Site Presented By
Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009
Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism, Columbia University
Powell produced a lot of evidence before the United Nations today. The first question is, What does it demonstrate? The second is, What is to be done about it?
Without my own fleet of satellites, my own spy inspectorate, my own telephone intercepts, how can I -- how can any of us? -- confirm the evidence of Iraqi evasion and lying that Powell brought forth? Leave that built-in problem aside, and let's assess Powell's argument as we would try to assess any fact-based statement any official anywhere makes in public. On its face, much of what Powell offered seems plausible. It would come as no surprise that Saddam Hussein cheats, and that his command hierarchy carries out his orders to cheat.
Powell's evidence of cheating involves principally chemical and biological weapons, and longer-range missiles. So let's stipulate that in these respects Saddam Hussein is -- continues to be -- in material breach of Security Council Resolution 1441.
About nuclear weapons, the evidence is more blurry. Powell brought up the now-famous aluminum tubes, about which he made two strong and (to me) new points: 1) They're machined to a very high standard, higher than if they were simply intended for rocket use. 2) They've improved over their predecessors. He claimed further 3) that Iraq is trying to acquire other equipment useful for a uranium enrichment gas centrifuge process. And 4) that Saddam Hussein regularly exhorts his nuclear sciences "and praises their progress." All this suggests that Saddam Hussein is in breach of 1441 in the nuclear area as well.
One wonders, however, on the subject of nuclear weapons, why Powell didn't bring up Bush's claim (in his State of the Union address) that British intelligence demonstrates that Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy uranium in Africa. Could it be that that evidence isn't so hot? And if so, would closer scrutiny also undermine some of items 1-4 above?
In any event, Saddam has committed material breaches, yes, without doubt. But the terrifically real, consequential, unavoidable question is: Do they make war wise?
If Saddam Hussein could be deterred from the use of chemical and biological weapons in 1991, why can't he be deterred now?
Doesn't it remain the case that the greatest danger of Saddam using chemical or biological weapons comes in reaction to a U.S. attack, whether against attacking soldiers or against Israel?
As for nuclear -- the serious threat to the United States itself -- if U.S. intelligence knows which firms Iraq was negotiating with in 1999-2000 (items 3-4), why can't the U.S. stop such deals without paying the awful price of war? And if the tubes can't smoke without uranium, isn't this an argument for continuing the inspections and finding them?
Finally, as for the Saddam-Qaida links, even if Powell is correct -- and there is room for multiple interpretation -- they concern biological and chemical weapons that, while certainly ugly, do not rise (or fall) to the level of mass destruction.
So the evidence Powell brought forward is considerable, but it is evidence that Saddam Hussein has violated 1441, not evidence that the costs of war are worth paying.
Samer Shehata, acting director of Arab studies programs, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
There is no doubt that Colin Powell's speech today at the Security Council was quite impressive ... in its presentation. But no nation will be influenced by Powell's remarks. There was no "smoking gun." Not one permanent member of the Security Council [the U.K., France, Russia, China and of course the U.S.] will change its position on the question of using force against Iraq to comply with Security Council Resolution 1441. The question for Americans is different, however. The question should not be "is Iraq complying fully with Resolution 1441" or "how many 'material breaches' of that resolution have occurred in the last two months." This is about war, the most serious decision a nation can face. The question must be: is there an imminent threat to the citizens of the United States? Does Iraq pose an immediate danger to us? The answer to this question is clearly NO.
No one doubts Saddam Hussein's record on human rights. No one doubts the brutality of the Iraqi regime -- a regime, incidentally, that received massive support from the United States in the 1980s -- including billions of dollars in agricultural aid, intelligence support in Iraq's eight-year war against Iran (and, more specifically, satellite photos of Iranian troop positions with the full knowledge that Iraq would use chemical weapons against those troops -- chemical weapons which were obtained through U.S. companies with the tacit approval of several U.S. administrations.) Let's also not forget that the present secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, after all, traveled to Baghdad and shook Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983!
But getting back to Colin Powell's speech: One could go through Powell's allegations one by one and find serious fault with many of them. For example, the high-strength aluminum tubes which Powell claimed Iraq imported for use in their nuclear weapons program (incidentally, Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and President Bush made the same claim earlier) were in fact "not suitable" for uranium enrichment according to the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]. In fact, the IAEA reported that the tubes were most likely for ordinary artillery rockets, consistent with Iraq's claim. This was widely reported including in an article entitled "U.S. Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question" which appeared in the Washington Post on Jan. 23.
Second, satellite photos of building construction -- and the claim that the photos depict a "liquid engine test facility" -- do not prove anything. Recently the United States shared information with weapons inspectors about a building that the U.S. claimed could be a hiding place for one of Iraq's unaccounted for Scud missiles and it turned out to be a chicken farm outside of Baghdad!
This is pretty weak evidence and it makes one wonder -- this is the best the Bush administration and the CIA have in their case that Iraq has a working nuclear weapons development program? This is the best evidence this administration has that we should send young American men and women thousands of miles away and put them in harm's way? I for one am not convinced.
Finally, I agree with some of the remarks made by France's Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin. The U.N. inspections program (UNMOVIC) is working well on the ground and should be strengthened. If more inspectors are needed, then send them. If more resources need to be allocated, then allocate them. And whatever action is taken, it should come under the auspices of the United Nations. The U.S. should not act unilaterally (or even with a small coalition) or outside the direction of the U.N.
