POLITICS-US: Anti-war Protestors Raise Voices Over Iraq

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

NEW YORK, Feb 13 1998 (IPS) - The U.S. anti-war movement, protesting that any attack of Iraq would be illegal, is mobilising its forces to quell the sound of war drums against Baghdad.

Several pacifist and religious groups – including the War Resisters League, Peace Action, Pax Christi and the American Friends Service Committee – have joined forces to organise a series of nationwide demonstrations during the next two weeks. On Thursday, the groups kicked off a ‘National Call-In Day’ to urge people to telephone the White House to oppose military strikes.

Other tactics, range from a liquids-only fast by Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, now in its third week, to a letter by 54 Catholic bishops belonging to Pax Christi urging President Bill Clinton “to end all U.S. support for (the current) sanctions (on Iraq), and to refrain from any military action in the current dispute.”

Despite as many as 40 anti-war demonstrations on one day last week, the possibility of a U.S. strike, aimed at forcing Iraq into allowing full U.N. access to suspected weapons sites, remains widely popular.

According to latest public opinion polls, a U.S. attack on Iraq would enjoy the support of more than 60 percent of the population. Clinton’s approval ratings in several polls hit their highest levels – to as much as 79 percent in a CBS-Wall Street Journal survey – despite the ongoing sex scandal involving the President.

That disparity has led Sam Husseini, media director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, to fume that “the media are watchdogs – even attack dogs – on Clinton when it comes to his personal life, but they are lapdogs on Iraq.”

Although the media may be more focused on the scandal involving former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, argued Chris Ney, disarmament coordinator for the War Resisters League, “bombing Baghdad for no good reason would be the worst scandal of Clinton’s presidency.”

It also may be illegal, declared Michael Ratner, a lawyer for the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, and Jules Lobel, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School.

Ratner contends that the U.S. claim that U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which established the present cease-fire with Iraq, allows Washington to use force unilaterally if it deems Baghdad to be in violation of its terms is false.

The resolution says that only the 15-nation Security Council can determine “such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.” But the Council has in recent days been unwilling to provide any fresh authorisation for military strikes, and Russian, Chinese and French opposition to the use of force render it unlikely to do so soon.

“If the United States believes Iraq has violated Resolution 687 and that this violation requires the use of force, it should bring the matter to the Security Council,” says Ratner. But without a resolution, Washington lacks the legal authority to initiate any attack against Baghdad.

Lobel notes that “the notion that the United States can attack Iraq without explicit U.N. authority undercuts fundamental principles of the U.N. Charter and undermines 50 years of work to resolve disputes through peaceful means.”

U.S. officials, however, have contended that the U.N. resolutions provide all the authority they need to initiate air strikes, given Baghdad’s blocking of U.N. weapons inspections.

U.S. Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, has stated troops massed in the region would be ready to strike Iraq within a week – although so far, neither the United Nations nor the U.S. Congress has authorised any possible attack.