'Through our campaigning we can try to stop the war. If war comes, we can affect the way that war is fought—and how many lives are lost—if we keep campaigning. We can help protect the electricity system. We can limit/stop the use of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, other appalling weapons. We can save lives—if we keep campaigning. If we resist apathy and hopelessness. If we resist.'

Contents

1. Chemical Warheads In Iraq - A 'Less Than Trivial' Find?
2. If They Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction
3. 15 February Mass Sit Down
4. Actions
5. Quotes
6. Killer Facts
7. Yasser
8. 10 Million Children

1) CHEMICAL WARHEADS IN IRAQ - A 'LESS THAN TRIVIAL' FIND?
Return to top

The chemical warheads found in Baghdad may be breaches of Iraq's disarmament duties, but they may be 'less than trivial', according to one US weapons expert.

Whether they are of recent origin or not, we do not believe they justify war. The Government has not presented any evidence that Iraq intends to use whatever weapons it does possess, and the success of the inspectors in finding the warheads merely reinforces the case for allowing the inspectors to continue their work in peace.

UNMOVIC inspectors have found eleven empty 122mm chemical warheads and 'one warhead that requires further evaluation' at the Ukhaider ammunition dump 75 miles south of Baghdad.' (Telegraph, 17 January 2003, p. 8) 'They were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s,' said a UN spokesperson. (Telegraph, 17 January 2003, p. 1) Hiro Ueki, the UN spokesperson, said, 'It is probably not a smoking gun.'(Financial Times, 17 January 2003, p. 1)

'US sources said the information that led to the find had not come from intelligence provided by the CIA'. (Telegraph, 17 January 2003, p. 8)

On the other hand, 'Weapons experts said the fact that the warheads were in excellent condition in bunkers built in the late 1990s meant they were likely to have been handled recently.' (Financial Times, 17 January 2003, p.1) ' "They were in very good condition, so they were not just lying around said Terence Taylor, a former UN weapons inspector now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. (Financial Times, 17 January 2003, p. 10)

Warheads 'likely to be for the 122mm Saqr-30 multi-barrelled rocket launcher', Egyptian-built system with range of up to 20 miles, designed with French assistance and based on Warsaw Pact BM-21 multi-barrelled rocket launcher known as the Katyusha. (Telegraph, 17 January 2003, p. 8)

'Scott Ritter, an opponent of military action, said the key question was whether Iraq had attempted to conceal the warheads or whether it had simply overlooked them.' (Guardian, 17 January 2003, p. 5)

Iraqi Position On Warheads 'Entirely Credible'

'Charles Heyman, the editor of Jane's World Armies, said that given the state of the Iraqi armed forces, the official response from Baghdad that the missile warheads had been forgotten was entirely credible. In the reports on stocks of chemical weapons that it was forced to compile at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq reported that it had 2,500 122mm Saqr-30 warheads filled with sarin which were buried under the rubble of a building destroyed by the allies' bombing raids. (Telegraph, 17 January 2003, p. 8)

'Matthew Meelson, a weapons expert at Harvard's International Security Programme, said that the US had in the past lost track of chemical and biological weapons from abandoned programmes and that warheads had turned up from time to time. "If these canisters are new and show signs of recent machine-shop work, then that is one thing, but if not, it's less than trivial," he said. "It would be unfortunate if they go to war over bad book-keeping".' (Guardian, 17 January 2003, p. 5)

Two factual questions remain:
1) Were the warheads declared in the December declaration?
2) Was that one warhead being investigated ever filled with chemical weapons material?

1) There are conflicting reports. They probably were not declared. It is not yet clear whether this was omission or deception. Either way, it would constitute a violation of Resolution 1441 - but this is not by itself grounds for a finding of 'material breach' by the Security Council. (Please see ARROW Anti-War Briefing 25: Material Breach: The Mysterious Phrase That Could Trigger War for more details.)

2) Loren Thompson, a Pentagon consultant at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia, said that if no traces of chemical weapons are found by UN tests and no chemical agents are found nearby, there would be no conclusive evidence of an active chemical weapons programme.' "This is not the proverbial smoking gun. A real smoking gun would be an armed weapon," Mr Thompson said. On the other hand, the good condition they are in "doesn't draw one to think they are old weapons that were simply overlooked." (Guardian, 17 January 2003, p. 5)

Either way, the inspectors must be allowed to work in peace. There is no evidence that Iraq poses a serious and imminent threat to its neighbours or to the West.

'In the White House there was a sense of near-jubilation as aides realised immediately that the empty warheads, plus another one that the inspectors said required "further evaluation", represented the political equivalent of manna from heaven... it suddenly seemed that the crucial evidence might have arrived at the perfect moment.' (Telegraph, 17 January 2003, p. 8)

This 'crucial' evidence may be a 'less than trivial' bookkeeping error of the kind that the US itself has made many times. It is not a justification for war.

2) IF THEY FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Return to top

Some opponents to war on Iraq say that if weapons of mass destruction are found, they will change their minds. We disagree. We oppose war even if weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq.

The Right Approach

British Vice-Admiral Sir James Jungius KBE observed recently in a letter to The Times (1 Jan. 2003, p. 25) that Tony Blair had failed to produce evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: ‘This inevitably leads to the suspicion that no such evidence exists.’

‘Even if the weapons do exist, where is the evidence of intent to use them? War is too important and unpleasant a business to be undertaken on the basis of a hunch, however good that hunch may be.’

Former Tory Cabinet Minister Douglas Hogg recently (12 Jan.) revealed on BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend that a ‘majority’ of Conservative MPs ‘have very serious reservations’ about a war on Iraq.

He added, ‘The real question is not whether he’s got weapons of mass destruction, but rather whether - if he has got those weapons - he is a grave and imminent threat to the rest of us.

‘There are lots of other countries in the world that do have weapons of mass destruction, or are likely to acquire them, but we don’t necessarily conclude that they are a grave and imminent threat sufficient to justify war.’

‘So even if he had these things, unless he’s a grave and imminent threat there isn’t a moral basis for war, because the doctrine of self-defence isn’t properly invoked.’

Effective Inspectors

FT journalist James Blitz asks, if UN inspectors do find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, should that trigger war? ‘Or will it be the first sign that the UN is actually getting somewhere in its bid to close down Iraq’s weapons arsenal—and should therefore continue its work?’ (FT, 9 Jan. 2003, p. 5) We say yes. 'Worried Whitehall officials ask: even if evidence is found, and Saddam Hussein is discovered to have lied, is it not better to keep the UN inspectors - the best deterrence against the use or development of such weapons - on the ground?' (Guardian, 6 Jan. 2003, p.14) We say yes. More from Douglas Hogg and more on ‘Material Breach’ from www.j-n-v.org.

3) 15 FEBRUARY MASS SIT DOWN
Return to top

War seems to have receded slightly—in large part because of our anti-war campaigning in the UK, the US and further afield. Now is the time to emphasise the strength of our opposition, by following the largest anti-war march in living memory with the largest sit-down protest for years.

Delays

For weeks, US officials had been saying that the UN weapons inspectors’ report to the Security Council on 27 Jan. was going to be a decisive moment in the drive to war—President Bush makes his second State of the Union address the following day.

But the US is now delaying, partly because of lobbying from Tony Blair—himself under pressure from his own Party.

British Government officials ‘are now looking towards the [second] Blix report on 1 March as the possible trigger for military action, believing that the UN weapons inspection team will become increasingly frustrated at Saddam’s lack of co-operation.’ (Observer, 12 Jan. 2003, p. 1)

A senior British official has suggested that, while it is assumed that there will be a campaign before the summer ‘because of the heat’, ‘The autumn would be just as sensible a time and in the meanwhile Saddam would be thoroughly constrained by the inspectors.’ (Daily Telegraph, 9 Jan., p. 1) But the US is set on a spring war. (See ARROW Anti-War Briefing 26 ‘60:40—War Is Not Inevitable’ for more.)

What We Have Achieved

Against his instincts, President Bush opted for the UN route in Sept. 2002, because of pressure from parts of the Right (his father’s old colleagues spoke out), crumbling public support in the US, and growing pressure from Britain and other countries.

Tony Blair needed the UN to be involved to pacify the anti-war movement inside and outside the Labour Party.

So the war, which was expected to take place last autumn, was delayed in part because of our campaigning here in Britain.

In Dec., the Telegraph reported that Mr Blair had been reluctant to order the deployment of British forces to the Gulf because ‘it is politically difficult’—because of the “overstretch” in the Army caused by the firefighter’s strike, the Treasury’s reluctance to release the money for a major deployment, and opposition in the Labour Party. (Telegraph, 11 Dec.)

We made it ‘politically difficult’. We delayed war. We may even be affecting target planning inside the Pentagon (see p. 3). They want us to feel powerless, but we do have power.

What We Can Achieve

War is not inevitable. Much depends on the inspectors. Much depends on the Security Council. Much depends on us, on whether we can convince our neighbours/workmates that war would not be justified even if there is a new UN Resolution, even if evidence of weapons of mass destruction is discovered in Iraq (see p. 2).

Much depends on how great we can make the political costs of war. One way of increasing the political cost is by escalating protest into resistance, into nonviolent civil disobedience—as ARROW is proposing at 5pm on 15 Feb. after the huge march and rally, gathering in Green Park to march and hold an anti-war sit-down at Eros, Piccadilly Circus, to mark Valentine’s Day weekend.

Other actions against war will follow, for example on 22 Mar. at Menwith Hill. (Other events, p.4.)

Through our campaigning we can try to stop the war. If war comes, we can affect the way that war is fought—and how many lives are lost—if we keep campaigning. We can help protect the electricity system. We can limit/stop the use of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, other appalling weapons. We can save lives—if we keep campaigning. If we resist apathy and hopelessness. If we resist.

4) ACTIONS
Return to top

Two Scottish train drivers refuse to move a freight train carrying ammunition believed to be destined for British forces being deployed in the Gulf. (Guardian, 9 Jan.)

Les Gibbons, former British marine and voices delegate, fined £30 with £25 costs for attempting to blockade Portsmouth naval base on the day the Ark Royal set off for the Gulf

Matt Barr, Iraq Peace Team delegate about to travel to Iraq, gets loads of coverage, e.g. Newsnight

Warzone Whitehall court cases coming up at Horseferry Rd Magistrates Ct, support appreciated, Mon. 24 & Tues. 25 Feb. 0845 458 2564 for more details

Milan Rai, voices joint co-ordinator, author of War Plan Iraq, contributes article to BBC Online: 10,000 hits recorded

Over 10 people invade USAF Fairford on 14 Dec. after demo by ‘Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors’; no arrests

Christine Dean and Mike Davies arrested Christmas Eve for anti-war/anti-Star Wars vigil outside Menwith Hill spy base

Scottish CND plans to surround Labour Party conference (with Tony Blair) on 15 Feb., SECC Glasgow

5 anti-war activists arrested inside and 4-person support team arrested outside RAF Feltwell, Norfolk, 10 Jan.

September 11th relatives visit Iraq on a voices us-guided anti-war delegation, 5-14 Jan.

Kathy Kelly, voices us co-founder, nominated for 2003 Nobel Peace Prize by Mairead Maguire, Northern Ireland

More anti-war info, news and events on and

Many, many thanks to everyone who helped stuff and post the last newsletter, and to everyone who has helped keep voices going.

5) QUOTES
Return to top

‘A war on Iraq will be a disaster from a humanitarian perspective.’
Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commis-sioner for Refugees. (Independent on Sunday, 29 Dec. 2002, p. 2)

War on Iraq runs ‘the risk of turning the Middle East into an inexhaustible recruiting ground for anti-western terrorism.’
Douglas Hurd, former Tory Foreign Secretary (Financial Times, 3 Jan.)

‘Many of us are deeply saddened to see a great country such as the United States aided and abetted extraordinarily by Britain—I mean [it is] mind-boggling... I have had a great deal of time for your Prime Minister, but I’m shocked.’
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winner (Observer, 5 Jan.)

‘Given that 85 per cent of the Turkish people don’t want a war, the party and government feel we must exhaust all peaceful solutions before reluctantly becoming involved in a war.’
Murat Mercan, deputy chair of the ruling Justice and Development Party. (Financial Times, 10 Jan., p. 10)

‘No convincing evidence has been provided by Washington and London that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, or that it poses a threat to its neighbours (let alone to the West), or that there is any operational connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa’eda. Thus far it has all been mere assertion, not worth a damn.’
Corelli Barnett, right-wing historian (Telegraph, 30 Dec. 2002, p. 19)

‘Last night, one Cabinet minister warned: “If Tony Blair sanctions a war on Iraq, it could split the Labour Party”.’
(Sunday Mirror, 12 Jan., p. 9)

6) KILLER FACTS
Return to top

The Independent (8 Jan. 2003, p. 4): ‘Preparations for a humanitarian crisis in Iraq are woefully inadequate despite official estimates that two million civilians would be left homeless by a military strike, aid officials say.

‘A confidential report drawn up by the United Nations estimates that an American-led invasion would, in addition to those left homeless, put up to 10 million civilians at risk of disease and hunger.

‘The impact of an invasion would probably be worse than that of the 1991 Gulf War, the report says, because oil production would be halted, electricity cut and the distribution of UN-supplied food severely disrupted.

“The bulk of the population is now totally dependent on the government of Iraq for a majority, if not all, of their basic needs,” says the report, published online yesterday by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq, a pressure group based at Cambridge University.

“Unlike the situation in 1991, they have no way of coping if they cannot access them: the sanctions regime, if anything, has served to increase dependence on the government as almost the sole provider.”

‘Christopher Klein Beekman, a programme co-ordinator for Unicef in Iraq, told the San Francisco Chronicle: “Iraq is already in crisis. The capacity for withstanding shortages is very light. Malnourished children, pregnant women have suffered the most and those are the ones who will suffer the most during war, that’s clear.”

“No one in the international community can spend money on preparations because that would give the message that war is inevitable,” said Majeed Waleed, the deputy manager for Care International, the largest non-government organisation in Iraq. “It’s a political statement. So we can’t do anything.”

The full draft UN assessment is available from CASI.

Infrastructure

The human impact of the war will depend partly on whether the public health infrastructure is targeted.

‘The war may also see the use of the “blackout bomb”, a highly secret weapon designed to disable electrical power grids. These “soft bombs” which dispense large amounts of carbon fibre filaments, can be delivered by cruise missiles or tactical aircraft.’ (Sunday Telegraph, 29 Dec. 2002, p. 6)

Paul Sherlock, Oxfam’s leading sanitation expert, who has worked in the region for more than 20 years, says a war targeting the power stations needed for the water system, posed the possibility of ‘all sorts of epidemics’ and a ‘very high risk of water- related diseases.’ (Independent on Sunday, 29 Dec.2002, p. 2)

‘One debate still ongoing in the Pentagon is the extent to which the allies should bomb electric power grids. “I would shut down the electricity,” [retired US Air Force Col. John] Warden said. “I know I’m in a minority here [but] If you shut down the electricity it makes it that much harder for him to operate.” (Washington Times, 20 Dec.)

In 1991, Col. Warden pursued this strategy in the war on Iraq as Deputy Director of Strategy, Doctrine and Plans for the US Air Force, and he acknowledged that the wrecking of Iraq’s electricity system ‘gives us long-term leverage’: ‘If there are political objectives that the UN coalition has, it can say, “Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity”.’ (Middle East Watch, Needless Deaths in the Gulf War, p. 192)

In a report to the Security Council in Feb. 1998, Kofi Annan referred to the ‘threat of a complete breakdown’ in power generation, saying that the humanitarian consequences of such a breakdown ‘could potentially dwarf all other difficulties endured by the Iraqi people’. (1 Feb. 1998)

ACTION - Write to your MP demanding that he press the Defence Secretary: 1) not to participate in a war that can cause so much human suffering and 2) to give an undertaking not to target the electricity sector or other parts of the civilian infrastructure in Iraq. If we can protect the power generating system, we can save thousands of lives in Iraq—even if there is a war.

7) YASSER
Return to top

'In the port of Basra, they know what [war] could mean. ‘Four-year-old Yasser Salman had been shopping with his father early this month as the family prepared for the end of Ramadan.

‘They heard jets overhead, then two missiles exploded in the car park of the Iraqi National Oil Company opposite their apartment block.

‘Shards of metal scythed across the street, slicing three fingers off Yasser's left hand while another pierced his stomach. Six people were killed and another 26 injured.

‘Yasser, still too shocked to speak, has only just left hospital. “They have wounded innocent children,” his mother, Menal, cried. “Why did they bomb them? What have they done?”
David Charter, Sky News correspondent (Sunday Times, 29 Dec. 2002, p. 18)

8) 10 MILLION CHILDREN
Return to top

‘Forty two per cent of the population of Iraq is under 16, representing 9.6 million children. Is the same amount of weight being given to the probability of innocent suffering in Iraq, should war break out, as to the protection of our own people?’
The Bishop of Durham, House of Lords (Telegraph, 9 Jan. 2003, p. 14)