal state leadership, which consists of the presidents of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic has said many times that he will no longer get involved in issues concerning the federal state, which would include the question of the army chief of staff. Therefore, a decision on replacing Pavkovic can only be made by Kostunica, who has repeatedly stated his support for the general.

Meanwhile, the NATO summit in Prague in November will take a decision on which of the nine countries seeking membership will be invited to join the NATO alliance in this round of expansion. The nine countries include Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania, as well as the frontrunners Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia. In the first round of expansion in 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined, bringing membership to 19.

Outgoing US Ambassador to Bulgaria Richard Miles said in a recent interview with Capital Weekly that Bulgaria's chances for NATO membership this year were very good, as Sofia has made substantial progress in meeting the accession criteria. But, he added, more efforts were needed. Still, Miles believed that further tangible progress this year would not be ignored in Prague. During his recent visit to Sofia, US Permanent Representative to NATO Nicholas Burns told Bulgarian officials that in the months ahead of the Prague summit, the United States would help Bulgaria in its military reform efforts.

Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov made sure his first official trip abroad was to Brussels. According to Richard Miles, the Bulgarian President left a very good impression on his hosts at NATO headquarters. Similarly his Romanian counterpart, Ion Iliescu, was recently on a mission to Washington seeking support.

In this context, a two-day international conference on the problems of global and national security has been held on February 25-26 in Sofia. The leading topic was Bulgaria's integration in NATO, which was viewed as necessary to guarantee "security" in Southeast Europe, in view of the "global war against terrorism". Participating were Stability Pact Co-ordinator for Bulgaria Vladimir Filipov, the ambassadors from NATO member and candidate states, and experts from the defence and interior ministries.

The final part of the NATO jigsaw relates to Russia, regarding which it was reported by the Financial Times on Monday that NATO members had agreed on the broad outline of a new relationship with Russia that would give Moscow an equal voice on many important issues. Russia would get a seat on the North Atlantic Council, NATO's political decision-making body, but not get veto power over military decisions, the Financial Times reported. NATO members also reserve the right to withdraw contentious issues from the council if agreement cannot be reached.

A senior US envoy insisted on Tuesday that Russia would neither be granted a right of veto in a reformed NATO, nor have a say in NATO’s enlargement. This reflects the different interests of the US and Russia, with the US wanting to subordinate Russia to its strategic interests, while Russia sees membership of NATO as a counter to its being encircled and isolated.

Tony Blair has been acting as a go-between, in accord with Britain’s 19th century conception of achieving a balance of power in its own interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Prime Minister discussed Russia-NATO relations and the situation in Afghanistan in a telephone call, the Kremlin said in a statement. The 30-minute discussion was reportedly initiated by Tony Blair, and the two leaders agreed on the need to "establish a concrete and pragmatic dialogue" to set up a "new format for Russia-NATO relations", the statement said.

In 1997, the United Nations World Economic and Social Survey (UNWESS) estimated that the cost of providing basic social services for all "developing countries" in Asia, Africa and Latin America was about $40 billion a year over the next 10 years.

The 2001 UN Human Development Report (UNHDR) states that, in 1998, 1.2 billion people world-wide lived on less than $1 a day, its measure for extreme poverty. Some 2.8 billion lived on less than $2 a day. The UNWESS report also estimated the annual income of those below official poverty lines and the minimum income "at which they would no longer be poor", estimated at another $40 billion a year. The report states, "Thus, to provide universal access to basic social services and transfers to alleviate income poverty would cost roughly US$80 billion, or less than the combined net worth of the seven richest people in the world."

The United Nations reported in 1999 that one-third of all children in the world were malnourished. More than 800 million people world-wide existed in hunger, and 500 million were chronically malnourished. A human being died of hunger every 3.6 seconds. Children under five make up three-quarters of hunger-related deaths. The United Nations estimates that it would cost just $13 billion to provide basic nutrition and health for everyone in the world for one year.

According to the UNHDR, 854 million adults were illiterate in 2000, 543 million of them women. Some 325 million children are out of school at the primary and secondary levels, 183 million of them girls. Of the first 22 countries deemed eligible for "debt relief", Oxfam reports that universal primary education in these countries would cost $1.5 billion a year. In 2001, these countries are thought to have spent $1.8 billion in debt servicing alone. UNICEF estimates that $9.1 billion a year could ensure all the world's children get free primary school education.

According to the UNHDR, 11 million children die each year from preventable causes, including hunger and treatable diseases. Some 36 million people live with HIV/AIDS, three-quarters of them in Africa. The 2001 UNHDR states that in 1998 global spending on health research was just $70 billion. Just $300 million was dedicated to vaccines for HIV/AIDS and only $100 million to malaria research. As well, of 1,223 new drugs marketed world-wide between 1975 and 1996, only 13 were developed to treat tropical diseases – and only four were the direct result of pharmaceutical industry research. At the 2000 UN Millennium Summit, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the richest countries to give $10 billion annually for a global fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. Four months later, the richest countries forced the fund down to $1-2 billion.