Remember When Rummie Shook Saddam’s Hand?
Much has been made of the phot, but did we supply Iraq with chemical weapons? Brabo, at Powerline breaks it down:
This link was provided by a reader after he was asked to provide further information to support his assertion, that we provided CW to Saddam. From there,Bravo took the time to actually read the memo,which I would encourage you to do:
The memo starts of with, what is essentially an executive summary:
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Whether to instruct [the U.S. Interests Section] USINT Baghdad to raise issue of Iraqi CW use and urge cessation.
ESSENTIAL FACTORS
We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons (CW). We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary. A cable detailing U.S. CW policy and available information on Iraq use of CW is at Tab 2.) In keeping with our policy of seeking a halt to CW use wherever it occurs, we have been considering the most effective means to halt further Iraqi CW use including, as a first step, a direct approach to Iraq.
In October Iran accused Iraq of using CW and on November 9 it requested the [UN Secretary General] UNSYG to investigate. Iran also stated that it would soon submit a report providing information and evidence on Iraqi CW use, but has not yet done so. We do not know whether or when this issue will develop further at the UN. It is important to make our approach to the Iraqis on this issue as early as possible to avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue.
If you approve the demarche to Iraq, we will submit further recommendations for your consideration on how to handle the issue in the UN if it arises there, as well as on whether we should raise with selected European governments the fact that national firms are selling to Iraq CW production related technology.
RECOMMENDATION
That you approve the instruction to USINT Baghdad at Tab 1 and the cable providing additional background on Iraqi CW use at Tab 2.
Later, on page 4, the specific points to be made to Iraq are included:
Please present the following points in appropriate manner to Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz:
- As you are aware, the USG is very consider with the present overall situation in Southwest Asia. We strongly support a negotiated settlement.
- We raise the issue now neither to into a confrontational exchange with you, nor to lend support to the views of others; but, rather, because it is a long-standing policy of the U.S. to oppose the use of lethal CW.
- We also raise the matter now because we believe continued Iraqi use of CW will play into the hands of those who would wish to escalate tensions in the region, as well as constrain the ability of the USG to play a helpful role in the region.
- We note that Iraq long ago acceded to the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of CW. We believe Iraq’s scrupulous adherence to that Protocol is important to avoid dangerous escalation of the war, to maintain the hope of bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and to avoid providing Iran with a potent propaganda weapons against Iraq.
- We hope you will receive our representation in the spirit it is intended.
And then, from the tail end of the document, on pages 7 and 8:
8. Over many decades the U.S. has sought to deter the use of lethal and incapacitating CW when their use appeared to loom as a possibility. Iraq’s use of lethal or incapacitating CW could further undercut an important agreement observed by nearly all nations against chemical warfare. Introduction of CW to the [Iran-Iraq] was represents an escalation of hostilities that could render still more remote the possibility of a ceasefire and negotiations. Furthermore, Iraq’s use of CW gives the Iranians a powerful propaganda tool against the Iraqi regime, setting world opinion against Iraq at a time when Iran enjoys little international sympathy. Beyond the humanitarian and security/proliferation concerns, these facts should offset the attractiveness to Iraq of using prohibited CW.
9. Both Iran (in 1929) and Iraq (in 1931) have ratified the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Iraq attached conditions to its accession, having the effect of a “no first use” clause, but its commitment not to use unless attacked with such weapons is unequivocal. Iran attached no conditions to its ratification of the protocols. There is some question whether Iran may have used chemical agents at one point early in the war.
10. The existing convention prohibits only the use – repeat – use of lethal and incapacitating CW. No international treaty yet forbids development, production, or deployment of lethal and incapacitating CW. The U.S. and others have been negotiating for such a treaty for a number of years. Also, we do not interpret the Geneva Protocol as applying to riot control agents as opposed to lethal and incapacitating chemicals. We limit their use to defensive military modes to save lives, e.g. controlling rioting P.O.W.S., dispersing civilian “screens” of attacks, rescue operations in isolated areas, and protecting convoys outside the combat zone.
11. Heretofore we have limited our efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the [Iran-Iraq] War, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results. Now, however, with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack. [redacted] Nonetheless, on the basis of open source reporting now available there may be steps we and others could take to deter further Iraqi use of prohibited CW.
Bravo points out his analysis of the document:
- This memo would tend to suggest that rather than the plausibly deniable provision of such a capability to Iraq as has been suggested, that the US has been consistent and adamant in its opposition to Iraqi use of chemical weapons. Imagine that, a government bureaucracy maintaining the same stance on something for a long period of time. Perish the thought.
- In any case, it is also interesting that the US – in several cases – expressed an interest in a negotiated settlement and peace between the two countries. This runs rather contrary to the supposition that the US supported Iraq as a warfighting proxy against Iran.
- Despite the persistent assertion that Saddam and the US were good friends at the time, it appears that the US had relatively limited influence with Iraq. The memo notes that the Soviet Union had provided Iraq (I didn’t copy that text) with CW equipment, such as protective gear, which is consonant with the assertion that Iraq was, along with other pan-Arabist governments, much more closely linked with the same countries that most aggressively opposed enforcement of UN Resolutions on Iraq.
- Another thing that struck me was the ultimate productivity of negotiations involving Iraq – the Iran-Iraq War continued some 6 years or so after this memo was written. Even though the UN was involved in Iraq CW issues even at this early date, decades on, Iraq still failed to be in full and complete compliance with UN resolutions on the matter.
Dorkafork tells us to go here and follow links to declassified notes from the meetings Rumsfeld had with Saddam and Tariq Aziz. Highlights
January 29, 2007 - 09:36 AM on January 29th, 2007
I have also seen pictures of KOFFI ANNAN with SADAM so what dose that tell you about the whole rotten UN?:mad:
January 29, 2007 - 05:55 PM on January 29th, 2007
The USSR, China and France were the main suppliers of weapons to Iraq. Those three nations provided 82% of weapons to Iraq, The US provided 1%.
Here is a breakdown of chemical wepons supplied to Iraq, broken down by ingrediats, equipment and munitions.
Note, no US.
Book mark this page folks. Important info there the next time someone show you that idiotic Rumsfeld picture, framing it entirely incorrectly. Shove this down their throat.
February 2, 2007 - 09:47 AM on February 2nd, 2007
Seemed as good a place as any to tell you that your fearsome leader is up to his old tactics.
February 2, 2007 - 10:04 AM on February 2nd, 2007
Any piece that starts out with “manufacturing a crisis” loses me. We have been at odds with Iran since 1979. If you are old enough to remember they took 52 US citizens hostage. Carter didn’t have the tenacity or the courage to confront this evil and instead made deals with the devil for oil.
After years of complicity on our part Iran is now emboldened. If you know or read anything about Islamic terrorism you will find that this problem also has been growing. Iran sponsors Hezbollah, or in other words the biggest and most dangerous terrorist organization in the world having killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization including Al Queda. Fortunately we still have options in the middle east and I think the Bush administration is pursuing those options.
Pacifism is a dangerous game and I think 9/11 proved that pacifism will produce the fight within our borders. Any movement away from that consensus puts this country in harms way.
Is that what you libs want? Truly? Heaven help us if the answer is yes.
Rummy shaking hands with Saddam was imo a mistake but certainly in line with U.S. foreign policy of diplomacy at that time. After more than 30 years of diplomacy 9/11 stopped the clock. We are now in a fight and we must win. Again, they want to kill us. Do you want to let them?
February 2, 2007 - 10:13 AM on February 2nd, 2007
Eben,
If you are so eager to surrender, go to Iran and surrender. Take your fellow idiots with you. We will see how you are treated. I don’t know which we will see, Eben in a burqa or beheaded.
February 2, 2007 - 11:29 AM on February 2nd, 2007
PCD….probably beheaded. They wish only to kill us and these pacifists are blind to that reality.
February 2, 2007 - 12:14 PM on February 2nd, 2007
This is what caught my eye:
7th paragraph: Iran has virtually nothing to do with the Iraqi resistance movement, which is commanded and staffed by Sunni Arab military officers and Baathists. They consider Iran to be a deadly foe and call Iraq’s Shiite leaders “Persians.”The vast majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq are victims of this well-organized, mass-based insurgency – but it is certain that none of their weapons, IEDs or training comes from Iran.
8th paragraph: That’s not to say that Iran does not have multiple, and powerful, ties to virtually all of Iraq’s Shiite political elite and to some Kurdish warlords. Iran provides cash, arms and assistance to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose Badr Brigade militia operates as a death squad on behalf of the U.S.-allied government of Iraq. It has a vast presence in Iraq’s Shiite south, building ties to private militias, tribes and urban political machines