US supplied anthrax to Iraq

By Geoffrey Holland

(The Badger ) Documents purporting to link Osama bin Laden s terrorist
network with Saddam Hussein, discovered by a journalist in the former
headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad, are only the
tip of the iceberg. United States Senate documents obtained from
Washington by the badger provide evidence of a sinister link between the
United States government and the regime of the fallen Iraqi dictator.

Hidden from view for nine years, these hitherto unreported Senate papers
reveal a tale of intrigue and deception which goes right to the heart of
the American system. Here in Britain, after weeks of correspondence
between this writer and every Member of Parliament, and following more
than two-hundred written replies and several meetings with concerned
MPs, we may now disclose what we know about Iraq s weapons of mass
destruction.

First brought to the attention of the House of Commons by Labour MP
Peter Kilfoyle on 26 February 2003, the Riegle Report details the
findings of Senate hearings chaired by Senator Donald Riegle in 1994.
The report confirms that when US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a
member of the President s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control in
the 1980s, biological materials were being exported to Iraq under
licence from the US Department of Commerce. These included botulinum
toxin and anthrax, later identified as major components in the Iraqi
biological warfare programme.

Following repeated denials by Mr Rumsfeld of any knowledge of this
evidence, including in statements to the Senate and on British
television, Conservative MP Sir Teddy Taylor pressed our own Secretary
of State for Defence on 3 March to supply details of the extent of the
weapons of mass destruction supplied to Iraq by the United States. Mr
Hoon could only reply that the US Defense Secretary had categorically
denied making those kinds of equipment available to Iraq.

Then, in answer to a further question from Mr Kilfoyle on 10 March,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, as far as he knew, that anthrax did
not come from the United States. Nevertheless, he did concede that if it
did, it would have been wrong. To be fair, Mr. Straw did not appear to
know very much at this point. Presumably, he had not yet read the Senate
documents which conclude categorically that the United States did supply
at least seven batches of anthrax to Iraq between 8 February 1985 and 29
September 1988.

The following day, Sir Teddy Taylor addressed the matter to the Speaker
of the House of Commons. Expressing a growing disbelief in Mr Rumsfeld s
denials, he requested an immediate response from the Ministry of
Defence, repeating this request on 13 March to the Leader of the House,
Robin Cook, and stressing that the information was urgently required.

Finally, on 14 March, the Ministry of Defence replied to Sir Teddy
Taylor with a written statement confirming that it was now aware of the
Riegle Report, though it stopped short of providing any specific
details. Three days later in his landmark resignation speech, Robin Cook
made the first public declaration by a member of the British Cabinet
that US companies had sold anthrax to Iraq. Here was an announcement of
the greatest magnitude, pointing to a direct breach of the
internationally binding Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, signed
by Britain and the US in 1972 and ratified in 1975. Yet, remarkably, the
significance of Mr. Cook s statement received no comment in the British
press.

In the final Iraq debate of 18 March, Sir Teddy Taylor was on the case
again, this time urging the Prime Minster to make a statement before the
war began, asking him, Will he tell the House whether there has been
any identification of the countries that have supplied these terrible
biological materials - should those countries not be identified - named
by the Prime Minister and condemned? Mr Blair replied with just eight
words, saying, Much of the production is in Iraq itself.

Let us examine that answer. First, it does not answer the question.
Second, it does not answer the question. Third, it does not answer the
question. But Sir Teddy - an honest man who speaks the truth - answered
the question himself.

Those materials were not produced by Iraq, but provided and sold by
western powers. It is abundantly clear that the US Department of
Commerce approved every single thing that went from the United States to
Iraq. It was not a question of secret firms doing nasty things; this was
approved by Government.

The British Government in its Biological Weapons Green Paper last year,
in a section headed UK Policy, confirmed the Biological and Toxin
Weapons Convention to be a principal international and legally binding
instrument and said that those at every level responsible for any
breach of international law will be held personally accountable. But
who is accountable to whom, and when?

It is clear from the US Senate s Riegle report that Article III of the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention has been breached by the United
States. Under Article VI of that Convention, Britain, having knowledge
of the breach, should formally report the matter to the United Nations
Security Council. Not only is this obvious moral responsibility, but it
corresponds directly with UK policy.

However, on Tuesday of this week two further documents have been
received by this writer, which seem to indicate that it is the intention
of the British Government to do absolutely nothing about the matter.

The first is a public document, which may appropriately be termed a
weapon of mass disinformation, as its cover explains that it is now
being sent by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in answer to many
thousands of letters. Forwarded by the Iraq Policy Unit, it is
chock-full of messages intended to jolly us all into believing that
everything is quite alright. Buried within it is the following bland
statement, which in one short sentence swiftly sweeps away any doubts we
may ever have about US complicity in the supply of weapons of mass
destruction to Iraq, saying simply, The US is fully compliant with its
international obligations on WMD.

The second document, forwarded to this writer by an honest MP, is an
internal House of Commons Library paper, fresh from the desk of the
International Affairs and Defence Section. This may well carry the
British Government s final word on the subject, as it points out that
under the terms of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention the
Government may lodge a complaint with the Security Council but is
under no obligation to do so.

So, there we have it; this is the state of play as you read this
article; the crime has been committed, the evidence is there, Government
policy is to act, but it may not do so.

© Copyright 2003 the Badger (University of Sussex student magazine May
2003)