People's Democracy

US In Isolation, But Hawks Are Not Ashamed

Nagen Das From London

PRESIDENT Bush’s team is trying hard to justify to the world that his imminent action against Iraq "is against the evil and the world has to get rid of him." What evil and how? This is so unclear that even the Bush administration’s closest ally, Tony Blair’s Labour government of UK, has not been able to openly support the US.

Recent surveys in Britain show a majority is opposed to any action against Iraq without reason. Nay, an overwhelming majority of Labour MPs are opposed to any such action. That was evident from the foreign secretary Jack Straw’s recent statement, in which he said the UN weapons monitors must visit Iraq before anything else.

George Galloway, a Labour MP and leading anti-war activist, is back after meeting Saddam Hussain in Baghdad. After his return, he urged George Bush to take the "olive branch" offered to him by the Iraqi leader, in a bid to avert any possible conflict involving troops, by sending weapons inspectors into the country. He warned in a TV interview that even "if a quarter of a million western crusaders invade an Arab Muslim country... they will be resisted from street to street, from house to house and from roof to roof." A majority of pro-Labour voters has expressed opinion against any strike. So have pro-Liberal Democrat voters.

Many European countries have criticised the US for its aggressiveness, especially Germany and France. The split in the Bush administration is apparent from the foreign secretary Colin Powell’s declaration that he intends to step down at the end of the current Republican term in 2004.

However, despite being unable to prove its claims about Iraq possessing "weapons of mass destruction," the war party in Washington is getting ready for a new campaign of terror against the Iraqis. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are beating the war drums to drown any critical voices. They’ll cynically use the anniversary of September 11 attacks to justify plans to kill countless more innocent Iraqis.

"If the US could have pre-empted 9/11, we would have, no question," Cheney said at a recent convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Should we be able to prevent another, much more devastating attack, we will, no question."

There are questioners of the Bush gang’s invasion plans within the Washington establishment itself. Top congressional leaders are angry at the White House’s arrogant claim that it doesn’t need a vote in the congress to go to war, though the US constitution says just the opposite. But that hasn’t stopped the Bush gang. "Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region," Cheney declared. "When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace."

But on what grounds does the US claim the right to force a "regime change"? If lack of democracy is a reason good enough, other countries could well claim a right to wage war on the US to remove its unelected president. Or weapons of mass destruction? Refusal to submit to weapons inspections? Washington has by far the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Nay, the Bush gang only recently finished wrecking another international treaty in order to prevent inspectors from gaining access to US facilities.

This is a country where one of the president’s closest advisers is willing, even eager, to think the unthinkable. "No strategist would reject, in principle, using nuclear weapons against Iraq," said Richard Perle. This is madness. But in Bush’s world, the sole superpower claims to call the shots. If a country truly deserves the title of a "mortal threat," it’s the United States --- undoubtedly.