13 November 1997 Edition
US may use new `super bomb' in Iraq
By Dara MacNeil
The sorry tale of Operation Provide Comfort says just about everything we need to know about current US actions in Iraq.
The operation, you may recall, was established in the aftermath of the Gulf War - the one that liberated Kuwait from despotic Iraqi rule and then handed it straight back to the dynastic and despotic rule of the filthy rich Al Sabah family.
Briefly, Operation Provide Comfort began in April 1991. Under its auspices a huge swathe of northern Iraq became a no-go area for the Iraqi military.
Ostensibly, its establishment was an attempt to `protect' the long-suffering Kurdish people of the region, from Saddam Hussein's murderous army. Compliance was ensured by US-led air force patrols.
Unfortunately, those ever vigilant top guns were strangely absent whenever the murderous forces of another country - Turkey - chose to enter the so-called no go area.
In March 1995, for example, Turkey launched a wholesale invasion of the region. The invasion was directed at the Kurds. Involving up to 35,000 troops, it was Turkey's biggest ever military offensive, even outstripping their 1974 invasion of Cyprus.
US news reports at the time informed us that, in response, the US-led airforce had ``halted its routine flights in the area, which are designed to protect Iraqi Kurds.''
In May of this year, the Turks were at it again. This time the invading force comprised an estimated 50,000 men, along with the usual accoutrements of wholesale destruction. Again, their target was Kurdish rebels. Washington expressed its understanding of Turkey's ``right to self defence.''
Imagine the (manufactured) international outrage had Iraq brazenly violated an internationally established and monitored `safe haven', in order to terrorise a people fighting for their independence. Imagine the streams of condemnation, the plethora of UN resolutions.
But Turkey is a valued ally of the West (much as Saddam Hussein once was). Thus it has carte blanche to blatantly ignore and violate international law and rights.
Turkey, after all, is ruled by a regime that is at least the equal - in the depravity stakes - of that which operates out of Baghdad. The country's `security forces' have a reputation for brutality and murder which is second to none in the region, their long and violent suppression of the Kurdish people being the most notorious example. And there is compelling evidence of the involvement of key members of Turkey's ruling elite in the very lucrative heroin trade.
Saddam Hussein may well have chemical and biological weapons hidden away. That would be par for the course. But are we to believe that his is the only regime which possesses such weapons of mass destruction?
The US-led international campaign against Iraq is simply part of that country's strategy of `containment.' Indeed, the West gladly profited from the 10 year long Iran-Iraq war (by selling weapons to both sides), happy in the belief that the conflict would bleed both countries dry. That in turn was supposed to remove their threat to the region's valuable oil supplies.
Equally, the UN (US) argues that it is Iraq's non-compliance with the international body's resolutions that has precipitated the current crisis.
If non-compliance with UN resolutions is to become the newest criteria for threatened military action, then perhaps US carriers should be directing their guns at Tel Aviv. After all, Israel has ignored and violated virtually every single UN resolution - relating to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and settlement building - of which it has been the subject.
Another treasured Western ally, Indonesia, boasts a similar record of non-compliance.
But if abhorrent weaponry is to be the target of an international campaign of eradication, the `great' powers would be better served eradicating some of the stockpiles in their own backyards.
Despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the US military continues its passionate embrace of nuclear weaponry.
Earlier this year, they revealed the existence of their new `wonder bomb'. Officially named the B-61, this device is a modified hydrogen bomb that has the capacity to burrow some 50 feet into the earth before exploding.
According to the New York Times, the resultant explosion could ``produce third-degree burns a mile away'' and spread a wave of ``lethal radiation stretching from ten to fifteen miles long and a mile wide.'' In other words, it could maim and kill thousands. And most would be civilians.
The bomb is said to be especially favoured among personnel in the US Department of Energy and the Pentagon - those charged with locating new, cheap sources of energy for US industry, and those charged with keeping access to those supplies open, respectively.
In an interview three years ago, radical journalist John Pilger pointed out that the focus of the US military was now being directed at its task for the 21st Century: namely to ensure the continued supply of resources from the Third World, whilst also ensuring that the great majority of the world's population don't get their grubby hands on all that oil.
Thus, it is no surprise to learn that a US government official informed the media that the new B-61 bomb had been developed specifically to deal with so-called `rogue states', such as Iraq: ``It's a new `rogue state' weapon,'' he said of the B-61.
Can we expect a debut in the days and weeks to come?
It appears certain that the US government is about to ignore the democratic will of the United Nations. And not for the first time. More like the sixth successive occasion since 1992.
In early November, the UN's Cuban delegation tabled a motion at the General Assembly calling for an end to the continued, illegal US blockade of their country. 1n 1992, that same motion was passed, albeit with 71 abstentions. The vote was 50 for, and three against.
By 1994, the vote in favour had risen to 101. The vote against the Cuban motion, however, remained static. Last year, the vote in favour had risen again, to 137.
This year, a full 143 of the world's nations demanded before the UN General Assembly that the US end its blockade. That, I would hazard, is about as clear an expression of the `international will' as you're likely to hear.
Ireland, Canada, France and Britain were among those condemning the US blockade.
For their part, the US could only muster three votes. One of those belonged to itself and the second to Israel. Over the years, this spectacular block vote has never once been broken up. Israel always votes with the US.
Occasionally, the duo manage to attract the interest of other world luminaries. In the past, Albania and Paraguay have come to the rescue of Washington. This year, the blushes of the Free World were spared by tiny Uzbekistan.
Is that an aid package I see before me?
The sorry tale of Operation Provide Comfort says just about everything we need to know about current US actions in Iraq.
The operation, you may recall, was established in the aftermath of the Gulf War - the one that liberated Kuwait from despotic Iraqi rule and then handed it straight back to the dynastic and despotic rule of the filthy rich Al Sabah family.
Briefly, Operation Provide Comfort began in April 1991. Under its auspices a huge swathe of northern Iraq became a no-go area for the Iraqi military.
Ostensibly, its establishment was an attempt to `protect' the long-suffering Kurdish people of the region, from Saddam Hussein's murderous army. Compliance was ensured by US-led air force patrols.
Unfortunately, those ever vigilant top guns were strangely absent whenever the murderous forces of another country - Turkey - chose to enter the so-called no go area.
In March 1995, for example, Turkey launched a wholesale invasion of the region. The invasion was directed at the Kurds. Involving up to 35,000 troops, it was Turkey's biggest ever military offensive, even outstripping their 1974 invasion of Cyprus.
US news reports at the time informed us that, in response, the US-led airforce had ``halted its routine flights in the area, which are designed to protect Iraqi Kurds.''
In May of this year, the Turks were at it again. This time the invading force comprised an estimated 50,000 men, along with the usual accoutrements of wholesale destruction. Again, their target was Kurdish rebels. Washington expressed its understanding of Turkey's ``right to self defence.''
Imagine the (manufactured) international outrage had Iraq brazenly violated an internationally established and monitored `safe haven', in order to terrorise a people fighting for their independence. Imagine the streams of condemnation, the plethora of UN resolutions.
But Turkey is a valued ally of the West (much as Saddam Hussein once was). Thus it has carte blanche to blatantly ignore and violate international law and rights.
Turkey, after all, is ruled by a regime that is at least the equal - in the depravity stakes - of that which operates out of Baghdad. The country's `security forces' have a reputation for brutality and murder which is second to none in the region, their long and violent suppression of the Kurdish people being the most notorious example. And there is compelling evidence of the involvement of key members of Turkey's ruling elite in the very lucrative heroin trade.
Saddam Hussein may well have chemical and biological weapons hidden away. That would be par for the course. But are we to believe that his is the only regime which possesses such weapons of mass destruction?
The US-led international campaign against Iraq is simply part of that country's strategy of `containment.' Indeed, the West gladly profited from the 10 year long Iran-Iraq war (by selling weapons to both sides), happy in the belief that the conflict would bleed both countries dry. That in turn was supposed to remove their threat to the region's valuable oil supplies.
Equally, the UN (US) argues that it is Iraq's non-compliance with the international body's resolutions that has precipitated the current crisis.
If non-compliance with UN resolutions is to become the newest criteria for threatened military action, then perhaps US carriers should be directing their guns at Tel Aviv. After all, Israel has ignored and violated virtually every single UN resolution - relating to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and settlement building - of which it has been the subject.
Another treasured Western ally, Indonesia, boasts a similar record of non-compliance.
But if abhorrent weaponry is to be the target of an international campaign of eradication, the `great' powers would be better served eradicating some of the stockpiles in their own backyards.
Despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the US military continues its passionate embrace of nuclear weaponry.
Earlier this year, they revealed the existence of their new `wonder bomb'. Officially named the B-61, this device is a modified hydrogen bomb that has the capacity to burrow some 50 feet into the earth before exploding.
According to the New York Times, the resultant explosion could ``produce third-degree burns a mile away'' and spread a wave of ``lethal radiation stretching from ten to fifteen miles long and a mile wide.'' In other words, it could maim and kill thousands. And most would be civilians.
The bomb is said to be especially favoured among personnel in the US Department of Energy and the Pentagon - those charged with locating new, cheap sources of energy for US industry, and those charged with keeping access to those supplies open, respectively.
In an interview three years ago, radical journalist John Pilger pointed out that the focus of the US military was now being directed at its task for the 21st Century: namely to ensure the continued supply of resources from the Third World, whilst also ensuring that the great majority of the world's population don't get their grubby hands on all that oil.
Thus, it is no surprise to learn that a US government official informed the media that the new B-61 bomb had been developed specifically to deal with so-called `rogue states', such as Iraq: ``It's a new `rogue state' weapon,'' he said of the B-61.
Can we expect a debut in the days and weeks to come?
US again ignores UN opposition to Cuban blockade
It appears certain that the US government is about to ignore the democratic will of the United Nations. And not for the first time. More like the sixth successive occasion since 1992.
In early November, the UN's Cuban delegation tabled a motion at the General Assembly calling for an end to the continued, illegal US blockade of their country. 1n 1992, that same motion was passed, albeit with 71 abstentions. The vote was 50 for, and three against.
By 1994, the vote in favour had risen to 101. The vote against the Cuban motion, however, remained static. Last year, the vote in favour had risen again, to 137.
This year, a full 143 of the world's nations demanded before the UN General Assembly that the US end its blockade. That, I would hazard, is about as clear an expression of the `international will' as you're likely to hear.
Ireland, Canada, France and Britain were among those condemning the US blockade.
For their part, the US could only muster three votes. One of those belonged to itself and the second to Israel. Over the years, this spectacular block vote has never once been broken up. Israel always votes with the US.
Occasionally, the duo manage to attract the interest of other world luminaries. In the past, Albania and Paraguay have come to the rescue of Washington. This year, the blushes of the Free World were spared by tiny Uzbekistan.
Is that an aid package I see before me?