Who Deceives?
Powell’s credibility collapse leads to diplomatic disaster
Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled to the UN February 5 to give evidence of Iraq’s refusal to fully disclose its weapons. His exposition was impressive and breathtaking. The picture he painted indeed was a scary one: Iraq has trucked out its weapons ahead of the UNMOVIC inspectors, lied in its declaration, maintained mobile bio-weapons labs, sought components necessary for the construction of nuclear bombs, and consorted with and provided camps for poison-spreading al-Qa’ida terrorists in an alleged desire to conduct unspecified attacks. Powell’s bottom line conveys yet again that the United States cannot take the chance that some of these scary weapons will be used in or against America. Could any listener to these formidable complaints fail to conclude that a major U.S. war against Iraq is therefore justified?
On February 14, Powell returned to the Security Council to attempt a belittling of the UNMOVIC weapons reports given by Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog. But by this time, Powell’s credibility had been shattered. Shortly after Powell’s first presentation, it had been discovered that a major MI6 intelligence report from the U.K., on which part of the presentation was based, was cribbed directly off of the internet from a decade-old graduate student’s paper concerning confiscated 1980s Iraqi documents (that described a period of heavy U.S. support). This disclosure had an enhancing influence on the massive worldwide anti-war demonstrations held on February 15.
Discovery of hijinks continued when a piece by John Barry in Newsweek detailed the debriefing of Saddam’s son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel. He defected in the mid-1990s with extensive documentation of Saddam’s destruction of biological and chemical weapons.
Kamel has been repeatedly cited as a credible source by George Bush, Tony Blair and leading administration officials. He was cited by Powell in his February 5 presentation to the UN Security Council:
“It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX… The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein’s late son-in-law.”
But Kamel, who was killed after returning to Iraq in 1996, actually told UN inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq has always claimed.
Those disclosures seemingly have had no effect on weeks of parading administration figures droning on about how “Saddam must disarm immediately.†Then on March 7, Hans Blix threw more of Powell’s case out the window:
â€Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks. In particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found.â€
In other words, Colin Powell probably lied. The only other explanation is that he misinterpreted the intelligence. But there is a problem with the latter charitable explanation — if he wanted real mobile weapons facilities discovered, why was UNMOVIC never provided with the intelligence in real time?
There really is no charitable explanation concerning forged documents about Iraqi uranium imports from Niger. ElBaradei reported on March 7 that his agency had determined that documents said by the United States and Britain to support the allegations, and trumpeted during the fall of 2002 by Bush and Blair, were fraudulent.
“Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents — which formed the basis for the reports of these uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger — are, in fact, not authentic,” he said.
Even if the fabrications in Powell’s exposition are set aside and we assume Powell is 100% correct about all of the deceptions by Iraq, that only would show Iraq is under extreme scrutiny. Any escalation of its weapons development or attempt to use the weapons would presumably not escape U.S. notice. Powell’s faulty case, even if taken on its own terms, argues against a war if you believe war is a last resort.
Looking at Iraqi weapons in a different way, and getting beyond all of the hand-wringing about Iraqi non-cooperation, it emerges that the U.S. has completely obstructed Iraqi compliance with the Security Council. The excellent analyst, Glen Rangwala (who broke the internet cribbing story), has posted a counter-dossier and an extensive, up-to-the-minute evaluation of claims concerning Iraqi weapons.
Here, Rangwala provides clear analysis supporting the case that the United States in fact has deceived the world with its claims about Iraqi weapons and has failed to fulfill its own responsibilities under U.N. Security Council resolutions. The U.N. weapons inspection regime and Iraqi cooperation with it in reality has gone a long way towards disarming Saddam Hussein, an interpretation of events that is the polar opposite of the usual line found in the U.S. media. Yes, there are officially unresolved issues concerning chemical and biological agents that could be locally very dangerous. And full credence should be given to the possibility that Hussein Kamel correctly reported the destruction of these agents. Above all, there is no way these issues add up to war in the absence of a direct threat from Iraq.
Rangwala writes, “Iraq has repeatedly asked for a clear timetable for the lifting of economic sanctions to be coupled with the weapons inspections system. This is not an unreasonable demand: in fact, it was the agreement made in the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, and which the U.S. in particular has done so much since 1991 to obscure. The ceasefire agreement - Security Council resolution 687 laid out a political settlement: the weapons inspectorate, an end to the threat of war, a clear timetable to lifting economic sanctions, and the creation of a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East (entailing the need for the end of Israel’s nuclear arsenal).â€
In other words, a solution short of war has always been possible—lifting of sanctions and permanent in-country inspections coupled with region-wide peace initiatives. We probably will never know if present day Iraq can cooperate with the international community and heal itself from decades of tyrannical rule because the U.S. will not allow it.
Administration officials are now well-rehearsed in delivering lines like, “Saddam Hussein is a practiced liar, there is no doubt about it. We should take everything he says very skeptically.â€
Apparently, the same holds true for Colin Powell and our own administration. Other countries see this clearly as their citizens line up at 80%+ rates against the war. Notwithstanding posturing of the U.S. administration that failure to vote along lines of U.S. will renders the U.N. “irrelevant,†the U.S. still faces three likely vetoes of a war resolution from China, France, and Russia; teetering of the Blair government in the U.K. as it desperately seeks cover for war; even withdrawal of support for the U.S. position in third-world countries like Pakistan and Cameroon. These are no small measures of how badly Powell’s diplomatic disaster has turned out.