arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Amid the welter of speculation about Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', what about the likely impact of this war on the people of Iraq? In 1991, at least 100,000 Iraqis were killed. Many more were mutilated, their families destroyed. US and British servicemen and women suffered Gulf War syndrome.

Now we are being asked to approve a much wider war. The invasion and occupation planned by the Pentagon will require not only more extensive bombing than in 1991, but, ultimately, the conquest of Baghdad, a city of nearly four million people.

How many casualties are acceptable this time? We hear little about the consequences for the people on the wrong end of our missiles, cluster bombs, tanks and munitions; unspeakable terror for the ordinary people of Iraq.

Can anything justify this? 'Evidence' is repeatedly promised but not produced. We are right to be skeptical. Anything that proved US accusations would surely have been produced by now.

It is easy to forget that we are already bombing Iraq. The USAF, with the RAF, carries out almost weekly raids on any target in the north and south 'no-fly zones' which might be construed as a threat to shipping or aircraft. (Imagine, if you can, what would happen if Iraq bombed Britain and the US.) Easy, too, to forget the decade of economic sanctions that have destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and, according to UN officials, resulted in the death of half-a-million Iraqi children.

'Saddam's weapons of mass destruction threaten us all' is the repeated refrain. An authoritative witness, Scott Ritter, the man who spent seven years as a UN arms inspector in Iraq, says: 'Since 1998, Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed.' Where is the substantial evidence to counter that?

If such weapons are the issue, then Israel should be first in the dock, since it possesses far more than any regime in the area. Indeed, if all are equal before the law, should not the UN send inspectors to all countries with these weapons? Like Britain and the US, for example? If action needs to be taken against a rogue state, should it not be taken by the UN? Or do we allow vigilante states violently to pursue their own interests?

Respect for international law and UN resolutions cannot be the issue either. Israel defies the UN without suffering any sanctions. In 1986, the US was found guilty by the International Court of Justice of illegally mining Nicaragua's harbors and fined $370 million. The US ignored the court and its decision. Now, by indicating that the US and Britain would go it alone, with or without the UN as a front, Bush continues to destroy the rule of law.

The idea of 'regime change' goes largely unchallenged by public commentators. That the world's most powerful state should decide the government of another country is abhorrent and plainly illegal. Not new, though. Nixon and Kissinger 'changed the regime' in Chile from a democracy to a murderous dictatorship.

Reagan and his administration funded and financed terrorists - Contras - to destroy the legitimate government in Nicaragua. Their targets were schools and hospitals as Reagan proclaimed: 'I am a Contra.'

The US's attempts to sustain a puppet government in Vietnam caused the death of two million Vietnamese and more than 60,000 Americans. The list goes on and on.

Of course, Saddam is as bad as they come. So was Suharto of Indonesia, whose rule caused the death of a million of his countrymen. Surprisingly, neither Britain nor the US demanded a regime change. Instead, he was supported with trade and arms deals until the bitter end.

This cloud of hypocrisy and double standards seems to bemuse those interrogators who should hold our politicians to account. Our Prime Minister plays the role of the bully's friend. Eager to please, flattered by Bush when he can be of use and ignored when he cannot, Tony Blair demeans us all by becoming an apologist for warmongers.

And after the war, what then? Probably a puppet regime in Baghdad, headed by another servant of the US, just as Saddam was when he came to power. But no justice for the Palestinians, whose grievance remains at the heart of the region's future.

Legitimate questions about the war are being asked and not answered satisfactorily. People see Iraq's offer of an unconditional return of weapons inspectors and they see Bush scorn the offer and they wonder what the real reasons for this war are. Among the most obvious is strategic dominance over oil supplies, a reality more widely understood than one would think from our media's cursory treatment of it. Another is the strong influence of the arms industry in both the US and British establishments, which is under less public scrutiny than teachers or social workers.

Consider the narrowness of the questions that are asked: can other European politicians be persuaded to back the war? How should a UN resolution be framed? Will a deal be done with Putin? How about the Saudi ruling elite and the availability of their land for military bases? This is dealing with the process of realpolitik. The substantive issues are ignored.

The scale of next Saturday's anti-war demonstration in London may take some by surprise. Organized by the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain, it is endorsed by major trade unions, human rights campaigners, community groups, artists and intellectuals.

In its diversity, it will probably exceed that of today's Countryside march, although the animal hunters have predictably had more publicity than the peacemakers. Among those opposing this war are many Iraqis and Kurds living in this country. No one has to lecture them about the horrors of Saddam's regime. Many will be seen and heard on Saturday's demonstration, but not, so far, on our television screens.

Saturday's demonstration will also address the issue of Palestine. Awareness and sympathy for the sufferings of people in the occupied territories and the refugee camps appears to be growing. A US and British assault on Iraq could be used by Israel as an excuse to intensify its violence in the West Bank and Gaza. If our governments really wish to promote justice, peace and stability they would withdraw their support for Israel, support the UN's call for an end to occupation and the removal of the settlers.

The US forfeited any claim to moral leadership long ago. It has a history of undermining international law, contempt for the human rights of others and promoting its own brand of international terrorism.

There is no moral, legal or political reason for us to support this war. See you next Saturday.