Who Should Be Ashamed?

The recent attacks on Tony Blair and George W. Bush have forced those who supported the invasion of Iraq into a defensive position. Given the failure to find the supposed weapons of mass destruction, the hawks line has been to trumpet the human rights benefits of the war, and to seek to brand the doves as "apologists" and "self-publicists". Many are still trying to sell the vision of the war as a glorious, humanitarian effort. The truth is rather different.

Too many hawks talk as if the war is over. Since the official end of hostilities, eighteen US troops have been killed in battle. As I write, reports are coming in of six British troops killed near Basra. The invaders control little of the country. They have no real presence outside the cities, and their control of urban areas is often marginal. While they can travel freely without encountering massed resistance, guerrilla attacks are a constant danger.

It is not unreasonable to question whether the continued risk of our troops is justified. This is not a matter for dry historical analysis and court-room minutiae. We are still involved in an ongoing war, whose final resolution, benefits, and costs are very much in doubt. That Hussein has been removed from power, and is unlikely to regain his position, is the only indisputable fact. Those who tells us of the human rights benefits of the war are jumping the gun. We do not know how many abuses are being perpetrated in Iraq right now. We do not have access to most of the country, and the little we can reach does not provide encouraging news. Every day we see more reports of vengeance killings, ethnic violence, punishment beatings, threats against women who will not follow the most extreme Islamic morality codes.

That Hussein was a monster who oversaw a system responsible for massive human rights abuse. Whether his removal will improve the situation partly depends on who replaces him, and of that no one, especially not the US government, has the vaguest idea. The much talked about "model democratic government" is an obvious non-starter. Democracy relies on a number of factors which are absent from Iraq. Most obviously, democracy relies on the losing minority accepting the rule of the leaders chosen by the majority. Given the ethnic and religious nature of Iraq, that is wishful thinking. Instead, a popular vote of the entire country will hand power back to the ethnic group that Hussein belonged to, and which largely benefited from and supported his rule. Neither the Kurds in the north nor the Shi'a in the south will accept that. Alternatively, each of the major groups could be given control over the territory which they dominate, via regional governments. Which will hand the south to religious fundamentalists. Democracy in Iraq is likely to lead either to ethnic civil war or religious fundamentalism; with all that would mean for human rights. The alternative would be to impose a government - which is a cause for great concern, given the American and British track record.

All of which is irrelevant. However bad human rights abuses were under Hussein doesn't matter. Whether things are better now is beside the point; and, anyway, how would we know? Whether by some miracle Iraq ends up with a stable, benign government is immaterial. We did not go to war because of human rights abuses. Comparisons with Milosevic are fatuous at best. When we went into Kosovo, we did so for a reason. The human rights justifications were discussed, the implications of our involvement made clear. The clear and pressing need to intervene was made, often painfully, obvious. In Kosovo, the case for a humanitarian war was made. In Iraq, there was never any attempt.

Human rights were not mentioned in the UN resolutions. Human rights were not a part of the demands made under the sanctions. The human rights abuses that occurred under Hussein were largely the secret, hidden kind; so unlike the public, brash mass murder in Kosovo. UN human rights monitors could have brought too much attention to the atrocities, sent Hussein into covering up and prevented many of the deaths. Despite calls from Amnesty International and others, no human rights monitors were ever dispatched. The British government never considered asking for any. Hussein's worst human rights abuses, and the only ones carried out openly, all occurred while we continued to support him, and supply him with the arms needed to carry out these attacks. And if you still believe that human rights was part of the justification for war, look at the international meeting to discuss re-building the country. Human rights did not even make the agenda.

We did not go to war for human rights. We did not go to war because of a terrorist threat - the slim evidence linking Hussein and Al Qaeda was discredited long before the war began. The only justification for going to war was weapons of mass destruction. Those elusive, undiscovered beasts. That Hussein destroyed them secretly before the war makes no sense. If done publicly, he would have prevented war. His survival instincts have been too strong in the past, a mistake of that magnitude now is simply unbelievable. That he wouldn't use such weapons to save his regime is equally unbelievable. After all, he had the clear example of North Korea - prove you have just three nuclear bombs, and America backs off. A single chemical or biological attack delivered by a device capable of reaching Israel, and the entire war would have stopped. The target is irrelevant, and could have been very minor. The threat to Tel Aviv would be too great for American stomachs.

Our evidence for the existence of such weapons remains unconvincing. It is, simply, the result of a calculation performed in 1991, as follows. We supplied Hussein with so much chemical, biological material. He could have used this as a basis to produce so much more. Therefore he has, at most, this many chemical and biological weapons. The weapons inspectors, armed with this went hunting, and by their withdrawal had destroyed some 90% of the expected materials. The evidence for the existence of the weapons is the missing 10%. But, and this is the important point, the original figure was a worst case scenario. Hussein had at most that much material. If the true figure was less by just 10%, the inspectors found it all. And if they did find it all, they would not have admitted so publicly, as the inspectors were being used by at least one western country as a cover for their spies.

The hawks have become revisionists. Hussein had at most this much material has become Hussein had at least this much material. The war is justified because of weapons of mass destruction has become the war is justified by human rights improvements. When ethnic civil war gives way to a fundamentalist Islamic regime, the justification will change again. Weapons of mass destruction will be found, became they've been destroyed, now they've been looted. Beware anyone whose argument changes every time their evidence proves weak. Hawks are claiming that they are "surprised" that weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found. We doves are not. I stated publicly in January that there were no such weapons. Every revelation since has endorsed my views.

Those opposed to war have maintained an entirely consistent argument throughout. We do not see evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's human rights abuses need tackled, but such an intervention should be attempted through the UN first, and not through military intervention, accept as a last resort. The pro-war case is riddled with contradictions, and has yet to provide one shred of evidence for any of its claims. With dozens of British soldiers dead, along with thousands of Iraqis, the continual hiding behind word games, grandstanding, revisionist arguments is shameful. It is those who ordered this ignoble war who should be ashamed.

Graham Robinson. 25th June 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.