When Iraq agreed to comprehensive weapons inspections on Nov. 14, many breathed a sigh of relief. Many now believe war will be averted if Iraq complies with weapons inspections ordered by the UN Security Council at the motion of the United States and Britain.

However, the reality is that a war remains the preferred course of the U.S. The country continues to gear up for war, and intends to wage war regardless of the outcome of inspections. U.S. troops continue to arrive in the Gulf, adding to the 400,000 already in the region that can be deployed on short notice. Unless a war can be truly averted it will have disastrous humanitarian consequences, and jeopardize the security of the world.

President Bush’s story is that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his alleged "weapons of mass destruction" present such a threat to world peace, that waging a "pre-emptive" war to topple and replace the Iraqi government is morally justified. The Bush administration has also been adamant that replacing the Iraqi dictator is a necessary step of the "war on terrorism".

With polls suggesting that the American public was uncomfortable launching a war without approval from U.S. allies, however, George Bush took his case to United Nations, arguing for (and getting) a toughly worded resolution for "weapons inspection" from the UN Security Council. Failing the inspections, Iraq will face the full military might of the U.S. and its lone partner, the U.K.

However, the likely outcomes of a new war on Iraq, the U.S. control over the Security Council, and ulterior motives for the U.S. for going to war that readily suggest themselves have triggered massive public dissent in both the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. and the U.K. have seen regular and growing protests of hundreds of thousands—the largest since the Vietnam War.

Though one often gets the impression that the only person who lives in Iraq is Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s people have undergone enormous suffering since the "Gulf War" of 1990-91 and comprehensive economic sanctions which have been imposed by the U.N. Security Council ever since.

Despite assurances at the time, which are being repeated now, that the U.S. would undertake "surgical strikes" and had "no quarrel with the Iraqi people," it is estimated that 100,000 civilians were killed in the 44 days of bombing in the Gulf War. By wiping out Iraq’s economy, and critical infrastructure such as hospitals and water systems, waterborne diseases became rampant, as was predicted in a military report which arrived later—putting the lie to the notion that the bombing did not target civilians. (Humanitarian groups estimate that, at minimum, another 40,000 civilians would be killed in a short invasion, and as many as almost 4 million if civil war breaks out.)

But it is the comprehensive economic sanctions which have been imposed for 12 years by the U.N. Security Council that have wrought a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq. Through effectively denying food, medicine and clean water to the people of Iraq, the sanctions have caused the deaths of over 1.5 million people in the past 12 years, half of them children. According to UNICEF and other organizations, as many as 5,000 children die each month as a result of the malnutrition and lack of medicine that are largely a result of the sanctions.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power, the U.S. has blocked and complicated attempts to lift the sanctions by claiming that items Iraq needs to import are "dual use"—that is, they could be used to develop biological or chemical weapons. Despite "relief" programs that are in place on paper, such as the "Oil for Food" programme, medicine and food are still blocked and delayed and blocked on the basis of them being "dual use" through complicated U.S. and U.K. motions and appeals in the Council.

Since the 9-11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., the Bush administration has provided fresh justifications for the continuation of sanctions and a new war by alleging that Saddam Hussein is linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. But all "evidence" produced for the terrorist connection has fallen apart. A "terrorist partnership" between bin Laden and Hussein has stretched credibility as the two are known antagonists.

Failing to prove a terrorist link, they have fallen back on Hussein’s "obsession" with building "weapons of mass destruction" to use on his enemies. Though the double standard in this argument is apparent—the U.S. not only has the world’s largest stockpile of "weapons of mass destruction" but has deployed them in recent wars—this fear has animated much public fear and support for an invasion. But because these weapons—even if they existed—could never be deployed without severest consequences for Hussein and Iraq, it is unlikely they would ever be used, unless Hussein was backed into a corner. Ironically, this is the likeliest scenario in an invasion.

However, evidence is also scant for Iraq’s hidden weapons. Scott Ritter, former Chief of Concealment Investigations Unit for the UN Special Commission on Iraq wrote, "...Iraq has in fact been disarmed… the chemical, biological, nuclear and long range ballistic missile program that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless." All recent U.S. and U.K. claims of new weapon sites have been discredited by visiting journalists.

With the certain human toll associated with the war, what could be motivating the U.S. to undertake such an aggressive posture? Two such answers present themselves. The first is access and control of the Middle East’s abundant oil resources. Since the discovery of oil, Iraq has been a land of colonial and post-colonial open and covert efforts to dominate it—largely by Britain, France, and in recent decades by the U.S. Recently, both the U.S. and the U.K. have flatly rejected the environmentalist advice that conservation and alternative energy development would be the best bets against vulnerability to the ebb and flow of foreign oil.

The only remaining way of meeting future energy demand is to import ever greater quantities of oil and gas. With Iraq’s territory containing 10% of the world’s known oil reserves, long-term control is viewed by the U.S. government as critical. The U.K., and other Security Council members, faced with the possibility of the U.S. controlling the world’s future supplies of oil, are pressured by their own oil demands to wage war on Iraq and take a "slice of the pie."

Alternatives

What’s missing from the war on Iraq debate is Iraq’s people themselves. Hussein is a despot who is a prolific violator of human rights, but we also have to address our part in the genocidal effects of the UN sanctions regime. If removing Hussein is indeed a goal we share with the people of Iraq and we care about democracy, then the best way of removing Hussein is to lift the sanctions and economically empower Iraq’s citizens once again.

Also, we need to initiate a revised and improved strategy of non-proliferation and disarmament of weapons, which, coincidentally, would also prevent terrorists from acquiring them. This could be done with a worldwide inspections regime that would stop all governments from developing deadly weapons, and it has been viable for many years.

And finally, we need to understand and take action against the root causes of warfare and terror—poverty, strife, and oppression of some countries over others—rather than merely stopping the production of weapons.

Rob Butz is an Edmonton-based activist and member of the U of A Coalition Against War and Racism. For regular updates of Edmonton-area antiwar activity and news, send your email address to peace@wage-peace.org.