& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Spies, lies and laws among nations

And, being a signatory to the 'General Treaty for Renunciation of War As An Instrument of National Policy (US signed the treaty on July 24,1929), the US had violated Article 2(4) of the Charter which prohibits the use of force in selfdefense unless aggressed. The laws of war too prohibit anticipatory or preemptive strikes against another sovereign.

M. Shahidul Islam
BEFORE attacking Poland in 1939, Adolf Hitler said, "I shall give a propaganda reason for starting the war. No matter whether it is plausible or not."
Latest exposures indicate that the US-UK led aggression against Iraq too fits into such a propaganda paradigm. The exposures reveal the true extent of a deep- rooted scheme to invade Iraq by 'sexing up' —and spinning at will— the intelligence information used to justify the war, thanks to the piercing boldness of the Western media and the vibrancy of their democracies.
The exposures prompt one to ask, did the US have a Causus Belli to invade Iraq? Seems not. For, by exaggerating intelligence information, the US and UK conjured up the dreadful imagery of an Iraq that could assemble a nuclear bomb in 45 minutes to pose grave dangers to the US and its allies. It now proved to bean elephantile lie.
Wither legality?
The Iraqi threat bogey rationalized the US's acting in self -defense, pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter, although there was no evidence to prove that Iraq constituted a threat to the US in specific. Bypassing the Charter, the US-UK resorted to using the doctrine of preemptionas well as prevention— to destroy Iraq's stature as a countervailing power to Israel in the Mid East. Saddam's patronising of the Palestinian intifada so flabbergasted Washington's Jewish lobby that the war became unavoidable.
In an emotional rush toward the war, the US did not bother to show an iota of respect to Article 33 of the Charter that necessitates the obtainment of facts in any disputed situation where the claims of self- defense are made on one side and rebutted by the other.
The US- UK coalition also acted in violation of Article 37(1) of the Charter that requires of disputing parties to refer the matter to the Security Council upon exhaustion of other means stipulated in Article 33-- such as negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitra-
tion, etc. Bush insisted on no talks with Saddam.
As well, the US and UK invoked the cease fire resolution of April 1991 (Resolution 687), in which the Security Council linked the easing or lifting of sanctions to the disarmament of Iraq. As we now know that Iraq did not possess any WMD to pose a threat to the US, the
list of the locations, amounts, and types of WMD and proscribed missiles.
The war itself being a stage-managed affairaccording to latest revelations-- the US-UK cabal also dared to willfully disregard 7 years of UNSCOM weapons inspection; four years of surveillance; and months of UNMOVIC weapons
The sequel was so well orchestrated that in his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush emphatically claimed that Iraq posed a grave danger to US interests and convinced the Congress to consent to the waging of war against Iraq.
To make the case stronger, the US and UK even accused Iraq of
country.'
That third country is Israel, which even accused Iraq of sending its WMD to Syria during the thick ofthe UN inspections.
The issue has put Bush and Blair into emotional roller coasters. Clare Short, who resigned as the UK's international development secretary in protest at Blair's han-
emperors— Bush and Blair— now find themselves nakedly exposed before the world.
A decade of conspiracy
The seeds of the second Gulf war were sown in July 1991 when the IAEA team discovered in Iraq several kilogram of highly enriched uranium (at least 25 kg needed to produce one atom bomb) and large stock of natural uranium.
But, by then, UNSCOM had destroyed all but two Iraqi ballistic missiles with ranges above 94 miles/150 km (the limit specified by the cease-fire resolution) and all Iraqi missile launchers.
Ever since, the spin- doctors of the intelligence community had field days in cobbling concocted anecdotes to make a strong case to invade Iraq. The main casualty of this dirty conspiracy is the global system that now stands languished in the midst of a credibility crisis burgeoned by the very people who ought to have preserved its sanctity.
Especially after the UNSC passed Resolution 1441 onNovem-ber 8,2002, the danger of war could have been averted if the US-UK heeded to Iraq's submission of a 1200 page WMD report on December 7, and continued with further inspection, as was requested by the UN.
The December 7 report was in compliance with Resolution 687, which required of Iraq to submit a
inspection. The UN was slapped on the cheek and laws among nations rendered dysfunctional.
After the war too, the Anglo-American coalition forces went into three months long investiture and scouring of Iraq, interviewed scores of Iraqi scientists, but nothing was found.
Tentacles of notorious spies
The war's justification was 'cooked up' mainly byTony Blair's head of communication, Alastair Campbell, who had bent intelligence reports to win over the dissenters in the House of Commons. Antiwar sentiment being more virulent in the UK than the US, this surreptitiously contrived scheme was considered an essential remedy to quelling any dissent against the war. A tentacle of cross- Atlantic spies aided Bush and Blair to build the case against Iraq.
Amidst the spy-prodded alarmmongers' disclosure that Iraq was on its way to becoming nuclearas was claimed by Britain's MI6— a CIA official went to Niger in February 2002 to authenticate the veracity of a document that contained details of Iraq's 500 kg alleged uranium purchase from Niger.
The CIA official reported that the documents corroborating Iraq's attempts to buy uranium were false. Yet, the CIA handed over the documents to the IAEA. The IAEA's own investigation too found the documents as 'forged'.
z
having ties with Al-Qaeda, an accusation that even did not deserve an anecdotal mention in the White House's own document, A Decade of Deception and Defiance, by Iraq. The document was published on September 12,2002.
Simultaneously, the strategic impetus to justify the war came from another White House document released on the same day. Titled as The National Security Strategy ofthe United States, a new military doctrine shifted US' military strategy away from containment and deterrence to preemptive actions against hostile states and terrorist groups developing WMD.
Then, in his presentation before the Security Council on February 5, 2003, Colin Powell listed 65 Iraqi sites as being in the business of developing WMD stockpile. Once again, the UN did not buy the Powell thesis due to 600 of its own expert inspectors having, by then, inspected 110 more sites in Iraq.
Genie out of bottle
The invasion of Iraq is a fait accompli to many although the CIA director, George Tenet, has let the genie out of the bottle by saying that Iraq's WMD 'reportwas amistake.' He also attributed the blame to the British intelligence agencies as sources. British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, cleverly waxed over the embarrassment by saying, 'Britain can not disclose the source as the intelligence came from a third
dling of post-war Iraq, said on June 1 that Tony Blair had 'duped' the public over the danger of Iraq's WMD. Short added, "The Prime Minister had knowingly led his country to war on a false pretext".
Robin Cook, who had resigned before the war from the cabinet, said the government had committed a 'monumental blunder'. The UN' chiefweapons inspector, Hans Blix, too blamed Tony Blair of committing 'a grand blunder' by feeding information that proved untrue.
While Bush proffered passing the buck onto the CIA's shoulder— and the CIA blames the MI6— Tony Blair stands accused of misleading the House of Commons by saying 'Iraqi WMD could be launched within 45 minutes.' Blair's dreadful information served as the last straw to kick off an invasion of Iraq.
Yet, Bush is not off the hook altogether. In a Senate debate on July 15, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy accused Bush of invading Iraq with 'shoddy, hyped and false intelligence'.
As well, the Economist magazine reported on June 7 that a disgruntled MI6 official had leaked to the BBC that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD came from only one uncorroborated sourceone which the Joint Intelligence Committee had been reluctant to validate so far. Jack Straw's mention of a third countrywithout naminghas cleared the fog. It was Israel that sucked in the US and the UK into a
Mid East quagmire.
Law and restitution
Hence, it is indisputable that the Downing Street spun intelligence material to overcome public dissent against the war. If the British intelligence materials were home spun, concocted and spurious, the CIA's acknowledgement of the acceptance of the same intelligence leads to two conclusive conclusions. (1) The war was illegal, and (2) Iraq needs restitution under international laws.
This is not the first time that the US showed its thumb to the global system. The International Court of Justice admonished the US in 1986 for bending law to suit its needs. In the Nicaragua Vs. United States of America case, the Court held that 'The US could not justify its aid to the Nicaraguan Contras on the claim that it was acting in collective self defense since there was insufficient evidence of a Nicaraguan ' armed attack' on the US.'
And, being a signatory to the 'General Treaty for Renunciation of War As An Instrument of National Policy (US signed the treaty on July 24,1929), the US had violated Article 2(4) of the Charter which prohibits the use of force in self- defense unless aggressed. The laws of war too prohibit anticipatory or preemptive strikes against another sovereign.
That notwithstanding, Article 1 of the accepted definition of 'aggression' states, 'aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State'. Article 2 of the definition states, 'first use of armed force by a state in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression.'
Since laws among nations do not lend any justification to the invasion of Iraq by the US-UK coalition, nations must come together to stop collectively the recurrence of such preemptive onslaughts against weaker nations.
Author and columnist M. Shahidul Islam is a senior assistant editor ofthis paper.