Mr. Speaker, last week I showed that
this administration, President Bush's administration, deliberately
and not inadvertently helped to arm Iraq by allowing United States
technology to be shipped to the Iraqi military and to the Iraqi
weapons factories. Throughout the course of the Bush administration,
United States and foreign firms were granted export licenses to
ship United States technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities,
despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing
I also showed how the President
misled the Congress and the public about the role United States
firms played in arming Iraq.
Today I will show that the highest
levels of the Bush administration, including the President himself,
had specific knowledge of Iraq's military industrialization plans,
and despite that knowledge, the President mandated the policy of
coddling Saddam Hussein as spelled out in National Security Directive
26 (NSD-26) issued in October 1989. This policy was not changed
until after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, by which time the Bush
administration had sent Saddam Hussein billions of dollars in United
States financial assistance, technology and useful military intelligence
I will also show how the President's
policy of appeasing Saddam Hussein was at odds with those in the
administration who saw Iraq as a major proliferation threat. This
will help set the stage for next week's report which will discuss
Iraq's clandestine technology procurement network and the Italian
bank agency in Atlanta's role in funding that network.
Henry B. Gonzalez, (TX-20) - (House of Representatives
- July 27, 1992)
The Iran-Contra Scandal in Perspective
101.2 - Overcoming Short Attention Span
WHY IRAQ INVADED KUWAIT
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and captured Kuwait. Although
this invasion and the accompanying human rights violations are inexcusable,
it is helpful in understanding the Gulf War to know why Iraq invaded.
When Britain drew the national borders in the Persian
Gulf in 1922, they deliberately deprived Iraq of a seaport in the
Gulf in the hope that Iraq could never threaten British dominance
in the Gulf. Iraq has never recognized the British borders.
In 1975, the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq, with $16
million in U.S.-provided arms and supplies, forced Iraq to capitulate
the Shaat al Arab waterway, Iraq's only access to its upriver port
of Basra, to Iran. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran in hopes of regaining
control of the estuary, thus starting the eight-year war.
More recently, Iraq accused Kuwait of waging "economic
war" with Iraq. Kuwait has nearly depleted the huge Rumailah
oil field, 90% of which lies in Iraq, and 10% of which lies in a
disputed border region which Kuwait invaded during the Iraq-Iran
Furthermore, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia gave Iraq
massive financial assistance in the war against Iran, since they
had much to lose if Iraq failed to block the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. After
the war, Kuwait's assistance became "loans," for which
they demanded repayment.
Meanwhile, Kuwait (under U.S. pressure) continued
oil production far beyond the limits established by OPEC, thus lowering
the price of oil. For Iraq, which relies on oil for 95% of
its income, this made it very difficult to rebuild a near-bankrupt
country with huge debts after years of war. It is interesting
to note that many Kuwaitis have investments in the U.S. - the Emir
of Kuwait alone is rumored to have invested perhaps a quarter of
a trillion dollars, far greater than his oil assets - and these investments
tend to profit most when the price of oil is low.
Iraq has also accused Kuwait of using its enormous
foreign reserves to manipulate and weaken Iraqi currency. Iraq
invaded Kuwait in response to these deliberate attempts by Kuwait
to undermine the Iraqi economy. Frighteningly, these acts by
Kuwait were planned by the U.S., as demonstrated by a Kuwaiti memo
describing a meeting between Brigadier Ahmad Al Fahd, head of Kuwaiti
security, and CIA director William Webster in November of 1989: "We
agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage
of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure
on that country's government to delineate our common border. The
Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means
of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between
HOW THE U.S. ENCOURAGED THE INVASION
In April, the Assistant Secretary of State for
the Middle East, John Kelly, testified before Congress that the U.S.
had no commitment to defend Kuwait. On July 25, with Iraqi
troops massed on the Kuwait border, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq,
April Glaspie, met with Hussein. To the embarassment of the
U.S., Iraq provided minutes of the meeting to the Washington Post,
which have not been disputed by the State Department.
The Ambassador told Hussein that Secretary of State
James Baker had instructed her to emphasize that the U.S. has "no
opinion" on Iraqi-Kuwait border disputes. She then asked
him, in light of Iraqi troop movements, what his intentions were
with respect to Kuwait. Hussein replied that Kuwait's actions
amounted to "an economic war" and "military action
against us." He said he hoped for a peaceful solution,
but if not, he said, "it will be natural that Iraq will not
accept death." The Ambassador's response to this clear
warning was, "I have a directive from the President personally
that I should work to expand and deepen relations with Iraq." She
also apologized for the condemnation of Hussein's regime as a dictatorship
by a journalist of the U.S. Information Agency. Glaspie later
made another remark: "What we don't have an opinion on are inter-Arab
disputes such as your border dispute with Kuwait...and James Baker
has directed our official spokesman to reiterate this stand."
On the same day, John Kelly killed a Voice of America
broadcast that would have warned Iraq that the U.S. was "strongly
committed" to the defense of its friends in the Gulf. During
the following week, until the invasion, the Bush administration forbade
any warning to Hussein against invading, or any warning to foreigners
in Iraq. According to Senator David Boren, head of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, the CIA predicted the invasion four days
in advance. Two days before the invasion, John Kelly again testified
before Congress that the U.S. had no commitment to defend Kuwait. The
U.S. made no attempt to put together international resistance to
Ambassador Glaspie later remarked to the New York
Times, "I didn't think - and nobody else did - that the Iraqis
were going to take ALL of Kuwait."
IS THE U.S. IN THE GULF TO DEFEND FREEDOM?
When George Bush condemns Hussein for "naked
aggression," he must think that the world has no memory of U.S.
history. Just a few weeks before the start of the war, while
the attention of the press was averted, the U.S. took over sovereignty
of Palau, a tiny country in the Pacific. After many failed
efforts by the U.S. to make Palau remove the anti-nuclear clause
from its constitution, they simply moved in. U.S. timing and
hypocrisy were both perfect.
When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, our response was
to support Hussein with arms. The U.N. remained strangely silent
about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran.
The U.S. has a bad habit of supporting cruel dictators
when it is congruent with U.S. economic interests. The U.S.
occasionally helps an oppressive dictatorship overcome a popular
democratic movement (Nicaragua and Chile are good recent examples,)
because dictatorships are easier to control. A U.S. supported
dictator will receive aid while he cooperates, and will be replaced
when he gets out of hand. Witness Noriega in Panama, or Marcos
in the Philippines. Saddam Hussein is just another chapter in a novel.
In 1974, the island of Cyprus was invaded by Turkey
with the help of U.S. tax dollars. The atrocities committed
by Turkish soldiers resemble those committed by Iraqi soldiers in
Kuwait, and 2000 people were killed. Forty percent of the island
is still under Turkish domination. Although the U.N. condemned
the invasion, no action was taken. Israel invaded Lebanon,
killed 20,000 people, and still occupies southern Lebanon. The
U.N. condemned the invasion in numerous resolutions, but no action
was taken. In spite of overwhelming international support for
the U.N. resolutions against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian
and Arab territories, no action has been taken. Every U.N.
response to Indonesia's rape of East Timor was blocked by the U.S.,
although 200,000 people were slaughtered. The U.S. still gives Indonesia
aid. The list goes on and on. U.S. justice is very selective.
History shows us that ethics have no weight in
U.S. foreign policy, except as a line to convince U.S. citizens that
a war is just. The real motives of U.S. foreign policy are
always economic. To quote Dr. Joanna Santa Barbara, "This
is how superpowers and regional powers operate, not in sporadic spasms
of moral aberration, but all the time."
Historically, an almost infallible method of finding
out which of two almost equally vile groups is the worst is to look
for which one the U.S. government is supporting. If this is
not the case in the Gulf (and this is not clear,) then it is purely
by chance. Certainly, the governments of both Iraq and Kuwait
are famous for their human rights abuses in their own countries. Kuwait
is a monarchy in which women are not accorded reasonable human rights,
slavery still exists, and 70% of the residents are foreign labor
who are poorly treated and are not given the opportunity to become
Of course, even if the Kuwaiti government were
more oppressive than the Iraqi government, this would not justify
Iraq's invasion and human rights abuses. It is the residents
of Kuwait who suffer most, and they are not usually to blame for
their government's behavior. (In any argument, it is important
to separate a country's people from its government - witness George
Bush' blindness when he refers to the carpetbombing of tens of thousands
of relatively innocent Iraqi conscripts as "kicking Saddam's
Bush' claims that he is defending freedom (by reinstating
a monarchy) is not taken seriously by any of the peoples of the Gulf. For
instance, Noha Ismail of the Arab Women's Council said in In Pittsburgh, "We
know that America is not there out of love for the Kuwaitis and Saudis. In
fact, America's contempt for the Arab world is very evident. We're
not stupid; we may be Third World, but we're not stupid."
IS THE U.S. IN THE GULF TO DEFEND CHEAP OIL?
No. The financial cost of the war is far,
far greater than the cost of expensive oil.
In fact, expensive oil is not entirely bad. High
oil prices often accrue to U.S. firms. Furthermore, the U.S.
produces half the oil it consumes, and the collapse of oil prices
left the U.S. oil states - Louisiana, Arizona, Alaska, and Texas
- in financial trouble. Both President Bush and Secretary of
State Baker are oil men. They like high oil prices.
Also, other industrialized economies like Europe
and Japan are more dependent on foreign oil than the U.S., so high
oil prices actually help the U.S. against its major competitors.
Bush is probably quite happy that most objectors
to the war think the issue is cheap oil, because his real motives
IS THE U.S. IN THE GULF TO PREVENT ANOTHER HITLER?
Iraq is a country which just failed to win a long,
depleting war with Iran. It is not comparable to WWII Germany. Iraq
has 17 million people, not 70 million. Iraq is economically
broke and in debt, not economically strong as Germany was Iraq
only has power because the U.S. financed it over the past ten years.
In any case, if the U.S. is serious about opposing
Hitlerite territorialism, it should start with itself.
WHY IS THE U.S. IN THE GULF?
In part, the war is about control of oil. Not
necessarily cheap oil, mind you. However, one of the few areas
of worldwide economic control still maintained by the U.S. is oil. Having
the price of oil controlled by the governments of countries like
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is as good as having it controlled from Wall
The President's son, George Bush Jr., is director
and major stockholder of Harken Energy Corporation of Dallas, which
holds huge drilling rights in the Persian Gulf country of Bahrain,
a small island nation just miles from where U.S. troops are stationed
in Saudi Arabia.
Nevertheless, this isn't the full explanation. After
all, the U.S. already controlled Arab oil prices; why did they encourage
Iraq to invade Kuwait?
Simply put, George Bush wanted a war from the beginning. His
attitude and behavior bear this out. He has refused to negotiate;
he moved in a huge number of troops very quickly; he did not give
economic sanctions a chance; and he expressed great concern that
others might try to "defuse the crisis." The U.S.
went to a great deal of trouble to twist the U.N.'s arm enough to
put forth a vaguely worded resolution which might conceivably authorize
force in the Gulf. The objectives are further militarization of the
U.S. economy, and prevention of the conversion of the economy to
peaceful, human-oriented purposes.
Currently, 26% of the national budget is for defense;
but if all defense related expenses are added, experts estimate the
sum is between one-half and two-thirds of the budget. This
is a huge amount of money, and the military and defense-related industries
are intent on keeping it. Thus, the military went out of its
way to cause this war. The idea is to use enormous military
expenditures to ease U.S. economic slumps, while reducing civilian
and social programs as much as possible. This helps draw in
huge amounts of money from other nations, also.
In 1990, the global arms trade was $50 billion. About
$30 billion of this was provided by the U.S. and Soviet Union. More
recently - less than six weeks after the invasion - the Pentagon
proposed the largest sale of arms ever: $21 billion of arms
to Saudi Arabia. This deal is affectionately known as the "Defense
Industry Relief Act of 1990."
If one needs a sign that the U.S. is losing its
superpower status, consider that the U.S., which traditionally has
paid other countries to fight its wars, has changed roles and is
now begging for payment. On January 25, Senator Pete Domenici
(R-NM) convened a press conference to publicly pressure U.S. allies
to increase their donations, saying that the American people would
judge them severely if they did not. At the time of this writing,
Kuwait has donated $7 billion to the war effort, and pledged an additional
$13.5 billion; Saudi Arabia has donated $1.6 billion plus $1.2 billion
a month in fuel and lubricants; Japan has donated $2.2 billion and
pledged an additional $9 billion; Germany has donated $3.5 billion
and pledged an additional $5.5 billion. Many other countries
have given smaller amounts.
Most of this money goes into the U.S. economy,
and goes into the defense industry.
Operation Desert Shield cost an estimated $30 billion,
and Desert Storm is costing about half a billion per day. This
money is in addition to the annual defense budget. The administration
is against a war tax, so whatever isn't paid for by other countries
will likely be added to the deficit.
Readers who think it ludicrously cynical that the
U.S. would invite a war solely for this purpose need only look as
far as the Vietnam War, where the Johnson administration invented
an attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on an American destroyer
as a justification to start a war. That war, like the Gulf
War, was characterized by a total unwillingness on the part of the
U.S. to enter any negotiations, except the issuing of ultimatums.
The Korean War, where U.S. soldiers died defending
one of the world's most barbaric police states against "naked
aggression," gives us even more compelling evidence. National
Security Council document NSC-68, which was adopted in 1950 and accidentally
released to the public in 1975, proposed to bolster the declining
U.S. post-WWII economy by military expansion. Unable to convince
Congress to make massive military allocations, President Truman commanded
U.S. and South Korean forces to invade and capture North Korea. (The
U.N. resolution under which U.S. forces were fighting called only
for "repelling" aggression from the North.) As expected,
China entered the war to defend North Korea. Truman declared
a state of national emergency and claimed (falsely) that the danger
was created by the Soviet Union. Congress more than tripled
the defense budget, and the resulting war economy has continued to
this day (justified by the spectre of "International Communism.")
The problem with driving the U.S. economy this
way is that it only benefits those who profit directly. Militarization
of the economy means an end to many social programs, and a huge expansion
of the third world that already exists right here in the U.S. Of
the industrialized nations, the U.S. has one of the worst rates of
homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. These
problems are the natural results of a war economy, and are much less
prominent in countries like Japan and Germany, which have been demilitarized
since WWII, and enjoy stronger economies than the U.S. as a result.
Of course, the president has other motives, like
recovering from the bad press created by the Savings and Loan scandals
before the next election. War may be just the ticket. After
a three-day meeting of the Republican National Committee, Clarke
Reed of Mississippi said, "Politically, it's gangbusters. The
President has more support than I've ever seen." In addition,
the war will likely enable the U.S. to establish a permanent military
presence in the Gulf.
WHERE DID IRAQ GET ALL THAT MILITARY POWER?
From us, of course. The allies, most prominently
the U.S., have given Iraq huge amounts of aid and arms. Right
now, our boys are being killed by the arms we manufactured with our
factories and bought for Iraq with our tax dollars.
The U.S. gave extensive aid and arms to Iraq throughout
the Iraq-Iran war, and was providing agricultural credits right up
to the day of the invasion of Kuwait. Henry Gonzalez, chairman
of the House Banking Committee, charged that one Atlanta-based bank
along extended $3 billion in credit to Iraq. "There is
no question but those $3 billion are actually financing the invasion
of Kuwait," he added. Iraq has also received or purchased
weapons and equipment from Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, the
Soviet Union, and many others.
CAN HUSSEIN BE NEGOTIATED WITH?
Yes, but Bush can't. Iraq, and other Arab
nations, have repeatedly attempted to initiate negotiations since
the invasion. These offers have been repeatedly dismissed without
discussion by Bush, and were rarely reported by the U.S. press. All
evidence seems to suggest that Bush has been stubbornly intent on
war from the beginning. After the release of the hostages in
Iraq, Bush chillingly remarked that Hussein's concession removed
one more obstacle from the U.S. course of action.
Iraq wants their share of the Rumailah oil fields,
and two islands giving it a port on the Gulf. Says George Lakoff
of the University of California at Berkeley, "President Bush
has spoken of this as 'rewarding aggression,' using the Third-World-Countries-As-Children
metaphor, where the great powers are grown-ups who have the obligation
to reward or punish children so as to make them behave properly. Instead
of seeing Iraq as a sovereign nation that has taken military action
for economic purposes, the President treats Iraq as if it were a
child gone bad."
James Baker has stated that negotiations will take
place only after Iraq physically withdraws from Kuwait. This
is not negotiation; this is an ultimatum. This "formula
for humiliation" of Hussein is another sign of Bush' desire
for war. In fact, before Bush attacked, Barbara Ehrenreich
stated that she had found out that the Pentagon's "nightmare
scenario" was that Saddam would back down and that war would
As recently as Jan. 28, the U.S. and U.K. flatly
opposed, for the third time, requests by groups of Gulf countries
to have peace discussed in the U.N. Security Council.
WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE?
The consensus among the Gulf countries is that
the invasion is an Arab dispute which would have been solved by the
Arab countries without any need for U.S. involvement. Contrary
to the administration line, economic sanctions would likely have
worked. In fact, Bush was deathly afraid that they would. If
sanctions had worked, they would have delegitimized militarism. This
is why it is the Pentagon's "nightmare scenario." Every
member of the U.S. military elite has a budget to defend, and has
to justify his own existence. (This is why foreign policy decisions
should never be made by members of the military.)
We should take a lesson from history, namely Mussolini's
invasion of Ethiopia, to which the newly formed League of Nations
responded pathetically. Mussolini later confessed that, had the League
made good on its threats to impose economic sanctions, he would have
been forced to withdraw.
Some will argue that, even if the U.S. is liberating
Kuwait for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing to do. My
response is that, if the U.S. were to liberate every unfair conquest,
it would go broke long before it succeeded, even if it restricted
itself to those territories more deserving of liberation that Kuwait.
One cannot simply look at Iraq and Kuwait; one
must look at the entire world. The U.S. image as global policeman
is impractical because there are too many criminal states and too
little money to attack them all. Other methods, such as sanctions,
are just as effective, far cheaper, and kill far fewer people.
Of course, the other thing we should have done
is to demilitarize the economy and create a peace dividend. U.S.
tax dollars should be spent on U.S. citizens, not on other nations'
wars. This is the real point which peace activists should be
making. If the U.S. defense budget were used purely for defense,
not offense, and if it were reduced to 10% of what it is now (still
far more than the U.S. actually needs to defend itself,) and if we
slowly switched from a military to a commercial economy, the amount
of money available for social purposes would effectively double. University
education could be free, medical and day care would be available
to everyone, housing and jobs would be plentiful, poverty and the
accompanying violence would diminish, and we could again compete
economically with Japan and Europe. Unfortunately, the military doesn't
want to lose their affluence, and the military is calling all the
"Naturally the common people don't want war...but
after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and
it is always a simple matter to drag people along.... All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -
Hermann Goering, 1936
Pentagon censorship of reporting from the Gulf
has kept the war bloodless and antiseptic. Reporters can only
travel in pools, accompanied at all times by a military escort, and
all battlefield dispatches and photographs must pass a security review. This
allows the Pentagon to break important information first, or to censor
information entirely. It also allows them to control the mood
of the articles.
Jane Kirtley of the Reporters' Committee for Freedom
of the Press told of an instance where "a military censor wanted
to change the word 'giddy' to 'proud' in a story describing some
pilots. That has nothing to do with national security. That's
spin control." Similarly, a rule against televising soldiers
in pain or disfigurement has nothing to do with security. This
rule is to prevent the press from undermining popular support for
Nevertheless, in a country where 90% of newspapers
are Republican-owned, it is not surprising that press self-censorship
is as strong as military censorship. NBC is owned by General
Electric (a major defense contractor,) CBS is partly owned by Westinghouse
(a major defense contractor,) and ABC is owned by Capital Cities,
which has interlocking directorships with Texaco, ITT, and United
Technologies. Fred Gustafson of In Pittsburgh asks us why "so
much of the visual coverage of the Gulf war looks like a series of
advertisements for military hardware." It is.
It is only natural that these companies do not
want their broadcasts to show too much coverage of war objectors. As
a result, few U.S. citizens are aware of how large the anti-war movement
is. The news consists of lots of quotes from government officials,
and very little opinion from those opposed. Television debates show
conservatives arguing with ultra-conservatives. If some of
the facts in this article come as a surprise to you, it's because
the mainstream media chose not to tell you.
German General Manfred Opel claimed around January
23 that there were already 300,000 dead in Iraq. This information
is dubious and unconfirmable, but U.S. carpetbombing of Iraqi troops
has probably brought the death count into the tens of thousands. The
true numbers are unpredictable, because the Pentagon will not release
estimates. However, a British officer stated that the bombs
dropped on Iraq in the first three weeks of war exceeded the total
tonnage dropped by the allies during World War II.
The tendency to think of Iraq as a single entity
- as when the President says "We have to get Saddam out of Kuwait" -
ignores the reality that thousands of troops, most of whom are conscripts,
and likely a greater number of citizens, will die. The fact that
they are forced to take orders from a government which we currently
consider to be the enemy does not make their lives any less valuable
than the lives of U.S. troops.
The apparent success of the air war is illusory. Since
Iraq never had a significant air force or centralized communication
system, the U.S. has accomplished little. We can learn a lesson
from the Korean war, which began similarly, with a complete U.S.
air victory. Yet when the ground war began, and the U.S. had
complete domination of the air, the military was consistently surprised
by how little effect their bombing had in biasing the ground war.
The U.S. ground troops will not have a sure victory. The
Iraqi troops' strength is in their ground forces, artillery, and
engineering, which were accumulated and honed through the long war
with Iran. They may lose, but they will likely kill tens or hundreds
of thousands of U.S. troops. furthermore, ex-CIA agent Philip
Agee claims that "The Korean crisis was deliberately prolonged
in order to establish military expenditures as the motor of the U.S.
economy...we will probably see this with the Gulf." U.S.
expectations of a short war sound like those which accompanied the
outset of the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Of course, things will be far worse if other countries
join Iraq. Saddam Hussein has popular support of the people
of Jordan, Pakistan, and various other Arab countries, though he
is not supported by their respective governments. If war spreads
through the mideast, millions may die.
As of this writing, there have been three separate
oil slicks in the Gulf. The first was caused by damage to oil facilities
in the border town of Khafji, and is responsible for the TV pictures
of dying cormorants washing up on Saudi beaches. It also threatens
a major Saudi desalinization plant. U.S. and Saudi authorities
have confirmed that U.S. shelling caused this damage. The other
two, and much larger, slicks were the deliberate work of Saddam Hussein.
(Oddly enough, reports showing pictures of the dead birds only mention
the Iraqi-caused slicks.)
The second spill is the largest in history, covering
350 square miles of the Gulf. The environmental consequences
of the spills will be terrible. The exchange of water with
the Indian Ocean, necessary to disperse the oil, is very slow. The
oil will not disperse for years, and mud flats will be irreparably
destroyed. Much of the Gulf's marine life will disappear.
After the famous Exxon Valdez spill, which was
small by comparison, Exxon hired over 11,000 workers to clean up
the Alaskan shoreline, and even then the damage was extensive. No
such mobilization is considered feasible in the Gulf.
Nonetheless, this could soon seem relatively unimportant. Dr.
Abdullah Toukan, Secretary-General of the High Council of Science
and Technology in Jordan demonstrated computer models of a "nuclear
winter" scenario if Iraq were to set fire to up to 700 oil wells
in Kuwait while retreating. According to Environmental Engineer
Dr. John Cox, "There are not more than four or five teams of
firefighters in the world capable of putting out oil wells." The
fires could rage for years.
As a result of one burning well, "Black Rain" has
already fallen on Iran. Dr. Toukan claims that the hydrocarbon cloud
is deadlier than any of Hussein's biological or chemical weapons. According
to Dr. Matthew Meselson, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular
Modelling at Harvard, "If there was a temperature inversion
and there was a big release, and if there was a slow wind driving
that over a population center, then you would kill everything from
insects on up that doesn't have a gas mask."
If enough wells were fired, Dr. Toukan claims that
the resulting cloud will cover an area the size of the United States
and circle the earth for months. Highly toxic acid rain could ruin
crops and contaminate water worldwide. Dr. Carl Sagan, Dr. Paul Cruizen,
Joe Farman, and Dr. Bernard Lown endorse Dr. Toukan's warning.
In January, a group of 14 international jurists
decided that a U.N. Security Resolution authorizing force against
Iraq was invalid because China, a permanent member, had abstained
from voting. The U.S. has also ignored the U.N.'s Military
Staff Committee Article 46, which states that "plans for the
application of armed force shall be made with the assistance of the
Military Staff Committee." Furthermore, the U.S. has been accused
of violating the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Even when the
war is won, the U.S. will have lost credibility as an international
peacekeeper, and gained the long-term hatred of the Arab world.
Jonathan Shewchuk -"The Student Union" newspaper
- Carnegie Mellon University
This article appeared in the February 14, 1991
issue of Carnegie Mellon University's alternative student paper, "The
Student Union." This article summarizes a lot of important information
from a large number of sources, and a useful education for those
who haven't been able to follow the details of American foreign policy
in the Gulf. Please feel free to reprint this article in student
papers, leaflets, electronic media, or otherwise. I think that it
is important to get this information out to as much of the public
as possible, and I greatly appreciate all efforts to circulate it.