Jonathan Rhodes
13 January 2003
Once again, the mass media outlets spin the truth into headlines that blame America first. Here's what they say about remarks made today by Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector and Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency:
Headlines today:
With the massive US military buildup in the region, the clear inference of these headlines is a plea for the aggressor US to stand down and let the peaceable inspectors do their work.
Here is what these men actually said:
The U.N.'s top weapons inspectors say they need months to search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
They also say getting that time may depend on whether Iraq gives them new evidence about its nuclear, chemical and biological programs.
That's right - IRAQ needs to meet its UN obligation and delivers the goods to Blix and company - and this is Hans Blix talking!
Here's what else Blix said - not included in the usual anti-American spin from the liberal press:
"In the course of these inspections, we have not found any smoking gun," Blix said. "However, we are getting more and more information, better knowledge about the situation. But the declaration, regrettably, has not helped very much to clarify any question marks of the past."
"There are a great many open questions as to their possession of weapons of mass destruction and the Security Council and the world would like to be assured that these questions be sorted out," Blix said. How long this takes "depends entirely on how cooperative the Iraqis are."
"We would hope ... for a peaceful solution to this, and that inspection can provide that. I think also what the show of force demonstrates to Iraq is that here is the other alternative."
"I think they only need look around their borders and they should realize the seriousness," Blix said in an interview with The Associated Press and Associated Press Television News, "I would imagine that the Iraqis seeing this (U.S. and British military) build-up would feel a great preference for disarmament through inspection, so they see the seriousness of the situation."
The IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei added more poignant language:
ElBaradei, in Paris for meetings with top French officials, said his inspectors "still need a few months to achieve our mission" but the time frame will depend on Baghdad's willingness to supply documents, allow UN inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists and show physical evidence of what facilities and weapons have been destroyed.
The international community, he said, is "getting impatient that after 11 years, we have not yet brought to a closure this file about Iraq's disarmament."Blix and ElBaradei said although Iraq has cooperated in providing access to sites, it hasn't provided the information inspectors need to verify its claim that it has no banned weapons and long-range missiles to deliver them. They reiterated that Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration didn't contain new evidence.
In an interview published January 12, 2002, ElBaradei told Time Magazine:
The chemical and biological files are very much open. There is almost a consensus among intelligence agencies that there are still chemical- and biological-weapons programs going on in Iraq. UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) expected to get records of production, destruction, physical evidence of where remnants of some of the stuff has been destroyed. The declaration (and inspections so far) shed no new light on any of these issues. So that's why (UNMOVIC chief Hans) Blix keeps saying, "I don't have any evidence, but I cannot exclude the possibility." In light of the Iraqi past record of concealment and deceit, that's obviously not good enough for the Security Council. The uncertainty is too wide for the council to accept.
Q.Is Iraq capable of hiding these programs forever?
A. Unless we stumble on something— either through information from defections or through random inspection. If we continue on and on without making progress on some of these issues, I don't think the Security Council— the U.S. in particular— is ready to wait forever.Q.Are there specific questions you are taking to Baghdad at the end of this week?
A. Yes. What we want to impress on the Iraqis is that cooperation on process but not on substance is not enough. Given Iraq's past record of 12 years of patchy cooperation, given the fact that everyone is getting sick and tired of this Iraq file, nothing less will be sufficient. We will say we don't think they are going to be attacked if they come clean and produce what they have. But Iraq has to understand: if they cooperate in process and not substance, then the end is near.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped up to the plate and clearly made the point that although much of his cabinet holds a more dovish stance, British resolve stands. From the BBC today:
"Even now, Saddam should take the peaceful route and disarm," Mr. Blair told his monthly press conference. "If he does not, however, he will be disarmed by force."
"Saddam Hussein must disarm and if he does not, his weapons will be taken by force," Blair said in his monthly press briefing at Downing Street, his official residence.
"I am quite sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there is evidence to prove it," he said.
Blair said those weapons posed a "direct threat to British national security." "If threats of such weapons is not tackled, then one day a rogue nation will use them or they will fall into the hands of international terrorists," Blair said.
He said conflict was not inevitable, but disarmament was.
Stating the British Government believed "passionately" that Iraq must be stripped of its weapons of mass destruction, Blair said, "It is only a matter of time... before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together." He was speaking after cabinet minister Clare Short's plea for the British public to make sure America does not act without United Nations authority.
Blair said his preference and expectation was for a fresh UN resolution backing military action if Iraq was deemed to have breached UN rules.
But if any country put an "unreasonable or unilateral block on such resolution, we have said we can't be in a position where we are confined in that way."
With political pressure building from all quarters, and military pressure clearly overwhelming, will the madman from Baghdad yield - or start a war? That's right, Saddam will be the one to decide on peace or war. If the US wanted war the invasion would have begun long ago. If the US only wanted cheap oil, we could have let the sanctions end and let Iraqi oil production run amok. Saddam, his war crimes, crimes against humanity and quest for middle eastern hegemony through WMD have to be stopped. He can give it up or fight. What will he do?
