Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
"Useful Wave of Indignation":
Who Was Behind the Attack on the Red Cross in Baghdad?
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 28 October 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310A.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attacks on the Red Cross in Baghdad on the 27th of October do not
bear the mark of the Iraqi resistance movement.
Actions against the US-led coalition have focused on military and
political targets.
-On October 11, the CIA Headquarters in the Baghdad hotel were
targeted. Without acknowledging the fact that the hotel housed the
CIA, the US media (Washington Post, Oct 12) had drawn an analogy
between the October 11 Baghdad hotel bombing and the Bali bombing in
Indonesia, hinting to the involvement of bin Laden
-On October 26, the Rachid Hotel which housed the US military and
where Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was staying was
targeted. The attack demonstrated the vulnerability of the Coalition
and its inability to defend its Command structure.
- The attack on the UN building on August 20 was of a similar nature.
Amply documented, the UN mission in Iraq was closely collaborating
with the US-UK Coalition Authority led by Paul Bremer.
In contrast, the Red Cross was among the few international
humanitarian organizations which continued to collaborate throughout
the bombing campaign (March 16 to April 8) with the Iraqi Health
authorities, coming the rescue of the wounded and organizing convoys
of ambulances to the hospitals.
The April 8 Attack on the Red Cross
Who was behind the attack on the Red Cross on October 27? While
pointing to foreign terrorists linked to bin Laden, what the press
failed to acknowledge was that this was the second attack on the Red
Cross.
On April 8th, the day "Baghdad was Liberated", a convoy of seven
vehicles of the Red Cross (ICRC), involved in re-supplyng the city's
hospitals, was fired on, leading to the death of 13 health workers as
well as the ICRC's delegate to Iraq (who was a Canadian citizen).
The US media casually dismissed the incident: "A Canadian worker for
the International Committee of the Red Cross was killed when gunfire
strafed his car while driving through Baghdad." The April 8 attack
against the Red Cross was barely reported by the Western media, which
was celebrating "the Liberation of Baghdad".
Even the Canadian government, which is usually outspoken regarding
these matters (e.g. the death of Canadian Journalist Zahra Kazemi in
Iran) failed even to make a statement on the death of a Canadian
national, delegate of the Red Cross in Baghdad.
According to the official ICRC statement, the ambulances had been
"caught in cross fire". Yet the reports suggested that this was not
cross fire. The convoy had been deliberately targeted: The vehicles
"were clearly marked with large red crosses visible from a distance."
(Health Newswire Consumer, 10 April 2003).
The Question Is by Whom?
During the entire sanctions regime, since 1991, the Red Cross was
present. The Red Cross was among the few independent international
aid agencies operating in Baghdad during the bombing campaign.
The death of the ICRC delegate and head of logistics Mr. V.
Arslanian, on April 8 served to undermine the ICRC activities in
support of Baghdad's hospitals. Mr. V. Arslanian, was personally
responsible for "the delivery of Red Cross supplies such as water,
blankets, generators, [etc]. " It is therefore highly unlikely that
the Red Cross convoy would have been deliberately targeted by Iraqi
forces.
The April 8 attack on the Red Cross, which had been working closely
with Iraqi health officials and hospital staff, was an important
turning point. It laid the groundwork for bringing in the Pentagon's
approved ("embedded") humanitarian organizations and aid agencies.
The ICRC was obliged to suspend many of its operations that same day,
April 8th.
Did US Troops Attack the Red Cross on April 8?
Reading between the lines of the ICRC statement and the various press
reports, there are indications, although no official evidence, that
Red Cross vehicles were targeted by Coalition forces. As mentioned
earlier, Iraqi forces had no reason to target ambulances which were
collaborating with Iraqi health officials.
The ICRC was careful not to openly accuse US forces:
"The ICRC said it was not known whether the convoy had been
deliberately attacked or had been caught up in crossfire between
American and Iraqi forces." (Independent, 10 April 2003)
According to Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, of the Red Cross mission in Baghdad:
'Casualties have been seen on the roads, on some bridges and there
was no immediate possibility of evacuating them, for the reason that
there was immediate fire as soon as anybody was trying to approach.
The problem is the lack of respect for ambulances and respect for
casualties - to give allow a minimum of security for people to be
evacuated.'" (Ibid, emphasis added)
The Economist (9 April 2003) acknowledged that the attack on the
convoy served to paralyze the Red Cross's activities in support of
the city hospitals:
"The battle for Baghdad has overwhelmed the city's hospitals. Over
the weekend, the International Committee of the Red Cross estimated
that they were getting up to 100 casualties an hour, and the Red
Cross was forced to halt its operations in the city on Wednesday
after one of its workers was shot in the chaos enveloping the city."
(The Economist, 9 April 2003)
In this regard, the suspension of ICRC deliveries in the wake of the
attack contributed to cutting off "the sole source of fresh supplies
of medicines and equipment to Baghdad's four main emergency
hospitals." By reducing the ICRC's presence, it also undermined the
implementation of the ICRC's mandate in Iraq under the Geneva
Convention:
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that a "territory is
considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of
the hostile army." The rules of occupation are complemented and
developed in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the
protection of civilian persons.
The duties of the Occupying Power include restoring and ensuring, as
far as possible, public order and safety; providing the population
with food and medical supplies; maintaining medical facilities and
services; ensuring public health and hygiene; and facilitating the
work of educational institutions. The Occupying Power should also
allow and facilitate relief programmes undertaken by other states or
impartial humanitarian organizations if the population is
inadequately supplied. (ICRC,
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/A6708D62CEBB8842C1256DB800
43AB4B
)
Under its mandate, the ICRC "visits to prisoners are aimed at
preventing or putting an end to disappearances, extra-judicial
killings, torture and ill-treatment, and improving conditions of
detention," in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which the
Coalition Authority has blatantly violated. Thousands of people are
being held by Coalition forces. Since the beginning of the war in
March, the ICRC has processed over 20,000 messages from Iraqi
families to prisoners of war and detainees.
The ICRC did not hesitate to remind Occupation forces of their
responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. Moreover, the ICRC took
an active position against the looting of healthcare facilities,
tacitly accusing the Americans of "acquiescence". (Irish Times, 19
April 2003).
The ICRC had "urged US-led forces to face their responsibilities,
restore order and protect civilians by providing aid. The coalition
had obligations as the occupying power under humanitarian law,
including providing supplies to the population "of water, food and
medical care". (Financial Times, 14 April 2003)
This criticism by the Red Cross was not only dismissed by then
Commander of Coalition forces, General Thomas Franks, there was
evidence that the looting of Iraqi health facilities had been
deliberately encouraged by US forces. (See Global Outlook, no. 5, pp.
33-41.)
The April 8 and October 27 Attacks. Any Connection?
There is reason to believe, based on documentary evidence concerning
the the ICRC's relationship to the Iraqi authorities prior and during
the war, that the Iraqi resistance movement would not target the Red
Cross.
Who ordered the attacks on the Red Cross?
The October 27 attack serves the interests of the Coalition. It
creates a "useful wave of indignation". (See Operation Northwoods,
the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for
U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba" at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ) .
The media has immediately jumped on the story pointing to a terrorist
act, without mentioning that the ICRC had already been attacked, in
all likelihood by US forces, on April 8th.
According to the US media, which feeds the Pentagon's propaganda
machine, Saddam Hussein and foreign fighters linked to bin Laden were
responsible for the attack on October 27.
According to the BBC, with reference to the attack on the Red Cross:
The big car bombs on non-military targets have borne the hallmarks of
al-Qaeda.
They have been professionally planned and executed, sometimes
synchronized, usually carried out by suicide bombers and aimed at
maximum publicity effect. They have inflicted heavy and
indiscriminate civilian casualties and no one has claimed
responsibility. (BBC, 28 April, 2003,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3219483.stm )
Yet if indeed a terrorist cell linked to Al Qaeda were responsible
for this attack, we would expect the US intelligence apparatus and/or
its Pakistani proxy to at least be informed. Amply documented, Al
Qaeda is "an intelligence asset" of the CIA.
Moreover, these terrorist attacks on civilian targets have the same
logic as September 11. They tend, in the eyes of World public
opinion, to discredit the actions of the Iraqi resistance against the
US-led occupation forces. They uphold the lies concerning the "war on
terrorism". They are now being used in official statements and in
the media to present a "human face" to the US-led occupation.
The 27 October attack on the Red Cross serves another objective. The
ICRC is at present: "the one body with international authority to
visit detention centres in a place like Iraq and to check on the
treatment of prisoners including those under interrogation." (Peter
Gowan, Ottawa, 29 October 2003).
What this means is that the ICRC, while maintaining a low profile in
relation to the Coalition Authority, has been routinely involved, in
accordance with its mandate under the Geneva Convention, in
documenting and compiling evidence of war crimes committed by
occupation forces. This data goes into their records in Geneva. It
becomes part of the history of the Iraq war and occupation.
If the ICRC were to withdraw or to drastically curtail its
activities, there would be no such mechanism for monitoring war
crimes by an international body or for "checking the treatment of
prisoners by the Occupation authorities." (Ibid)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
) Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage
iquitable seulement .
------------------------------------------------------------------------