On the alleged "threat" that Saddam Hussein represents to the peace and security of the world
President Bush's aggressive policy toward Iraq has as its central
argument the claim that President Hussein "probably possesses a weapons
of mass destruction capability". I read that as meaning possessing
chemical/biological weapons capable of long-range delivery, and/or
nuclear weapons.
This central point has become so hedged around with related yet separate issues (the ejection of the UN weapons inspectors from Iraq, human rights abuses, and so on) and there has been so much hype surrounding it that some of the most fundamental features of the claim have either been completely overlooked, or forgotten.
Perhaps we should revisit it.
The first and most obvious point is the matter of probability. Yes – it may be that President Hussein has these weapons but, to date, not one single shred of evidence has emerged that he actually does have them!
It may be that such evidence does exist but, for those ubiquitous "security
reasons", it cannot be revealed to the general public. Sorry, I don't
buy that. Its the political equivalent of the doorstep salesman saying
"Trust me"!
If a coalition of the world's nations are to commit their armed forces
to a conflict in which (following the reasoning through) weapons of
mass destruction are to be thrown against them (like they weren't
the last time, despite all scare-mongering to the contrary) then at
the very least the peoples of those nations have a fundamental right
to assess the evidence for themselves. So where is it?
It hasn't been produced because, in all probability (lovely word that)
it doesn't exist! So, on the offchance that President Hussein may
have such weapons, we're going to attempt to kick his backside for
him are we?
Whatever happened to the "Rule of Law", or the notion of "innocent
till proven guilty"? Or perhaps that only applies to us, because we've
already got such weapons! Ho hum, nice to see the old double standards
are alive and well.
But let's say for a moment that he does have them. Well, I'm obviously
missing something here for, as I understand it, all the nations that
already possess such weapons argue for their existence and retention
purely on the basis of deterrency. At this point its interesting to
note that, so far, the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons
aggressively is the good old U.S. of A. – you know, the same
country that zapped Vietnam with napalm. Some track record huh?
So why shouldn't we assume that the possession of such a deterrent
is President Hussein's motive as well? (Given the imminence of the
fate that President Bush is promising him, it certainly seems that
he could do with such a deterrent!)
However, to press on… assuming President Hussein does have such
weapons, why hasn't he already used them (then of course there'd be
no doubt regarding whether he had them or not)? And as he clearly
hasn't already used them, why should we now think that he's imminently
about to (the imminence is assumed because of the urgency with which
President Bush is pressing his claims)?
What's changed on the world scene to warrant this sudden fear? About
the only thing that's really changed on the world scene is the American
Government's (for which read President Bush) increasingly cavalier
attitude toward the rest of the world and their concerns.
(No, don't even think of mentioning the World Trade Center and the subsequent myth of a "War on Terror" – for that'll open up yet another particularly smelly can of worms.)
So, it doesn't inevitably follow that just because a country possesses such weapons it will actually use them in aggressive mode. (Yes, I know its a bit of a nonsensical proposition, but that's the curious situation our species has managed to get itself into, and we just have to learn to live with it.) Why should we assume that President Hussein would behave any differently to the leaders of those countries that we know have such weapons?
If we assume that he would behave differently and maybe in a much more aggressive manner, then surely the fact that he hasn't already done so is compelling evidence that he in fact doesn't possess such weapons – isn't it?
Which leaves us with our other scenario – that, although not currently possessing such weapons, he has been covertly developing the capability, and is now on the threshold of the ultimate stage of that development programme. In other words, about to turn the potential into the reality.
Well, most of the arguments we've already used apply equally (with just some tiny modifications) to this situation too. So let's dig a little deeper. What President Bush is really saying is that in his opinion President Hussein is not a suitable person to have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal.
OK, let's make this personal. Am I happy with the thought of President Hussein having such weapons? Not particularly. But then again, neither am I happy with the thought of President Bush having such weapons – in fact, given America's track record, I'm even less happy with the idea of President Bush having such weapons. Come to think of it, I'm not too sure about a few other world leaders either!
Which brings us to the much wider issue of non-proliferation. Well,
in principal its a sound idea but it seems to me rather obscene that
all those with the big sticks say to those without any sticks at all
that they can't even have a little one.
This creates a situation wherein those without sticks have to look
to those with the sticks for protection.
I wonder how well the idea of "President Bush as protector" sits with
the people of Iraq, or Iran, or indeed any other country that exercises
its sovereign right not to buy into American values (?!!!) and the
American way of life?
