Kuwait. T here were no qualifications about borders, but the offer
was made in the context of unspecified agreements on other
“linked” issues: weapons of mass destruction in the region and the
Israel-Arab conflict. T he latter issues include Israel’s illegal
occupation of southern Lebanon, in violation of Security Council
Resolution 425 of March 1978, which called for its immediate and
unconditional withdrawal from the territory it had invaded. T he US
response was that there would be no diplomacy. T he media
suppressed the facts, Newsday aside, while lauding Bush’s high
principles.
T he US refused to consider the “linked” issues because it was
opposed to diplomacy on all the “linked” issues. T his had been made
clear months before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, when the US had
rejected Iraq’s offer of negotiations over weapons of mass
destruction. In the offer, Iraq proposed to destroy all such chemical
and biological weapons, if other countries in the region also
destroyed their weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein was then Bush’s friend and ally, so he received a
response, which was instructive. Washington said it welcomed
Iraq’s proposal to destroy its own weapons, but didn’t want this
linked to “other issues or weapons systems.”
T here was no mention of the “other weapons systems,” and
there’s a reason for that. Israel not only may have chemical and
biological weapons—it’s also the only country in the Mideast with
nuclear weapons (probably about 200 of them). But “Israeli nuclear
weapons” is a phrase that can’t be written or uttered by any official
US government source. T hat phrase would raise the question of
why all aid to Israel is not illegal, since foreign aid legislation from
1977 bars funds to any country that secretly develops nuclear
weapons.
Independent of Iraq’s invasion, the US had also always blocked
any “peace process” in the Middle East that included an international
conference and recognition of a Palestinian right of self-
determination. For 20 years, the US has been virtually alone in this
stance. UN votes indicate the regular annual pattern; once again in
December 1990, right in the midst of the Gulf crisis, the call for an
international conference was approved by a vote of 144 to 2 (the
US and Israel). T his had nothing to do with Iraq vs. Kuwait.
T he US also adamantly refused to allow a reversal of Iraq’s
aggression by the peaceful means prescribed by international law.
ann
(Ann)
#1