Country: The Former Baathist Republic
Government of Iraq

Event: Pearl-MUN 2003
ICJ Advocate:
Ahmad Al Shammari




Links to other sites on the Web:


Back to the 2002-2003 Team page
Back to the 2003 Pearl-MUN page
Back to the Briefing Book Library
Back to Teams
Back to Fruit Home

The Baathist Republic of Iraq




The Iraqi National Anthem


Land of Two Rivers

Latin Transliteration

Watanun Mede Alalufqui
Janaha Warteda Majdalkadarati
Wishaha Burikat Ardulfurataini
Watan Abqariyyalmajd Azmen
Wa Samaha Wataha

Hathihilardu Lehibun Wa Sana
Wa Shumukhum La Tudanini Sama
Jabalun Yesmu Ala Hamilduna
Wa Suhulun Jassadat Finaliba
Babilun Fina Wa Ashourun Lena
Wa Binaltarikhu Yakhdallu Dia
Nahnu Finnasi Jamana Wahduna
Ghadbat Assayfi Wa Hilm Alanbiya.

Ya Saraya Albathi Ya Usdelarin
Ya Shumukh Alizzi Walmajd Ittalid
Izahafi Kalhawli Linnasrilmubin
Wab Athi Fi Ardina Ahdarrashid
Nahnu Jeelulbathl: Fajrulkadihin
Ya Rihab Almajd Udna Min Jadid
Ummatun Nabni Bi Azmin La Yalim
Wa Shahidun Yaqatfi Khatwa Shahid.
Shatunaljabbar Zahwun Wantilaq
Wa Qila Alizzi Yebniba Alrifag
Dumta Liburbi Malathan Ya Iraq
Wa Shumusan Tajalullayla Sabaha.



English:

A homeland that extended its wings over the horizon,
And wore the glory of civilization as a garment--
Blessed be the land of the two rivers,
A homeland of glorious determination and tolerance.

This homeland is made of flame and splendour
And pride unequaled by the high heavens.
It is a mountain that rises above the tops of the world
And a plain that embodies our pride.

Babylon is inherent in us and Assyria is ours,
And because of the glory of our background
History itself radiates with light,
And it is we alone who possess the anger of the sword
And the patience of the prophets.

Oh company of al-Ba'th, you pride of lions,
Oh pinnacle of pride and of inherited glory,
Advance, bringing terror, to a certain victory
And resurrect the time of al-Rashid in our land!

We are a generation who give all and toil to the utmost.
Oh expanse of glory, we have returned anew
To a nation that we build with unyielding determination.
And each martyr follows in the footsteps of a former martyr.

Our mighty nation is filled with pride and vigour
And the comrades build the fortresses of glory.
Oh Iraq, may you remain forever a refuge for all the Arabs





CASE PRESENTATION


 


 

A. Opening Speech:


My job here is to prove the following:
1. That Iraq has no WOMD
2. Iraq funds no terrorists
3. US war is illegal


Mr. USA attacks where on the fact indicting Saddam’s government of such WOMD and terrorist links. However there attacks did not include dates, and amount. Mr. Collin Powell made a wonderful speech attacking the fact that Iraq had WOMD but they found none.

"Capabilities…" a word used a lot by the opponent. However, a country capable of producing WOMD does not and will never mean that it has any. Kuwait has the capability, but does it have any?

My presentation will be to constructed as follows:
1. counter-evidence to Powell deposition
2. Ba3th possesses no WOMD’s
3. Ba3th funds no terrorists
4. Israel Violates UN resolutions also
5. US funds Israel and terrorists
6. US accuses countries without solid evidence.
7. The Ba3th is not a liar
8. USA is a liar
9. The violated treaties by the UN


Allow me to merge the opening speech time with my presentation.


What we will try to prove:


 
1) Ba3th possesses no WOMD’s
A. Witness A
B. Evidence A
C. Deposition A


2) Ba3th funds no terrorists
A. Deposition A
B. Witness B
C. Depostion


3) Israel Violates
A. Resolution 242
B. Evidence D
C. Deposition C
D. Deposition D
E. Deposition E


4) US funds Israel and terrorists
A. Evidence B
B. Evidence C


5) US accuse countries without solid evidence.
A. Witness B



6) Ba3th is not a lier
A. Counter-witness A








Evidence



Evidence A


"There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

The IAEA's fact sheet from 25 April 2002, entitled "Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Programme"


 

Evidence B


"In addition to the foreign assistance, the United States has provided Israel with $625 million to develop and deploy the Arrow antimissile missile (an ongoing project), $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled), $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative), $130 million to develop the high energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing), and other military projects. In FY2000 the United States provided Israel an additional $1.2 billion to fund the Wye agreement." http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/10871.pdf


Extracted from a report by the Congressional Research Service-The Library of Congress in the name of Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance by Clyde R. Mark, who expertise’s in Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Updated May 21, 2002 Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code IB85066


 

Evidence C


a) During the 1991 Gulf War, Bush Sr. called on Shi'as in the south and Kurds in the north to rebel against Saddam. After the US victory, demobilized soldiers returned home furious and ordinary Iraqis stormed police headquarters and prisons to free prisoners. Government officials were lynched. Kurdish guerillas carried out an armed uprising. For several weeks, Saddam's government was on the verge of collapse and ordinary Iraqis controlled entire sections of the country.

But the US abandoned the rebels, denying them access to captured Iraqi weapons, and allowed Iraqi helicopters use of the "No-Fly Zones" to crush the uprising. When Saddam's forces dropped firebombs on fleeing rebels in southern Iraq, American planes surveilled the attack.


The Middle East: A History of Mass Struggle "How the People of Iraq Can Overthrow Saddam" By Tony Wilson http://www.socialistalternative.org/ literature/war/iraqi_people.html


 


D. Evidence D


"The top United Nations human rights body has adopted a resolution condemning Israel for "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and has launched an investigation into the violence. The resolution, adopted at a special session of the UN High Commission on Human Rights on 19 October after a two-day debate, sets up a five-member commission of inquiry backed by a team which will include forensic experts.

The resolution, entitled "Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel", attacked the "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass killings, collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity".

It demanded that Israel put an immediate end to any use of force against civilians, and called upon the international community to take immediate measures to secure the cessation of violence by Israel and to put an end to the ongoing violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. The resolution affirmed that the Israeli occupation in itself constituted a grave violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people, and that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by Israel amounted to a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and a crime against humanity.

It requested the high commissioner for human rights to visit the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel to take stock of the situation after what it called "disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force" by Israel in the course of confrontations beginning on 28 September that had led to the deaths of 120 civilians, including children. The high commissioner, Mary Robinson, was also asked to facilitate the activities of commission mechanisms in response to the events.

In addition, the resolution requested commission special rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; torture; violence against women; religious intolerance; racial discrimination; and right to housing; its Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; and the representative of the secretary-general for internally displaced persons to carry out immediate missions to the occupied Palestinian territories and to report their findings to the commission at its 57th session and, on an interim basis, to the General Assembly at its 57 session.

The representative of Palestine, Nabil Ramlawi, said the passage of the resolution had "saved the reputation of human rights", which had been "repressed, suppressed, trampled upon, even killed, in Palestine".

The United States, which had opposed the convening of the special session in the first place, voted against the resolution, as did Britain, thereby making a mockery of its so-called "ethical foreign policy" and raising further questions as to whether Prime Minister Tony Blair's Zionist leanings are in the best interests of his country." Shows the US influence to violate UN resolution.

Extracted from an article entitled "UN body finds Israel guilty of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity"" which is a Report on a resolution adopted at a special session of the UN High Commission on Human Rights 19 October 2000 © 2000-03 Redress Information & Analysis. All Rights Reserved http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/unhchr.htm


 


Evidence E


"Pyongyang is cooperating with Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, whose leading members are South Korea, the United States and Japan. KEDO has reached an agreement on the provision of the light-water nuclear reactors by 2003, and, in return, North Korea has frozen its nuclear program. South Korea, which has promised to bear the lion's share of the reactor project cost estimated at US$4.5 billion, is asking the United States to put up at least a symbolic amount. The US administration, however, has said it can make no contribution to the construction cost as Congress has not appropriated the necessary budget. An official in Seoul, however, said that South Korea cannot drop its demand simply because of domestic problems in the United States. The US Congress has been delaying approval of the cost for the reactor project. South Korean officials said the U.S. refusal to share the reactor cost would make it difficult for them to obtain approval from the National Assembly for the South Korean share."


Extracted from Nuclear Weapons Program http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/ Maintained by Steven Aftergood Updated March 26, 2003


 

 

 

 

II. DEPOSITIONS




A. Deposition A: HANS VON SPONECK



As a former UN Assistant Secretary General, Von Sponeck headed the UN "oil-for-food" program until he resigned two years ago in protest over the continued sanctions on Iraq. He was in Iraq two weeks before the war, visited sites purported to be weapons sites and found them to be "defunct and destroyed."


"I Hans Von Sponeck have seen the weapons sites in Iraq that were destroyed by previous inspection. My colleagues have never found any WOMD in Iraq. Also Evidence of al-Qaida/lraq collaboration does not exist.... Six years of revisions to sanctions policy on Baghdad have repeatedly promised 'mitigation' of civilian suffering. " http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR072902.htm


 

Deposition B: SCOTT RITTER,


Ritter, who was a chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, is the author of Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem Once and For All.

"I Scott Ritter testify that the congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq. These hearings have nothing to do with an objective search for the truth, but rather seek to line up like-minded witnesses who will buttress this pre-determined result.... This isn't American democracy in action, it's the failure of American democracy. Before we go to war with Iraq, we must be able to determine that Iraq poses a threat to the national security of the United States. Such a determination must be backed up with substantive fact. I believe that Iraq does not pose a threat to the U.S. worthy of war. This conclusion is shared by many senior military officers. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities. I bear personal witness, through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the UN, to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. These are the sort of facts that must be included in any hearing that seeks to determine the threat posed by Iraq today. It is clear that Sen. Biden and his colleagues have no interest in such facts." By Scott Ritter, who was a chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, is the author of Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem Once and For All.

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR072902.htm


 

Deposition C: ANNE BAYEFSKY


"I, Anne Bayefsky, a visiting professor at Columbia University Law School and a member of the governing board of Geneva-based UN Watch, testify that Israel is the only UN member not permitted to stand for election to the full range of UN bodies. So while membership of the UN Human Rights Commission now includes Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Syria -- four of the seven states designated as state sponsors of international terrorism by the U.S. State Department -- Israel cannot even be a candidate."- Anne Bayefsky, The Globe and Mail April 26, 2002
Anne Bayefsky is a visiting professor at Columbia University Law School and a member of the governing board of Geneva-based UN Watch.)


 

Deposition D: KOFI ANNAN


I Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, testify that Israel has the legal and moral responsibility to take all measures possible to avoid the loss of innocent lives. Clearly, it did not fulfill this duty in using a missile against a residential building violating human rights declaration. Israel must comply with UN resolutions to prevent more tragedies"


 

Deposition E: RASHID I. KHALIDI, PHD


"I Rashid I. Khalidi, PHD in Politics from Oxford University, a writer in Oxford University Press and the Globalpolicy.com, testify that in spite of apparently universal acceptance of Resolution 242 as a basis for an Arab-Israeli settlement, major problems remain. From 1977 until 1992, Israeli governments were dominated by the Likud bloc, which rejected the application of this resolution to the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, Arab East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights. They claimed that its provisions regarding Israel’s withdrawal were fulfilled with the 1982 withdrawal from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Over the years, moreover, a school of thought has grown increasingly influential in Israel and the United States, arguing that the principle of "land for peace" embodied in Resolution 242 is no longer relevant, and that the changes since June 1967 have become irreversible. Thus in conclusion, Israel have not complied with the Security Council Resolutions because of American influence"

By Rashid I. Khalidi The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World Oxford University Press, 1993 Ph.D. in Politics


 

F. Deposition F: HEAD OF FRENCH COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE

The head of France's counter-intelligence agency Pierre de Bousquet de Florian

"The only certitude we have, is that there is no organic link between the regime of Saddam Hussein (and al-Qaeda)," said the director of the counterintelligence service, the DST, in an interview aired on France-2 television. I don't think Saddam Hussein would have taken the risk because he knows he is under surveillance, and I also think he is despised by Osama bin Laden"

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6002616%255E401,00.html


 

G. Deposition G: CLARE SHORT


Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development, has launched disgraceful attacks on aid agencies trying to prevent famine in Afghanistan (see ARROW Anti-War Briefing 7). The Minister for Development has also contributed to the Government's burgeoning stock of war propaganda.

'Fanatics want hatred, don't they? They want conflict, war, death. They want to be against the evil one. So I think we should find justice, which would undermine them. You can't be against justice just because these unjust fanatics are calling for something which has got justice in it. Surely our own lessons from Ireland show that if you stop the use of force and unfairness, and create justice, the cause of the protest and the potential suicide bombers go away. I think we all understand that America feels so angry they want to get somebody, but you can't just have lots of planes and guns and ships, and make everybody do your bidding.' Clare Short, Spectator, 22 Sept. 2001.

http://www.j-n-v.org/ARROW_aw_briefings/ARROW_briefing008.htm "The whole atmosphere of the current situation is deeply reckless - reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the UN in this disorderly world, reckless with our government, reckless with his own future, position and place in history." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2834971.stm

"People like me are being told, 'Yes, all this is under consideration'," she said "And then the spin the next day is, 'We are ready for war'."


 


H. Deposition H: ROBIN COOK


It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council. To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.


 

 

 

III. WITNESSES


 
A. Witness A: Hans Blix


Hans Blix is the head inspection and the person in charge of disarming Iraq from WOMD. He was sent to Iraq at mid-November 2002. Mr. Blix is an expert in the inspection field. He will now briefly testify what he found.


Question: Did the UN inspection team find any WOMD on Iraqi soil?
Answer: No. we found none
Question: Was the time given for the inspection operation?
Answer: No. The US forces seemed to be determined to attack Iraq, whether there was WOMD or not.
Question: Was Iraq cooperating with the inspection?
Answer: Well at first, they didn’t. But then they started destroying alsmood missiles.
Question: How was it at first?
Answer: They didn’t give us the list of WOMD in Iraq.
Question: Is it possible that they gave you no such list, because they have no WOMD? If they don’t doesn’t that mean that there cooperating?
Answer: Yes definitely
Question: Then tell me Mr. Blix in conclusion is there WOMD in Iraq?
Answer: No
Question: Doesn’t the US asking you to leave Iraq before finishing your work mean that the US is not cooperating with the resolution 1441?
Answer: I believe that the US asking us to go out means they are stopping the enforcement of the 1441 resolution.


 

Witness B: The Iranian Ambassador


Question: Did the United States of America accuse you of terrorism, and a threat to global security?
Answer: Yes
Question: What did they call you exactly?
Answer: The axis of evil
Question: Did you ever attack any western nation claiming they have WOMD?
Answer: No why would I!
Question: What would you call a country that would do that?
Answer: There the real axis of evil
Question: What do you think of the Palestinian situations, who are the real terrorist or outlaws?
Answer: Israel of course because they do not comply with the 242 resolution, the freedom fighters there are provoking and enforcing the resolution.


 

Witness C: World Bank expert


Question: What is the Iraq economic situation at this time?
Answer: The Iraqi Government budget is under budget at a 30 billion $ standard
Question: Is Iraq eligible for acquiring any loan to buy food for its people?\
Answer: No. the UN does not give Iraq any loans for buying food. It doesn’t need to because the UN enforced an OIL/FOOD program on it
Question: Does Iraq have a strong buying power?
Answer: No
Question: Could it get one quickly
Answer: Yes UNLESS the Sanctions are removed

 

 


D. Counter-witness A: Kuwait


Question: Is Iraq a threat to your peace at this time?
Answer: Yes.
Question: When was the latest attack they did?
Answer: 1990
Question: Therefore, that is 13 years ago. Don’t you think its possible those 13 years of peace is enough to remove the threat?
Answer: Maybe
Question: What do you think of countries who fund terrorists? Are they terrorists too?
Answer: Yes and they should be punished.
Question: What do you think about the USA?
Answer: There the country that are currently keeping stability in the globe, without them, there would be Chaos
Question: Chaos! *chuckle* what do you think of Israel? Are they outlaws, terrorist, or angels?
Answer: There terrorists… definitely, resolution 242 make them outlaws, but there violations to human rights towards Palestinians make them devils.
Question: Does the US fund them? What field is funded?
Answer:Yes… I believe it’s the military field.
Question: Therefore, Israel military POWER is American.
Answer: Yes
Question: If you think that anyone who funds terrorists is a terrorist, and Israel is a terrorist, and the US funds terrorist Israel, would that make them terrorist too!!??
Answer: Yes... no … yes …
Question: Thank you! J Would you offer Iraq a loan?
Answer:No, I would only have given to them medication and food


 

 

 

IV. Documents



Security Council Resolution 242


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace, in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
A. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
B. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity
A. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
B. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
C. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.


 

THE LAW: [QUOTES FROM THE UN CHARTER]


1. Article 2-5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action terrorist funds


2. It is stated in the Charter of the United Nations, Article Two, Paragraph Seven, that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." 0


 

 

 

Negative Evidence


1. Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have reportedly hid in northern Iraq, but in areas beyond Saddam’s control.

a. Answer of CIA official to the question of WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT IRAQ HAS TIES WITH TERRORISM?

2. US just presents that Iraq is capable… but capability does not mean it possesses any

3. Colin Powell Speech was at 25th of February… 2 months before the Iraqi Freedom Operation

4. The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

5. Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply. This portrait seriously over-simplifies UN debates on Resolution 1441. Several members of the Security Council signed on the clear understanding that UN inspections would be given a serious chance to determine Iraqi arms holdings. Agreement on "serious consequences" was reached only after lengthy private conversations to confirm the continuing role of the Security Council and international consensus in determining any subsequent action.


 

 

A Critique: olin Powell’s Speech to the United Nations Security Council,

delivered Wednesday, February 5, 2003


By Virginia Q. Tilley (Associate Professor, tilley@hws.edu) and Kevin C. Dunn (Assistant Professor, dunn@hws.edu) Department of Political Science, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Geneva, NY USA


1. And as Dr El-Baradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7: "Did not provide an new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998." But El-Baradei also added that inspections had not found any new "evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme." See passages on nuclear weapons components, below

2. The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Repeated allusions to unnamed "sources" or "witnesses" are crucial to Powell’s arguments and will be reviewed throughout this critique.

3. I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling. Note how the term "deeply troubling" casts an initial gloss of sober reflection and diplomacy over an address which actually argues for open war.

4. "I will come to you tomorrow." The al-Kindi company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity. Inconclusive. That the al-Kindi Company is "well known to have been involved" in such activity does not clarify what kind of vehicles it supplied to Iraq, or even whether it supplied vehicles, or this vehicle. Nor does it clarify the nature of this vehicle.

5. "They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes." "Yes." "For the possibility there are forbidden ammo." "For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?" "Yes." "And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there." Remember the first message, evacuated. Inconclusive. This order to a field officer indicates Iraqi concern that some ammunition or destroyed remnants of ammunition might have been overlooked or forgotten in these "scrap" and "abandoned" areas. Such forgotten equipment is most unlikely to include weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Again, these conversations do indicate a concern to conceal from UN inspectors any prohibited material or destroyed prohibited material, but give no hint that WMD are present in the country. Also, this reference to "forbidden ammo" has no apparent connection to the "12 empty chemical warheads" which Powell mentioned in opening this segment. The actual nature of this "forbidden ammo" is left unspecified.

6. This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind. Powell oversimplifies Iraqi motives for such behavior. A pattern of concealment also reflects the prospect of what would happen to Iraq if anything were found. An interview by Ted Koppel with Condoleezza Rice on February 5, TedKoppel asked her what would happen if Iraq did turn over weapons. Her reply made clear that such a discovery would actually confirm Iraq’s deceptive practices and justify a US invasion. Under these catch-22 circumstances, it is less surprising that Iraqi officers would be undertaking to ensure "clean" sites.

7. This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things. But they don't want that message seen, because they were trying to clean up the area to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there. And the inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing. Powell leaps from a conversation about "forbidden ammo" to suggesting "the presence of weapons of mass destruction." Nothing in these conversations suggests the presence of WMD.

8. Not to cooperate with them, not to assist them, but to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs. Misleading. Many countries create committees to oversee UN monitoring. There is nothing unusual or inherently sinister about that. But notice how Powell makes groundless rhetorical leaps regarding this committee from "monitoring" to "spying" to "keep[ing the monitors] from doing their jobs."

9. We have learned a lot about the work of this special committee. We learned that just prior to the return of inspectors last November the regime had decided to resume what we heard called, quote, "the old game of cat and mouse," unquote. What is the source of this quote? Powell's delivery implies that it comes from the Iraqi regime itself. However, he provides no specific context for the quote, thereby implying that it comes not from the Iraqi regime, but perhaps from an internal US report.

10. Instead, Iraq planned to use the declaration, overwhelm us and to overwhelm the inspectors with useless information about Iraq's permitted weapons so that we would not have time to pursue Iraq's prohibited weapons. UN Resolution 1441 stated that any omission by Iraq in its December 7th report would be considered a "material breach" of the Resolution. Ironically, the enormous size of Iraq's report – understandable given the implications of any omission – is now being used as proof of Iraq's deception, rather than compliance.

11. Could any member of this council honestly rise in defense of this false declaration? Rhetorically misleading.Page: 6 Powell has rhetorically jumped from Blix's declaration that the Iraqi report was poor in information (not a direct quote of his) to claiming that the Iraqi report was a "false declaration." Blix cited its shortcomings, but made no claim that it was false.

12. We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes. We know that Iraqi government officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists have hidden prohibited items in their homes. Other key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection. One would assume that the US would have informed the UN inspection team which homes to search, if they in fact had "solid" evidence to that effect. Weeks after the Bush administration reportedly sharing this information with the US inspection team, paperwork was found in only one home. See next comment.

13. Thanks to intelligence they were provided, the inspectors recently found dramatic confirmation of these reports. When they searched the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist, they uncovered roughly 2,000 pages of documents. You see them here being brought out of the home and placed in U.N. hands. Some of the material is classified and related to Iraq's nuclear program. This much-repeated claim has been discredited. The IAEA has reported that these documents were actually old, dating from Iraq’s pre-1991 laser-system uranium program, and were apparently the personal files of the scientist in whose home they were found. "They consist of technical reports; minutes of meetings (including those of the Standing Committee for Laser Applications); personal notes; copies of publications and student research project theses; and a number of administrative documents, some of which were marked as classified. While the documents have provided some additional details about Iraq's laser enrichment development efforts, they refer to activities or sites already known to the IAEA ..." (IAEA director El-Baradei report to the UN Security Council, February 14, 2003).

14. Tell me, answer me, are the inspectors to search the house of every government official, every Baath Party member and every scientist in the country to find the truth, to get the information they need, to satisfy the demands of our council? Our sources tell us that, in some cases, the hard drives of computers at Iraqi weapons facilities were replaced. Who took the hard drives? Where did they go? What's being hidden? Why? There's only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide, to keep from the inspectors. There is another possible answer: that hard drives were replaced for the same reason hard drives are usually replaced, which is because they were too old or too small. Powell does not specify (or perhaps know) the time frame for these replacements (it could have been over several years), or the purposes (or users) of the computers in question.

15. PICTURES: We have seen past US deception regarding satellite images. During the first Gulf War, the first Bush administration released satellite photos it claimed were of Iraqi mobile Scud missile launchers. It was later proved that those photos were in fact pictures of oil trucks. Administration officials knew this at the time and actively sought to deceive the American public (Frontline). Satellite photos are not selfevident. Powell’s interpretation can be questioned — particularly as the present Bush administration includes members of the previous Bush administration who were involved in the previous deception, such as Richard Haas.

16. Note that Powell is not telling us when the photo was taken. It could be more than a decade old. Providing a date would have made his case more convincing. By not stating the date he raises the strong possibility that it is an old photograph and thus inconsequential to the argument he is making here.

17. Powell offers no source for this information. Earlier intelligence about such facilities has proved false: famously, US claims that the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory in the Sudan was producing chemicals for nerve agents. The factory was bombed by US missiles in August 1998, but no evidence of illicit chemicals was later found, and the US later had to admit that the reports were false.

18. I would call my colleagues attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities. The report to which Powell refers is the infamously plagiarized UK "intelligence report," which plagiarized a decades-old doctoral thesis and academic articles based on information some of which was twelve years old. The report was hastily produced by the staff of British government aide Alistair Campbell (none of whom are Middle East experts), and included strategic changes in al-Marashi’s text. For example, al-Marashi described the activities of the Iraqi general intelligence directorate as "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes." With no other evidence, Campbell’s staff changed this wording to "supporting terrorist organizations in hostile regimes."

19. Powell does recognize that this is extremely circumstantial evidence. However, by this time in his speech he has already illustrated the US's ability to tap phone conversations, access human sources, and take detailed satellite photographs. Such capacity should yield far more robust evidence than this. Powell’s providing only circumstantial evidence raises concerns about the limitations of US intelligence and/or the validity of Powell's speculation.

20. This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441. Paragraph seven does not allow for unrestricted reconnaissance flights by the US. This is a misrepresentation of Resolution 1441.

21. Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq's list was out of date and contained only about 500 names, despite the fact that UNSCOM had earlier put together a list of about 3,500 names. This accusation distorts the UN inspection process. Hans Blix recommended that Iraq provide lists of scientists in stages: "Iraq may proceed in pyramid fashion, starting from the leadership in programmes, going down to management, scientists, engineers and technicians but excluding the basic layer of workers." See his statement to the Security Council, 19 December 2002.

22. For example, in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there. Hans Blix and his inspection team have categorically rejected this claim by Powell. Dr. Blix also said there was "no evidence" of Iraq sending scientists out of the country, of Iraqi intelligence agents posing as scientists, of UNMOVIC conversations being monitored, or of UNMOVIC being penetrated.

24. Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. Note that Powell does not say the Iraq actually produced this quantity. The 25,000-liter number is based on estimates of what Iraq could have produced if its facilities had produced anthrax at maximum capacity for the entire time they ran at full production level (about 120 days from 1990-91). UNSCOM continues to seek documentation that the facility did not produce this "optimal" amount. Iraq has documentation confirming the smaller amount, which it claims was destroyed. Iraq is therefore presently being asked to prove that it did not do what it could have done, not to account for documented production of anthrax. Many experts suspect Iraqi deception on this issue. On 27 January, Blix reported that "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist."

25. Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eyewitnessaccounts. Powell does not specify these sources, which may be necessary to their protection. But "witnesses" may include people (such as political prisoners or Iraqi opposition figures) who are motivated to tell stories pleasing to US officials but who actually lie or simply lack accurate data Powell’s vague reference here makes impossible any assessment of the information or of the "witnesses’" credibility. Security Council members have not confirmed or accepted these unverified reports.

26. This is apparently Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, whose reliability is questionable. Glen Rangwala reports that he did not describe these "mobile production facilities in his first press conferences in December 2001. It was only after debriefing by the US and a three-week ‘debriefing’ by Nabil Musawi, spokesman for the opposition Iraqi National Congress, in Bangkok, that Haideri started talking about mobile facilities, in mid-2002." MiddleEastReference.org.uk.

27. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If this claim is true, then it illustrates the foolishness of going to war with Iraq. One of the fundamental truths of international relations is that states accumulate WMD to deter others from attacking them. This is why the United States has the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and why President Bush himself stated that he would be willing to use those weapons in retaliation against any state or terrorist organization that dared attack the United States. It is only reasonable to assume that Saddam Hussein, like President Bush, would use the weapons at his disposal to deter any attempt to oust him. If the US launches a military strike on Iraq with the stated goal of regime change, there is little to deter Saddam Hussein from utilizing biological or chemical weapons. Unless, of course, if Saddam Hussein doesn't actually have those weapons of mass destruction, in which case there is no justification for the war with Iraq. If weapons inspections are terminated, the only way to prove that Hussein has WMD is to force him to use them.

28. Let me remind you that, of the 122 millimetre chemical warheads, that the UN inspectors found recently, this discovery could very well be, as has been noted, the tip of the submerged iceberg. The question before us, all my friends, is when will we see the rest of the submerged iceberg? These warheads were empty. UNMOVIC reported that they were found in excellent condition, but in sealed boxes "covered with bird droppings," and that they dated to before 1990. No traces of chemicals were found. Other experts have questioned whether Iraq intended to conceal these warheads. "According to Raymond Zilinskas, a former UNSCOM biological weapons inspector and consultant to the US Department of State and the US Department of Defense (and director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program, Monterey Institute of International Studies): ‘If there are depots with millions of rounds of artillery shells for conventional use and one box of artillery shells for chemical use, it would be easy to miss. It could have fallen between the cracks.’" See MiddleEastReference.org.uk.

29. Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons programme. This claim directly contradicts the evidence presented by Mohamed El-Baradei, Director of the IAEA, who in his report to the UN Security Council on 27 January concluded: :We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

30. ballistics According to UNSCOM, 817 out of Iraq's known 819 ballistic missiles had been certifiably destroyed by 1997. If Iraq has been able to salvage some parts of those missiles and reconstruct them (and there is no evidence to suggest that they have), Charles Duelfer, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and deputy head of UNSCOM, suggests that no more than a dozen could possibly exist. Powell's claim that Hussein has a covert force of "a few dozen" missiles is highly unlikely – and unsubstantiated. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometres. This is probably true. At this range, however, Scud-B missiles are notoriously inaccurate. They are accurate only at far closer range. To hit any target in a neighboring country like Israel would require positioning mobile launchers along the border, and firing multiple times.

31. TERRORISM: Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Baghdad did provide modest guerrilla support for PLO militant groups in the 1980s, but the United States continued to support Iraq during that time. Since the Oslo peace process and creation of the Palestine Authority, PLO militancy has almost entirely evaporated; no meaningful support today could be supported.

32. We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain even today in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters, and they are involved in moving more than money and material. French intelligence sources have strongly denied any connection with Al-Qaida activists, saying "At no point did the DST (French anti- terrorist and counter-espionage services), which organised these arrests, establish the slightest link between these two men and al-Zarqawi." (AFP, February 8, 2003). Benhamed and Benchellali are considered by French intelligence services as operational members of the so-called "Chechen network", a reference to fighters who received training in the Russian breakaway republic of Chechnya. "Al-Zarqawi's name never once appeared in our different investigations into the 'Chechen link' and its operational members active in Europe," they added.

33. A direct link between Iraq and al-Qaida remains unproven and denied strongly by all relevant parties. Moreover, The Guardian reports that "British security and intelligence sources have consistently played down any suggestion of a direct link between the Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden. "Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have explicitly opposed any kind of alliance," a senior Whitehall source told the Guardian. "We have not seen any clear evidence of an institutional link." A top-secret defense intelligence staff report, dated January 12, states: "While there have been contacts between al-Qaida and the regime in the past, it is assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideology". The document, leaked to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, adds: "Though training of some AQ members in Iraq may have continued, we believe that Bin Laden views the Ba'ath as an apostate regime. His aim of restoration of an Islamic caliphate, whose capital was Baghdad, is in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq." Feb 6, 2003.

34. Bin Laden has openly and repeatedly called for the overthrow of the "infidel" Hussein and his "evil" secular socialist regime, as well as other "infidel" Middle Eastern regimes in Saudi Arabia, yemen, and Jordan. Bin Laden has repeatedly stated that his followers are justified in spilling Hussein's blood and taking his property.

35. Support for the Palestinian cause is strong throughout the Muslim world. The Iraqi government, like many other governments in the region, has given support to these organizations.

36. However, it is perhaps significant to US policy today that the brutal policies Powell mentions occurred when Iraq was a US ally, and was receiving US military intelligence and clandestine support. Indeed, the New York Times notes that US military advisors in Iraq during this time were intimately aware of the use of gas by the Iraqi military, and other reports have indicated that Iraq obtained the components for these weapons from US suppliers. Two recent useful sources: Nicholas D. Kristof, "Revolving-Door Monsters," New York Times, 11 October 2002. and Elaine Sciolino, "Iraq Chemical Arms Condemned, but West Once Looked Other Way," New York Times, 13 February 2003.


37. Such claims appear groundless. It is difficult to imagine how Iraq - with its weakened military, close international scrutiny, and tight sanctions - represents a threat to international peace and security. There is no evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US or its neighbors. Nor is there any evidence that the established policy of containment is not working.


 

 

 

COUNTER-MEMORIUM: BAATHIST REPUBLIC OF IRAQ


Statements of Facts:
1. The Geneva Protocol was ratified and signed by Iraq at 1931, and was ratified by most supreme countries including the USA
2. After the Gulf War, Iraq budget was in debt of more than $63 billion.
3. Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor program in 1980
4. After the Gulf War, UN inspectors began to track them down and destroy them. In 1998, when the UN’s work was nearly complete, US-UK air attacks ended the inspection process destroying the rest.
5. Israel in 1967 was asked to get out of the occupied territories by a Security Council Resolution, but it ignored it because USA was on its side.
6. Israel’s military program is being aided by the US.
7. Iraq funds Liberation parties in Palestine, not terrorist
8. US funded revolutionary forces in Iraq 1994 revolutionary parties
9. When UN inspection teams resumed their work under resolution 1441, beginning in mid-November 2002, they found no evidence of such weapons prior to the US-UK war.
10. Although no evidence of WOMD in Iraq was found, USA and UK stopped the inspectors work before they finished, and attacked Iraq
11. The war faced strong opposition from France, Germany, Russia, China and the great majority of UN member states as well as world public opinion because of its illegality.
12. Iraq has no contact with Al-Qaeda, and did not bomb the Kurds


Legal Claims:


The coalition forces attacked Iraq violating the UN charter, Iraq’s national sovereignty and ignoring the worlds view. Also, it’s violating its right in being in the Security Council, article 24. The coalition forces used assumption and auguries to predict and forecast reasons to attack Iraq. No solid evidence was presented.

In November 1967 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict in return for Arab recognition of Israel’s independence, peace, and secures borders. Israel did not cooperate. Thus Israel is a terrorist nation that disobeys Security Council resolution, so its an outlaw. Therefore, because the US is funding it, then it’s the US is funding outlaws. In the other hand, Iraq is funding hopeless Palestinian freedom fighters from the terrorizing Israelis forces. Those Palestinian freedom fighters are trying to enforce 1441 and get the Israelis out. The US also funded revolutionary forces in Iraq at 1994. Therefore, the US is the only one funding terrorists. In addition, the US used Agent Orange upon Vietnamese lands violating the Geneva Protocol. So the protocol isn’t working.

In Conclusion, Iraq is innocent from the US claims of obtaining WOMD and funding terrorists. Moreover, US is guilty of obtaining WOMD, violating the Geneva protocol, attacking a peaceful Iraq, and funding terrorist nations.


Judgment Requested:


1. That the United States retreat from Iraq and either
a. Saddam takes over again
b. The UN takes over
2. That the United States shall compensate all Iraqi citizens for damages
3. United States shall cut funding to Israel
4. Israel to retreat from Palestine
5. ORDER the US to enforce the 242 resolution and take Israel out of the occupied lands.
6. ORDER US to formerly apologize to all the nations of the world
7. Remove all sanctions against Iraq
8. That all statues of Saddam to be put back in place J

9. The overthrow of the current US government.