A blindness that puts us all in
danger
The real threat is not from Iraq, but weapons on the open
market
"The US is blocking funds to secure Russian stores while it
spends billions sending tens of thousands of troops to the Gulf,
with British support, to topple a dictator who presents no
existing threat to American or British security."
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday January 23, 2003
The Guardian
Does Iraq pose a greater threat with UN inspectors in the
country, or not? Would the Middle East be a safer place if Iraq
was bombed and occupied by US and British forces? Would the
US and Britain be more secure as a result?
Bizarrely, these questions are not rhetorical. Bush and Blair
appear to believe that the answers are yes, yes, and yes. Of
course, Saddam Hussein lied about his chemical and biological
weapons and attempt to make a nuclear bomb. UN inspectors
found him out before they left Iraq in 1998 to a pointless
bombing onslaught.
What's the hurry, why now? The short answer is because the
Bush administration's domestic political agenda dictates it. Why
does Britain have to support the US? Because, says the
government, Britain's national security depends on maintaining
its close relationship with Washington. That this relationship is
synonymous with our own national security was emphasised by
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, to MPs last week when they
asked him about the consequences of saying no to upgrading
Fylingdales for America's missile defence project. Our relations
with the US are a "vital part of the UK's national security", he
replied.
That diktat blindly drives ministers up a path that endangers,
rather than protects, our real security. Those responsible for
protecting Britain's national security - the security and
intelligence agencies - believe that the greatest threat comes
from al-Qaida-inspired Islamist fundamentalism, which an attack
on Iraq is almost certain to fuel. Any threat posed by Iraq is well
down the road, they believe.
Blair's defence of his policy towards Saddam Hussein and UN
weapons inspectors seems increasingly incoherent. In his press
conference last week he carefully linked the threat of terrorism
with the need to disarm Iraq. There was a danger of weapons
falling into the hands of terrorists. He described Iraq as the
"focal point" of the problem.
Yet under questioning by MPs on Tuesday, Blair admitted that
no evidence had been found of any links between al-Qaida and
Saddam Hussein, something his intelligence agencies have
repeatedly told him. Yet the Bush administration, encouraged by
the Israeli government, continues to promote the lie that such a
link exists.
Blair, meanwhile, told MPs the reason Saddam posed a greater
threat than North Korea was because the problem was not so
much the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction but their
use. Yet Iraq has been successfully contained. There is no
evidence of its intention to use or proliferate chemical or
biological weapons or that a policy of deterrence has failed. It
may be argued that North Korea, a great proliferator with the
capacity to produce nuclear weapons, is a much greater threat -
to the extent that the US is desperate to negotiate with it.
Any threat posed by Iraq was put into perspective this week by
the former Democrat senator, Sam Nunn. He was in London to
launch a report on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by
13 respected thinktanks led by the Washington-based Centre for
Strategic and International Studies.
The danger was not so
much that a state would supply terrorist groups with these
weapons. Terrorists, Nunn warned, are more likely to steal them
or buy them on the open market.
"Every lab on every college campus has dangerous materials,"
Nunn said. Yet there were no rules to secure them.
The dangers
of them leaking out existed everywhere, including in the US, but
above all in Russia, where more than 20,000 nuclear warheads
sit in 120 separate storage sites. A single artillery shell of nerve
agents is small enough to fit into a briefcase and contains
enough lethal doses to kill 100,000 people.
The US is blocking funds to secure Russian stores while it
spends billions sending tens of thousands of troops to the Gulf,
with British support, to topple a dictator who presents no
existing threat to American or British security.
Sir Michael Quinlan, former permanent secretary at the MoD
and high priest of traditional deterrence theory, has described a
war against Iraq as "an unnecessary and precarious gamble".
General Sir Michael Rose, former head of the UN peacekeeping
force in Bosnia, raises the question: "How will a war against Iraq
impact on the global war currently being waged against
terrorism?" Douglas Hogg, lawyer and former Conservative
foreign minister, says there is no moral case for war since there
is no evidence that Saddam Hussein presents a grave and
imminent threat to Britain or the US.
They are speaking for many in the highest reaches of Whitehall
and the military, as well as in the wider world, concerned about
the dangerous adventure Blair and Bush are embarking on.
· Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor
r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk |
