Robert Fisk: Standing by while Bush re-oils his war machine

LONDON - You've got to hand it to Saddam Hussein. In one brisk, neat letter to Kofi Annan, he pulled the rug from right under George W. Bush's feet.

There was the American President last week, playing the role of multilateralist, warning the world that Iraq had one last chance through the United Nations to avoid Armageddon. "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace," he told us all in the General Assembly, "it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material."

And that, of course, is the point. Saddam would do everything he could to avoid war. Bush was doing everything he could to avoid peace. And now the Iraqi regime has put the Americans into a corner. The arms inspectors are welcome back in Iraq. No conditions. Just as the Americans asked.

No wonder the United States was whingeing on about "false hopes". No wonder the Americans were searching desperately for another casus belli - be sure that they will find one - in an attempt to make sure that their next war keeps to its timetable.

Be sure, too, that Saddam, that master of the post-agreement conditional clause, will have a few surprises for the UN inspectors when they do turn up in Baghdad. Will the UN boys be allowed to visit the Beast of Baghdad's palaces? Will they be waved through all the checkpoints when they want to visit Tuwaitha or any of the other horror factories in which the Iraqis were once cooking up their biological weapons?

But for now, the Americans have been sandbagged. It will take at least 25 days to put the UN inspection team together, a further 60 for their preliminary assessment always assuming they are given "unfettered" access to all Iraqi Government facilities - then another 60 days for further inspections.

In other words, Bush's latest war has been delayed by more than five months.

What on earth will he find to rant on about during all that time? Will he find another dictator to threaten?

Saddam, of course, must have his own worries. Back in 1996, the Iraqis were already accusing the UN inspectorate of working with the Israelis.

Major Scott Ritter, Iraq's nemesis-turned-saviour, was indeed as an inspector regularly travelling to Tel Aviv to consult Israeli intelligence.

Then Saddam accused the UN inspectors of working for the CIA. And he was right. The US, it emerged, was using the UN Baghdad offices to bug Iraq's Government communications. And once the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 and the US and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox, it turned out that virtually every one of the bombing targets had been visited by UN inspectors over the previous six months.

Far from being an inspectorate, the UN lads - though they didn't all know it - had been acting as forward air controllers, drawing up an American hit list rather than monitoring compliance with UN resolutions.

But a glance back at Bush's UN speech last week shows that a free inspection of Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction was just one of six conditions which Iraq would have to meet if it "wishes peace". In other words, stand by for further UN Security Council resolutions which Saddam will find far more difficult to accept.

The other Bush demands, for example, included the "end of all support for terrorism". Does this mean that the UN will now be urged to send inspectors to hunt for evidence inside Iraq for Saddam's previous or present liaisons with guns-for-hire? Remember, it is only a couple of weeks since the repulsive Abu Nidal committed "suicide" in Baghdad.

Then Bush demanded that Iraq "cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others". Notwithstanding the inclusion of Turkomans - worthy of protection indeed, though one wonders how they turned up on the Bush list - does this mean that the UN could demand human rights monitors inside Iraq?

In reality, such a proposal would be both moral and highly ethical, but America's Arab allies would profoundly hope that such monitors were not also dispatched to Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and other centres of gentle interrogation.

Yet even if Saddam was prepared to accede to all these demands with a sincerity which he has not shown in response to other UN resolutions, the Americans have made it clear that sanctions will only be lifted - that Iraq's isolation will only end - with "regime change". For Bush's sudden passion for international adherence to UN Security Council resolutions - an enthusiasm which will not, of course, extend to Israel's flouting of UN resolutions of equal importance - is in reality a cynical manoeuvre to provide legitimacy for Washington's planned invasion of Iraq.

My own suspicion, fuelled by a long passage of purple prose in the Bush General Assembly speech last week, is that the Americans may try for a war crimes indictment against Saddam Hussein.

Bush's crocodile tears for the victims of Saddam's secret police torturers who were hard at work when the President's father was maintaining warm relations with the Iraqi monster suggest that somebody in the Administration is playing with the idea of a war crimes trial. The tens of thousands of Iraqis subject to "summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape" could provide the evidence for any war crimes prosecution.

Indeed, when the Americans sealed off northern Iraq in 1991 to provide a dubious "safe haven" for the Kurds, they scooped up masses of Iraqi Government documents, flew them out of Dohuk in a fleet of Chinook helicopters and squirrelled them away in Washington as evidence for a possible future tribunal.

But even this idea has a hand grenade attached to it. This week, for example, marks the 20th anniversary of the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre, the slaughter of 1700 Palestinian civilians by Israel's Phalangist militia allies, a bloodbath which Israel's own Army watched and noted and did nothing about.

Lawyers for the families of the victims are even now appealing against a Belgian decision not to allow Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - then the Defence Minister who was judged "responsible" by Israel's commission of inquiry - to be tried for these mass murders.

If Saddam can be charged with war crimes by the West - and he should be - then why not Sharon? Why not Rifaat Assad, the brother of the late President of Syria whose Special Forces killed up to 20,000 Syrians in the rebellious city of Hama in 1982? Why not the Algerian police officers whose routine torture and murder of civilians during the country's dirty war against the Islamist insurgency? Why not the vicious killers within the Islamist movement in Algeria? But justice is not what Bush wants unless its a useful way of putting America's enemies out of the way, of effecting regime change or of providing a useful excuse for an invasion which will leave US oil companies (including Bush's own buddies) in control of one of the world's largest reserves of oil.

Saddam's own cynicism - for he could have given UN inspectors free rein years ago - will be matched by Bush's cynicism. Saddam's letter was a smart move, as contemptuous as it was inevitable. Stand by for an equally contemptible response from Bush.

- INDEPENDENT

Further reading
Feature: War with Iraq

Iraq links and resources