The articles below written by Susan Bryce and published in New Dawn No. 48, May-June 1998.
Weapons
of Mass Destruction
The Real Threat
By
SUSAN BRYCE*
The United States sold biological agents such as anthrax and botulinum to
Iraq shortly before the Gulf War. These 'weapons of mass destruction' have
become the justification for crippling sanctions against Iraq and the ever
present threat of attack from the US and its running dogs. With the cold war
over the US is manufacturing new enemies in the Arab world so that it can
continue pursuit of a New World Order lead by American hegemony.
Much has been said of late
about Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' — the fashionable term for
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons: little has been said about such US
arsenals. In fact, the USA has the world's largest stockpile of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons; successive US administrations are responsible
for selling 'weapons of mass destruction' to many countries — both friend and
foe.
A recent documentary, broadcast by Britain's Channel Four, cited US intelligence
documents showing 14 consignments of biological materials were exported from the
United States to Iraq between 1985 and 1989. These included 19 batches of
anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of botulinum, the organism which causes
botulism. The report said the exports, backed by the US State Department, were
licensed by the Department of Commerce.
The Channel Four report also revealed that Britain sold Baghdad large quantities
of the antidote to nerve gas as late as March 1992. Iraq also obtained 10 tonnes
of nutrients for growing germs from a British company in the early 1980s.1
Iraq's procurement of so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' should be placed
in perspective. Iraq, along with many other Arab countries, armed themselves
with a variety of weapons to counterbalance "Israel's" nuclear
capacity. "Israel" — with the full backing of the United States —
has threatened to use nuclear weapons against the Arabs, including Iraq. Arab
states have long been prevented by both "Israel" and its backers from
developing any sort of nuclear capacity. Back in 1981, "Israel" —
again with the full backing of the United States — bombed Iraq's Osirak
nuclear reactor. The arrogance of the attack warned the rest of the Arab world
not to develop a nuclear capacity, even if such a program was for civilian use.
In this context Iraq, like other developing countries, procured biological and
chemical weapons, the so-called 'poor man's weapons', as a deterrent and
counterbalance to "Israel's" massive arsenal. Ironically, most of
these weapons were purchased from the United States, the world's major
manufacturer and supplier of chemical and biological agents.
THE US CHEMICAL
AND BIOLOGICAL STOCKPILE —
"Cum Scientia Defendimus"
The United States
holds the world's largest stockpile of Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW),
enough to kill every human 10 times over. The arsenals, managed by the Chemical
and Biological Defence Command, are located at 127 sites around the country, the
main repositories being Tooele, Pine Bluff, Umatilla, Johnston Atol, Anniston,
Newport, Pueblo, Aberdeen and Lexington.
These centres are not just store houses for CBW, they house missiles tipped with
chemical and/or biological warfare agents, ready for launch. They pose a threat
not only to the enemies of the US but American citizens. The notorious Pine
Bluff recently made headlines (17 September, 1997), when a M55 Rocket
malfunctioned, leaking the nerve agent GB (Sarin) into a storage igloo at the
centre.
And last year, at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, the site of
"reconfiguration" operations, where employees repackage 4.2 inch
mortar rounds containing mustard (blister) agent; employees detected
"strange smells" in the bay area where the rounds were being uncrated.
Alarms were manually activated, and employees evacuated. A press statement later
brushed off the incident saying: "It was quickly determined that the most
likely source of the odour was a malfunctioning sewer line".
In December 1997, the Chemical and Biological Defence Command triumphantly
announced that it had destroyed the two millionth pound of GB nerve agent
(Sarin) in its liquid incinerators at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility, currently the only full-scale operational chemical agent disposal
facility in the continental United States. Considering that the US measures its
stockpile of chemical weapons in thousands of tonnes, one can only imagine that
the liquid incinerators will be working overtime to meet the demands of the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Convention into the 21st century.
WHO IS USING 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'?
At a press conference on 17 February, 1998, President Clinton discussed
"the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction".
The perceived 'threat' of Iraqi CBW has been widely propagandised through the
elite media in western countries. Not so well publicised are the facts about the
use of such weapons by America, the only country ever to use nuclear weapons
against another nation.
The USA has a long history of exposing its own people to chemical and biological
agents. These tests, involving radiation, chemical and biological agents have
been conducted in secret by the Army, Department of Defense, Department of
Energy and the CIA, to name a few. The testing was conducted from the mid 1940's
to this present day.
Leonard Cole, in his book Clouds of Secrecy documents numerous
experiments using biological and chemical weapons which were conducted on
unwitting Americans. Between 1949 and 1969, the US Army sprayed 239 populated
areas from coast to coast with biological warfare agents or simulants.
The US track record with regard to radiation testing is also appalling. The grim
reality of US government radiation experiments was bluntly summarised in the
1986 congressional sub-committee report, "American Nuclear Guinea Pigs:
Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on US Citizens". The report, shelved
by the Reagan administration, describes federal government sponsored radiation
experiments, conducted on more than 23,000 American subjects, in about 1,400
different locations, during the 30 year period from World War II. The
experiments were conducted without participants informed consent.2
The first time the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention
was invoked was in August 1997, when Cuba made a complaint to the UN offices in
Geneva, accusing the United States of sprinkling the US-blockaded island with
the larvae of crop destroying insects in an act of biological aggression.
In documents filed with the UN, Cuba reported that it had caught the US
biological warfare operation red-handed, when the pilot of a Cuban airliner
spotted a small plane registered to the US State Department releasing "a
white or greyish mist" over a huge State farm in Cuba's Matanzas province.
Two months later, the potato crop on the sate farm became infested with a plague
of Thrips Palmi Karay, a tough, crop killing pest which thrives in sub-tropical
climates, previously unknown to Cuba.
The State Department admitted its aircraft, a fumigation plane, with the ability
to drop pesticide aerosols, liquid particles or solid particles on crops, had
flown from Patrick US Airforce base in Florida, over Cuba en route to Bogota,
Colombia, where it was to be used in the supposed eradication of illegal
narcotics crops.
The US pilot said he had seen the Cuban airliner flying below and following
caution and safety procedures, used his plane's smoke generator to indicate his
location. The Cuban pilot, previously a fumigation plane pilot, assured the
ensuing UN investigation that the release was not smoke.3
In another form of biological warfare, the United States was accused of
spreading the flesh-eating screw worm fly inside Libya. The epidemic, which
lasted from 1989-1993, resulted in the deaths of thousands of livestock. With
the help of the United Nations Food & Agricultural Organisation, Libya
eventually eradicated the fly, but suspicions remained as to why only Libya
suffered from the outbreak. Blame fell on the United States which has a long
history of aggressive actions against Libya.
A news report issued on 14 January, 1998 from the United Nations warns of a new
outbreak of the dreaded screw worm fly in Iraq. The Food and Agricultural
Organisation said 50,000 animals in Iraq were infected by the parasite in
December 1997 alone, compared to 31,000 infected during the previous 15 months.
The UN is sounding the alarm bells as the break out is turning into another
major epidemic. Is it coincidental that both Libya and Iraq have suffered from
screw worm, countries regarded by Washington as 'rogue states'?
The latest Gulf
crisis was precipitated by a series of events involving inspection teams
checking various parts of Iraq for 'weapons of mass destruction' and the teams'
proposal to locate 24 hour surveillance cameras within the confines of eight
"Presidential Sites" (palaces).
The inspection teams were headed by US personnel, operating under the guidance
of Australian diplomat, Richard Butler, Chair of the UN Special Commission
(UNSCOM). Butler, whose style, Kofi Annan once described as "television
diplomacy", is well known for his abrasiveness. On 27 January 1998, only
days after high level discussions with Iraqi officials, Butler was quoted in the
New York Times as saying Iraq had enough biological
material to "blow Tel Aviv away", and then later admitted that he
could not "take you today to a place in Iraq and say there's the missile
that could do that thing". In his role as chief weapons inspector, Butler
is supposed to be unbiased and impartial.
The Russian UN Ambassador, Sergey Lavrov chastised Butler and instructed him to
inform the Security Council about UNSCOM suspicions before talking to reporters.
Ambassador Lavrov also told Butler UNSCOM did not have accurate information
about the status of Iraqi weapons programs and the Iraqi Government should be
presumed to cooperate unless proved otherwise.
In his statement on the 2 March, 1998, Kofi Annan announced that he would
personally appoint senior diplomats to work with UNSCOM members. Many
commentators believe that the appointment of such diplomats will quell any
future divisive and inappropriate statements from Butler.
WHAT'S GOOD FOR IRAQ ISN'T SO GOOD FOR THE USA
Iraq is not the only nation concerned about the operation of inspection
teams seeking out 'weapons of mass destruction'. US multinational drug companies
have voiced their concern about moves to police the UN's 25 year old ban on
biological weapons.
Drug and biotechnology companies in the US and Europe are currently off the
agenda of inspection teams; but under a European Union proposal to strengthen
the Biological and Toxin Weapons convention, any site capable of producing
micro-organisms in large quantities would have to be opened up.
Companies and research institutes that were involved in producing antibiotics,
biological pesticides and insecticides, protein-based food additives or enzymes
would have to stand up and be counted; inspections could be conducted at short
notice by an international team of experts. American companies have been most
vocal in their opposition to proposed inspections, claiming their commercial
secrecy could be compromised. The US has some 90 percent of the world's
pharmaceutical production capacity, and it would suffer most from any compliance
regime.
In another display of hypocrisy, the United States quietly struck out the names
of Cuban and Iranian nationals from a UN arms inspection team due to probe US
military chemical weapons facilities later this year. "Ironically, the US
is exercising the same right it refuses to concede to the Iraqis," an Asian
diplomat told IPS news agency. "The United States may have the right to do
so under the existing Convention, but it is interesting to note that Iraq is
virtually fighting for the same principle."
SANCTIONS:
"Sanctions
have added greatly to the Iraqi people's suffering."
— Kofi Annan, 2 March, 1998
US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, recently urged all nations to
'play by the rules' of international conduct. Presumably, Albright was referring
to the rules set by the USA. What happens to countries who don't play by these
rules? In the case of Iraq, not playing by the rules has meant attack, invasion,
bombing, harassment, and plundering.
Apart from these direct military actions, Iraq has been penalised through an
appalling regime of sanctions. The word sanctions conjures up the idea of a few
trade barriers and decrees about what can and can't be imported into a
particular country; but sanctions are an extremely powerful weapon in the US
foreign policy arsenal and have had crippling effects on Iraq.
More than a million Iraqis, half of them children are believed to have died as a
direct result of the US bombing water and sewage plants during the Gulf war, and
sanctions ever since.
According to UNICEF, 4,500 children die each month in Iraq. Many children are
dying needless deaths simply because basic supplies of food and medicines are
unavailable. To date, over 300 items are the subject of sanctions in Iraq. The
items include children's toys, canvas, carpets, baking soda, bath brushes,
children's wear, dolls, forks, hairpins, handkerchiefs, magazines (including
scientific and medical journals), mugs, music cassettes, musical instruments,
paper for writing, wrapping and printing, pens, plates, sandals, soap, skirts,
spoons, toilet paper, and wastepaper baskets. A complete list of sanctioned
items can be found on the Internet at the Hands Off Iraq site.4
There is little evidence to show that sanctions are an effective tool for
achieving political or military reform. In its paper "Economic Sanctions
Reconsidered", the prestigious Institute for International Economics
surveyed 115 cases of economic sanctions between World War I and 1990. The
survey found, "the success rate (of sanctions) depends on the type of
policy or governmental change sought. Episodes involving destabilisation
succeeded in 52 per cent of the cases, usually against target countries that
were small and shaky. Cases involving modest goals and attempts to disrupt minor
military adventures were successful 33 per cent of the time. Efforts to
impair a foreign adversary's military potential, or otherwise change its
policies in a major way, succeeded infrequently. Sanctions are seldom effective
in impairing the military potential of an important power, or in bringing about
major changes in the policies of a target country."5
(emphasis added).
THE NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE
—
NOT DEAD YET
With the end of the
cold war, the world collectively sighed with relief as the nuclear threat ended.
But has it? Recent advances in missile technology have forged a new generation
of nuclear missiles.
On 23 April, 1996, Harold Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Atomic Energy announced plans for a pre-emptive US nuclear strike in Africa. The
target: a 'suspected' chemical weapons plant being built underground, 40 miles
southeast of Tripoli, Libya. No evidence was presented to prove the charge,
accept for a fuzzy satellite photograph of the suspect site. Libya says the site
in question is part of its Great Man-Made River project, and has been backed up
by the construction company working on the project! Libya has also invited US
inspectors to visit the site, but the invitation has gone unheeded.
Smith told a press briefing that a new earth-penetrating nuclear bomb, the
B61-11, could be ready for use by the end of the year. The new nuke,
affectionately known in Pentagon circles as the "Bunker Buster", is
designed to destroy underground factories or laboratories while causing
relatively little surface damage. The nuke can burrow as deep as 50 feet into
the soil.6 Under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the
US pledged to honour its commitment to halting the development of new nuclear
weapons. The Pentagon claims that the B61-11 is not a new weapon but a
"modification" of an old weapon. It now appears the United States is
looking to invent a scenario in which it can test its latest weapon of mass
destruction.
The
threat posed by 'weapons of mass destruction' did not abate when the cold war
ended. These weapons remain a grim reality as we enter the next century. Even as
you are reading this, public health authorities, military and defence personnel
in your country are planning how to cope with the aftermath of a variety of
biological and chemical warfare attacks, and reviewing existing plans, should a
nuclear strike occur in your capital city.
We all know that 'weapons of mass destruction' are repugnant to humanity, we
also know that these weapons are possessed by many countries, corporations and
individuals throughout the world. While attention is focused on 'rogue states',
who don't 'play by the rules of the game', we must seek deeper truths, expose
hypocrisy and rally against propaganda to avoid an international agenda
dominated and controlled by the ruling elites in the United States.
1. New York Times,
26 February 1998.
2. Nexus magazine, February-March 1998.
3. Green Left Weekly, 18 June 1997 & Morning Herald, 27 August
1997.
4. http://www2.one.net.au/~newdawn/iraq.htm
5. http://www.iie.com/execsum.htm#ninecom
6. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/f96-20a.html