Scott Ritter alleges US interfered to hamper Iraqi inspection efforts
Scott Ritter, the former US Marine and now former chief inspector of the concealment unit with the UN Special Commission On Iraq (UNSCOM) testified before the US Senate today on the surprising claims that the Untied States has obstructed the inspection process of his team in Iraq.
Ritter has been a controversial figure in the UNSCOM inspection team as a result of Iraqi accusations that he was working for the CIA while doing his inspection work in Iraq. Ritter fought in the Gulf war against Iraq, and reportedly served in an intelligence unit of the US military.
Ritter resigned his UNSCOM post recently as a 'protest' for what he claimed is US intervention in the UNSCOM inspection process, in that the US has prevented the effective practice of his mission of disarming Iraq according to UN resolution on this matter.
Ritter claims that Iraq will be able to reconstruct its chemical and biological program along with its ballistic missile program in a period of six month after effective inspection efforts are stopped. He further alleged that Iraq has the "all" the parts except for the fissile material for constructing three nuclear bombs. These remarks do not agree with the International Atomic Energy Agency report. In April, the UN Security Council dealt with reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which said Iraq had produced its final declaration on its nuclear program and no new evidence was found of other activities. The French Foreign Ministry's spokesperson said at the time (our 4/28 report) that in light of the IAEA's findings, "What we wish is for the Security Council to adopt a decision dedicated to the passage of continuous control of the nuclear aspect, and act upon progress and the fact that the IAEA's report is satisfactory. We also hope that the Security Council will engage in a consideration concerning the conditions that will permit, when the time comes, a similar measure concerning the ballistic sector." Iraq has complied and successfully passed the nuclear disarmament and inspection program, yet the nuclear file has not been closed.
Ritter has asserted that the US prevented his latest inspection work in order to prevent a crisis atmosphere with the Iraqis. He added that this was not the first time that this was done citing that in March, US Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright and US National Security Advisor Sandy Burger prevented his inspection work from going forward through phone calls to his boss, UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, and by putting pressure on him.
Ritter asserted that his boss has been pressured time and again by the US and intervened in the operation of UNSCOM when his team was on the verge of undertaking important inspection work against Iraqi sites. Ritter's claims are in direct opposition to the his boss's statements who asserted that the US has at no time intervened in the operation of UNSCOM. Ritter claims that Butler supports him privately.
Ritter made further allegations that during the serious confrontation that almost led to a US military strike against Iraq earlier this year, that the US intervened with the Security Council to prevent UNSCOM inspection efforts. But when asked about the reason for this, Ritter said that the US sought from UNSCOM to have enough delay in time to lay the ground work to develop a 'coalition' and to have the necessary 'resources' (meaning military preparations in the region).
Ritter may have given a glimpse of his interpretation of the US actions and position of events at the time of the confrontation by him describing the US position as looking for a 'way out' of a confrontation with Iraq, by having UN Secretary General Annan dispatched to Iraq in order to avoid military action against Iraq.
These statements by Ritter seem to contradict his own allegations or show a possible misunderstanding of the realities of the US position at the time. The US would have been outvoted at the time of the confrontation according to UN Security Council member's public statements had the US not "showed" every effort to resolve the crisis diplomatically before a strike. Also, The US was unable to have a credible threat due to restrictions on US forces in the region. At the time, the US forces did not have the right to use its military bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or other neighboring countries, leaving the US to have to rely on a Naval build-up for its threats to be credible.
Having asserted that US Secretary Albright intervened to prevent inspections, Ritter stated the he (Ritter) did not want to inspect the Iraqi ministry of defense because he saw 'no compelling reason' for the inspections as they would have unnecessarily angered the Iraqis. Yet, Ritter stated that 'the US (Albright) has been pressing UNSCOM to inspect the ministry of defense' and Albright insisted on the inspections despite strong Iraqi objections, and Albright was able to eventually force Iraq to submit to these inspection of the ministry.
Ritter said the US should have 'compelled' (used force) Iraq to cooperate every time there was problems with inspection efforts. Specifically, when Ritter would go to an inspection site and he is rejected entrance, then the US should have forced Iraq into complying. Some US Senators stated that such military acts, are of great consequences and involve more calculations on the part of the US policy makers that have regional and other ramifications to US interests to consider, especially since such action does not have the full backing of the US public for military strikes, a point which other senators said is facing the US public now as a result of Ritter's allegation. 'You have forced us to confront this fact' and whether the public is willing to use force to support UNSCOM's work said US Senator Carl Levin.
How much politics is involved in the Ritter hearings is not clear. There are some in congress who desire to see military strikes against Iraq. The hearing called by Republicans was objected to by Democrats because the President along with executive team (Albright, Burger) are outside the country and are unable to answer these strong allegations. Previously, Albright denied these allegations.
Ritter's statements are in contradiction with the US efforts that are acknowledged to singly have kept the sanctions on Iraq despite strong desire by many countries to end the sanctions. His statements also did not acknowledge the efforts made domestically by the US administration to gather support for a military strike on Iraq, with the lack of support that was demonstrated at US colleges such as Ohio.
Even if Ritter's statements were true, they do not shed any light on US policy towards the inspections, as his remarks merely point to tactical decisions on inspection operations, as opposed to US strategy that have to contend with UN Security Council members. These Security Council members can and do oppose the US on the needed UN resolutions to effect the continuation of the Iraq inspections, and are thus capable of preventing the implementation of US policy on Iraq.
Ritter through his remarks has brought his statements into direct opposition of his chief alibi, and boss Richard Butler who made remarks to the contrary. Butler. The Washington post August 14 issue, which broke the news on this alleged intervention by the US, interviewed Richard Butler on the allegations. Butler, who himself is accused by Iraq as an agent of US policy, told the Washington post "No member of the (Security) Council, including the United States, has purported to give me instructions. They all recognize that their job is policy, my job is operations."