Earnings to the United Nations that the US was using forged evidence of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger have finally been proved true. The US admitted the documents were false, but denies it fabricated the evidence.
If that wasn't strange enough, Congress has asked the CIA to investigate itself over the reliability of its intelligence gathering!
The war was justified on two grounds: the "clear and present danger" of Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam's links with Al-Quaeda.
No proof has ever been found of either, but desperate stories by both Bush and Blair that they are planning to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction are still being fed to reporters.
Mohamed El Baradei, the director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (the U.N. Security Council (iraqi nuclear inspectors), has already insisted that documents claiming to prove that lirag had been trying to buy yellowcake (uranium) in Africa were 'not authentic.
Chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has gone further. At the end of April he ••. As we reported in the last issue of Socialist Resistance, one of the most despicable aspects of New Labour's attitude both to asylum and to the consequences of their war drives has been their decision to start deporting Afghani refugees - and to make clear that Iraqis will not be far behind. Twenty refugees were bundled onto a flight to Kabul on April 30 in handcuffs. The response of the Afghani commumity in Britain has been determined. Demonstrations have been organised in Glasgow and in London on May 11. At the latter, around 500 Afghanis and a handful of others mounted a strident picket outside Downing Street. George Binnette of the Committee to Defend Asylum Seekers received warm machines claimed that London and Washington will definitely be able to present convincing and conclusive proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason for this new commitment to finding weapons is only clear if we bring in another element: the advice concerning the legality of the war, and the continued occupation of Iraq, which was given to the British cabinet by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith in the run-up to the invasion.
The Attorney General's advice, leaked to the New Statesman magazine, explicitly states that:
"The government has concluded that the removal of the current Iraqi regime from power is necessary to secure disarmament, but the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the task undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective, the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation."
In other words, the Attorney General could justify the bombing of Iraq by referring to weapons of mass destruction, but cannot continue to do so indefinitely, unless they find them. Blair needs to find the "smoking gun" if he is to remove the possiEven now it is clear that Saddam's regime
•• .... peaceful environment, especially outside Kabul. As Mohammed Asif, president of the Scottish Afghan Society, pointed out, the Afghan community were shocked at the deportations. He said: "One brutal regime has been changed for another in Afghanistan.
"There is no security and different factions controlled by different warlords are fighting in various parts of the country."
While socialists oppose all forced deportations, these particular circumstances make this a double injustice. For further information contact: Afghan Refugees Support Committee, PO Box 38103, London N10 6YA. Tel: 020 8968 0595. Colin Powell: a pack of lies to the Security Council represented neither a clear nor a present danger. But any clear proof that the CIA manufactured or "tweaked" their intelligence reports to help create a pretext for an invasion would have long-term implications, not least for the next time Washington wishes to put pressure on a "rogue" regime.
Not only will the two leaders find it harder to wage more wars: they will also be exposed as deliberately misleading their own people and the United Nations, and this could spell the end of their leadership. Blair is more exposed than Bush, but their fate is tied together.
Meanwhile in lag the White House is preventing Iragi opposition forces from forming a national assembly. Bush has installed a close former ally of Henry Kissinger to run the country. Kissinger was the mastermind behind the Pinochet coup in Chile in the 1970's, which assassinated left wing president Allende.
L. Paul Bremer III was appointed by George Bush to take over from retired gen eral Jay Garner. One of Bremer's first public statements was: "We are not here as a colonial power. We are here to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi people.... as quickly as possible."
He then proceeded to tell opposition forces that the US and Britain would not allow them to form a national assembly, now or in the near future. Bremer will report directly to Donald Rumsfeld. During the Clinton administration he argued for the US to confront 'rogue states' such as Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Meanwhile, multinational construction companies are loving up to Bechtel, former secretary of state George Shultz's company, which has been awarded the lion's share of the contracts to 'rebuild Iraq.
2,000 would-be subcontractors attended a meeting in Washington organised by Bechtel to advise them on how to bid. A similar meeting in London in mid-May saw anti-war protesters demonstrate outside. The word in construction circles is that US and British companies will be favoured when doling out the contracts
After the soldiers come the diplomats -and after them, the corporations. Dick Cheney's company Halliburton was originally reported as having the contract to fight oil well fires: in fact, it has been disclosed, it was given the contract to pump and sell oil, effectively privatising the oil industry in Iraq, a step many believe to be illegal under international law.
"I don't believe the US has the legal power under international law to sell Iraq's oil absent a new resolution from the Security Council," said David Goldwyn, a Washington-based lawyer who has advised previous US administrations. push a new resolution through ence the desperate efforts to
the Security Council, retrospectively legitimising the actions of US and British occupying forces, and opening up the so-called "oil for food" programme, through which Iraq's oil can be pumped and sold to pay US corporations for their work
But this time there was a new mood of cooperation on the Security Council, fuelled by the prospect of profit. Despite the fact that evidence is now vindicating their previous stance of rejecting the case for war, France, Germany and Russia nodded through the new resolution, eager to ensure that they could bid for their share of the reconstruction work.
The main developers of Iraq's oil fields before the occupation were French and Russian companies, who expect their contracts to be honoured by whoever takes over the administration.