Blair’s WMD lies time-bomb
The recent revelations that Blair lied about Saddam’s
weapons of mass destruction shows the lengths the government went to in order to
ensure Britain’s participation in the war against Iraq. JANE JAMES writes.
THE WMD LIES scandal has exposed divisions between the
intelligence agencies and the government, the alarm among sections of the
British ruling class at Blair’s ‘presidential-style’ of government, and the
anger of ordinary workers at this government’s contempt for the truth.
The real motives for the war were nothing to do with weapons
of mass destruction (WMDs) but about US control of Iraq’s oil resources and to
strengthen their presence in the Middle East. Bush and Blair, however, needed a
more compelling reason for war to win public support.
Three months after the end of the war, a new regime, the US
army, now occupies Iraq with opposition growing against its rule. And no trace
of WMDs have been found. As usual Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has
added to Blair’s problems. "We don’t know what happened. It is also possible
that [Saddam] decided they would destroy them prior to a conflict", he said on
May 28, raising the possibility that there are no weapons to be found. Then his
deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, revealed that WMDs were chosen as the main justification
for war for ‘bureaucratic’ reasons, the best way to bring ‘doves’ like Colin
Powell on board and publicly ‘legitimise’ it.
An almost open row then erupted between the intelligence
agencies in Britain – particularly MI6 and GCHQ – and the government. Some
government ministers blamed the quality of intelligence data provided while M16
and GCHQ retorted, through a series of leaks, that there never was conclusive
intelligence evidence that Saddam had WMDs. Blair is probably the only person to
still believe that Saddam could have activated such weapons within 45 minutes of
an order being given.
Initially, Blair denied the need for an inquiry, but days
later agreed to give evidence to the parliamentary intelligence security
committee and conceded that the second government dossier on the case for war
was flawed. Alistair Campbell, his director of strategy and communications,
apologised to the head of the intelligence services, promising that their
‘reputation’ would never suffer again through the government distorting their
information.
The emperor has no clothes
THE WMD LIES scandal has been compared to the Watergate
scandal in America in the 1970s. The US ruling class then were worried that the
presidency, in the person of Richard Nixon, was out of its control. The corrupt
intrigues of Nixon were exposed and eventually, two years after the break-in at
the Democratic Party’s Watergate HQ, Nixon resigned.
Blair is the first prime minister for nearly 50 years to
have so blatantly distorted intelligence reports: since the 1956 Suez crisis
when Anthony Eden ‘selected’ information to justify the calamitous
Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt. Even Denis Healey, the former right-wing
Labour chancellor, has called on Blair to resign if he ‘knowingly made false
statements’.
Intelligence agencies reports in the past have only ever
been given to high-placed ministers and the armed forces chiefs and not used in
public dossiers, let alone distorted and exaggerated. The fact that they were
used in this way shows how desperate Blair was to convince wavering MPs to back
the war.
Bush faced a number of obstacles on his road to war. Some US
administration figures were not convinced of the need to attack Iraq while some
countries, including France and Russia, opposed his plans for their own
interests. With mass worldwide protests growing, Bush attempted to get UN
backing for war by insisting that WMDs in Iraq were a threat to other countries,
which UN rules deem to be a ‘legitimate’ reason for war. Blair in particular
faced unprecedented mass opposition on the streets in addition to ripples of
opposition from his own MPs. The pressure was on to justify this war.
In September 2002, in the run-up to the Labour Party
conference and a new session of parliament, Blair produced the first dossier.
Even then it was clear that it contained no new intelligence but Blair insisted
that Saddam had WMDs which could be activated in 45 minutes and would threaten
other countries. (See box) The second dossier produced in February 2003 ‘mixed’
intelligence services material with analysis found on the internet from a
Californian research student. It was widely ridiculed. Blair also linked Saddam
to Al-Qaida and claimed that intelligence data (now known to have been forged)
proved that Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Africa to develop nuclear
weapons.
Under the strict definition of WMDs it is unlikely that
Saddam ever had them. The UN weapons inspectors failed to find any after
three-and-a-half months searching over 200 sites prior to the start of the war.
The former foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned from the government over
the war, stated that "a weapon of mass destruction in normal speech is a device
capable of being delivered over a long distance and exterminating a strategic
target such as a capital city. Saddam had neither a long-range missile system
nor a warhead capable of mass destruction". Skilled scientists and engineers as
well as advanced production equipment are needed to make such weapons. Since the
1991 Gulf war Iraq has been under continual US surveillance, who would have
known of WMD production if it had been proceeding.
Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, has referred to
elements in the US state department as ‘bastards’, accusing them of pressurising
the weapons inspectors to exaggerate their findings. Even if some of these
weapons are found now, there will be widespread belief that they were planted by
the US (and, of course, it does not detract from the fact that there was no
intelligence data prior to the war confirming their existence).
If Saddam had WMDs then why were they not used during the
war? In fact the real danger from such materials is now being realised because
of the bombing of Iraq and the ensuing events. Many Iraqis are reported to be
suffering from radiation sickness caused by the looting of radioactive material
from an atomic research centre in Tuwaitha. Cluster bombs dropped by Britain and
the US are still killing and maiming Iraqi people.
Government minister John Reid claimed that the leaks from
the intelligence agencies were from ‘rouge’ elements, insinuating that spies
were plotting against this Labour government. It is known that MI5, Britain’s
internal security service, had plotted against past Labour governments because
they perceived them to be a threat to the capitalist system. Capitalism
maintains its rule by using the state institutions, which include the tops of
the civil servants, the government itself, the intelligence agencies and
ultimately the police and army. MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are laws unto themselves and
will always seek to undermine a government which could threaten the status quo.
However, this Labour government has loyally obeyed the wishes of big business
more than any other, in the process telling endless lies to workers: that
tuition fees are needed to improve universities, that SATS are beneficial for
children’s education, and that foundation hospitals will not mean a two-tier
health service. When Blair lies to his own class, though, there is outrage from
on high. These leaks from the intelligence agencies were never intended to
protect the British people from a lying government but a warning to Blair not to
get out of hand, or to undermine the secret service.
There is growing ruling class disquiet about the way Blair
runs this government. One of the accusations to have come out of this affair is
from foreign office diplomats complaining that their warnings of the
consequences of the Iraq war were ignored and that Blair has centralised foreign
policy with a rival diplomatic network in Number Ten. The ruling class demand
that the government of the day does its bidding so will seek to avoid any prime
minister restricting information and planning to a small clique.
War damaged
THE RESPONSE OF Labour MPs to the WMD lies scandal has been
timid. While Cook was always sceptical about WMDs, he says he still trusts
Blair; while Clare Short, who belatedly resigned from the government, now claims
she was ‘duped’ – along with some other MPs who voted for war. Only 11 Labour
MPs voted against the government to support a Liberal Democrat call for a public
inquiry, having been warned that to defeat Blair could cost Labour the next
election.
A YouGov poll at the height of the revelations revealed that
63% believed Blair misled them over WMDs, with 27% accusing him of lying. The
Tories were 1% behind Labour, the worst rating for Labour since the fuel
protests in 2000. The Labour Party admitted in June that its membership is now
below 250,000, its lowest level since Blair came to power six years ago when it
was 405,238.
We can have no trust in the inquiries set up to investigate
these allegations against Blair. The intelligence and security committee is
appointed by and reports to the prime minister and meets in secret, while the
foreign affairs select committee has limited access to information. Instead
there should be an inquiry run by representatives of working-class people – the
ranks of the trade unions, community organisations, other democratic bodies as
well as representatives from the mass anti-war movement, with powers to
investigate all areas.
Blair seems to be over this present crisis though there are
bound to be more lies revealed as the inquires proceed. However, this affair has
badly damaged him and his government. If the anger and hatred towards Blair felt
by millions of people who are suffering from the policies of this government was
channelled through a party committed to fighting for ordinary people then his
days would be numbered. This is one more reason to make sure we campaign for a
new party of the working class to replace New Labour and to change the whole
corrupt system.
BOX:
Truths and untruths
IN SEPTEMBER Blair presented a dossier to the House of
Commons, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which set out the government’s
case.
WMDs – an imminent threat?
IN THE forward to the dossier Blair states that evidence
"discloses that military planning allows for some of the WMDs to be ready within
45 minutes of an order to use them", setting out to prove that not only did Iraq
have WMDs but they were an imminent threat beyond its borders and therefore
legitimised other countries protecting themselves by attacking Iraq.
The facts:
* Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, explained that
this claim was intelligence-based but that it came from a single source –
believed to be an Iraqi scientist desperate to defect and therefore unreliable.
Intelligence such as this is usually expected to be backed by two sources.
* Hans Blix, then the chief UN weapons inspector, has
criticised the weak intelligence data that the US gave him to help the hunt for
these weapons. Having been pointed to many sites and finding nothing relating to
WMDs he recalled thinking, "my god, if this is the best intelligence they had
and we find nothing, what about the rest?"
* The Pentagon Defence Intelligence Agency produced a report
in September 2002 revealing that there was no reliable information that Iraq had
chemical and biological weapons ready to use in battle.
Nuclear weapons
THE DOSSIER claimed that there was intelligence data to
prove that Iraq "has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium"
from the African nation of Niger. Documents asserting this were used to convince
wavering US Democrats of the imminent danger posed by Saddam.
The facts:
* The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigated
these documents and found very easily that they were forgeries. The Niger
minister supposed to have signed them, for example, had been out of office since
1989. The IAEA also points out it would have been impossible for Iraq to have
bought 500 tons of uranium from Niger as claimed, given the amount of uranium
mined each year.
* An article in the May-June issue of the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists by John Prados, a senior analyst at the US National Security Archive,
concludes: "The CIA claimed to have discovered every facility that was part of
the [Iraqi nuclear] program before the (last) Gulf war, and asserted that almost
every facility was heavily damaged during that war. For the most part, what the
bombs did not get, the inspectors did".
Biological & chemical weapons
AGAIN THE claim was that Iraq was involved in "recent
production of chemical and biological agents", and "recent intelligence confirms
that the Iraqi military have developed mobile facilities".
Facts:
* The stockpile of chemical agents had fallen dramatically
since the last Gulf war. The quality and longevity of these agents was also
known by the CIA to be very poor. Consequently any chemical warfare capacity
would have been extremely limited, with too few stocks for large-scale
battlefield use.
* A British intelligence paper agreed with Iraq’s own
estimation of its stock of anthrax and added that most likely no extra
production had taken place between 1995 and 2003.
* Mobile laboratories for the production of biological
agents could never have constituted a large-scale threat as suggested. The
quality of such agents would be very poor as such conditions weigh against the
facilities of a static industrial plant. The lorries which have been discovered
after the war, which Blair still claims to be mobile laboratories, now appear
not to be.
Missiles
BLAIR’S DOSSIER argues that "Iraq wants to extend the range
of its missile systems to over 1,000km".
Facts
* A US National Intelligence Estimate in a 2001 paper
stated: "Most agencies… believe that Iraq is unlikely to test an
intercontinental ballistic missile even if the UN prohibitions are lifted".
* The missiles that Saddam was trying to develop had flaws
and poor performance results which were known due to CIA surveillance. Iraq
agreed to destroy the missiles and had destroyed half of them before the war
began. |