Anonymous British minister: "Bombs before polling day. How cynical can you get?" (Sunday Times, 18 Feb. p. 15)

Contents

1. Bombing Iraq - Illegal
2. Bombing Iraq - Counter-Productive
3. Bombing Iraq - Unjustified
4. No-Fly Zones - No Protection
5. No-Fly Zones - Illegal
6. The Other Mission
7. Withdrawing the RAF
8. Sanctions - The Real Killer
9. What You Can Do

1) BOMBING IRAQ - ILLEGAL Return to top

When Britain and the US bombed Iraq in 1998, Lord Healey, former Labour Defence Secretary, said, 'It is illegal to attack with bombs targets in a sovereign country without direct authorisation from the Security Council.' (Telegraph, 21 Dec. '98) No such authorisation was granted for the bombing of Iraq on Friday 16 February 2001.

In fact, far from consulting or seeking authorisation from the UN, 'The US did not warn the United Nations that it would launch attacks on military targets near Baghdad, although the world organisation has more than 100 staff in the region. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, met Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, [two days before the bombing], but never mentioned that Washington planned to extend its bombing outside the no-fly zones.' (Financial Times, 17 Feb. p.6)

2) BOMBING IRAQ - COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE Return to top

'Within Iraq, strikes only make Saddam stronger.' (Observer, 18 Feb. p.21)

'Far from reminding Saddam of his enemies' power and resolve, every sortie reminds a watching world of America's bankrupt policy of bombs and sanctions.' (Guardian editorial, 19 Feb.)

"Washington may have thought this was the way to send a signal to Iraq, but Iraq will be less willing now to play ball with the UN or the US," said Raad al-Kadiri, analyst with The Petroleum Finance Company in Washington. "If the US thinks this is how you get Iraq to co-operate, they have learned nothing from the past 10 years."' (FT 17 Feb. p. 6)

3) BOMBING IRAQ - UNJUSTIFIED Return to top

'In briefings, the defence ministries in Washington and London have accused Iraq of upgrading its air defence system to improve its chance of hitting an Anglo-American plane enforcing the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. But since December 1998, when Saddam ordered his forces to stop what he calls foreign violations of Iraqi airspace, his air defence personnel have failed to score a single hit, while Anglo-American aircraft have carried out 30,000 sorties into Iraq.' (Observer, 18 Feb. p.21)

Alleged improvements in Iraqi equipment and tactics 'point[ed] to an escalating challenge, not to an immediate danger', according to the Economist (24 Feb. 2001). The magazine quoted Andrew Brookes, former RAF officer now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies: 'They are more or less launching their anti-aircraft missiles at random, though if this goes on, they will be successful sooner or later.'

We now know that over half the missiles fired at radar sites did not hit their targets, (Guardian, 23 Feb. 2001) and that 'cluster bombs' were used. On average, 5% of their bomblets do not go off, becoming virtual landmines. (William Arkin, Washington Post website, 26 February 2001)

The military pressure on Iraq will 'continue with less frequent, but more powerful, strikes aimed at Hussein's suspected weapons facilities.' (Chicago Tribune, 10 March 2001)

'The Bush administration is broadening the rules of engagement against Iraq to include air raids against weapons production facilities or, possibly, troop movements'. (Washington Post, 8 Mar. 2001)

4) NO-FLY ZONES - NO PROTECTION Return to top

The no-fly zones do not 'protect'. They do not stop the activities of Iraqi ground forces. And they do not stop the Turkish air force or army.

The first major Turkish incursion was in October '92, when 20,000 troops invaded northern Iraq. In late 1993, Turkish air and ground forces attacked alleged PKK bases in Iraqi Kurdistan. In March '95, 35,000 Turkish troops backed by tanks, helicopters and F-16 aircraft remained in the no-fly zone for almost two months. In May '97, 50,000 Turkish troops invaded the area again, for another extended occupation.

Former Christian Aid worker Sarah Graham-Brown concludes, 'the zone offered no protection whatever from air or ground attacks on northern Iraq from the neighbouring states of Turkey and Iran.' (Sarah Graham-Brown, Sanctioning Saddam, I.B. Tauris, 1999, pp. 227, 111)

5) NO-FLY ZONES - ILLEGAL Return to top

'The Commons foreign affairs committee said last year that "at the very least, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis in current customary law", while the defence committee said: "The precise legal basis for the no-fly zones is controversial."' While legal advisers to successive governments have reassured ministers on the legality of the no-fly zones, 'authoritative sources said last night, "They are less confident in private".' ('Raid shows Bush-Blair bond on Iraq', 'Doubts over Iraq air strikes', Guardian website, 19 Feb.)

'Contrary to claims yesterday by the government - including Brian Wilson, the new Foreign Office minister responsible for Iraq - the no-fly zones are not sanctioned by any UN security council resolution.' ('Raid')

Mr Wilson has referred to UN Security Council Resolution 688 in justification. But as Dilip Hiro, author of Desert Shield to Desert Storm, points out, 'there is no provision for air exclusion zones in Resolution 688. At the Security Council, Russia and China have repeatedly pointed this out, adding that the US-UK action is a violation of international law.' (Observer, 18 Feb. p. 21)

Furthermore, UNSCR 688 not only does not call for the setting up of no-fly zones in Iraq, it does not authorise the use of force inside them - for any purpose whatsoever. Certainly not for pre-emptive strikes to ensure the safety of US and UK aircraft illegally overflying Iraq.

6) THE OTHER MISSION Return to top

Leaving aside all other issues, were airstrikes the only way of ensuring the safety of RAF pilots? What about flying higher? 'Military sources said if the aircraft flew above the missile's maximum operational range, they would not be able to see the ground and fulfil their mission.' (Times 17 Feb. p. 3) But why do the aircraft need to see the ground in order to maintain the no-fly zone?

'Since Saddam defied the UN to expel its inspectors in 1998 [not true - they were withdrawn, not expelled], the patrols have been the West's only form of direct surveillance of his continuing efforts to rebuild his conventional forces and the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction and missiles to deliver them.' (Times 17 Feb. p. 25)

So it seems that the radar and command and control sites attacked were destroyed not to enable US/UK jets to keep Iraqi aircraft out of the air, but to enable them to fly low enough to monitor Iraq's military.

7) WITHDRAWING THE RAF Return to top

Another option was to withdraw the RAF from the zone. This was actually emerging British government policy. 'Reports in America yesterday revealed that Britain had threatened to pull out of further air strikes against Iraq because of increasing military concern that it was difficult to see what they were achieving. "Frustration quickly set in as pilots understood they were taking risks over Iraq for no real military purpose," the Washingon Post said. "Britain, the last ally willing to fly with the Americans over Iraq quietly passed the word to Washington that a more focused and effective strategy was needed to justify continued military action." (Observer, 18 Feb. p. 20)

The Guardian has pointed out that while the British government has a duty to protect British personnel, 'it has an equal duty not to put them in harm's way unnecessarily. Paradoxically, Britain recently warned the US that the no-fly zone patrols were becoming unacceptably hazardous, even pointless. But instead of taking the rational course and ending them, George Bush decided to use new, secretly agreed rules of engagement to expand them.' (editorial, Guardian website, 19 Feb.)

8) SANCTIONS - THE REAL KILLER Return to top

While the weekly, sometimes daily US/UK airstrikes in the no-fly zones have killed many civilians over the years - the official death toll is 317 - economic sanctions have contributed to the deaths of over 500,000 children under the age of five, according to UNICEF. (August 1999)

According to former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq Hans von Sponeck, who resigned in protest against the sanctions in Feb. 2000, 'Some 167 Iraqi children are dying every day.' (Toronto Star 25 June 2000)

9) WHAT YOU CAN DO Return to top