Posted on 11-8-2002
Fending
Off the Threat of Peace
by Norman Solomon
To fend off the threat of peace, determination is necessary.
Elected
officials and high-level appointees must work effectively with
reporters
and pundits.
This is no time for the U.S. government to risk taking "yes"
for an answer
from Iraq. Guarding against the danger of peace, the Bush administration
has moved the goal posts, quickly pounding them into the ground.
In early
August, a State Department undersecretary swung a heavy mallet.
"Let there
be no mistake," said John Bolton. "While we also insist on the
reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the
same time
insists on regime change in Baghdad -- and that policy will
not be altered,
whether inspectors go in or not."
A sinister cloud briefly fell over the sunny skies for war.
The U.S.
Congress got a public invitation. A letter from a top Iraqi
official "said
congressional visitors and weapons experts of their choice could
visit any
site in Iraq alleged to be used for development of chemical,
biological or
nuclear weapons," USA Today reported. Summing up the diplomatic
overture,
the front page of the New York Times informed readers that the
letter "was
apparently trying to pit legislators against the Bush administration"
(a
pithy phrase helping to quash a dastardly peace initiative).
Later on, the
article noted that "the letter said members of Congress could
bring all the
arms experts they wanted and should plan to stay three weeks."
There may have been a moment of panic in Washington. On the
face of it, the
Aug. 5 invitation was unequivocally stating that members of
the Senate and
House -- plus some of the best and most experienced weapons
inspectors in
the world -- could go to Iraq and engage in a thorough inspection
process.
That's similar to what the White House has been demanding of
Iraq for many
years. The news had ominous potential. It could derail the war
train
gaining so much momentum this summer. But U.S. media coverage
matched the
bipartisan refusal by leaders in Congress to do anything but
scorn the
offer. Even before describing the invitation from Iraq's government,
the
first words of the USA Today news story on Aug. 6 called it
"the latest
Iraqi bid to complicate U.S. invasion plans." That's some reporting!
When
our most powerful politicians are hell-bent on starting a war,
complete
with human misery and death of unfathomable proportions, then
the last
thing they want is complications before the bloodshed gets underway.
Why should anyone in Washington try to defuse this crisis when
we have such
a clear opportunity to light such an enormous fuse in the Middle
East? Oh
sure, here at home, there are always some people eager to unleash
the dogs
of peace. Not content to pray, they actually believe: Blessed
be the
peacemakers. They don't defer to the machinery of war that grinds
human
beings as if they were mere sausage. They don't make peace with
how
determined the Executive Branch must be -- and how sheepish
and even
cowardly the members
of Congress must be -- so that the bombs can fall in all their
glory.
One of the people who's trying to impede the war drive is Scott
Ritter, a
former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in Iraq. "To date,"
Ritter
says, "the Bush administration has been unable -- or unwilling
-- to back
up its rhetoric concerning the Iraqi threat with any substantive
facts." In
Britain, the press is failing to welcome the next war. On Aug.
4 in the
Observer, foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont wrote: "The
question now
appears to be not whether there will be a war, but when. The
answer is that
in war, as other matters, timing is all. For President George
W. Bush that
timing will be dictated by the demands of a domestic political
agenda." A
news story in the July 30 edition of the Financial Times began
this way:
"Rolf Ekeus, head of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq
from
1991-97, has accused the U.S. and other Security Council members
of
manipulating the U.N. inspections teams for their own political
ends. The
revelation by one of the most respected Swedish diplomats is
certain to
strengthen Iraq's argument against allowing U.N. inspectors
back into the
country."
Such reporting, if widely pursued on this side of the Atlantic,
could
seriously undermine the war planners. But don't worry. The threat
of peace
is up against good ol' professional news judgment here in the
USA.
Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive
Media." His
syndicated column focuses on media.
|