Furthemorer, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush Administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with Al Qaeda, US intelligence officials told the New York Times, "We just don't think it's there."

Powell's assessment of Iraq-Al Qaeda links was arguably his most compelling point. He played on the very real and reasonable fears of Americans and others about the capacity of Al Qaeda, focusing specifically on the potential threat posed by the al Zarqawi network.

But the disingenuous component was his clever segue from "al Zarqawi as danger" to "Iraq is harboring al Zarqawi," a claim that is fundamentally unproven. There is simply no clear evidence of these links; US intelligence officials (both CIA and FBI), have accused the Bush Administration of politicizing--cooking--the evidence to bolster the political case for war. UNMOVIC chief Blix said that there are other countries with far greater links to Al Qaeda than Iraq.

Powell did acknowledge that the Al Qaeda-linked Islamist organization operating in Northern Iraq is "outside Saddam Hussein's control." But he does not mention the crucial matching factor, that that area is inside US control--and in fact the US has troops entering Northern Iraq on a daily basis, who presumably could deal with that group if it indeed posed such a danger. Powell quotes an alleged associate of al Zarqawi saying that "the situation in Iraq is good," as evidence of al Zarqawi's links with the government in Iraq. In fact, such a remark, if it occurred at all, could as easily have referred to Al Qaeda operatives being pleased that the likelihood of a US attack in Iraq could well lead to increased support for them, as the population in Iraq and across the region turns against a US invasion.

It was in this section that Powell returned again and again to "detainees tell us...," "senior Al Qaeda operatives now detained...," "detainees tell their story..." In this context, we have particular need to be vigilant regarding the question of torture. Detainees may indeed tell "a story"; given that they may well be undergoing or threatened with torture, their stories must be taken with significant caution.

And finally, the fear-mongering regarding the potential power of Al Qaeda networks should not be broadened to sweep Iraq into its orbit.

Powell said one thing at least partially true: "1441 is to try to preserve the peace" (although it's not true that the US "wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace"). We should take that commitment to peace as the right approach, continue inspections.

Finally, the "even if" rule applies. "Even if" everything Powell said was true, there is simply not enough evidence for war. There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat, no evidence of containment not working. Powell is asking us to go to war, risking the lives of 100,000 Iraqis in the first weeks, hundreds or thousands of US and other troops, political and economic chaos and more, because he thinks maybe in the future Iraq might rebuild its weapons systems and might decide to deploy weapons or might give those weapons to someone else who might use them against someone we like or give them to someone else who we don't like. We reject going to war on spec.

raq's decision to accept the United Nations Security Council resolution, passed unanimously on November 8, sets in motion a tightly scripted plan for UN arms inspectors to return to Iraq. Baghdad's ambassador, Muhammad al-Douri, delivered his government's acceptance letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan on November 13, telling reporters, "We are prepared to receive the inspectors within the designated timetable."

Despite an angry parliamentary recommendation to reject the resolution, Iraq's acquiescence was widely anticipated. It reflects the relentless pressure brought to bear on the country, from the Arab League and from such Council members as Syria, France and Russia, as well as Washington's escalating threats of war for "regime change" virtually regardless of Iraq's compliance.

In general, antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack. It provides a powerful tool to fight for US accountability to multilateralism and the UN. But it still reflects the heavy-handed domination of the UN and the rest of the world by the United States and ultimately sets the terms for war.

The real victory lies in the fact that the Bush Administration felt it necessary to go to the UN at all. Only last summer the Pentagon's "chickenhawks" appeared to have derailed any UN-based strategy for Iraq. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff remained skeptical of war; polls showed less than a quarter of Americans supported attacking Iraq without the UN; and hundreds of thousands of protesters filled the streets. Washington's closest allies, from Germany to Mexico and even Tony Blair's own Labour Party, railed against growing US unilateralism. The superhawks didn't want this resolution, but they lost.

That the anti-UN Bush Administration took eight weeks to negotiate the terms of Resolution 1441 reflects the enormous international and domestic opposition to its planned war for oil and empire. The resolution puts additional pressure on Washington to at least appear to be acting in concert with the international community. While the Republican sweep of the midterm election will certainly further empower the Administration's most unilateralist voices, diminishing US public support for a solo attack, bolstered by the UN resolution, may act as a brake on that trajectory.

The United States made significant concessions to win support for its text. But backroom deals with France and Russia regarding oil contracts in a postwar Iraq were a big part of the picture. And the impoverished nation of Mauritius emerged as the latest poster child for US pressure at the UN. The ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, was recalled by his government for failing to support the original US draft resolution on Iraq. Why? Because Mauritius receives significant US aid, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act requires that a recipient of US assistance "does not engage in activities that undermine US national security or foreign policy interests."

Every Council ambassador, even the British, speaking after the unanimous vote, made clear that the resolution provides no authorization for war. French ambassador Jean-David Levitte said it requires a Council meeting in the event of Iraqi noncompliance. "France welcomes the elimination from the resolution of all ambiguity on this point," he said. Mexico's ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, was probably the most direct. Force is valid, he said, only "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council."

Nothing in the resolution gives Washington the right to determine whether Iraq is in "material breach" of its obligations, or to decide what to do if there is such a breach. But Washington claims exactly those rights, and no other country was prepared to defy the United States by demanding that the text explicitly reject that claim or to reassert the UN Charter's clear statement that only the Council as a whole has the authority to make such decisions. For almost every country on the Council the vote was less about constraining Iraqi weapons than about constraining US power. Even Syria, acquiescing to French and Arab League persuasion and to US threats of vilification if Damascus voted no, joined the Council consensus.

Despite all the bickering over language, there is no evidence that the Bush Administration has any intention of basing its go-to-war decision on what the UN resolution actually says, or even on what the inspectors find or don't find. If it is looking for a pretext, the super-tough inspection requirements provide plenty. Within forty-eight hours of the resolution's passage, US and British jets bombed the unilaterally declared "no-fly" zone in southern Iraq. The new resolution specifically prohibits Iraq from threatening any country ostensibly "taking action to uphold any Council resolution"; if Iraq even locks radar on these bombers, the United States may claim it is violating those terms. Further, there is no explicit commitment that if Iraq fully complies, the crippling economic sanctions will finally be lifted.

The United States has been forced to go to the UN, but it retains a thoroughly instrumentalist view of the United Nations--in which the global organization's relevance and authority are defined by proximity to Washington's positions. The newly emboldened Republicans continue to claim that UN decisions do not "handcuff" any US decision for war. There is still danger that US pressure will force a second-stage Council decision endorsing a war, whatever the inspectors find. But if UN leaders begin to use their bully pulpit in defense of the Charter's insistence on nonmilitary solutions, the combination of international UN legitimacy, massive global opposition to war at both the governmental and popular levels and the pressure of a growing antiwar movement in the United States may be able to raise the price of this war above what even this Administration is willing to pay.

The UN, the US and Iraq
by Phyllis Bennis
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED The NATION (10/02)

s the United Nations Security Council neared approval of a resolution on Iraq, it appeared that Council resistance was giving way to rising US pressure. The final resolution is likely to provide Washington with language it will use as tacit approval for a unilateral attack on Iraq if Baghdad's compliance with inspections is deemed inadequate. It is also likely to include agreement that there should be further Council discussions (though not necessarily a new resolution or even a formal meeting) before any such action is taken. But that qualifier will be largely a fig leaf for those governments opposed to a unilateral US attack, giving them deniability at home. In Colin Powell's words, "Independent of the outcome of negotiations in the Council, in the end there will be a resolution that leaves the authority and the right to the US President to act in self-defense for the American people and our neighbors."

 

It's all too familiar. In early 1998, at another moment when the United States was gearing up for war against Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a last-minute agreement with Saddam Hussein. The agreement was designed to resolve problems with the arms inspections and to stave off the threat of a US war. When Annan came back to New York, the Security Council crafted a new resolution endorsing his agreement. US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson demanded that the resolution call for "severest consequences" if Iraq should violate the agreement in the future; under pressure, the Council agreed. The Clinton Administration still wasn't happy. It was geared up for war, and the resolution meant recalling bombers, fighter jets and troops.

But there was a serious disagreement over just what "severest consequences" meant. The Russian ambassador even coined a word--"automaticity"--to describe what the phrase did not mean. Severest consequences, virtually the entire Security Council had decided, did not give any state the automatic right to move on its own against Iraq. Like earlier resolutions, this one ended with the statement that "the Security Council decides to remain seized of this matter." In UN diplospeak, that means the issue remains on the Council's agenda, and under Council authority.

So on March 2, 1998, after the resolution passed, a parade of ambassadors emerged from the Security Council chamber, one by one, to insist that their resolution did not include "automaticity." It did not, they said, authorize any country--including the United States--to launch a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Ambassador Richardson came last. Dismissing his predecessors' insistence that the resolution did not authorize a military strike, he shrugged and told the press, "We think it does." Months later, without UN authorization, the United States and Britain devastated Iraq in the four-day miniwar of bombs and cruise missiles known as Desert Fox.

Warnings of severe consequences are once again included in the US draft resolution. "Automaticity" has now become part of UN jargon, and again Council ambassadors are asserting strongly that the new resolution has no "automaticity" for military action. But the diplomats of the Bush Administration, like their Clinton-era predecessors, disagree with the rest of the Security Council; once again they "think it does."

Despite some cosmetic concessions, if Washington gets its way the resolution will likely allow, among other things, armed soldiers (even including US troops) stationed at the inspectors' bases. The effect would be a level of military involvement that would serve to collapse the distinction between inspection and invasion/occupation. And we've been there before, too. In 1999, just before the US-NATO bombing began during the Kosovo crisis, there was a last-ditch diplomatic effort at Rambouillet castle in France. When it collapsed, we were told that the Serbs had rejected a perfectly reasonable international demand, which therefore made inevitable, even obligatory, the NATO war that followed. Only weeks later, when the real story of the secret Appendix B broke in the German press, we learned that the Rambouillet accord, presented by Washington in take-it-or-leave-it terms to the Serb side, was designed to insure Serb rejection. Going far beyond the stated US concern about Serb conduct in Kosovo, the accord would have required that "NATO personnel shall enjoy...free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] including associated airspace and territorial waters." [Emphasis added.]

Sound familiar? In both cases the official rationales for international intervention--Serb human rights violations in Kosovo, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs--were, however legitimate in their own right, used as pretexts to impose an international military occupation. And that includes the attendant military control of the entire nation's ground, air and space in the name of human rights for Kosovars or Iraqi disarmament. At Rambouillet the Clinton Administration deliberately set the bar so high that the Serb side would refuse to sign. It appears the Bush Administration is hoping Baghdad will follow suit, leading directly to the long-planned US/British war against Iraq.

Tragically, it appears that all fourteen other Council members (or thirteen if Tony Blair, against the massive opposition of his own people, allies Britain with his Bush buddies) will be prepared simply to assert that they do not believe the resolution authorizes force, and then essentially to "agree to disagree" with Washington. It looks as if every country on the Council has made the pragmatic determination that if Washington goes to war, they want to be part of it. They may have little interest in actually participating, but they want to be on board the crusade. Their thinking seems to be that being sidelined from an illegal pre-emptive war--which Congressman Jim McDermott called a war for "oil or power or the blandishments of empire"--is somehow more dangerous in the era of a sole superpower than signing on to such a war.

We have been there before too. In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed and threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force them to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto--and fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a $114 million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen, the only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplomat said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.

There are other options for the UN. There is an alternative to the US-dominated Security Council: The "Uniting for Peace" precedent allows the General Assembly to step in when the Council is unable to take appropriate action on an issue involving international peace and security. The first use of this precedent was at the outset of the Korean War, when the United States, exploiting a moment of Soviet absence from the Council, maneuvered to move the question onto the General Assembly agenda, claiming that the Council was paralyzed. The Assembly, overwhelmingly in thrall to the United States, quickly endorsed the US war. Since then, the precedent has been used for more appropriate goals, including Assembly efforts to investigate and condemn Israel's violations of the Geneva Conventions by its settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories.

A new effort to involve the General Assembly in the Iraq crisis may have already begun. On October 16 the Non-Aligned countries, under South African leadership, demanded an open meeting of the Council to discuss the issue. Under the Uniting for Peace precedent, if a majority of the 191 member states of the vetoless General Assembly, acting in the name of "the peoples of the United Nations," agrees, that body will take up the issue. Such a move would redefine the real relevance of the UN--standing defiant against Washington's unilateralism and upholding international law, at the center of the growing global challenge to the legitimacy of Bush's war.