Inspecting US Weapons

Inspecting US Weapons

The thirteen self-declared “citizen weapons inspectors” marching down a rain-swept road just outside Baltimore knew they weren’t going to be allowed inside the US military’s Aberdeen Proving

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Aberdeen, MD

The thirteen self-declared “citizen weapons inspectors” marching down a rain-swept road just outside Baltimore knew they weren’t going to be allowed inside the US military’s Aberdeen Proving Ground. But they also knew the media would watch them try, and then ask them why.

So they wore light-blue baseball caps, a nod to the blue helmets of United Nations peacekeeping forces, and a nice touch for the television cameras. They included members of Parliament from Britain, Canada, Italy and Denmark, and a few American citizens, and claimed to have the backing of another 25,000 “honorary inspectors” who had sent messages of support via the group’s website.

They had a polite exchange with the base’s public affairs officer, George Mercer (a man who introduced himself to me as a loyal reader of The Nation, something he laughingly noted put him to the left of many in the military). They ignored the less-polite pair of counterprotesters farther down the highway, who shouted to them with a megaphone, “Supporters of genocidal dictators, go home! Take the French with you!” And afterwards, noting the television coverage on CNN and even an article in the Washington Post, they declared it a small victory.

The inspections effort was organized by a Toronto-based coalition of peace groups called Rooting Out Evil. The group says it used the Bush Administration’s own criteria for identifying the United States as a nation in need of independent inspections:

“According to those criteria, the most dangerous states are those run by leaders who:

1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;
2) ignore due process at the United Nations;
3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and
4) have come to power through illegitimate means.”

Alan Simpson, a member of the British Parliament, said the group supported and advocated UN-run inspections of the weapons stockpiles of both Iraq and the United States. Edward Hammond, director of the Sunshine Project –an Austin, Texas-based nonprofit that seeks to bring facts about biological weapons to light –said UN inspections would in fact be far preferable to a baker’s dozen of private citizens knocking futilely on the military’s door. “But the US has worked to prevent that from ever happening in the UN,” Hammond said.

It’s an intriguing question. Why can’t we have independent inspections of the US military’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stocks? In the year 2003, American citizens still don’t know exactly how many nuclear weapons our nation possesses (we’ve only got good numbers for ICBM-mounted nukes, because those were governed by US-Soviet arms control agreements). Why can’t Congress, or some other representative of the people, conduct and publish independent audits? Our government admits it holds quantities of anthrax and other biological agents; it says the amounts are small and necessary only for developing and testing defenses against such agents, and this is probably true; but again, why must Americans, and the rest of the world, take the government’s word without question?

Nor is this just an academic point about respecting democracy or the rest of the world. As Hammond notes, other nations look at our truculent secrecy regarding our own weapons-of-mass-destruction-related programs and draw conclusions. Conclusions like: The Americans are developing things in secret; probably we should be, too.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x