On the Brink of Disaster By: Sam Bartlett
Big Issue in Scotland
September 5-11, 2002
"You cannot have the world's worst leaders getting their hands on the world's worst weapons," said George W Bush last week. And for once everyone agreed with him.
A number of candidates vie for 'worst leader', but America is a clear winner in possessing the worst weapons in the biggest quantities - but the only talk is about what Iraq may possess.
However, despite repeated assurances of 'incontrovertible evidence' and sections of Britains' press nailing their colours to the hawkish mast, public support is strengthening against military action. Worryingly, it is this very opposition that may spur the hawks into attacking Iraq, even as they talk of saving democracy from evil doers. Dr Magnus Ranstorp, of St Andrews University, is an expert in the study of terrorism and political violence.
He warns that military action is likely to happen 'sooner rather than later' to bypass growing public opposition to war.
"There's a great debate in Britain, which is healthy, about whether we would support military action - but the road ahead is troubled," Ranstorp told the Big Issue in Scotland.
"There would be a huge knock-on effect from any military action; it could lead to regional meltdown - a Middle Eastern war - with conflicts within and between countries.
"The first thing that Saddam Hussein will do if attacked is launch a Scud missile attack to draw Israel, and thereby Arab states, into the conflict.
"Most recently America talked about November as a possible date [for an attack], but if it's sooner they wouldn't have to deal with diminishing public support or popularity."
Ranstorp says that Middle Eastern states have been seriously worried for more than a year, particularly Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, since they fear massive destabilisation.
"Crown Prince Abdullah wrote to Bush before September 11 last year, warning there were cracks appearing and that Arab leaders had to recognise their people's opinion - otherwise they would end up like the Shah of Iran," Ranstorp recalls.
The next few weeks are crucial, he says, predicting a media blitz by Tony Blair and others to try and sway public opinion in favour of conflict and paper over cracks between hawk politicians and a more pragmatic and 'overstretched' military/Pentagon.
"There's no 'evidence' that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; it is only assumption," he continues.
"If weapons inspectors are refused entry it would make it easier to build an 'international coalition' - but it would still take a lot of masterful diplomacy, as well as luck.
"Nothing is simple in the Middle East, and anything is possible." The latest UK polls show opponents to war outnumbering supporters by two to one.
In the not too distant past, Britain and America actively supported Iraq in its war against Iran, including providing satellite reconnaissance information so Saddam could use chemical weapons against Iranian military positions.
He also used gas against Iraqi Kurds, killing more than 5,000 civilians at Halabja - an atrocity now used by Britain and America to 'expose' Saddam's brutality.
This side-changing cuts little ice with Bill Spiers, general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
The STUC, with more than 620,000 affiliated members, has consistently opposed both Hussein's regime and US/UK 'hypocrisy'.
Spiers expects Tony Blair's 'shoulder to shoulder' policies to be given a rough ride at next week's TUC conference.
"The STUC was a sponsor and supporter of the Campaign Against the Repression of Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI), at the same time as the British and American governments were supporting arms sales to Saddam Hussein, and encouraging him to suppress the Kurds and attack Iran," says Spiers.
"We've got a history of opposition to Saddam Hussein, someone who has oppressed the left in Iraq.
"There's no doubt that the war that appears to be contemplated would be disastrous - firstly for the Iraqi people, secondly for the region and the world as a whole.
"The talk is about escalating into bombing, but America and Britain are continually bombing Iraq, and have been for the past 10 years - it just never gets reported."
The Iraqi people did not elect Saddam Hussein but have paid horrendously since the post-Gulf War sanctions have been implemented, Spiers says, adding that in the STUC's opinion, a ground force invasion of Iraq would be "an enormous mistake".
"It would give out the message that there's no way for people to solve disagreements through democratic means," Spiers argues. "People would look at American action and see the only way 'forward' was through explosions and deaths."
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week attempted to draw parallels between President Bush and Winston Churchill, branding anyone opposing war as an appeaser.
While former armed forces minister and Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, appeared to reject the similarities, suggesting that the Americans were 'constant[ly] grandstanding without giving the reasons', Spiers has a slightly different take.
"Presumably Rumsfeld was saying that if we follow that parallel, the Americans will invade at Christmas and it would be okay for us to follow them three years later," he says, "which would certainly reduce the number of British service personnel killed by so-called friendly fire.
"But one of the horrendous things is that we don't really know how far war is being discussed and driven by the US congressional elections in November.
"The future of Iraq, the whole Middle East and indeed the world are at stake.
"It's a terrifying thought - Tony Blair seems to be a supplicant to George Bush rather than a subtly influential voice drawing him back from the brink."
Just how far public opinion can influence politicians seemingly set on war remains to be seen.
A huge anti-war rally is planned for September 28 in London. Other events marking the anniversary of the September 11 attacks will remember all victims of violence, and make the case against using revenge to justify further massive bloodshed.
Some are already reporting a tangible rise in racial tension. "The media should be particularly careful not to inflame things," believes Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain.
"Some articles, especially Richard Littlejohn in the Sun, are only leading to an increase in anti-Muslim attacks and harassment. "We've also seen Seikhs targeted just because they wear turbans." He also has first-hand accounts of the rising Middle Eastern tension. "There is definitely growing pressure within Egypt and Saudi Arabia, especially in Saudi Arabia, for their governments to pull away from George Bush's line," Saeed continues.
"I know many people in Saudi Arabia; the feeling on the ground has always been opposed to US and UK imperialism and attempts at control. "There's pressure on the regime to stop toeing that line, but Rumsfeld says that whoever is strongest is right.
"We need to pressure the British government to actually start reflecting the views of the British people.
"Polls show public opinion is against war - I don't see support for it; we've got to build on that, and make sure the government reflects our wishes."
Saeed hopes September 28 is a multi-ethnic day of solidarity that helps reduce both domestic and international tensions.
"There is mobilisation across Scotland, especially in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee - we've got ten coaches from Dundee alone going to the London rally.
"But compared to some cities in England, we could still do more. "There are 300 coaches booked to go from Birmingham; that's 15,000 people opposed to war.
"We can send a clear message to Bush and Blair - no to war in our name." More than half a million Iraqi children have died because of sanctions against Iraq.
Many more would inevitably die in military conflict, and with President Bush addressing the UN on September 12, campaigners fear he will push them into legitimising mass killing.
"A UN mandate for any military action is crucial - the US cannot act judge, jury and executioner," says Phill Jones of CND Scotland. "For eight months leading members of US administration have been saying they want to invade Iraq and bring about a regime change, irrespective of what the UN says.
"The problem is that any UN decision will be just rubber stamping US policy and that will completely undermine the authority of the UN." The call for a mass show of opposition to conflict is backed by Dr Alan Mackinnon, convenor of the Scottish Campaign for Justice Not War, who says Britain and America are far greater threats to world security than Iraq.
"People aren't buying the arguments that George Bush has been making," he says.
"War would be for other reasons than 'weapons of mass destruction'; it's about American strategic interest in the Middle Eastern area, and in the end it's all about oil - the known and potential reserves in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
"War would be about the development of the Caspian Basin and the creation of a new power balance in the region, which will allow the Americans the access to cheap and plentiful supplies of oil which the American economy says it needs.
"We've got good reason to believe there are serious Cabinet splits, with Claire Short, Robin Cook and most importantly Gordon Brown against the war.
"But the pressure is building on both sides - not only from MPs within Blair's own party, and others, but perhaps most crucially in the opinion polls showing two thirds of the British public opposed to attacking Iraq.
"If we get 200,000 people demonstrating in London on September 28, that could be a very significant mobilisation."