- Monday's U.N. weapons inspection reports underscore the
two conflicting realities of Iraq.
-
- On the one hand, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime
is almost certainly in breach of at least minor elements of United Nations
resolutions ordering him to disarm.
-
- Technically, this is justification for war.
-
- On the other hand, the reports ÷ from chief weapons
inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed
ElBaradei ÷ demonstrate that Iraq poses no serious threat to any
other nation.
-
- Which is a good reason not to go to war.
-
- In his report, Blix laid out facts and suspicions indicating
that Iraq has not abandoned its scheme to hold chemical and biological
weapons.
-
- He noted that Saddam's regime provided the U.N. with
conflicting stories on plans to produce a particularly toxic nerve gas
called VX.
-
- As well, it gave inspectors contradictory documentation
on its chemical bombs. Blix says it is possible that 6,500 of these bombs
are unaccounted for.
-
- On the bioweapons front, Iraq says that it destroyed
all of its deadly anthrax (produced, ironically, with help from the United
States). But, concludes Blix, there is no convincing proof of this destruction.
Indeed, he says Iraq seems to have deliberately doctored at least one document
provided to the Security Council in an apparent effort to disguise its
anthrax research. As for missiles, Iraq seems clearly in violation of U.N.
demands ÷ although not by much.
-
- After its defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was not required
to disarm entirely. But it was told by the U.N. to get rid of long-range
missiles that could hit targets such as Israel.
-
- Specifically, Iraq was told to limit itself to missiles
that could travel only 150 km. But Blix said his inspectors have found
missiles that can travel up to 183 km.
-
- Do 33 kilometres justify war? Blix wouldn't say. He said
he wants to look further before concluding that Iraq is in breach of the
Security Council's tough disarmament resolutions.
-
- What is clear, though, is Iraq's defiance. Blix said
the regime has been remarkably helpful in allowing inspectors to go where
they wish. But unless pressed, it volunteers little.
-
- In spite of coming up against the world's most powerful
nation, it remains stubbornly cheeky.
-
- Is this a caning offence? U.S. President George W. Bush
clearly thinks so. He castigates Saddam for his slipperiness.
-
- Indeed, if the Security Council wanted to make Iraq a
willing participant in its own disarmament, it has clearly failed. Blix's
report shows that Saddam's regime stalls whenever it can.
-
- But if the U.N.'s aim was to pull Saddam's teeth, then,
equally clearly, it succeeded long ago
-
- Blix's report implies this. Even if pockets of doubt
exist, the backbone of the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program
has been broken. And, as ElBaradei's report makes clear, the Iraqi nuclear
threat is simply non-existent. The U.N. destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability
once before. There is not a whit of evidence that Saddam has rebuilt it.
-
- Take, for example, the celebrated aluminum tube case.
Late last year, the U.S. charged Iraq with trying to import aluminum tubes
for use in nuclear weapons production. Iraq said it wanted the tubes for
conventional rockets permitted by the U.N.
-
- ElBaradei's conclusion is that Iraq was probably telling
the truth.
-
- For the U.S., all of this means little. Bush, it seems,
decided to make war against oil-rich Iraq long ago. He seems ready to proceed.
-
- However, the rest of the world, including Canada, faces
a more difficult question. If the aim is to make war on any nation which
is less than enthusiastic about carrying out U.N. demands, then Iraq is
a legitimate target ÷ as, indeed, are many other nations, from Israel
to Turkey to Syria to India to Pakistan.
-
- If the aim is to make war on regimes the rest of the
world doesn't like, then again Iraq is one of many in the crosshairs. But
if the aim is to make war on Iraq because it is a serious threat, yesterday's
U.N. reports show that no case has been made.
-
- With or without aluminum tubes, Iraq does not threaten
North America, either conventionally (we are more than 183 kms away) or
through Islamic terrorist groups that Saddam's secular regime abhors.
-
- It does not even threaten its neighbours. Iran has already
taught Saddam a bitter lesson; Israel could demolish it in an instant.
-
- Will Canada join Bush's war? Prime Minister Jean Chrtien
continues to dance around the question. But if we do, Ottawa will almost
certainly cite Saddam's failure to live up to the letter of the U.N. resolutions.
-
- What the federal government will find harder to convince
Canadians of, particularly after yesterday, is that Iraq constitutes a
real and present danger ÷ to us or anyone.
-
- Thomas Walkom's column appears on Tuesday. He can be
reached at <mailto:twalkom@thestar.ca>twalkom@thestar.ca.
-
- http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
|
