The British engineer, Tom Carnaffin, is not only angry enough to give the story to the Observer (UK) (see Guardian group web site, or marxism at lists.panix.com where it was copied) but has just appeared on Sky TV. While he cannot rule out that some harmless pre-cursor to VX gas could have been made, he emphasised the very basic nature of the plant and how toxic materials could not have been handled there, and how vital the factory was for the lives of many of the population.
Perhaps more tellingly he speaks of how the owners were respected in the community and had close links with Saudi Arabia, so it was inconceivable in his opinion that they could have agreed to the plant being used for terrorist activities. This clearly opens up major conflicts for the national bourgeoisie of both countries, and their alienation is very bad news for the US government.
Interviewed soon after, the British Defence Minister, Robertson, said that Carnaffin had left the plant 3 years ago [1996?] and that Britain had independent information linking bin Laden to terrorist activities. He did *not* claim any independent British information about the charges against this pharmaceutical plant but said they had been assured of (/seen?) "compelling" information from the US government that it was being used for the preparation of chemical weapons. He claimed that international law permits military action to prevent a threat. I wonder what the fine print says.
The Observer report claims that Clinton knew there were no toxic materials on the site at the time he ordered the attack, partly justifying it on that basis - that there would be fewer casualties (!).
No one is claiming any warning was given to the Sudanese authorities.
Sudan is appealing to the UN to send in investigators to the Al-Shifa pharaceutical plant. The request will be heard tomorrow. The US government will already be working out ways to block it. Britain will probably come in with some helpful compromise (helpful to the US that is).
Judging from experience with the Anti-Apartheid movement what is needed is a global coalition that can articulate detailed focussed pressure at moments like these. One small list is of course not enough but if there was a broad new international peace movement, the appropriate tactics would be to check the procedural position and to lobby governments through intermediaries to make sure that the UN agrees the investigation. Basically the internet is very suited to aiding that sort of campaigning.
What is the likely outcome? Presumably the US government may have seen some documentation appearing to order a precursor of VX gas from the plant. The plant may be found to have quantities of a harmless product in more or less than expected quantities. Any order may not have been official. The trail may be sketchier than that. No doubt some Arab sources would be willing to fund an investigation as exhaustive as Kenneth Starr's (sp?).
This links into the inspection feud with Iraq where the US in on the defensive. If the whole of the Middle East must be patrolled for possible making of chemical or biological war agents, the question is whether this is done with the consent of the governments on a basis of objectivity and by international bodies that are not dominated by the US. The security council is divided on this with France taking a more progressive line than Britain. Real consent with the backing of the Arab League could only come about if the US withdraws its military bases, and its massive backing of Israel and agrees an economic development plan for the area. There is a lot to play for, and the class forces have just taken a turn adverse to the US goverment.
Watch the UN decision.
Chris Burford