Stephen Zunes 1/29/03
An Annotated Overview
of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W.Bush's
State of the Union Address
Also available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm
Stephen Zunes
is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace
& Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.
He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project
and is the author of the recently released book Tinderbox: U.S.
Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism
GWB: "This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout
the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great
nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate
the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions
of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions
of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the
will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and
by the might
of the United States of America.. Once again, we are called
to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind.
And we accept this responsibility."
The attempt to put Baathist Iraq
on par with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is ludicrous. Hitler's
Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation in the world
when it began its conquests in the late 1930s and Soviet Russia
at its height had the world's largest armed forces and enough
nuclear weapons to destroy humankind. Iraq, by contrast, is
a poor Third World country that has been under the strictest
military and economic embargo in world history for more than
a dozen years after having much of its civilian and military
infrastructure destroyed in the heaviest bombing in world history.
Virtually all that remained of its offensive military capability
was subsequently dismantled under the strictest unilateral disarmament
initiative ever, an inspection and verification process that
has been resumed under an even more rigorous mandate. By contrast,
back in the 1980s, when Iraq really was a major regional power
and had advanced programs in weapons of mass destruction, the
United States did not consider Iraq a threat at all; in fact,
the U.S. provided extensive military, economic and technological
support to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"America is making a broad
and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called
on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its
demand that Iraq disarm."
There is nothing in the UN Charter
about the unilateral disarmament of a
member state. By contrast, articles 41 and 42 of the Charter
- reiterated in
the final article of UN Security Council 1441 - make clear that
the UN
Security Council alone has the authority to authorize the use
of force to
enforce its resolutions. It should also be noted that there
are over ninety
UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by
governments
other than Iraq, most of them by such U.S. allies as Morocco,
Israel and
Turkey. The United States has blocked the United Nations from
enforcing
these resolutions, however.
"We're strongly supporting
the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track
and control nuclear materials around the world."
The IAEA has received very little
support from the Bush Administration. For example, the U.S.
has blocked the United Nations from enforcing UN Security Council
resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear
facilities under the safeguard of the IAEA. In addition, administration
spokespeople have repeatedly belittled the organization and
its
effectiveness.
" We're working with other
governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet
Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the
production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons
of mass
destruction."
The Bush Administration has actually
blocked efforts to strengthen
international treaties preventing the spread of biological and
chemical
weapons and successfully instigated and led an effort to remove
the
highly-effective director of an international program overseeing
the
destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles around the world.
In addition,
the Bush Administration has cut funding for programs to remove
nuclear
materials from the former Soviet Union and rejected a proposed
treaty by
Russia that would have destroyed thousands of nuclear weapons,
insisting
that they instead simply be put into storage. Finally, the Bush
Administration has rejected calls for a nuclear-free zone for
all the Middle
East.
"We also see Iranian citizens
risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty
and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have
a right to choose their own government and determine their own
destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations
to live in freedom."
It was the United States, through
its Central Intelligence Agency, that
overthrew Iran's last democratic government, ousting Prime Minister
Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. As his replacement, the U.S. brought
in from exile the tyrannical Shah, who embarked upon a 26-year
reign of terror. The United States armed and trained his brutal
secret police - known as the SAVAK - which jailed, tortured
and murdered tens of thousands of Iranians struggling for their
freedom. The Islamic revolution was a direct consequence of
this U.S.-backed repression since the Shah successfully destroyed
much of the democratic opposition. In addition, the repressive
theocratic rulers that gained power following the Islamic Revolution
that ousted the Shah were clandestinely given military support
by the U.S. government during the height of their repression
during the 1980s. As a result, there is serious question regarding
the United States' support for the freedom of the Iranian people.
"Throughout the 1990s,
the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North
Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime
was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along.
And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program
to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will
not be blackmailed."
Indications are that North Korea
kept its commitment during the 1990s but
ceased its cooperation only recently. It is widely believed
that North Korea
decided to renege on its agreement as a direct result of last
year's State
of the Union address, when President Bush declared North Korea
to be part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and
Iran. Seeing the United States prepare to invade Iraq and increase
its bellicose rhetoric against Iran and
themselves, the North Koreans apparently decided that they needed
to create a credible deterrent in case they were next. They
have offered to end their nuclear program in return for a guarantee
that the United States will not invade them.
"America is working with
the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and
Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North
Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation,
economic stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean
regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people
only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions."
Actually, the United States has
been at odds with North Korea's neighbors,
taking a far more hard-line position toward the communist regime
than those who have far greater grounds for concern about any
potential threat. Perhaps more significantly, given that the
United States has good relations with other countries that have
developed nuclear weapons in recent years - such as India, Pakistan
and Israel - and has demonstrated hostility toward North Korea
well prior to the start of its nuclear program, the North Koreans
may have reason to doubt that curbing their nuclear ambitions
will make much of a difference.
"Our nation and the world
must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow
an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator,
with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism,
with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate
a vital region and threaten the United States."
There was a very real threat of
Iraq dominating the region in the 1980s.
During this period, however, the United States provided Saddam
Hussein's regime with military, economic and technological assistance,
even as it invaded Iran and its internal repression and support
of terrorism was at its height. Now that the country is only
a fraction of its once formidable military prowess and it has
little direct access to its oil wealth, it is hard to imagine
how it could realistically dominate the region again, much less
threaten the United States.
"Almost three months ago,
the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his
final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt
for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The
108 U.N. inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt
for hidden materials across a country the size of California.
The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is
disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding
its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see,
and destroy them as directed."
UNMOVIC director Hans Blix and
IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei have expressed concerns that
Iraq was not sufficiently forthcoming in some potentially key
areas, though they also noted areas where there had been a high
level of cooperation in some other areas. This is far short
of "utter contempt." Similarly, their mission is far
from being a scavenger hunt, given the extensive records from
the eight years of UN inspections during the 1990s.
It is noteworthy that the UNSCOM inspectors did not find any
more hidden materials during their last four years of operations
despite expanding the scope of their searches. Though these
inspectors were withdrawn under pressure from President Bill
Clinton in late 1998 before they could complete their job, satellite
surveillance and other intelligence gathering since then has
given this new round of inspections - which have an even tougher
mandate regarding the timing and extent of their searches -
a good idea of where to look and what to look for. Furthermore,
they have equipment that can detect radioactive isotopes and
other telltale signs of WMD development at a great distance
from their source.
It is noteworthy that after insisting that Iraq's four-year
refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return was cited as
grounds for an invasion, the Bush Administration has suddenly
challenged the inspectors' effectiveness since they resumed
inspections. Furthermore, the United States has yet to put forward
any proof that Iraq currently has any banned weapons.
"The United Nations concluded
in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient
to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to
kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material.
He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United
Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient
to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough
to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."
This is like saying that a man
has enough sperm to impregnate several
million women. Theoretically true, but if you don't have sufficient
delivery
systems, it simply cannot be done. There is no evidence that
Iraq has any
delivery systems that can effectively disseminate biological
weapons in a
way that could endanger large populations.
"Our intelligence officials
estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as
much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands.
He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence
that he has destroyed them."
This figure is far higher than
most independent estimates. The former chief weapons inspector
for UNSCOM stated that at least 95% of Iraq's chemical weapons
had been accounted for and destroyed by 1998. With the embargo
preventing the import of new materials, satellites eyeing possible
sites for new production, and the return of UN inspectors, it
is highly dubious that Iraq could develop an offensive chemical
weapons arsenal, particularly since virtually all of their ballistic
missiles capable of carrying such weapons have also been accounted
for and destroyed. In addition, if Saddam Hussein'spossession
of chemical weapons is really such a major concern for the U.S.
government, why did the United States send Iraq tons of toxic
chemicals during the 1980s, even when it became apparent that
they were being used for weapons?
"The International Atomic
Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design
for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods
of enriching uranium for a bomb."
True. What the president failed
to mention is that in 1998 the International
Atomic Energy Agency also reported that Iraq's nuclear capability
had been completely dismantled. More recently, IAEA director
El-Baradei, in his January 27 report to the UN Security Council,
reported there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq had resumed
its nuclear program.
" Our intelligence sources
tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
As "60 Minutes" and other
independent investigations have revealed, these aluminum tubes
also have commercial applications. The IAEA has investigated
the matter and has reported that there is no evidence to suggest
they were intended for a nuclear program.
"Year after year, Saddam
Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent
enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of
mass
destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only
possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate,
intimidate, or attack"
This is hardly the "only possible
explanation." The most likely reason for a
country in a heavily-armed region within missile range of two
nuclear powers to pursue weapons of mass destruction is for
deterrence. Even the CIA has reported that there is little chance
that Iraq would use WMDs for offensive purposes in the foreseeable
future. By contrast, so says this CIA analysis, there is a far
greater risk that Saddam Hussein would use whatever WMDs he
may possess in the event of a U.S. invasion, when deterrence
has clearly failed and he no longer has anything to lose.
"And this Congress and
the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from
intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements
by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly,
and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden
weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
Reports from the State Department,
the CIA and other intelligence agencies have found no credible
proof of any links between the Islamist al Qaeda movement and
the secular Iraqi government. In fact, they have been at odds
with each other for many years. Saddam Hussein's support for
terrorism peaked in the 1980s, when the U.S. dropped Iraq from
its list of states sponsoring terrorism in order to make the
regime eligible to receive U.S. military and technological assistance.
Furthermore, most biological weapons - the only WMDs threat
that Iraq realistically might possess at this point - do leave
fingerprints and could easily be traced to Iraq.
"Before September the
11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be
contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist
networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers
with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam
Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped
into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have
ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure
that that day never comes."
Again, there is no evidence of
any connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who
has called the Iraqi dictator "an apostate, an infidel,
and a traitor to Islam." Iraq has never threatened nor
been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the
CIA has reported no
Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991.
It is always easy to think of worst case scenarios, but no country
has the right to invade another on the grounds that the other
country might some day possess weapons that they might decide
to pass on to someone else who might use these weapons against
them.
"The dictator who is assembling
the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on
whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead,
blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions
are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are
made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued
other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric
shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation
with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this
is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
The use of chemical weapons by
the Iraqi armed forces against Kurdish
villages took place in the 1980s when the U.S. was backing Saddam
Hussein's government. The U.S. even covered up for the Halabja
massacres and similar atrocities by falsely claiming it was
the Iranians - then the preferred enemy - who were responsible.
Human rights organizations have indeed reported torture and
other human rights abuses by the Iraqi regime and did so back
in the 1980s when the U.S. was supporting it. As a result, one
can only assume that this professed concern about human rights
abuses is insincere, particularly since the Bush Administration
is currently sending military and police aid to repressive regimes
such as Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Egypt and others that
are guilty of similar human rights abuses. If President Bush
really thinks that this constitutes evil, why does he support
governments that engage in such crimes?
"We will consult. But
let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not
fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace
of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him".
To invade Iraq without authorization
of the United Nations Security Council
would be direct violation of fundamental legal norms and would
make the
United States an international outlaw. A unilateral U.S. invasion
and the
repercussions of such an act of aggression would be a far greater
threat to the safety of Americans and the peace of the world
than maintaining the
current UN strategy of rigorous inspections, military sanctions
and
deterrence.
"Tonight I have a message
for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the
American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near
the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those
hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training
has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in
America, and America believes in you."
No doubt the thousands of armed
forces personnel currently assembling in that region do believe
in America. Hopefully, America will believe in them enough to
not abandon them as they did the veterans of the previous war
against Iraq who suffer the debilitating effects of Gulf War
Syndrome
without the support and recognition of the government that sent
them into
combat. It is also ironic to hear such high praise of the men
and women
readying for combat from a man who - despite his support for
the Vietnam
War - refused to fight in it, instead using family connections
to get into a
National Guard unit from which he was AWOL for much of his time
of service.
In addition, it is Orwellian to
claim that an army poised to bomb and invade
a sovereign nation are there to "keep the peace."
The best way American
servicemen and servicewomen can keep the peace would be to refuse
to obey any illegal orders of their commander-in-chief that
command them to fight in an illegitimate war.
"We seek peace. We strive
for peace... If war is forced upon us, we will
fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every
way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will
fight with the full force
and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail."
The palpable eagerness of the Bush
Administration to go to war belies any claims of seeking peace.
Iraq has neither attacked nor threatened the United States,
so it cannot be said that war is being forced upon the country.
Virtually all of America's allies oppose this threat of war.
In the United States, the Catholic bishops and every mainline
Protestant denomination have gone on record declaring that a
U.S. invasion would not constitute a just war, a sentiment echoed
by religious leaders around the world. The U.S. record of sparing
the innocent in its recent wars has been quite poor, with upwards
to 5000 civilians killed in the first Gulf War, an estimated
500 civilians in Yugoslavia and approximately 3000 civilians
in Afghanistan. Most scenarios predict a far higher level of
civilian casualties in a U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly
should American troops have to seize Baghdad - a city of five
million - by force.
"And as we and our coalition
partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will
bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies --
and freedom".
The United States has spent only
a miserly amount of money for food,
medicine and other humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan relative
to the
billions of dollars spent to bomb that country. Despite greater
political
pluralism in Afghanistan under the post-Taliban regime, most
of the country is not enjoying freedom, but is subjected to
the abuse of war lords, opium magnates and ethnic militias that
have gained in power since the U.S. intervention.
"Americans are a resolute
people who have risen to every test of our time.Adversity has
revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves.
America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our
strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice
for the liberty of strangers."
The character and resoluteness
of the American people is worthy of praise. Unfortunately, the
United States government has frequently used its military and
economic power to suppress liberty, such as supporting the overthrow
of democratically-elected governments in countries like Guatemala
and Chile while backing scores of dictatorial regimes throughout
the world. The United States has also used powerful international
financial institutions to force poor countries to weaken environmental
and labor laws to enhance the profits of U.S-based multinational
corporations.
"Americans are a free
people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and
the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's
gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."
What would God think of a government
that supplies more weapons, training and logistical support
to more dictatorships and other human rights abusers than any
other? If freedom and liberty are indeed the will of God, the
foreign policy of the Bush Administration is nothing short of
blasphemy.
