Rummy’s intelligence review

What “compelling evidence”?

So, did Saddam’s regime have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) or not?

This is the $64 billion question.

WMDs, Saddam’s willingness to use them, and his links to al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups, formed the backbone of the case for war against Iraq – the case of “compelling evidence” that Colin Powell took the United Nations, the case that Tony Blair put to the British parliament.

The other stuff – liberation, democracy, the freedom to loot – came later.

“The threat” posed by Saddam was paramount. But now, with the WMD count at zero, questions are starting to be asked. Was Saddam telling the truth – had he destroyed all his illegal weapons? If so, did the “coalition of the willing” know this – and did they therefore display “economy with the truth”? Is this why the US was so opposed to further inspections? Or did Saddam bury his weapons so deep and so wide it may take years to find them? (“You can’t hide a nuclear reactor,” said Britain’s ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook this week.) And anyway, does any of this matter – Saddam’s gone, the war was quick, what’s the difference if there are WMDs or not?

This week, US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted that Saddam may have destroyed all his WMDs prior to the conflict. His remarks were interpreted as an admission by the Bush administration that they may not find any WMDs in Iraq. “We don’t know what happened,” Rummy said. “We may actually find out what happened.”

So what exactly did happen and who is to blame for the misinformation? And how shaky does it make the doctrine of pre-emption?

On Friday, the New York Times reported that the CIA “has begun a review to determine whether the US intelligence community erred in its pre-war assessments of Saddam Hussein’s government and Iraq’s weapons programmes”.

The review was ordered by Donald Rumsfeld.

But Rummy didn’t place his order this week. His request for intelligence reviews on the quality of data on Iraq was actually made to George Tenet, CIA director, in October 2002. Even then, Rummy “had become irritated” with the intelligence community, who he saw as dragging its heels over finding links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam.

But now the issue is different. As the NYT says, the review will “focus on...whether the United States over-stated the threat posed by Iraq’s program to develop biological and chemical weapons.”

The Pentagon and the CIA are not the best of buddies. And now, retired CIA officers are going to pore over intelligence reports on Iraq in the wake of the zero WMD count on the ground. The NYT says that “CIA analysts had quietly complained that senior Defense Department officials and other administration officials sought to pressure them to produce reports supporting the administration’s positions on Iraq.”

Last September, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London issued an influential report that claimed Iraq probably had a “few hundred tons” of mustard gas, VX and other agents.

“The absence of chemical weapons [is] a big surprise,” says Gary Samore, one of the authors of the IISS report. But the director of the IISS, John Chipman, told the BBC he was neither “nervous nor embarrassed” by the report’s apparent miscalculation. He did admit however that “in the end, the most important legitimacy for the operation may well come most from a successful process of political reconstruction.”

In an editorial on Tuesday, the New York Times claimed that nothing less than “the credibility of the United States is at issue.”

One “senior administration official” said: “They had twelve years of being real good deceivers. This is going to be a long, hard process.”

For the record – he was referring to Saddam’s regime.

Learning lessons

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld’s deputy and leading light of the neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, is busy learning lessons for Iraq from his visits to Bosnia and Kosovo.

Experiences there, he insists, prove the need for a slow transition to democracy. Rushing into elections only produces dangerous and divisive leaders.

As for peacekeeping, the allies need to amass forces “so big and strong that nobody would dare pick a fight with us.”

This stands in contrast to his department’s pre-war scoff at those who suggested the US would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers to keep the peace once the fighting ended.

“If anyone doubts America’s staying power in Iraq, they should look at what our staying power is in the Balkans,” Wolfowitz said.

In the shadow of 11 September, the US cannot let failed states harbour extremists. Bosnia would not be “just any failed state around the world, but one with a Muslim population in the heart of Europe.”

(Source: International Herald Tribune)

Patchwork diplomacy

Sticking with the America & the World theme for a moment, some mixed messages emerged this week about the current state of US-French relations.

For those Martians who are among Diary readers, France and the US are on even worse terms than the Pentagon and the CIA.

But Colin Powell was in France this week for the G8 meeting at Evian, and Dominique de Villepin was there to greet him.

Amongst some public displays of modest unity (i.e. no declarations of war were made), in reference to France’s “yes” vote in the UN on lifting Iraqi sanctions, Powell said, “Does it mean that the disagreements of the past are totally forgotten? No. That was not a very pleasant time for any of us and we have to work our way through that.”

Will France be punished for its opposition to war in Iraq? No, says Powell, “but you take note of those who disagree with you and you try to find out why and if it is appropriate to draw some conclusions. And consequences follow those conclusions.”

Ah, so France is to be “consequenced”.

Whatever, as Powell jetted over the ever-widening Atlantic, Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador to the US, headed for Atlanta. Talking to a luncheon audience, he called the “friendship” between the two countries “a real treasure”.

Somebody failed to tell the security forces at Los Angeles International Airport.

According to Associated Press reports, on 10 May, six French journalists on their way to the Electronic Entertainment Expo in LA were stopped, handcuffed, detained, then sent back to France.

Francisco Arcaute, of the US bureau of citizenship and immigration services, said the journalists lacked the appropriate press visas. He insists it had nothing to do with French opposition to the war in Iraq.

“These journalists were treated like criminals,” says Robert Menard, secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders. To hold these French journalists was “arbitrary if not discriminatory.”

Looks like it’ll be some time yet before “Freedom fries” come off the menu.

Whine into water

But what about those other opponents of the US in the Security Council, Russia and China?

Well, while France and America squabble, Sino-Russian relations have been greatly strengthened.

Chinese president Hu Jintao met with Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin this week in his first foreign jaunt.

On the table were plans to develop bilateral trade, co-operation on international matters, and the proposed oil pipeline between China and Siberia.

Chances are the subject of US power came up occasionally too.

Putin described relations between Russia and China as having “reached their highest level ever.”

Next stop Evian, and what Hu calls the “rich world’s club”.

A healthy constitution?

Finally, to Rwanda, where 93% of the electorate voted this week to back a draft constitution, designed to prevent a repeat of the 1994 genocide.

Turnout was 87% of registered voters.

The new constitution would safeguard against single party dominance by stipulating that no party can hold more than 50% of cabinet seats, regardless of election results. It also bans the incitement of ethnic hatred.

President Paul Kagame has promised to hold the first presidential elections for fifteen years in August 2003, with parliamentary elections pencilled in for September.

But it’s not all good news. Critics claim the new constitution will keep the Rwandan Patriotic Front in power, and the new system will allow parliament to curtail civil rights.

One article prohibits grassroots campaigning and there are repeated calls for “national unity”.

But at what price?

According to Human Rights Watch, parliament will have the power to restrict rights on speech and assembly that is deemed divisive.

(Source: BBC News)

Quotes of the week

“You may not like the idea, but what’s happening is occupation. Holding 3.5 million Palestinians is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy.”
Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon declaring his support for the new roadmap to peace.

“Rich people need to understand that when the third world develops [economically], the first world benefits ... through more markets for their companies and products.”

“Politicians are like football coaches, they may like each other but they want their team to win. Chirac, Bush, Blair may like me but they’re passionate about their own people.”

“I need to learn to live with Bush. I can’t ask him to become someone he isn’t and vice-versa.”
Lula, President of Brazil.

“Let’s not forget this country does have its freedom.”
British prime minister Tony Blair on Iraq.

“The EU have been pathetic and appalling, and I thought we had dealt with that twenty years ago, when the electorates of our countries said never again.”
Sir Bob Geldof on Europe’s response to the famine in Ethiopia.

“Iran should be on notice that attempts to remake Iraq in Iran’s image will be aggressively put down.”
US secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

“It is incumbent on us, in the name of Islam, to keep a distance from these two frightening faces: terrorism and unilateralism.”
Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami

“It is unrealistic to think we are going to go ahead and even test but not use these nuclear weapons.”
US senator Edward Kennedy on measures approved by the House and Senate this week which allow the Bush administration to “research” smaller nuclear weapons.

“America seeks to expand, not the borders of our country, but the realm of liberty.”

“European governments should join – not hinder – the great cause of ending hunger in Africa.”
President George W. Bush on freedom and bio-crops. Click here to read excerpts of speech.

Contact the Diary Editor: Dominic.Hilton