Edited by author 09-02-2002 02:38 AM
In All But Name, The US War
Against Iraq Is On
By Marc Erikson
Asia Times
8-19-02

How do you tell a war has begun? This is not the 17th or 18th century. There are no highfalutin' declarations. Troops don't line up in eyesight of each other. There are no drum rolls and bugle calls, no calls of "Chaaa...rge!". When did the Vietnam War begin? When, for that matter, World War I? When mobilizations were ordered setting in motion irreversible chains of events or at the time of the formal declarations of war?
The lines of battle and the timelines to overt battle and full-scale combat have become fluid. Consider this: At the beginning of this year, when US President George W Bush started talking ever more in earnest about taking out Saddam Hussein and signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple the Iraqi president, including authority to use lethal force to capture him, the US and putative ally Britain had approximately 50,000 troops deployed in the region around Iraq.
By now, this number has grown to over 100,000, not counting soldiers of and on naval units in the vicinity. It's been a build-up without much fanfare, accelerating since March and accelerating further since June. And these troops are not just sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs while waiting for orders to act out some type of D-Day drama. Several thousand are already in Iraq. They are gradually closing in and rattling Saddam's cage. In effect, the war has begun.
For sticklers for details, here are some numbers and locations of the allied troop build-up gathered from local sources in the various countries where US and British forces deploy or from open allied sources: Prior to the past seven months' troop movements, there were 25,000 US troops (army, air force) in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates and some 20,000 British troops, mainly in Oman.
Since March, 12,000 US troops have been added to Kuwait (8,000) and Qatar (4,000) and 5,000 Brits to Oman, bringing the April/May total to 62,000. In late June, the Turkish foreign ministry reported heavy air traffic of US military transport planes aimed at increasing the number of US troops in southern Turkey from 7,000 to 25,000 by the end of July. Also in June, a contingent of 1,700 British Royal Marines were re-deployed from Afghanistan to Kuwait and a 250-man, highly-specialized German NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare battalion equipped with "Fuchs" (fox) armored vehicles has been in Kuwait since early this year.
An additional 2,400 US troops are deployed in Jordan and, according to Jordanian news agency Petra, are being reinforced by another 4,000 arriving since August 12 at Aqaba for joint exercises with the Jordanian army. Already, 1,800 US troops (mostly Special Forces) are inside Iraq, at least since the end of March and, in fact, units there were visited two months ago by CIA director George Tenet during a side trip from Israel and Palestine. Another 2,000-3,000 US troops are in semi-permanent deployment in the Negev and Sinai deserts in accordance with old international agreements. On August 9, the Turkish daily Hurriyet reported that 5,000 Turkish troops had entered northern Iraq and taken over the Bamerni air base north of Mosul. These numbers add up to about 105,000 US and allied troops on bases surrounding and inside Iraq.
The number of US and British aircraft in the region (land-based and on three US and one British carrier) cannot be determined with any real precision. But they greatly outnumber Iraqi air forces (not to speak of their vast qualitative superiority) and are in the process of being reinforced. Munitions and equipment for German Tornado fighters have been pre-positioned in Turkey.
The Saudi announcement of August 7 that US forces will not be permitted to use Saudi bases for an attack on Iraq causes the US military no major headache. The US has quietly moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar from Saudi Arabia in recent months. Further, construction of a large new military camp in Kuwait has just been completed. Allied ground troops, air forces and naval units now on hand are sufficient to carry the fight to Iraq from a virtual stand-still, certainly sufficient for the "small-war scenario" (75-100,000 troops) on which US Central Command chief General Tommy Franks briefed George Bush on August 6.
What are these allied forces up against? As the head of the US Defense Policy Board Richard Perle put it succinctly the other day, Iraq today has one third of its 1990-91 capabilities, "but it's the same third, just 11 years older". That's something of a characteristic exaggeration by the "Prince of Darkness", but not by very much. Iraqi ground forces now number 375,000, less than 40 percent of their 1990 pre-Gulf-War strength. Of that number, 70,000 are in the Republican Guard (half of the 1990 strength) and another 25,000 in the Baghdad-based Special Republican Guard assigned exclusively to protecting Saddam Hussein and maintaining political control in the city (no other troops are allowed in). The remaining 280,000-man regular army has major morale problems and is made up largely of unwilling conscripts, many from the oppressed Shi'ite population, who consider themselves ethnic Iranians rather than Arabs.
Principal equipment is 2,200 tanks of Soviet-era vintage (including a few hundred T-72s) and 1,900 artillery pieces. The Iraqi air force is reduced to 130 attack aircraft and 180 jet fighters, but only about 90 of the latter are combat ready at any given time. The navy no longer exists.
Iraq's anti-aircraft defenses consist of some 120 batteries dispersed around the country, and are as technologically degraded as the rest of Iraq's rusting arsenal. The number of Scud missiles is between a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 36. Of these, between six and 16 are Scud-B (Al-Husayn) with a range of 600 kilometers. The remainder are plain Scuds with a 300-kilometer range. The Scud-B missiles are the only ones that pose problems because they can reach targets outside Iraq. They are very inaccurate, however, and have numerous serious technical problems. The biggest of these is that they tend to break up during their descent phase. Their theoretical accuracy is 3,000 meters CEP (Circular Error Probability). This makes them militarily useless, and useful only for terrorizing urban populations if warheads contain chemical or biological agents.
Ongoing actions by US and allied forces around and in Iraq in part are in line with guidelines provided in Bush's presidential order to oust Saddam:
Increased support to Iraqi opposition groups and forces inside and outside Iraq including money, weapons, equipment, training and intelligence information;
Expanded efforts to collect intelligence within the Iraqi government, military, security service and overall population;
Use of CIA and US Special Forces teams, similar to those deployed in Afghanistan since September 11. Such forces would be authorized to kill Saddam if they were acting in self-defense.
But in part the actions go well beyond that. In Kurdish Iraq - according to Israeli sources - US army engineers are working around the clock to build a series of six to eight airstrips to serve fighter planes and helicopters that will provide air cover for invading ground forces. The airfields are strung along a western axis from the city of Zako southwest to the city of Sinjar; a central axis from Zako south to Arbil; and an eastern axis from Arbil to Sulimaniyeh.
Special Forces teams are involved in on-the-ground military target identification, mapping out Scud and anti-aircraft battery locations. They are also helping set up, equip and train Kurdish militias and are cooperating closely with Turkish counterparts engaged in the same activities in Turkoman regions.
US and British aircraft are probing Iraqi defenses beyond the no-fly zones close to Baghdad. On August 6, they destroyed the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib in the desert between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The center is wired to fiber optic networks installed last year by Chinese companies. New types of precision-guided bombs disabled the fiber optic system. The broad aim of recent bombing runs is to thoroughly disrupt Iraqi command, control and communications functions.
In light of these developments, the various "war plans" bandied about in the US press - with the New York Times and the Washington Post trying to outdo each other with the latest scoops - are largely irrelevant as such, whether it's the "Northern Alliance Option" (US troops and intelligence personnel aiding an attack by opposition forces); the original "Franks Plan" (massed attack involving some 250,000 troops); the "inside-out" approach (commando attacks on Baghdad and key Iraqi command centers first, followed by mopping-up action); or the "status-quo" or "do-nothing" option of continued containment of Saddam. Elements of all of these scenarios will eventually be seen as having been incorporated in the removal of the Iraqi leader.
Equally irrelevant is speculation on the timing (September/October for the sake of surprise? January/February a la Gulf War to avoid the desert heat?) of "the" allied attack. Attacks of various kinds are ongoing. Their intensity and intrusiveness can increase at any time ... or decrease again. It's a game of options and contingencies, backed by ever increasing material capabilities; perhaps a game of prodding Saddam into a tactical mistake or a flight-forward reaction. Earlier this year, a British journalist asked Bush how exactly he was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He replied, "Wait and see." The journalist, like many of his colleagues, may well still be waiting - for lack of ability to see that the war is on. Some high-speed, high-intensity strikes may later be called "The Iraq War", but it began no later than March.

©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH17Ak03.html#

U.S., British Jets Attack Targets in South: Iraq
Fri Aug 30, 1:48 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?...ews&StoryID=1393868

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq said U.S. and British jets bombed targets in southern Iraq on Thursday and Friday, but reported no casualties.


The U.S. military said earlier that its warplanes attacked an anti-aircraft missile site in a "no-fly" zone of southern Iraq on Friday in response to repeated Iraqi attempts to shoot down American and British jets patrolling the zone.

The latest such attack, among hundreds in no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War, was carried out against a surface-to-air (SAM) missile site near An Kut some 150 miles southeast of Baghdad at about 10:30 a.m. Iraq time, the military's Central Command said.

Iraq said there had been attacks on Thursday at 11:35 p.m. and on Friday 8:10 a.m. local time 0410. "At 2335 p.m. local time yesterday, hostile planes violated our airspaces, carrying out eight sorties using air bases in Kuwait," the Iraqi military spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Iraqi News Agency (INA).

"The enemy attacked civilian and service installations in Wassit province," the spokesman said.

The spokesman added that Western coalition planes struck targets in Wassit province, located 172 km (107 miles) southeast of Baghdad, again on Thursday morning.

"Hostile planes targeted civilian and service installations in Wassit province at 0810 a.m. local time today for the second time," he said.

Iraq's ground air-defenses fired at the planes.

U.S. and British aircraft police no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq set up after the Gulf War.

Iraq does not recognize the zones. It was the eighth raid by U.S. jets against air defense targets in these areas in less than two weeks.

The exchanges have increased sharply in recent months as speculation has grown that President Bush will order the U.S. military to invade Iraq and to remove President Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia.

Baghdad denies accusations from Washington that Saddam is pressing ahead to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Gulf and Middle East, said in a release from its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, that all of the warplanes left the target area successfully and damage to the missile site was still being assessed.

Basra, Iraq: Ramsey Clark Delegation Tours U.S. Bombing Site

Reprinted from Workers World September 5, 2002

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a delegation from International ANSWER--the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism coalition--arrived in the Iraqi city of Basra Aug. 27. Two days earlier a U.S. bombing raid there killed eight Iraqi civilians. The delegation toured the site of the bombing, met with families of those killed and visited a wounded victim in a local hospital.

U.S. and British aerial attacks have continued almost daily since the Gulf War 11 years ago, though this is rarely reported in the U.S. corporate media.

The delegation's aim is to gather information on the continuing impact of U.S.-led United Nations sanctions, which have claimed over 1 million lives, and to show solidarity with the Iraqi people as they prepare for a threatened U.S. war and invasion. Clark is the founder and chairperson of the International Action Center (IAC), which has campaigned against the devastating economic sanctions for more than a decade.

Other delegates include Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice; Johnnie Stevens, co-director of Peoples Video Network; Kadouri al-Kaysi, coordinator of the Committee in Solidarity with the Iraqi People; and Brian Becker, co-director of the IAC.

In a statement released by the IAC Aug. 28, Clark said: "We came to Basra to visit the hospitals and interview doctors and patients about the state of health care in Basra. We had planned to come here because the region is suffering stunning cancer rates. This area was the site of the greatest use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. forces in the Gulf War.

"Two days before we arrived in Basra," Clark continued, "U.S. war planes struck again, killing and wounding more than 20 people. We visited one of the wounded at the Basra Training Hospital and interviewed workers in the area who saw and heard the gigantic explosion the morning of Aug. 25.

"While we were in Basra, U.S. war planes carried out two more major bombing attacks against the airport in Mosul and against civil and service installations in Al-Nukhayb, located south of Baghdad," he added. The ANSWER delegates were scheduled to inspect the Mosul airport Aug. 29.

They are also visiting food distribution centers and hospitals and meeting with high government officials.

SALUTES IRAQ'S 'STEADFASTNESS AND RESISTANCE'

Xinhua News Agency reported that Clark met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz Aug. 26. He saluted the "steadfastness and resistance of the Iraqi people" and voiced his support for Iraq's resistance to President George W. Bush's invasion plans. Bush's threats constitute war crimes and crimes against peace under international law.

On Aug. 27, Clark appeared live on Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now!" program. The former attorney general debated a Pentagon spokesperson, Lt. Col. David Lapan. Readers can listen to the debate on the Web by going to www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/.

The Iraqi News Agency reported Aug. 28 that the ANSWER delegates met with Minister of Health Dr. Omeed Midhat Mubarak in Baghdad. He explained that the sanctions and daily bombings continue to impose high rates of disease, death and environmental destruction on the Iraqi people.

Mubarak added that the U.S. government still pressures the UN Security Council to enforce measures restricting the import of basic medicines and medical equipment.

In his Aug. 28 statement, Clark said: "People in the United States must recognize that the war against Iraq goes on every day as the Bush administration prepares for a major ground war. ... Bombing and sanctions constitute an integrated strategy designed to overthrow the Iraqi government and replace it with a proxy regime similar to what now exists in Afghanistan.

"The U.S. government falsely declares that its campaign against Iraq is motivated by a concern over Iraq's potential possession of non-conventional weapons. But the real goal is to dominate the strategic and oil-rich region and to destroy any government and people that desire to maintain their independence.

"It is urgent that this country be allowed to trade, buy and sell all the products necessary to sustain and improve life," Clark continued. "The U.S. government is guilty of violating the basic tenets of international law as it wages aggression against Iraq. We urge all progressive people in the U.S. and elsewhere to take immediate action to end the criminal campaign against Iraq."

Updated reports from the delegation can be found on the Web site: www.iacenter.org

--Greg Butterfield

- END -

(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
ww@wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-on@wwpublish.com.
Unsubscribe wwnews-off@wwpublish.com. Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)

Rice Lays Out Case for War In Iraq

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Aug 15, 2002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...1333-2002Aug15.html

The United States and other nations have little choice but to seek the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview broadcast yesterday, citing "a very powerful moral case" for action.

"This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, on all of us," Rice told the BBC. "There is a very powerful moral case for regime change. We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing."

Rice noted that after Sept. 11, the most immediate threat was al Qaeda. But she said Hussein posed a looming threat that could not be ignored. "Clearly, if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now, this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way."

Rice's comments represent one of the strongest and most detailed explanations by a senior U.S. official of the need to oust Hussein, and they follow a drumbeat of news stories about potential U.S. plans for military action in the Persian Gulf. Rice's remarks came in response to questions by a British reporter and do not appear to be part of a new campaign to convince U.S. allies or the American public that war is necessary or inevitable. But they offer a clear guide to the case the administration will make if President Bush decides to launch a war.

Rice's comments were disclosed on the same day that Brent Scowcroft, one of her predecessors and a pillar in the GOP foreign policy establishment, offered a detailed critique of a possible rush to war.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Scowcroft said that there was virtually no support among allies for a war against Iraq and that it could "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken" and lead to broader conflict in the Middle East.

Other GOP officials, such as House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), have also questioned whether military steps are necessary. The growing concern among some leading Republicans, and the near universal opposition overseas, has focused administration officials on the need to build a case -- or risk the consequences of unilateral action.

Rice taped the interview for a BBC special on the Sept. 11 attacks, to be broadcast Sept. 6, and the BBC released portions of the interview yesterday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the United States' closest ally on Iraq, has come under intense pressure from some members of his party to speak against an invasion as opinion polls show a majority of Britons oppose participation in a U.S.-led war.

"The president hasn't decided how he wants to do it or how he intends to make the case for particular methods," Rice stressed before she began outlining what she called "a very stunning indictment" against Hussein.

"The case for regime change is very strong," Rice said. "This is a regime that we know has twice tried and come closer than we thought at the time to acquiring nuclear weapons. He has used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors, he has invaded his neighbors, he has killed thousands of his own people. He shoots at our planes, our airplanes, in the no-fly zones where we are trying to enforce U.N. security resolutions."

Over the weekend, a senior Iraqi official declared the mission of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq "finished," suggesting Hussein will not allow the inspections to resume. The inspections -- mandated by the armistice that ended the Gulf War in 1991 -- were suspended in 1998 after Iraq denied access to Hussein's presidential palaces.

The Bush administration has demanded the inspections resume. "Despite the fact that he lost this war, a war, by the way, which he started, he negotiates with the United Nations as if he won the war," Rice said.

Rice made a forceful case that Hussein's removal was a clear example of when the administration's new doctrine of "preemption" -- striking potential enemies first -- would be justified.

"History is littered with cases of inaction that led to very grave consequences for the world," Rice said. "We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat and killing thousands and, indeed, millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks."

Although the White House has insisted Bush has not made a decision to proceed with an attack, the administration in recent weeks has moved deliberately to organize Iraqi opposition groups for a post-Hussein era. Last week, administration officials met with key leaders of various opposition groups, and yesterday the State Department said it had resolved an accounting dispute with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a London-based umbrella group, permitting funds to flow again.

State Department spokesman Philip T. Reeker said $8 million would be provided to the INC, permitting it to publish a newspaper, renew anti-Hussein television broadcasts into Iraq, maintain regional offices and operate humanitarian relief programs. Funding for the INC's covert operations, meanwhile, has been transferred to the Defense Department, resolving a conflict between the two agencies about the effectiveness of the intelligence-gathering operation.

The State Department also disclosed that last month it began accepting bids from nongovernmental organizations to receive $6.6 million in humanitarian assistance, primarily for the Kurdish population in northern Iraq.

Schroeder again warns against attacking Iraq; German leader gives strong performance in TV debate.

Reuters; AFP. 25 August 2002.

BERLIN -- Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Sunday renewed his opposition to any military strikes against Iraq, saying in a televised debate one month before an election that Germany would not support a U.S.-led military attack.

Schroeder has raised the volume in the campaign on his resistance to a possible attack on Iraq if the country does not allow U.N. weapons inspectors back in.

"The international coalition against terrorism would be severely endangered if we did that, we would see it fall apart," Schroeder said. He said Germany would stand by its allies if they are attacked, but the situation in Iraq was different.

"I think it is wrong to consider military intervention in such a situation, in a region as sensitive as the Middle East," he said.

"I don't want to create a false impression of Germany, creating concrete facts that we cannot back out of and that is why I said it, and I stand by my opinion, not with Germany's support," said Schroeder, who has drawn loud applause for similar comments in campaign rallies recently.

Schroeder appeared to have won Germany's first-ever live television campaign debate. Snap polls conducted after the 75-minute debate gave Schroeder a clear advantage over Bavarian premier Edmund Stoiber.

A survey conducted for public ARD television, which will co-host the second and final debate on September 8, found that 43 percent of viewers preferred Schroeder's performance to 33 percent for Stoiber.

Schroeder, aware of the strong pacifist streak among left wing voters that are crucial to his re-election hopes, indirectly criticised President George W. Bush's view that Saddam had to go.

Schroeder said the issue was to raise the pressure on Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in, not oust the Iraqi leader.

Selective Memri

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

Monday August 12, 2002
The Guardian

For some time now, I have been receiving small gifts from a generous institute in the United States. The gifts are high-quality translations of articles from Arabic newspapers which the institute sends to me by email every few days, entirely free-of-charge.

The emails also go to politicians and academics, as well as to lots of other journalists. The stories they contain are usually interesting.

Whenever I get an email from the institute, several of my Guardian colleagues receive one too and regularly forward their copies to me - sometimes with a note suggesting that I might like to check out the story and write about it.

If the note happens to come from a more senior colleague, I'm left feeling that I really ought to write about it. One example last week was a couple of paragraphs translated by the institute, in which a former doctor in the Iraqi army claimed that Saddam Hussein had personally given orders to amputate the ears of military deserters.

The organisation that makes these translations and sends them out is the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), based in Washington but with recently-opened offices in London, Berlin and Jerusalem.

Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible status under American law.

Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media".

Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address.

The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).

This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.

The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and extremism. But if so, one would expect it - for the sake of non-partisanship - t o publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew media too.

Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel".

That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.

Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence.

In addition, Ms Wurmser is a highly qualified, internationally recognised, inspiring and knowledgeable speaker on the Middle East whose presence would make any "event, radio or television show a unique one" - according to Benador Associates, a public relations company which touts her services.

Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.

The email it circulated last week about Saddam Hussein ordering people's ears to be cut off was an extract from a longer article in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Adil Awadh who claimed to have first-hand knowledge of it.

It was the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers would happily reprint without checking, especially in the current atmosphere of war fever. It may well be true, but it needs to be treated with a little circumspection.

Mr Awadh is not exactly an independent figure. He is, or at least was, a member of the Iraqi National Accord, an exiled Iraqi opposition group backed by the US - and neither al-Hayat nor Memri mentioned this.

Also, Mr Awadh's allegation first came to light some four years ago, when he had a strong personal reason for making it. According to a Washington Post report in 1998, the amputation claim formed part of his application for political asylum in the United States.

At the time, he was one of six Iraqis under arrest in the US as suspected terrorists or Iraqi intelligence agents, and he was trying to show that the Americans had made a mistake.

Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia. The first was its translation of an article from al-Riyadh newspaper in which a columnist wrote that Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival.

The writer, a university teacher, was apparently relying on an anti-semitic myth that dates back to the middle ages. What this demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories.

But Memri claimed al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" - in fact it's privately owned - implying that the article had some form of official approval.

Al-Riyadh's editor said he had not seen the article before publication because he had been abroad. He apologised without hesitation and sacked his columnist, but by then the damage had been done.

Memri's next success came a month later when Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London wrote a poem entitled The Martyrs - about a young woman suicide bomber - which was published in al-Hayat newspaper.

Memri sent out translated extracts from the poem, which it described as "praising suicide bombers". Whether that was the poem's real message is a matter of interpretation. It could, perhaps more plausibly, be read as condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders, but Memri's interpretation was reported, almost without question, by the western media.

These incidents involving Saudi Arabia should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of building a case against the kingdom and persuading the United States to treat it as an enemy, rather than an ally.

It's a campaign that the Israeli government and American neo-conservatives have been pushing since early this year - one aspect of which was the bizarre anti-Saudi briefing at the Pentagon, hosted last month by Richard Perle.

To anyone who reads Arabic newspapers regularly, it should be obvious that the items highlighted by Memri are those that suit its agenda and are not representative of the newspapers' content as a whole.

The danger is that many of the senators, congressmen and "opinion formers" who don't read Arabic but receive Memri's emails may get the idea that these extreme examples are not only truly representative but also reflect the policies of Arab governments.

Memri's Col Carmon seems eager to encourage them in that belief. In Washington last April, in testimony to the House committee on international relations, he portrayed the Arab media as part of a wide-scale system of government-sponsored indoctrination.

"The controlled media of the Arab governments conveys hatred of the west, and in particular, of the United States," he said. "Prior to September 11, one could frequently find articles which openly supported, or even called for, terrorist attacks against the United States ...

"The United States is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, President Bush to Hitler, Guantanamo to Auschwitz," he said.

In the case of the al-Jazeera satellite channel, he added, "the overwhelming majority of guests and callers are typically anti-American and anti-semitic".

Unfortunately, it is on the basis of such sweeping generalisations that much of American foreign policy is built these days.

As far as relations between the west and the Arab world are concerned, language is a barrier that perpetuates ignorance and can easily foster misunderstanding.

All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit that barrier for their own ends and start changing western perceptions of Arabs for the worse.

It is not difficult to see what Arabs might do to counter that. A group of Arab media companies could get together and publish translations of articles that more accurately reflect the content of their newspapers.

It would certainly not be beyond their means. But, as usual, they may prefer to sit back and grumble about the machinations of Israeli intelligence veterans.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

Foreign Policy in Focus: Seven Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq

<http://www.fpif.org/>http://www.fpif.org/

August 21, 2002

Seven Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq By Stephen Zunes

The United States appears to be barging ahead with plans to engage in a large-scale military operation against Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the international community, however, serious questions are being raised regarding its legality, its justification, its political implications, and the costs of the war itself.

Although there have been some questions raised recently about the scale and logistics of such a military operation, there has been surprisingly little dissent from leading policymakers, including congressional Democrats. This raises serious concerns, given that an invasion of Iraq constitutes such a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy and involves enormous political and military risks. It appears that war is inevitable unless there is a groundswell of popular opposition. This policy report attempts to encourage popular debate by raising a number of concerns that challenge some of the key rationales and assumptions behind such a military action.

(Stephen Zunes <stephen@coho.org> is Middle East editor of Foreign Policy in Focus <www.fpif.org>)

See new FPIF Paper online at <http://www.fpif.org/papers/iraq2.html>h...g/papers/iraq2.html

Survey: Europeans Say U.S. Partly to Blame for 9/11
 
September 03, 2002 06:06 PM ET
 
By Kate Kelland

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?...rch&StoryID=1405194

LONDON (Reuters) - Most Europeans believe America itself is partly to blame for the devastating attacks on New York and Washington last September 11.

According to a new poll, which questioned more than 9,000 Europeans and Americans about how they look at the world one year after the attacks, 55 percent of Europeans think U.S. foreign policy contributed to the tragic events.

The highest percentage of those who thought Washington should blame itself for the attacks was in France, at 63 percent, while the lowest was in Italy, at 51 percent.

Now, however, a large majority of Europeans -- 59 percent -- think America's overseas conduct since the attacks which killed some 3,000 people is aimed mostly at protecting itself, rather than enforcing its own will around the globe.

The survey also found that while Europeans are more critical than Americans of President Bush's handling of foreign policy, the two continents' views on the wider world as a whole are quite close.

"Despite reports of a rift between U.S. and European governments, our survey finds more similarities than differences in how the American and European publics view the larger world," said Craig Kennedy, president of German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), which undertook the survey in conjunction with the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR).

The findings showed that on Iraq, where the Bush administration has made repeated calls for "regime change" and is arguing its case for a military strike against President Saddam Hussein, both Europeans and Americans support a U.S.-led invasion -- but only with international approval and support.

Only 20 percent of Americans think the U.S. should go it alone, while 65 percent of Americans and 60 percent of Europeans favor intervention with U.N. approval and allies' support.

"When presented with various scenarios for a U.S. attack on Iraq, Europeans' support for their country's participation is most heavily influenced by the presence or absence of a U.N. mandate," said the survey, which was released in Europe on Wednesday.

AMERICANS BEGIN TO LOOK OUTWARDS

Interest in international news, which had been declining steadily in the United States to near record lows in the 1990s, has now jumped to its highest levels ever recorded since the CCFR began surveying foreign policy attitudes in 1974.

Sixty-two percent of Americans say they are "very interested" in news about U.S. relations with other countries, the same percentage as those interested in national news.

International terrorism tops the list of threats identified both by Europe -- where people in France, Germany, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland were questioned -- and the United States.

The threat of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction comes next, with 86 percent of Americans and 58 percent of Europeans naming that as of great concern.

In the U.S, 67 percent those surveyed named military conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors as a threat, while Islamic fundamentalism was listed by 61 percent.

Looking at the balance of power between the two continents, the survey found Europeans ready and willing to take on a more prominent role, eager to match America's status as a superpower.

"When asked if the United States should remain the only superpower or the EU should become a military and economic superpower like the United States, 65 percent of European respondents opt for the latter," the survey said.

Highest support for this idea was among the French at 91 percent and the Italians at 76 percent, and a majority of those who supported it also said they would back increased defense spending by their own governments if it were needed to get to superpower status.

"Of those desiring the European Union to become a superpower, nine out of 10 indicate they support this as a way for Europe to better cooperate with the United States, not compete with it," the survey said.

UN Inspector Hits At 'Wrecker" Bush US stops Iraq arms hunt

By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

The UN's chief weapons inspector yesterday slammed George Bush and Tony Blair for talking up the prospect of war with Iraq.

Hans Blix made clear he was not willing to accept US and British claims over Saddam Hussein's terror arsenal until he had seen it for himself.

And Mr Blix also attacked Mr Bush's threat of action, admitting it was wrecking the prospect of a breakthrough on weapons inspections.

The outburst is the latest sign that international opposition is snowballing, making prospects of a fresh blitz on Baghdad increasingly unlikely.

Mr Blix said: "If the Iraqis conclude that an invasion is inevitable, then they may conclude it is not very meaningful to have inspections."

Asked whether he believed claims that Saddam had chemical, biological and possibly nuclear capabilities, the UN supremo added: "I am not assuming the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. This is why an inspection is so important."

He continued: "I am sure the Iraqis are worried about the US attitude. We think it would be natural for them to accept the inspection because they claim, in a very determined way, there is nothing left, they have done away with all weapons of mass destruction. Why should they fear us coming?"

Iraq asked the UN on Friday for further technical talks in Baghdad before letting inspectors back into the country. But, so far, there has been no formal UN response.

But Mr Blix said: "If inspectors are allowed in and given unfettered access with no delays, I think this might play an important role and we'd be eager to do that and help towards a non-belligerent solution."

Yesterday, senior Labour peer Lord Ivor Richard said: "If the Prime Minister and President Bush have got information that we are not privy to, they have got to tell us a bit about the real situation on the ground."

And Labour MP Michael Connarty said there were huge doubts among Labour MPs, adding: "People are deeply sceptical about any talk of evidence that Saddam is a threat."

RUSSIA confirmed yesterday it was set to sign a £30billion economic and trade agreement with Iraq, which could complicate US plans.

U.S., British Jets Attack Targets in South: Iraq
Fri Aug 30, 1:48 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?...ews&StoryID=1393868

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq said U.S. and British jets bombed targets in southern Iraq on Thursday and Friday, but reported no casualties.


The U.S. military said earlier that its warplanes attacked an anti-aircraft missile site in a "no-fly" zone of southern Iraq on Friday in response to repeated Iraqi attempts to shoot down American and British jets patrolling the zone.

The latest such attack, among hundreds in no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War, was carried out against a surface-to-air (SAM) missile site near An Kut some 150 miles southeast of Baghdad at about 10:30 a.m. Iraq time, the military's Central Command said.

Iraq said there had been attacks on Thursday at 11:35 p.m. and on Friday 8:10 a.m. local time 0410. "At 2335 p.m. local time yesterday, hostile planes violated our airspaces, carrying out eight sorties using air bases in Kuwait," the Iraqi military spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Iraqi News Agency (INA).

"The enemy attacked civilian and service installations in Wassit province," the spokesman said.

The spokesman added that Western coalition planes struck targets in Wassit province, located 172 km (107 miles) southeast of Baghdad, again on Thursday morning.

"Hostile planes targeted civilian and service installations in Wassit province at 0810 a.m. local time today for the second time," he said.

Iraq's ground air-defenses fired at the planes.

U.S. and British aircraft police no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq set up after the Gulf War.

Iraq does not recognize the zones. It was the eighth raid by U.S. jets against air defense targets in these areas in less than two weeks.

The exchanges have increased sharply in recent months as speculation has grown that President Bush will order the U.S. military to invade Iraq and to remove President Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia.

Baghdad denies accusations from Washington that Saddam is pressing ahead to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Gulf and Middle East, said in a release from its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, that all of the warplanes left the target area successfully and damage to the missile site was still being assessed.

IMMEDIATE USE 30 AUG2002
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PEACE COMMITTEE
CAMPAIGN FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND DISARMAMENT (CICD)
AUSTRALIAN ANTI-BASES CAMPAIGN
PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT NSW

US CONDUCTS SUBCRITICAL NUCLEAR TEST

The United States is scheduled to conduct its 3rd 'subcritical' nuclear test this year Thursday US time.(Friday Aust.). The US uses 'subcritcal' testing as a way round a nuclear test ban moratorium, and is considering conducting full scale nuclear tests. At the same time it threatens Iraq with war over the development of weapons of mass destruction.(WMD)

The US has, together with Russia, by far the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The US is obliged under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, to get rid of its nuclear arsenal, yet this test is designed to maintain and fine tune that arsenal. Iraq may or may not have a small fraction of the US WMD capability yet what is good for one is not good for the other.

Australian peace and antinuclear groups today called on the Australian government to disassociate itself from the double standard shown by the US in conducting tests to maintain its own nuclear arsenal while threatening war on Iraq over exactly the same issue.

According to Australian peace and antinuclear groups: "It is breathtakingly inconsistent for the US to ignore its own obligations to eliminate its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, while attacking Iraq for doing the same. Weapons of mass destruction need to be eliminated. If the US has any interest whatsoever in discharging its own treaty obligations, it should start by eliminating these subcritical nuclear tests - tests whose aim is to maintain and optimize a nuclear arsenal. The US is even considering doing more explosive tests to develop 'bunker busting' mini-nukes whose target is Iraq. If such a test were to be carried out by Iraq, India, Pakistan, or China, there would be an outcry. Let there be an outcry over this one. "

"The Australian government must send a clear message to the Bush administration that it needs to make real progress toward eliminating its own massive nuclear arsenal whose use would end much of human and other life planet-wide, before it attacks Iraq over its pathetic arsenal."
Contact:
John Hallam FOE-Australia, 02-9567-7533, 02-9810-2598
Irene Gale AM, Aust. Peace Committee 08-8364-2291,
Pauline Mitchell, CICD, 03-9663-3677
Denis Doherty Anti-Bases Campaign 0418-290-663, 02-9212-0800
Jacob Grech Ozpeace 0402-246-491
Natalie Stevens, PND, 0414-336-800, 9319-4296

U.S. Threats to Iraq Contested by Friend and Foe
By Alistair Lyon, Middle East Diplomatic Correspondent
Reuters August 28, 2002

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...828/ts_nm/iraq_dc_2

No sooner had Donald Rumsfeld declared that the international community would back an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq than the world begged to differ.

"When our country does make the right judgements, the right decisions, then other countries do cooperate and participate," the U.S. defense secretary said in California on Tuesday.

Speaking a day after Vice President Dick Cheney had contended that the risk of inaction on Iraq was "far greater" than the risk of action, Rumsfeld said President Bush had not yet chosen to launch an invasion, but predicted that any such decision would elicit broad international backing.

No way, chorused politicians from Beijing to Berlin.

"Whether Saddam Hussein remains or is removed from power is up to the Iraqi people," said Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, whose country was the main launchpad for the U.S.-led forces that ended Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1991.

"It has never been shown in history...that anybody removed from the outside and another person put in instead has made for the stability of the region," he told the BBC.

"What makes us so gullible as to think we know what is better for the Iraqi people than the Iraqi people themselves?"

Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said his country, a NATO member whose facilities Washington would certainly covet in the event of war, had left the Americans in no doubt about its misgivings about any U.S.-led campaign to topple Saddam.

"We have used every opportunity to tell our friends in the U.S. administration we are opposed to military action against Iraq," Ecevit told a news conference.

Turkey shares a border with Iraq and has allowed U.S. warplanes to use its airbases to patrol a "no-fly" zone over northern Iraq in place since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

EUROPEAN QUALMS

In Europe, dissenting voices rose in Germany and Britain, traditionally among America's staunchest NATO allies.

Germany's conservative opposition unexpectedly reversed course and issued a warning to the United States against launching a military strike on Iraq without a U.N. mandate.

Edmund Stoiber, conservative candidate for chancellor in the September 22 election, made the about-face on Wednesday when he endorsed anti-war warnings from Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Stoiber said Cheney's remarks about a pre-emptive strike against Iraq prompted him to issue his warning against unilateral U.S. moves. "The monopoly on the decision and action in this question lies with the United Nations,"Stoiber said.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, a leader of the pacifist Greens party, called Cheney's suggestions "highly risky and wrong."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a major revolt within his ruling Labour Party over his support for Bush's threats of action against Iraq, according to a new opinion poll.

The ICM poll published in Wednesday's Guardian newspaper showed that 52 percent of Labour supporters believed Britain did not support any military action against Iraq, which Bush has lumped into an "axis of evil" with Iran and North Korea.

China, a permanent U.N. Security Council member, said Iraq should implement U.N. resolutions, but force was not the answer. "Using force or threats of force is unhelpful in solving the Iraq issue and will increase regional instability and tensions," Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan Tang was quoted as saying in a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart Naji Sabri in Beijing.

In Tokyo, visiting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said Washington was confident it could convince skeptical allies to back military action against Iraq.

But Kyodo news agency quoted Taku Yamasaki, secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, as saying Tokyo had a duty as an ally to oppose Washington.

"If the U.S. attacks alone it will produce distrust of the United States throughout the world. As an ally, we should oppose this," Yamasaki was quoted as saying.

India, a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, said its opposition to a war on Iraq had not wavered. "There is a consistency in our policy, and it is not going to change in the next few days or weeks," a foreign ministry official said.

U.S. POLICIES DENOUNCED

In the Middle East, U.S. foes, or nations branded by Washington as sponsors of international terrorism, denounced American threats against Iraq in predictably harsher terms.

Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa Mero said his country, along with Iraq and all Arabs, would view any U.S. strike as part of "policies that seek more U.S. hegemony and to inflict harm not just on the people of Iraq but the Arab nation as a whole," Syria's state media reported.

Mero, speaking during a meeting with Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan, called for the United Nations to resume dialogue with Iraq on applying U.N. resolutions.

Ramadan said in Damascus that there was still room for a diplomatic way out, but that Baghdad had to prepare for conflict because Washington did not want a peaceful solution.

"We believe that dialogue has not totally been cut off, but it is being blocked by American pressure," he told Reuters. "We believe dialogue is the correct way to solve any problem."

Bush's administration accuses Baghdad of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions imposed after the Gulf War. Iraq says it has dismantled all such programs and wants an end to punitive U.N. sanctions.

Iraq has refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country since a U.S.-British bombing campaign in December 1998.

Neighboring Iran, a fellow-member of Bush's "axis of evil" reiterated its opposition to any U.S. attack on Iraq.

President Mohammad Khatami urged an "arrogant" Washington to drop its hostility and improve ties with Iran, saying his country would defend itself if it too came under threat.

"We hope Iraq will not be attacked, and if this occurs we hope that (America) will not try its luck by attacking other countries and realize that American public opinion will not tolerate this policy for very long," Khatami said.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

US wants to go to war in the Philippines: communist leader.
AFP. 10 August 2002.

MANILA -- The United States' wants to go to war in the Philippines, the head of the nation's communist insurgents said Saturday, following the superpower's decision to label the rebels as terrorists.

"This designation of the CPP (Communist Party of the Philippines) as terrorist is a psy-war preparation for further US military intervention and even aggression," the party's founder, Jose Maria Sison, said in a telephone interview with local ABS-CBN television.

"I suppose the US is raring to go for a war in the Philippines."

Sisin also said the designation was intended to "destroy once and for all," peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the CPP's political front, the National Democratic Front (NDF), based in Utrecht, Netherlands.

Sison, who is in self-exile in Utrecht, dubbed the United States as "the biggest terrorists in the history of the Philippines".

But he said this "intimdiation by the US and Manila government won't be effective," even if US troops helped local soldiers battle the New People's Army (NPA), the 11,500-strong guerrilla arm of the CPP.

Sison was reacting to the US government's listing of the communist insurgents as a terrorist organization in an official government gazette on Friday.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell made the recommendation, less than a week after returning from a tour of Southeast Asia, which included a stop in Manila to bolster support for the Philippine government's anti-terror campaign.

Once an organisation is on the foreign terror group list, it is unlawful for a US citizen to provide it with support or resources, financial help or weapons.

Its members are also barred from entering the United States and can be deported.

Sison did not say how the decision could affect the CPP, which maintains ties with leftist groups in western countries.

He condemned the just-ended joint US-Philippine military operations against the Abu Sayyaf Muslim group in the south of the country.

President Gloria Arroyo recently said the successes against the Abu Sayyaf had prompted her to redeploy troops away from hunting the kidnap band and towards battling communist guerrillas elsewhere in the country.

"Now they are trying to spread the war. They are going to shift to a war," from the Abu Sayyaf to the NPA, Sison said.

"I suppose the US and the puppet troops expect to score bigger victories against a nationwide force like the NPA."

He reiterated his earlier endorsement of NPA plans to topple power lines, saying "it will only demonstrate the inability of (Arroyo) to govern and the incompetence of the armed forces to guard those towers."

Despite the renewed hostility, Sison said that his side was still awaiting informal efforts to reopen peace negotiations between the government and the NDF.

The government peace panel is expected to contact the NDF soon, he said, but added that his side would not accept any terms that amount to the "capitulation," of the insurgent movement.

Vietnam Era Australian Army Chief Warns Against Strike on Iraq

Published on Friday, August 30, 2002 by Agence France Presse

The top commander of Australia's army at the height of the country's engagement in the Vietnam War warned Prime Minister John Howard against following the United States into another military quagmire in Iraq.

In a letter published in The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper Friday, retired major general Alan Stretton criticized Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer for indicating they would join a US-led bid to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without UN approval for the campaign.

"Before Mr Howard and Mr Downer rush off to support the Americans in military action in Iraq, I hope they will recall the last occasion we gave military support to the USA without United Nations approval," Stretton wrote.

"This was Vietnam, where the involvement achieved nothing except the loss of more than 500 Australians, 58,000 Americans and more than a million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians," he said.

"If our reason for sending our Defense Force to Iraq is because Iraq has broken an agreement with the United Nations, then any involvement should not be undertaken without United Nations approval," he said.

Washington has come under increasing pressure, notably from allies in Europe and the Middle East, to obtain UN approval before launching any action against Iraq over its refusal to prove it is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

The Howard government has been one of US President George W. Bush's staunchest backers on the issue.

In the government's latest comments made Thursday, Defense Minister Robert Hill made no mention of any UN role in a decision to strike Baghdad.

He said only that Australia would want to see evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or links to terror groups for itself before joining a US attack.

"If Australia was asked to contribute to a campaign, we would want the parties asking us to make out the case," he said.

"In the same way as we would expect a convincing case to be made out, we would see a responsibility to present a convincing case to the Australian people."

Stretton's letter came after several former high-ranking US generals spoke out against unilateral US military action against Iraq.

These included Norman Schwarzkopf, who led US forces in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, and retired Marine general Anthony Zinni, currently Washington's envoy on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

Copyright 2002 AFP

The war on terror could have been won

By Hasan Abu Nimah

Jordan Times 21 Aug 2002

IT HAS been almost a year since the attacks on Sept. 11 shocked the world, but the war on terror is far from over. The extent and the vicious nature of the tragedy had raised deep hopes, worldwide, that the root causes would be addressed, and valuable lessons would be learnt, but such hopes have fast dissipated.

There was no lack of support, from many countries in the world, for America's Òwar on terror,Ó and no lack of cooperation either Ñ sometimes reluctant but often willing. In the fields of intelligence, a great deal of assistance was offered and rendered in tracking down suspects and squeezing their financial resources. Yet the Americans have plainly frustrated, if not betrayed, the trust of those who had hoped the anti-terror war would be conducted on the firm basis of objectivity, a high degree of responsibility, and justice.

It is very true that it was not possible to link the September atrocities to any understandable, let alone legitimate, cause. No cause could justify using passenger planes carrying innocent civilians as rockets against other innocent civilian targets, resulting in an immense loss of life, and catastrophic destruction.

Yet, if there was total revulsion for the September attacks themselves, there was certainly a prevailing feeling in their wake that America's selective approach to international problems and the misapplication of International Law and justice needed to be examined and drastically rectified.

Even away from the impact of the attacks, and since the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union which left America the unchallenged leader of the world, concerns were already rising that the application of double standards, and the serious deviation from the right values and principles, accompanied by total reliance on the supremacy of military power, were leading to international chaos, hopelessness and despair.

Instead of taking Sept. 11 as the long awaited wake-up call, the US administration inconsiderately eliminated any possible advantage and quickly resorted to the old style of handling a major world crisis and a devastating national tragedy Ñ by imposing hegemony, pursuing short-sighted goals, and settling old scores. This is consolidating, rather than alleviating the bitterness and vast fears which many believed were behind the culture of hate and vindictiveness that produced the brutal September attacks.

Two significant blunders seriously compromised the American effort. One was US submission to Israeli pressure advocating that any Palestinian or Arab action resisting or opposing the continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands, should be put on the list of targets. The other was the frenzied calls for an attack on Iraq with the declared intention of bringing down Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime.

Both issues have been nurturing anti-American feelings in the region for a long time. They have contributed to deepening mistrust, tension and frustration. Many believed that if the Americans revised their policies toward these two pressing issues they would cover significant ground in regaining trust, and prestige; and as a result, achieve significant gains in the war against terror.

This unfortunately did not happen, in fact the exact opposite did. By unreservedly adopting the policy of a right wing racist government in Israel, the US became directly accountable for every atrocity that Israel commits on a daily basis. By branding even legitimate Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation as pure unjustified terror, as Israel maintains, the US is allowing much of the support for its justifiable war on terror, to decrease. It is true that some of the resistance methods, such as suicide bombings targeting civilians, are undeniably wrong, and even the Palestinian National Authority has described them as acts of terror. Yet the Palestinian issue Ñ the result of a struggle between two peoples, one of which is deprived of all its legitimate rights Ñ is a totally different matter and should be treated independently.

The US insists that it should change the regime in Iraq by military force, but is struggling to find a pretext, let alone a legal cover for this undertaking. In the absence of both, and despite extensive intelligence efforts to find any proof linking Iraq to Sept.11 or Al Qaeda, the remaining claims range from Iraqi defiance of UN resolutions, to stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which are a threat to regional and world security. In the eyes of most people such allegations are striking examples of a selective approach to issues and an application of double standards. Is Iraq the only country that can be accused of failing to comply with UN resolutions? Is it the only country that possesses WMD, if it does? What about Israel? While Iraq does not occupy even an inch of any of its neighbours' territory, Israel, in blatant defiance of International Law and UN resolutions, continues to occupy vast areas of Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian land and build settlements on them, and continues to violate every international rule and commit every heinous atrocity. While Iraq is only accused of stockpiling WMD, Israel is known to possess a huge nuclear arsenal and ominous leaks indicate that the Israelis would use it.

The war on terror would have been won by now had it not been messed up and wrongly entangled with unrelated issues.

Terror remains a real danger to our existence and civilisation. It should indeed be eliminated, and all efforts should be mobilised towards achieving that end. The first step though is to address injustice and accept the rule of law.

The writer is former ambassador and permanent representative of Jordan to the UN. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

Wednesday, August 21, 2002

We'll send Australians home in bags, says Iraq
By Paul McGeough in Baghdad for the Sydney Morning Herald
August 31 2002
http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/30/1030508125086.html

The level of Iraqi anger towards Australia reached a new level here yesterday, when Dr A.K. Al-Hashimi, an adviser and confidant to the regime of Saddam Hussein, warned of the hatred with which Iraqis would kill Australians or the troops of any other country that fell in with a United States attack.

"Any British or Australian fighters who come here will go home in a plastic bag or on a stretcher," he said.

"They don't understand the Muslim mentality; God help those soldiers when they face our anger."

The bitterness over Australia's preparedness to join a US war on Baghdad now seems to have destroyed any hope of getting Australia's wheat trade, worth $890 million a year, back to the secure footing of a favoured trading-partner relationship.

An emergency dash to Baghdad by the Australian Wheat Board earlier this month extracted an Iraqi agreement to resume grain deliveries. But this depended on Canberra pushing for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq-US standoff as Washington tries to assemble a combat coalition.

And soon after the board mission there was a lull in the Canberra rhetoric that initially had provoked Iraq's trade shots across Australia's bow.

But the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, this week seemed to take the rhetoric back to the same tenor that first offended Baghdad in July. He said of a renewed warning by Washington that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that it would use: "Who would suggest that it is reasonable or rational to wait until the nuclear weapons have been fully developed?"


Dr Al-Hashimi, a former Iraqi ambassador to France, was one of several advisers to Saddam and his ministers who expressed their disappointment with Australia this week.

He said: "With this attitude of going all the way with the USA, Australia should forget about the Iraqi market now and for a long time to come. This is not a threat; it is commonsense.

"As Iraqis we have the right to say: 'Hell, why should we give you business when you are working against us? Go see if you can sell your wheat to the US.' You mean that you want us to do business with you at the same time as you would slaughter us?"

Hammam al Shamaa, a senior economic adviser to the Iraqi Government, said that Iraqis had difficulty understanding the role of the Australian and British governments because of the gap between their rhetoric and public opinion on war against Iraq. "Iraq considers this stand by the Australia Government to be very strange indeed because, in the same way that we do not believe the British people are behind their Prime Minister's aggression towards us, we do not believe that the Australian people are against us.

"Our decision on Australian wheat was designed to inform Australians of a mistake by their government. They need to know that we are ready to eat barley instead of Australian wheat if Australia is the only country from which we can import wheat."

Warning that ultimately Iraq was likely to sever all relations with Australia, Dr al Shamaa said: "It would be different if Australia's position was in harmony with the rest of the world, but it is one of only four countries against us - the US, Britain, Israel and Australia. Iraq had a right to impose sanctions too, you know."

Asked about Australia's long-term trade relationship with Iraq, the economist said there was potential for a significant relationship based on more than just wheat, "but if the Australian Government persists with this aggression against us it will be doing great harm to that relationship".

Dr Qais Al-Nouri, an academic who is close to the Government, was indignant.

"I'm amazed by this. Iraq is not a threat to Australia. What is this all about? Is it a dependent attitude by Australia?

"It seems so irrational that Australia wants to escalate this crisis, even at the expense of your political and strategic interests. You need to know that it is a tragic mistake, because US policy is not acceptable to us or to most countries in the world.

"So blindly boosting US policy will not serve Australia. Do you expect that we would have any commercial relationship with a country that is hostile to us? Logic says that any trade between our countries is at risk. How can we be positive towards people who want to suffocate us?"

Saad Jawad, a professor of politics at the University of Baghdad and an adviser on foreign affairs, said Australia risked the same fate as Japan, which had been prominent among Iraq's trading partners in the past, but had been punished with the loss of most of its contracts because of what Baghdad saw as the anti-Iraqi bent of its diplomatic activity at the UN.

Western Planes Strike Air Defense Site in Iraq Third Raid Against Iraqi Targets Within a Week
Washington Post Aug 20 2002

Reuters
Tuesday, August 20, 2002; 10:16 AM

WASHINGTON -- U.S. and British fighter jets bombed an air defense command and control facility about 120 miles southeast of Baghdad around 1:40 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, the U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

Central Command said the strikes against the Al Amarah facility came "in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone" and were executed using precision-guided weapons.

It was the third Western raid against Iraqi targets within a week, following a strike against a mobile radar unit on Saturday and strikes by U.S. and British planes against targets in southern Iraq last Wednesday.

"Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defense measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft," said Central Command, which heads U.S. military operations in the Gulf.

The U.S. military cited more than 110 separate incidents of Iraqi surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery fire directed against coalition aircraft this year.

Central Command said coalition aircraft never targeted civilian populations or infrastructure.

Tuesday's raid was the 28th this year by U.S. and British warplanes in northern and southern "no-fly zones" of Iraq, set up after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shi'ite Muslims in the south from attack by Baghdad's forces.

The raids have increased in recent months amid threats from President Bush to oust President Saddam Hussein. Washington accused Baghdad of developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Iraq denied the charge.

Guardian Sat Aug 10, 2002

West's greed for oil fuels Saddam fever
Anthony Sampson analyses the roots of America's fear of the Iraqi dictator,and warns that toppling him might cause less stability and more insecurity

Iraq - Observer special
Saturday August 10 2002
The Guardian

Is the projected war against Iraq really turning into an oil war, aimed at safeguarding Western energy supplies as much as toppling a dangerous dictator and source of terrorism? Of course no one can doubt the genuine American hatred of Saddam Hussein, but recent developments in Washington suggest oil may loom larger than democracy or human rights in American calculations.

The alarmist briefing to the Pentagon by the Rand Corporation, leaked last week, talked about Saudi Arabia as 'the kernel of evil' and proposed that Washington should have a showdown with its former ally, if necessary seizing its oilfields which have been crucial to America's energy.

And the more anxious oil companies become about the stability of Saudi Arabia, the more they become interested in gaining access to Iraq, site of the world's second biggest oil reserves, which are denied to them. Vice-President Dick Cheney, who has had his own commercial interests in the Middle East, baldly described his objection to Saddam in California last week: 'He sits on top of 10 per cent of the world's oil reserves. He has enormous wealth being generated by that. And left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not too distant future he will acquire nuclear weapons.'

If Saddam were toppled, the Western oil companies led by Exxon expect to have much readier access to those oil reserves, making them less dependent on Saudi oilfields and the future of the Saudi royal family. The US President and Vice-President, both oilmen, cannot be unaware of those interests.

Of course Western policies towards Iraq have always been deeply influenced by the need for its oil, though they tried to be discreet about it. The nation of Iraq was invented in 1920, after the First World War. The allies had 'floated to victory on a sea of oil' (as the British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon put it), but they preferred to conceal their dependence on it: 'When I want oil,' said Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, 'I go to my grocer.'

But both Clemenceau and Curzon, while they talked about Arab interests and self-determination, knew that what really mattered in Iraq was the oil that was emerging in the North; and the British and French succeeded in controlling the precious oilfields at Mosul.

Iraqi oil became still more desirable after the oil crisis of 1973 which enabled the Arab producers to hold the world to ransom; and the discovery of huge new oil reserves in the South made Iraq more important as a rival to Saudi Arabia - and Saddam more exasperating as an enemy.

It is true that since the Seventies, as the shortage turned into glut, producing countries have become much more dependent on the global marketplace. Countries which hoped to develop political clout by allocating oil supplies soon found they had to compete to sell their oil wherever they could. And Western companies developed new oilfields nearer home, or in friendlier countries.

But America and continental Europe still depend on uncertain developing countries, mostly Muslim, for much of their energy, and in times of crisis the concern about oil supplies returns. Western oil interests closely influence military and diplomatic policies, and it is no accident that while American companies are competing for access to oil in Central Asia, the US is building up military bases across the region.

In this security context the prospect of a 'terror network' controlling Saudi Arabian oil, which last week's briefing to the Pentagon conjured up, presents the ultimate night mare: a puritanical Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps in other Gulf states, would be prepared to defy the marketplace, with much less need to sell their oil than corrupt monarchies or sheikhdoms. Bin Laden, himself a Saudi, made no secret of his overriding ambition to rid his country of corrupt rulers and return to its austere Islamist roots.

In this scenario Americans would be more determined to get access to oil in Iraq, and the demands to topple Saddam would be reinforced.

There are undoubtedly many different and sometimes conflicting strands behind Washington's attitudes to Iraq. Certainly the public sense of outrage about 11 September, and the fear of terrorism, remains the most potent political force behind the moves against Saddam - reinforced by Israel's dread of Iraq's weaponry.

But there are also the longer-term geopolitical arguments in the Pentagon and the State Department, with commercial pressures behind them, about the need for energy security. And these have become more urgent with the growing worries about the Saudis.

The crucial question remains: would toppling Saddam safeguard Iraq's oil for the West? After all, both previous American Presidents - Clinton and George Bush Snr - were persuaded not to overthrow Saddam, because the alternative could well be a more dangerous power vacuum. That danger remains. If Iraq were to split into three parts, as many expect, the new oil regions in the South might be become still less reliable, in a region dominated by Shia Muslims who have their own links with the Shia in Iran. And a destabilised Saudi Arabia could make a power vacuum still more dangerous.

The history of oil wars is not encouraging, and oil companies are not necessarily the best judges of national interests. The Anglo-American coup in Iran in 1953, which toppled the radical Mossadeq and brought back the Shah, enabled Western companies to regain control of Iranian oil: but the Iranian people never forgave the intervention, and took their revenge on the Shah in 1979.

The belief that invading Iraq will produce a more stable Middle East, and give the West easy access to its oil wealth, is dangerously simplistic. Westerners live in a world where most of their oil comes from Islam, and their only long-term security in energy depends on accommodating Muslims.

Anthony Sampson is the author of 'The Seven Sisters', about oil companies and the Middle East.

EDITORIAL: SECURITY FOR WHOM?

Workers World August 15, 2002
 
The plan to create a new Department of Homeland Security might be better called the Department of Big Business Security. There's more to President George W. Bush's proposal than curbs on civil rights and gutting the Bill of Rights.
 
There's another goal in the proposal that would eliminate workers' rights and break the labor unions. Union busting would be a better way to describe the Bush "security" plan.
 
While Bush is busy talking about patriotism, breaking the labor unions is a key part of his unspoken agenda.
 
Like the big business boss that he is, President Bush wants to destroy the labor unions. And the federal government is mostly unionized. Breaking the federal workers' unions would certainly weaken all of labor in both industry and in offices, not just government unions.
 
The proposed Department of Homeland Security is to become the third-largest federal department in terms of number of employees, after the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs. The Bush proposal creates the new department by combining 22 existing federal agencies with 170,000 employees.
 
So it is not so much a new department as it is putting existing federal agencies under new rules. And the new rule that the Bush administration says is so essential that it won't accept the new department without it is contained in one sentence buried on page 25 of the 35-page proposal.
 
In Section 730 the wording is vague; it says that the secretary will have "flexibility" in personnel management that shall be "contemporary" and "grounded in the public employment principles of merit and fitness."
 
This is lawyer language that is meant to obscure its real meaning. But the real meaning is clear to the Bush administration and the politicians in Congress.
 
Put in normal language, the new Secretary of Homeland Security is to be given the authority to ban union membership in the department and to refuse all civil-service rights already won by federal workers, including "whistle-blower" protections.
 
This makes the creation of the new department the biggest union-busting operation to come out of the White House since the Reagan administration launched its attack on the air traffic controllers in 1981.
 
The Federation of Government Employees and other labor organizations have been protesting loudly. The meaning must be made clear to all workers.
 
It is time to expose the new Department of Homeland Security as nothing more than another Enron-like scam by the big business operators in the White House and Congress. It's hidden, back-room agenda is to break the unions and weaken all workers' rights, including in private industry and offices throughout the country.
 
- END -
 
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-on@wwpublish.com. Unsubscribe wwnews-off@wwpublish.com. Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php )

US, UK jets attack Iraq air defences
Sep 6 12:22
AFP

About 100 US and British aircraft took part in an attack on a major Iraqi air defence installation, in the biggest single operation over the country for four years, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on Friday.

The raid on Thursday appeared to be a prelude to possible special forces operations before any US-led war on Iraq, which Washington accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction, the newspaper said.

The aim seemed to be the removal of air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months, the Telegraph reported.

Twelve warplanes dropped precision-guided bombs in the raid, but scores of other support aircraft also took part, the paper said, adding that it was the first time a target in western Iraq had been attacked during air patrols of the southern no-fly zone.

The US military said in a statement on Thursday that US and British warplanes bombed "an air defence command and control facility at a military airfield 380 kilometres west and slightly south of Baghdad" in response to "recent Iraqi hostile acts".

Meanwhile, an Iraqi military spokesman said that US and British warplanes had bombed civilian installations south-west of Baghdad, without causing any casualties.

The fighter jets flew back to their bases in Kuwait after coming under Iraqi anti-aircraft missile fire, the spokesman added.

Iraq does not recognise the air exclusion zones over its north and south which Britain and the United States have enforced since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, following failed uprisings in those regions by the country's Shiite and Kurdish minorities.

The zones are not sanctioned by any UN resolution and Iraq says almost 1,500 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the flights since 1991.

War on Terrorism Has Oily Undercurrent
by Sean Gonsalves
Published on Tuesday, September 3, 2002 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
  
While the easily led follow the morality play being acted out on television using scripted dialogue like "liberation" and "democracy," let's play a quick game of connect-the-dots and see if some kind of pattern emerges -- behind the scenes.

Even with all of the media attention on Afghanistan as we prosecute the war on terrorism, still we have only a fuzzy focus on that part of the world, and even less of a sense of our more camouflaged connections to the region.

The picture that emerges is a land teeming with wild-eyed warlords, malnourished children, abused women, mud huts and treacherous mountain terrain whose taverns and underground caves are home to minions of malevolence -- basically, a scene out of Lord of the Rings.

The Bush administration insists the war on terrorism, with Iraq as the next target, is all about fighting evil and defending innocents, and that it doesn't have anything to do with commercial interests.

Read energy industry publications and talk to industry insiders and you'll be able to mine more than a few fascinating facts that make it extremely difficult for a thinking person to believe that what's really wagging the dog is anything other than competing commercial interests.

Because business people are always on the prowl for new money-making opportunities, they tend to see untapped (profit) potential where ordinary folk see only problems. So while the media lens has most of us looking at Afghanistan as a war-torn haven of terrorists, energy companies see the country as incredibly rich in undeveloped resources.

The U.S. Department of Interior's Mineral Yearbook, the National Geographic Atlas of the World and the Statistical Abstract of the World all recognize Afghanistan and the surrounding region as an area with "large deposits of natural gas" and "huge deposits of iron ore," not to mention the significant deposits of gold, precious stones and other minerals waiting to be mined.

Back in December, The New York Times reported that "the arc of countries in Central Asia where Western oil companies work grazes Afghanistan. But the value of Afghanistan itself, if any, might be as a pipeline route."

Four years ago, UNOCAL Corp., with State Department backing, negotiated with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, connecting Turkmenistan with Pakistan.

Matthew J. Sagers of Cambridge Energy Research Associates offered The New York Times this gem: "Once we bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, we will have to cough up some projects there, and this pipeline is one of them."

The pipeline consortium is led by British Petroleum. Guess which law firm represents the consortium? Baker & Botts, the law firm of James A. Baker III, "a Bush family confidant and former secretary of state," to quote a business story by The New York Times.

Recall Secretary of State Colin Powell's December visit to Kazakhstan, which just so happens to contain 88 percent of Central Asia's oil wealth.

During that visit, Powell said he was "particularly impressed" with the money that American oil companies were investing there and that he estimated about $200 billion would flow into Kazakhstan over the next decade or so.

That same month, a subsidiary of Halliburton -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former company -- was awarded an open-ended Pentagon contract to take care of military logistics in the region, which includes everything from running a dining facility to handling fuel and generating power at the Khanabad Air Base in Uzbekistan.

Now, here's another dot: Wind is the fastest-growing energy industry in the world right now. Longtime energy industry reporter Matt Bivens dubbed America "the Persian Gulf of wind."

The Energy Department estimates that wind in the Dakotas alone could meet two-thirds of America's electricity needs and that Texas could meet the rest. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 12,000 square miles in Nevada alone could produce enough solar electricity to power the nation!

What's so attractive about wind power? Bivens points out the obvious: It's the cleanest and "the most terrorist-proof of all energy sources."

But, according to the Center for Public Integrity, the top 100 officials in the Bush White House have put the majority of their personal investments, up to $144.6 million, into the old-guard energy sector.

After meeting with Enron execs and the like, Bush's energy bill ended up including $35 billion over the next 10 years for the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, which amounts to about $125 per American taxpayer, according to Bivens. "By contrast, wind production tax credits have, to date, cost each American about 19 cents."

Connect the energy dots and it becomes obvious that the emotional, nationalistic rhetoric shrouding the war on terrorism obscures more than it reveals.

Sean Gonsalves is a columnist with the Cape Cod Times. E-mail: sgonsalves@capecodonline.com

Edited by author 09-06-2002 03:45 AM
German Leader's Warning: War Plan Is a Huge Mistake
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Original
NYT September 5, 2002

This interview is the second of a series in which national and world figures reflect on the terrorist attacks and their effect on a year of public life and policy.

HANOVER, Germany, Sept. 1 - Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, believes that the Bush administration is making a terrible mistake in planning a war against Iraq, and he is not afraid to say so.

A new war in the Middle East, he says bluntly, would put at risk all that has been gained so far in the unfinished battle against Al Qaeda.

The arguments against a war with Iraq are so strong, he said, that he would oppose one even if the Security Council approved.


After the Sept. 11 attacks, Germany offered "unconditional solidarity" and support to the United States as "a self-evident duty, as a friend," he said in an interview at his home here. Fighting Iraq, which he regards as entirely separate from fighting Al Qaeda, could shatter that unity.

"I think it would be a big mistake if this feeling of needing one another should be destroyed by excessively unilateral actions," he said.

Consultation is important, he said, "but consultation cannot mean that I get a phone call two hours in advance only to be told, `We're going in.' "

"Consultation among grown-up nations has to mean not just consultation about the how and the when, but also about the whether," he said.

Mr. Schröder is in the midst of a fierce election campaign that some say has influenced his stand, a suggestion he denied. "We will win in Germany, and then I will have to stick by this decision, and I know what that means," the chancellor, a Social Democrat, said.

His stand on Iraq is a departure for Germany, traditionally a staunch ally at moments of crisis. Many Germans feel indebted to the United States for helping shape modern Germany and are uneasy about charting an independent course on issues of such gravity.

Mr. Schröder made time in his garden to reflect on the events of Sept. 11, their impact on America's relations with its allies and the talk of war with Iraq.

Recalling Sept. 11, he praised President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell for their skill in quickly rallying an international coalition against terror. With the terrorist strikes, he said, the world understood it was facing "a privatized form of war, waged by terrorist organizations," that must be fought "using appropriate means, including military means."

Informal, sometimes smoking a cigar, Mr. Schröder emphasized Germany's close ties to the United States and its people. He and his wife, Doris, were greatly moved by the Sept. 11 attacks. His wife talks of living in America again, but Mr. Schröder has his eyes set first on the Sept. 22 election.

His stance on Iraq has appealed to those Germans who oppose war and are skeptical of Bush administration assertions that Iraq must be overthrown, not simply contained.

Senior officials in Washington are angry at his presumption that the American debate over Iraq is finished and his failure to give his closest ally the benefit of the doubt. They believe he is damaging the alliance for electoral advantage and is running against America.

But Mr. Schröder believes that his policy is prudent and coherent. He insists that the goal must be to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors unconditional access — not to go to war regardless to overthrow Mr. Hussein, as Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested.

Mr. Schröder threw up his hands. "How can you exert pressure on someone by saying to them, `Even if you accede to our demands, we will destroy you'?" he asked. "I think that was a change of strategy in the United States — whatever the explanation may be — a change that made things difficult for others, including ourselves."

Referring to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Schröder said: "The problem is that he has or seems to have committed himself so strongly that it is hard to imagine how he can climb down. And that is the real problem, that not only I have, but that all of us in Europe have."

Mr. Schröder emphasized that he had put his own job on the line when he pushed his Social Democratic and Green coalition to vote for German deployment of troops in the war against Al Qaeda, and said it was his duty to do so. Germany, he noted, has some 10,000 troops serving abroad, second only to the United States, in Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Balkans — so "no one can criticize us for lacking international solidarity."

But Iraq is different, he insists, and he said he resented finding out first from the media about the Cheney speech. Because he was prepared to call a vote of confidence on Afghanistan, he said, "it is just not good enough if I learn from the American press about a speech which clearly states, `We are going to do it, no matter what the world or our allies think.' That is no way to treat others."

Mr. Schröder said he had seen no new evidence indicating that the military danger from Iraq had increased, and so questions the administration's urgency. He says he believes "no one has a really clear idea of the political order that would follow in the Middle East" or of the effects of a war on the stability of moderate Arab states, or the cohesion of the antiterror coalition. There has been little discussion, he says, of the economic consequences, in particular the price of oil, for the rest of the world.

The war against Osama bin Laden is not finished, he said. "My concern," he said, "is that we have not even begun to achieve in Afghanistan anything that could be called nation-building."

Germany cares what resolutions the United Nations adopts, Mr. Schröder said. But the harm to the coalition, the lack of a concept for a new Middle East and the need to succeed in Afghanistan trump everything else for him. "These arguments," he said, "make me say, `Hands off' " — especially, he added, since the evidence of an increased threat from Iraq "appears to be highly dubious."

Sept. 11 made Americans more determined on the issue of terrorism, he said, but did not change the American democracy or the ability to conduct a strong debate on issues like Iraq.

Sept. 11 had an enormous impact on the Germans, too, he said. "The large demonstration in Berlin by 200,000 or 300,000 people was in fact a spontaneous expression of sympathy and solidarity. And I also experienced it much closer to home — if I may be permitted to say so — since my wife had once lived not far away, on the Upper West Side."

New York also has special meaning to the world as a place of refuge for those forced to leave their own country, Mr. Schröder said, adding: "New York is thus a symbol of asylum. This was very much the case during the Nazi period in Germany, and this gives New York a very special importance."

He knows Washington is angry with him, but he thinks officials misunderstand what real friends he and Germany remain. "What is the duty of a friend in such a situation?" he asked. "The duty of friends is not just to agree with everything, but to say, `We disagree on this point.' That is what I believe to be the duty of friends in relations between individuals, just as it is in relations between nations, if one happens to disagree. And on this point" — Iraq — "we disagree, or I disagree."

He says he did what he thought was right when he put his job on the line to send troops to Afghanistan, "and now I am again doing what I think to be right," he said. "It is something that has to be done, and one has to have the strength to do it if one holds this office."

Army recently moved weaponry and supplies to base in Kuwait to check their readiness for war
By Robert Burns, Associated Press, 9/5/2002 15:01

Original
boston.com

WASHINGTON (AP) The Army recently moved weaponry and war supplies from Qatar to a base in Kuwait near the Iraqi border to check their condition and test procedures that would be used in the event President Bush orders preparations for war, the Army's top civilian official said Thursday.

Army Secretary Thomas White said the movement to Camp Doha in Kuwait was a training exercise designed to periodically validate the condition of war materiel and practice loading and offloading it.

''We have done a lot with pre-positioned stocks in the Gulf, making sure they're accessible and that they're in the right spot to support whatever the president wants to do,'' White said in an interview with a group of reporters.

''But we've done nothing specifically against any particular scenario'' for war, he said.

President Bush, who has said he will outline his case against Saddam Hussein in a Sept. 12 speech at the United Nations, said during a rally in Louisville, Ky., that he would discuss Iraq on Friday in calls to the presidents of France and Russia and the premier of China.

''I will remind them that history has called us into action, that we love freedom, that we'll be deliberate, patient, strong in the values we adhere to. But we can't allow the world's worst leaders to blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons,'' Bush said.

As for Saddam, ''I take the threat very seriously,'' he added.

Bush emphasized how much he will consult with Congress, the American public and U.S. allies. ''But one this is for certain,'' he said. ''I'm not going to change my view and it's this: my view is we cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail America, threaten America or hurt America with the world's worst weapons.''

Iraq also was discussed in a meeting on weapons proliferation that top administration officials held with senators at the Pentagon Thursday.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet met with two dozen senators, including many members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

For several months, officials have been briefing members of Congress in such meetings and private experts and allied officials in various settings on the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

That is what Thursday's meeting was for, officials said, acknowledging that Iraq's weapons program was among subjects discussed. Rumsfeld had already met in closed-door session with about 50 senators Wednesday to update them on the war against terrorism, and a similar meeting is likely soon with House members.

White, meanwhile, said the stocks that were shifted to Kuwait in July were later moved back to their permanent position in Qatar, but a spokesman for Army Forces Central Command, Maj. Rich Steele, said in an interview that the materiel enough to equip a combat brigade of more than 3,000 soldiers remains in Kuwait. That amounts to a doubling of the war supplies now stationed at Camp Doha.

Steele said the extra supplies were needed because the Army had added two battalions roughly 2,000 soldiers to the existing force at Camp Doha over the past several months. The soldiers were added over a period of months starting last fall to discourage Iraq from thinking the United States was so preoccupied with the war in Afghanistan that it was not ready to defend Kuwait, Steele said.

The war materiel includes tanks and other armored vehicles, as well as fuel, ammunition and other supplies. The purpose of storing it in the Gulf region is to have it readily available to link up with additional soldiers who would be flown to Kuwait from Europe or the United States as reinforcements.

Army officials could not immediately say when was the last time that pre-positioned war stocks were moved to Kuwait for inspection and testing. Kuwait would be a natural jumping-off point for any U.S. land invasion of Iraq. More than 9,000 soldiers are at Camp Doha, training in the desert.

White stressed repeatedly that Bush has made no decision about war against Iraq and that it would be inappropriate for him to discuss possible scenarios or timelines for an Army buildup in the Gulf.

In an opinion piece Thursday in The Washington Post, former President Carter declared that ''a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer.'' He said there is an urgent need for United Nations action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq.

''But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies,'' wrote Carter.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Congress would vote before the Nov. 5 elections on how to deal with Saddam, ensuring that Iraq is a high-profile issue in the campaign for control of the House and Senate.

Bush will meet Saturday at Camp David with Tony Blair, the staunchest U.S. ally on Iraq. Bush said he would reach out to presidents Jacques Chirac of France, Jiang Zemin of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia all three opposed to war.

Edited by author 09-06-2002 04:05 AM
'America wants to wage war on all of us':
'Regime change' seen as new term for old enemy: colonisation.

By David Hirst. Guardian. 6 September 2002.

CAIRO -- There is no better place to take the pulse of Arab and Muslim sentiment than Cairo, hub of the two great movements which swept the region in recent times, the pan-Arab secular nationalism of which President Nasser was the champion, and the "political Islam" which came into its own with Nasserism's failure and decline.

Today, from the air-conditioned thinktanks on the banks of the Nile to the sweltering alleyways of the splendid but dilapidated mediaeval city, the preoccupation with the two things that seem most fateful for the future - the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and US plans for a possible war against Iraq - is overwhelming.

"Bin Laden may have lost a lot of his appeal," says Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist fundamentalism, "but that doesn't mean the US isn't hated. It is, more than ever, and more now from an Arab than an Islamic standpoint."

In a workshop in the City of the Dead, Muhammad Ahmad carries on the ancient, glass-blowing craft of his forefathers on a day when, even without the heat of his furnace, the temperature stands at 45C.

"What makes you think that Bin Laden really did it?" he asks, giving voice to a still widespread popular suspicion. "Bush is just using him to put us down." He adds: "The future is dark."

Indeed, it is much darker for most Arabs than it might have appeared in the immediate aftermath of that apocalyptic atrocity in New York and Washington, because, one year on, it seems clearer to them in its consequences.

It is a momentous double crisis, an external and an internal one. Long maturing, the two are inextricably intertwined. Osama bin Laden brought both to a head.

As they see it, the US's post-September 11 "war on terror" now boils down to an assault on themselves.

For in the Bush universe of good versus evil, it is essentially they, with Iran thrown in, who are the evil ones. In the collision to come, the Arabs risk further blows to all those ideals and aspirations - independence, dignity, the unity and collective purpose of the greater Arab "nation" - which, after centuries of foreign conquest and control, the pan-Arabism of Nasser so triumphantly, if defectively, embodied.

Internally they are ill-equipped to meet the external challenge, racked as they are by all manner of social, economic, cultural and institutional sicknesses. These, the US says, are the very conditions which threw up Bin Ladenism.

Few Arab opinion-makers would dispute it, or doubt their societies' desperate need of root-and-branch reform, ushering in democracy, human rights, accountability. There is no more compelling measure of that than the UN's newly released Arab human development report.

It describes a region which has fallen behind all others, including sub-Saharan Africa, in most of the main indices of progress and development; whose 280 million inhabitants, despite vast oil wealth, have a lower GNP than Spain; whose annual translation of foreign books is one-fifth of Greece.'

A prime cause of this backwardness, say the report's Arab authors, is that the peoples of the region are the world's least free, with the lowest levels of popular participation in government.

"Those who wonder why Afghanistan became a lure for some young Arabs and Muslims," wrote Jordanian columnist Yasser Abu-Hilala, "need only read this report, which explains the phenomenon of alienation in our societies and shows how those who feel they have no stake in them can turn to violence."

Yet most Arab regimes have ignored this damning verdict. "The fact is," says Nader Fergany, the report's Egyptian lead author, "that governments that were repressive in the first place have in the past year become more so. They have not learned the lesson of September 11 - but neither has the US."

In what measure are foreigners, or Arabs themselves, responsible for their condition? Bin Laden has greatly sharpened that perennial Arab debate.

The west's sins are deemed to have begun with the European carve-up of the region after the first world war and the creation of Israel; these betrayals and humiliations continued with US-led support of repressive, corrupt or reactionary regimes enlisted as bulwarks against communism or accomplices in the quest for an impossible, because unjust, settlement of the Palestinian conflict.

"For us," says Muhammad Said, a columnist at Egypt's leading newspaper, al-Ahram, "the west always preferred control to democracy. Now 90% of the problem flows from the Arab-Israel conflict, that continuous reminder of our colonised past."

Never before, in Arab eyes, has the US acted so blatantly in favour of its Israeli protege, and for domestic reasons - the triple alliance of Jewish lobby, neo-conservative ideologues and the Christian fundamentalist right - which take little or no stock of rights or wrongs on the ground.

For Makram Muhammad Ahmad, editor of al-Musawar newspaper and confidant of President Mubarak, this amounts to a sickness liable to be at least as catastrophic as the Arabs' own.

"It's terrible that a weak and ignorant man like Bush can be used this way - you might expect it from third world countries, but from the world's only superpower!"

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Arabs say, the US did - with its talk of a Palestinian state - seem to have learned something; it began to distance itself from those cumulative policies of which Bin Ladenism was the ultimate, evil fruit.

"Palestine is not only crucial in itself," says Muhammad Sid-Ahmad, another al-Ahram commentator, "it is symbolic of US intentions everywhere."

"Through Palestine, you can now see that the US just doesn't care to look for root causes anywhere. It has adopted the Israeli definition of terror, and that shapes its policies for the whole region."

These policies are now so detested that they have raised the potential threat to US interests to unprecedented levels.

To retain its Middle East dominance it has to invest resources commensurate with the threat. It can no longer rely on friendly proxies, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, for they themselves will be undermined by their connivance with it, nor on the mere "containment" of enemies such as Saddam Hussein.

So the Arab world, says Said, now risks being "subjected to direct or indirect colonialism." And the very "backwardness of the Arab order makes the pursuit of such imperial designs possible."

For Arab societies are seen as "incapable of modernising on their own, thus providing a natural gateway to colonisation."

Such neo-colonialism involves "regime change" by force for those the US deems beyond the pale, and the imposition of reforms, from the school curriculum to their position on Palestine, on those who remain within it.

Of the two explicit candidates for regime change, Iraq now has priority over the Palestinians. Indeed Iraq has emerged as the key arena where the battle between good and evil will be joined.

The idea, says Said, is to "terminate" the Palestinian question by war at the expense of the Arabs as a national group.

With the overthrow of President Saddam, the US hopes to make this richly endowed country the linchpin of a whole new pro-American geopolitical order.

Witnessing such a demonstration of US will and power other regimes would have to bend to US purposes or suffer the same fate, be they such traditional, "terrorist-sponsoring" opponents as Syria, or traditional friends, such as Saudi Arabia, held to spawn terrorism through their misrule or a general "culture" of religious extremism.

For individual Gulf states that do not submit, says Said, "There will be nothing to stop regimes from being changed or political successions being manipulated in the way the English used to do in the 19th century."

There is a wall of almost universal Arab hostility to a US assault on Iraq. But there is also a single, very telling breach in it. However fractious, opportunist or incompetent some, at least, of the exiled US-backed Iraqi opposition may be, they cannot be dismissed as unrepresentative of the Iraqi people, who - unlike other Arabs - suffer directly beneath President Saddam's monstrous tyranny.

It is an embarrassing moral dilemma.

The US hawks have tried in vain to establish President Saddam's complicity with Bin Laden and 9/11. But that failure cannot disguise another, much deeper affinity between the two: for after Bin Laden what more disastrous personification of the internal Arab sickness that all right-thinking Arabs yearn to cure than the Iraqi dictator, what country in more dire need of democratic reform than Iraq?

Egyptian analyst Wahid Abdul-Meguid laments that Arab objections to a US assault "amount to solidarity with Saddam against his own people." If it were just the Arab regimes it would not be so bad, but the truth is that the objections also come from Arabs who oppose their own, albeit less brutally despotic regimes, for essentially the same reasons as the Iraqis do theirs.

If Arabs really believed that, in removing President Saddam, the US were bent on promoting a democratic order in his place, they would be readier to join the Iraqi opposition in tolerating such a war at least.

But they don't. They point out that even if the expected campaign does, in principle, incorporate some reformist good intentions, so did those earlier western subjugations of the region from whose consequences they suffer till today.

They will see it, primarily, as an act of aggression aimed not just at Iraq, but at the whole Arab world; and what will make it supremely intolerable is that it will be done on behalf of, Israel, whose acquisition of a large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction seems to be as permissible as theirs is an abomination.

Their fear is not only that Israel will become - with the possible exception of Britain - the only other country to join a US onslaught, but that Ariel Sharon will exploit it to kill two birds with one stone.

He will combine the completion of the Israeli "war on terror" with another great breakthrough in Zionism's still unfinished grand design, another mass expulsion of Palestinians of which much of the Israeli right has long dreamed.

Destroying President Saddam, like destroying the Taliban, could be one thing, though not nearly so simple; managing what comes after could be another. For most Arabs, the overall conditions, largely of Washington's own, now unprecedentedly partisan pro-Israeli making, in which the US embarks on such an enterprise would seem to all but guarantee its failure - and a consequent success for Bin Laden.

After all, he was always something more than just the crazed, archaic Islamist visionary; Iraq, Palestine - and US conduct towards them - always ranked high on his anti-colonial, political and nationalist agenda.

That is why, says the Palestinian commentator Abdul Jabbar Adwan, he now "owes an enormous debt of gratitude" to Mr Bush for the "political services" he has rendered him since 9/11; far outstripping any commercial ones in the days when "the Bushes and the bin Ladens" did oil business together.

The price of failure, in so strategic, complex and volatile a region, would make the post-war falterings in Afghanistan pale into insignificance, exacerbating both the Arabs' internal crisis and its external consequences. The Arabs probably would not be the only ones to pay the price.

"The US may be preparing a big surprise for the region," warns Lebanese commentator Saad Mehio, "but the Middle East may be preparing an equally big one for the Americans. At any rate, no one should forget that it has been the most renowned source of surprises through the ages."

Edited by author 09-06-2002 04:51 AM
REPORT FROM IRAQ: U.S. DROPS BOMBS EVERY DAY

By Brian Becker, Mosul, Iraq

[Workers World newspaper September 12, 2002]



A trip through Iraq in blistering late-August heat makes it crystal clear that the Bush administration is already waging a "pre-war" war that includes bombings almost on a daily basis.

Designed to degrade Iraq's potential for air defense and to monitor its military response to air assaults, these bombings are taking a toll. People are getting killed and wounded regularly, but you would never know it if your source of information is the Western mass media.

This writer went to Iraq on Aug. 25 as part of a fact-finding anti-war delegation led by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. The delegation flew into Iraq's "no-fly zones" in the north and south of the country for five days. In those five days, the U.S. bombed Iraq on five separate occasions.

True to form, the U.S. media said almost nothing about these daily bombings. Each day after we returned from the site of the latest bombing we would check the web sites of the Western media. Nary a peep about the lawless aggression waged from the skies by U.S. warplanes. Instead, the U.S. media focused its coverage on "why Saddam Hussein is such a great threat to world peace."

BOMBS DROP EVERY DAY

On Aug. 25, U.S. planes bombed Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq. Eight people died on the spot and 10 more were wounded. When we arrived in Basra on Aug. 27, we learned that one of the seriously injured had also died from his wounds.

When the U.S. press does mention the regular bombings of Iraq, it usually buries the information in a small article far from the front page. The Pentagon is almost always quoted, explaining that the attacks were in self-defense. They say it was against military targets and against Iraqi radar, which was flipped on to trace U.S. and British warplanes overflying Iraq's airspace in two large areas in both northern and southern Iraq.

But civilians as well as soldiers are being hit.

"We heard a terrible explosion Sunday morning here in the hotel," a worker at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Basra told us. "It was close by and we could hear it and feel it. Thousands of civilians live in this area, so naturally many of the casualties were civilians."

The decision to create the "no-fly zones" was not authorized by the United Nations. Rather it was the decision of the major imperialist countries-the United States, Britain and France-to refuse to allow Iraq to fly its own aircraft in the areas of the countries where almost all of its oil is located. But of course the imperialists could fly their planes in the zones. These zones were created in 1992. France later changed its policy toward Iraq and withdrew its warplanes in the mid-1990s.

While the delegation was visiting one of the wounded at the Training Hospital in Basra, U.S. warplanes struck again-attacking Mosul in the north and Al-Nukhayb, south of Baghdad.

The delegation managed to fly into Mosul about 36 hours after the strike. Mosul is a beautiful and historic city in the far north of Iraq. It borders the predominantly Kurdish area and is located inside the no-fly zone.

The civilian airport had been without radar since the 1991 Gulf War. It had been largely non-functional until recently, when the government decided to defy the no-fly zone and resume daily flights into the city from Baghdad. The assumption was that U.S. aircraft would not shoot down civilian airliners.

U.S. warplanes have not yet shot down any passenger planes, but on Aug. 27 two powerful missiles took out the airport's radar that guides the civilian airliners in their takeoff and landing and as they travel through the surrounding air space.

The delegation went through the wreckage of the totally destroyed radar, which lay in crumpled ruins not far from the runway. The radar was very old, made up of balkanized parts from earlier rudimentary radar systems. Clearly, it was not a sophisticated military-type radar.

The civilian terminal was about 200 yards from where the missiles hit. The force of the explosion shattered the windows along the waiting rooms.

RIGHT TO AIR SAFETY

Barred from most trade and commerce for 12 years, Iraq has had to submit potential contracts for equipment to a UN sanctions committee. Iraq has had a pending request before the sanctions committee to import a modern radar for Mosul airport, but so far the U.S. has blocked the application. Iraqi technicians cobbled the old radar pieces together and installed this electronic relic on June 4. Now that U.S. missiles have taken out the radar, Iraqi civilian passengers must fly blind into Mosul-an area that has more bad weather than most parts of the country.

As we walked through the snarled rolls of metal in the airport, it was hard not to ponder what the effect would be if the shoe was on the other foot. What would be the emotional and psychological impact on the people in the United States if the radar they depended on for air safety were destroyed without provocation and without warning by fighter planes from a foreign power?

Asking the question, of course, answers it. But the Bush administration is hoping that the demonization and racist images of Iraq will successfully prevent people from asking this question.

Since December 1998, the U.S. has bombed Iraq regularly without mass protest. The U.S. pulled UN weapons inspectors out of the country on Dec. 16, 1998, and began a four-day campaign that included the launching of 400 cruise missiles and dropping of 600 precision bombs on Iraq.

Iraq claims that more than 1,500 people have been killed by U.S. bombs since the Gulf War ended.

As the Bush administration prepares for a massive invasion and bombing campaign under the doctrine of preemptive war, it is clear to the people everywhere that these are just fancy words for aggression.

Ramsey Clark's visit to Iraq included an explicit anti-war message. The mass media around the world gave coverage to the trip, and there was limited coverage in the U.S. Clark appeared live on three consecutive CNN segments on Aug. 29, where he was accused by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer of being "used by Saddam Hussein."

Clark ridiculed the accusation, replying: "You can still say what you believe, you can still stand for what is right. If you don't do that, who are you, what do you stand for, and what's going to happen to the world?"

In his interviews in the media, Clark insisted that the decisive factor in stopping the war was the mobilization of opposition inside the United States. "We can stop the Bush administration but we must act now. People everywhere must mobilize for the Oct. 26 March on Washington. We cannot let the government speak in our name and carry out this war that aims to dominate the people of the Middle East and the natural resources of this region."

[Brian Becker is a co-director of the International Action Center. He was a member of a U.S. anti-war delegation that traveled throughout Iraq from August 25 to 30. The delegation also included Ramsey Clark, Johnnie Stevens, co-director of the Peoples Video Network, and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, attorney and co-founder of the D.C.-based public-interest law firm, Partnership for Civil Justice.]

- END -

(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-on@wwpublish.com. Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)

UNWire

September 6, 2002

IRAQ: Satellite Photographs Indicate Nuclear Site Construction, U.N. Says

Examining satellite photographs, weapons inspectors have identified several nuclear-related sites in Iraq that have undergone new construction or other unexplained changes since they were last visited by international inspectors nearly four years ago, a U.N. official said today.

A team of about 15 experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency detected the new structures and other changes in photographs taken by a commercial satellite, said Jacques Baute, a French physicist who heads the team. The photographs were compared to pictures and information gathered during the last inspections in Iraq.

"We are very curious to see what is under the roof," Baute said, referring to the new structures. "There are some activities that could be part of prohibited activities, but we have nothing now that allows us to draw a conclusion."

U.N. inspectors are ready to travel to Iraq and begin inspections within weeks if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein were to give permission, said IAEA officials and a separate inspection team for chemical and biological weapons. It would take a year to complete inspections if Iraq were to cooperate fully, they said. Such a timetable is slower than what U.S. officials have previously supported, U.N. officials said (Julia Preston, New York Times, Sept. 6).

Edited by author 09-07-2002 09:43 PM
At last!

Howard urges Bush to hold fire
By Fia Cumming and agencies
September 8 2002
The Sun-Herald

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday joined world leaders in urging US President George Bush not to rush into a war against Iraq, proposing UN action instead.

In what appeared a major change of heart on the issue, Mr Howard told Mr Bush by phone that he hoped the dispute over Iraq's weapons stockpile could be resolved without military action.

But if action was needed, it should be initiated by the UN in a multilateral force rather than a US-led first strike.

Mr Bush phoned Mr Howard early yesterday to discuss the situation in Iraq and gauge Australia's current thinking.

But Mr Howard, who had previously appeared to support a first strike, stressed that it would be better for the UN to take action.

Mr Howard assured the US President that Australia shared America's concerns about Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions ordering it to allow weapons inspections.

He said if Iraq had nothing to hide, it would have no problem in allowing the inspections. But Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's refusal placed an obligation on the UN to do something, he said.

"I repeated our view about the involvement of the UN in the discussion I had with the President this morning," Mr Howard said.

"I think it's important to make the point that the UN has obligations [and] the broader world community has obligations in relation to this issue. It is not right, it is not appropriate for all of the responsibility and for all of the obligations to be seen to fall upon theUS."

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed serious doubts about Mr Bush's political and legal arguments for striking at Iraq, and France's Jacques Chirac said military action must have UN approval.

Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of Mr Bush's staunchest allies, is expected to put a counter-plan to a first strike when the two leaders meet at the Camp David presidential retreat today. He will urge MrBush to deploy tens of thousands of troops on Iraq's borders, ready to help UN inspectors force their way into suspected weapons sites.

London sources said they believed that only UN backing for "coercive inspections" would convince Washington hawks to build an international coalition rather than go it alone against Iraq.

Mr Howard said that contrary to expectations Mr Bush had not made up his mind to attack Iraq and was not seeking a war.

"When I spoke to the President earlier today, I was speaking to a man who shares the same abhorrence and distaste of military conflict as all of us do," he said.

"Anybody who imagines otherwise does not understand the man, does not understand his motivations."

Mr Howard revealed details of his conversation with Mr Bush when he rose to address the Queensland Liberal Party convention in Brisbane.

He said Australia's Ambassador to Washington Michael Thawley had already told US officials that Australia believed the UN should be involved in resolving the dispute with Iraq. But a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said Mr Howard and Mr Bush were now in accord that it was desirable for the UN to become involved.

Mr Bush is also facing resistance from Congress after congressional leaders stated on Friday that the evidence against Iraq, presented in confidential briefings, did not demonstrate an immediate threat.

They spoke shortly before a special joint session of Congress in New York to mark the anniversary of September11.

Without support for a first strike, Mr Bush has begun lobbying for international support for UN action. A White House spokesman said Mr Bush had told the leaders he spoke to that he had not decided the best way to remove the threat posed by Saddam.

The spokesman said the calls were the beginning of a process of persuading the world's other powerful nations that Iraq had to be dealt with.

The issue will be the focus of a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York, where Mr Bush will outline his case on Thursday.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer will expand on Australia's views the following day.

Just two months ago, Mr Downer came under fire from the Opposition for implying that a war with Iraq was inevitable and that Australia was likely to contribute to it.

But the Government now wants the UN to make another attempt to persuade Saddam to allow inspection of his weapons stockpiles.

If he refuses, this could be used as justification for direct action.

Opinion polls in Australia, the UK and the US have shown little support for making the first strike against Iraq.

Meanwhile, unprecedented security measures are being taken around the world as the anniversary of the September 11 attacks draws near.

Prosecutors and police in Europe feared that Al Qaeda, the group blamed for the strikes on New York and Washington, might strike again, the BBC reported.

Authorities in Germany, Italy and France said that, while operations carried out since September 11 might have damaged Al Qaeda's infrastructure in Europe, individuals could still be capable of launching suicide attacks.

Saudi Arabian authorities have found one of Osama bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, according to US officials who said on Friday they have frozen the assets of the alleged Al Qaeda financier.

US officials would not disclose the whereabouts of Wa'el Hamza Julaidan, a man whom they say fought alongside bin Laden long before he established Al Qaeda and who has been a key lieutenant ever since.

They confirmed Julaidan was in custody in Saudi Arabia, under house arrest or being closely monitored and prohibited from leaving the country while US and Saudi authorities continue to investigate him.

Text of Bush-Blair News Conference
Sat Sep 7, 5:29 PM ET
By The Associated Press

Text of President Bush news conference at Camp David on Saturday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

BUSH: Spending a good three hours talking to our friend about how to keep the peace. This world faces some serious threat and threats, and we're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about how to promote freedom around the world. We're going to talk about our shared values of--recognizes the worth of every individual.

And I'm looking forward to this time. It was awfully thoughtful of Tony to come over here. It's an important meeting, because he's an important ally, an important friend.

Welcome.

BLAIR: Thanks.

I'm looking very much forward, obviously, to discussing the issues that are preoccupying us at the moment with the president. And I thank him for his kind invitation to come here, and his welcome.

The point that I would emphasize to you, is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability--that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites to realize that.

And the policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to. So the purpose of our discussion today is to work out the right strategy for dealing with this. Because deal with it we must.

BUSH: AP lady?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: We just heard the prime minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied--finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic--the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.

BLAIR: Absolutely right. And what we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability. But we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability. And the importance of this morning's report, is that it yet again shows that there is a real issue that has to be tackled here.

And I mean, I was just reading coming over here the catalog of attempts by Iraq to conceal its weapons of mass destruction, not to tell the truth about it over--not just over a period of months, but over a period of years.

BLAIR: Now, that's why the issue is important.

And, of course, it's an issue not just for America, not just for Britain, it's an issue for the whole of the international community. But it is an issue we have to deal with. And that's why I say to you that the policy of inaction, doing nothing about it, is not something we can responsibly adhere to.

BUSH: Want to call on somebody?

You don't have to if you don't want to.

(LAUGHTER)

BLAIR: Yes?

QUESTION: Mr. Prime Minister--will you Mr. President, seek a U.N. resolution prior to any action against Iraq?

And for the prime minister, would you sanction any action against Iraq before--without a U.N. resolution?

BUSH: Well, first, I'm going to give a speech next Thursday. And I'd like you to tune in.

BLAIR: As I said to you I think at the press conference we gave earlier in the week, this is an issue for the whole of the international community. But the U.N.'s got to be the way of dealing with this issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it.

Now, of course, as we showed before in relation to Afghanistan, we want the broadest possible international support. But it's got to be on the basis of actually making sure that the threat that we've outlined is properly adhered to.

Because the point that I would emphasize to you is, it's not us, it's not Britain nor America that's in breach of United Nations resolutions. It's Saddam Hussein and Iraq. And therefore, this issue is there for the international community to deal with. And we've got to make sure that it is a way of dealing with it.

BUSH: Patsy (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. President?

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: What is your actual target in Iraq? Is it weapons of mass destruction or Saddam Hussein?

And if the prime minister could answer too.

BUSH: Well, as you know, our government in 1998--action that my administration has embraced--decided that this regime was not going to honor its commitments to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration supported regime change. Many members of the current United States Senate supported regime change. My administration still supports regime change.

BUSH: There's all kinds of ways to change regimes.

This man is a man who said he was going to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, and for 11 long years he has not fulfilled his promise. And we're going to talk about what to do about it.

We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem. And that's what this discussions are all about.

Final question. Call on somebody.

BLAIR: (inaudible)

BUSH: Yes?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Do you have any support from any other countries in the world apart from Britain?

BUSH: Yes. A lot of people understand that this man has defied every U.N. resolution--sixteen U.S. (sic) resolutions he's ignored. A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction. A lot of people understand he has invaded two countries. A lot of people understand he's gassed his own people. A lot of people understand he is unstable.

So we've got a lot of support. A lot of people understand the danger.

BLAIR: And I can tell you from the discussions I've had with people, of course, there are people asking perfectly reasonable questions about this. But the one thing that no one can deny is that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction--that is chemical, biological, nuclear weapons--that that poses a threat, not just to the region, because there is no way, if those weapons were used, that the threat would simply stay in the region. People understand that.

And we've got to make sure that we work out a way forward, that, of course, mobilizes the maximum support, but does so on the basis of removing a threat that the United Nations itself has determined is a threat to the whole of the world.

BUSH: Thank you all for coming. I appreciate you. Thanks.

Pardon me?

QUESTION: Can you take one on 9/11?

BUSH: Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Let me ask you, sir, when you asked the American people for support...

BUSH: The only reason why: He's a fine fella.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: When you asked the American people for support two years ago, there was no way, sir, anyone could imagined the grim nature of the job you would take on. Had you known then what the job would entail, would you still have asked for it, sir, and would you have had any compunction...

BUSH: There's no way that I could have possibly known what we're going to have to deal with. I'm a citizen of a country that has had these two vast oceans protecting us for all of these years. You know, we were safe. People couldn't come and attack us, so we thought. Of course, Hawaii got attacked, but that's not a part of our mainland.

We felt secure here in the country. There is no way we could have possibly envisioned that the battlefield would change.

And it has, and that's why we've got to deal with all of the threats. That's why Americans must understand that when a tyrant like Saddam Hussein posses weapons of mass destruction, it not only threatens the neighborhood in which he lives, it not only threatens the region, it can threaten the United States of America or Great Britain for that matter.

The battlefield has changed. We are in a new kind of war. And we've got to recognize that. There's no way I could have possibly predicted that future.

I'm honored to be the president. And so long as I am the president, I'm going to work hard to make America safe and the world more peaceful.

Thank you all.

ABC News Online

Monday, September 9, 2002. Posted: 06:44:17 (AEDT)

Inspections or war, former inspector tells Iraq

A former UN weapons inspector has told Iraqis the US Government cannot substantiate its allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.

However, he says this would be unlikely to stop US forces from attacking the country.

"The only way to avoid war is to allow the UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq," Scott Ritter said.

He says he does not believe Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Ritter admits inspecting teams have in the past been used to collect information about the national security of Iraq, and its leadership, to pave the way for the return of its inspectors now.

He suggests relying on what he calls an honest independent broker.

"My country seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake, one that will forever change the political dynamic which has governed the world since the end of the second world war," Mr Ritter said.

"Namely, the foundation of international law as set forth in the UN Charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems between nations.

"My Government has set forth on a policy of unilateral intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the UN Charter."

Several times during Mr Ritter's speech, ripples went through the audience, but he asked Iraqis to help the Americans overcome their ignorance and fear of Iraq.

Meanwhile, senior figures in the US Government have released more specific information about Iraq's alleged attempts to build nuclear weapons.

US Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell have both spoken of attempts by Saddam Hussein to obtain special aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium, a process required for the production of nuclear weapons.

Mr Cheney says the US intercepted one shipment, but says his Government does not know what else Saddam Hussein may already have acquired for his nuclear program.

"What we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium," he said.

Mr Cheney has also said that events over the next few weeks would decide whether military action is taken against Iraq.

A Bright September Morning
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Essay

September 11, 2002

An excerpt ...

The war in Afghanistan has left more innocents dead than the attacks upon New York and Washington combined. That body count has become so extreme that the rank and file in Afghanistan, once grateful for the destruction of the Taliban, has begun to turn upon us in fury. The Taliban regime was shattered, and al Qaeda was scattered, but Osama bin Laden and the henchmen who aided him are still at large. In seven months, between September 2001 and March 2002, bin Laden went from Public Enemy No. 1 to a man of such paltry significance that the Bush administration almost completely refused to speak of him in public. The mastermind remains alive and free while hundreds of Afghans rot in detention centers, uncharged and without trial.

Edited by author 09-08-2002 10:03 PM
What Americans have learnt - and not learnt - since 9/11

The Age, September 7, 2002

Endless war poses a far greater danger to the United States than perceived enemies do, writes Noam Chomsky.


September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the United States Government does in the world and how it is perceived.

Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That is all to the good.

It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting for Americans to pretend that their enemies "hate our freedoms", as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.

The President is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?"

In a staff discussion 44 years ago, president Dwight Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us (in the Arab world), not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic argument: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.

Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, Western-oriented sectors in the region.

To cite just one recent example, in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that, in Pakistan, "there is growing anger that US support is allowing (Musharraf's) military regime to delay the promise of democracy".

Today, Americans do themselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they, too, aspire.

For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.

We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.

In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states', in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower . . . the single greatest external threat to their societies."

Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that on September 11, for the first time, a Western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of Western power. The attack goes far beyond what is sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA or Red Brigade.

The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.

An international Gallup Poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2 per cent in Mexico to 16 per cent in Panama.

The present "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by US policies towards Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.

One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tension would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).

In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.

Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush No. 1 was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after the Iraqi leader had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.

As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences.

Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.

They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The President has announced that: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland". That's true.

Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.

Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians, respecting their right to self-determination - that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."

At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.

Well before September 11, it was understood that, with modern technology, the rich and powerful would lose their near-monopoly of the means of violence and could expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.

If America insists on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction.

If America devotes its resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", it can not only reduce the threats it faces but also live up to ideals that it professes and that are not beyond reach if Americans choose to take them seriously.

American academic Noam Chomsky is the author, most recently, of the bestseller September 11.

IRAQ: Bush To Tell U.N. Its Credibility Is At Risk Regarding Inspectors

UNWire September 9, 2002

In his scheduled speech to the United Nations this week, U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to say that unless strong action is taken to remove Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the United States will have to operate on its own, senior Bush administration officials said Friday.

Bush's speech to the United Nations Thursday could lead to a new round of U.N inspections in Iraq, according to the Washington Post. Such a move would be a retreat from the Bush administration's threats of unilateral military action against Iraq.

Many within the Bush administration believe that inspections are no longer viable and that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will have to be removed from power, the Post reported. U.S. officials, however, have begun to believe that working through the United Nations is advisable and could assist plans for a future military strike.

Bush's statement last week that he would seek to obtain congressional approval for military action against Iraq and that he would present the U.S. case against Hussein to the United Nations indicated a recognition that the Bush administration cannot appear to ignore domestic and international opinion, said senior administration officials and diplomats.

"There is definitely a new focus on the U.N.," one official said.

A number of senior U.S. officials have said even though Bush remains open to alternatives to military action, they could not envision a successful inspection regime. Hussein would probably not accept a new round of inspections, they said. Considering such options, however, is seen by the administration as being necessary in order to garner international support for future military action, according to the Post. Bush's speech to the United Nations will reportedly include an expectation of endorsement for an attack on Iraq if other options fail.

In his speech, Bush is expected to detail the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and to shift responsibility for dealing with them away from the United States and toward the entire world, officials said. Bush will also say the time for dealing with Iraq is becoming limited. To those who have called for a "smoking gun, the answer is: 'By the time you see the evidence, it's too late,'" said a senior official.

Bush will remind the U.N. Security Council that its history of enforcement with regards to Iraq is awful, with Hussein violating 16 U.N. resolutions since 1990, the senior official said. Bush will say that it is the United Nations', and not the United States', credibility at risk, a senior official said (DeYoung/Allen, Washington Post, Sept. 7).

If Bush is able to present a strong case that Hussein has been trying to develop weapons of mass destructions, many nations will be willing to listen, diplomats said.

A number of countries, however, have had issues with the way the United States has presented its arguments against Iraq so far, according to the New York Times. Members of the U.N Security Council have opposed U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq would be a waste of time.

At issue is the Bush administration's stated policy of "regime change," the Times reported. Many U.N. members are opposed to such a policy, which they feel harks back to U.S. arrogance during the Cold War, according to the Times.

The U.S. regime change policy "collides with the role of the United Nations," said a senior diplomat from a U.N. Security Council member state that could become an important swing vote. The diplomat indicated a willingness to listen to Bush's arguments.

"The United States does not have a weak case," the diplomat said. "But the United States first has to prove its case, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and the intention to use them in an imminent attack."

Many countries are worried that the Bush administration wants to draw them into a first strike-approach against Iraq based on the idea that Hussein might obtain nuclear weapons sometime in the future, according to the Times. Such a policy would be a major change in the doctrine of preemptive action familiar in international diplomacy, experts said.

If the Bush administration is proposing "prevention of a remote threat, rather than an imminent threat, this is new," said Joseph Nye, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a former assistant secretary of defense (Julia Preston, New York Times, Sept. 9).

Bush received lukewarm responses to telephone calls made last week to the leaders of France, China and Russia, which have veto ability in the U.N. Security Council, according to the Wall Street Journal. The administration later announced that it would send diplomatic missions to the three countries for further consultations on the issue of Iraq (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9).


France Proposes Three-Week Deadline For New Inspections

French President Jacques Chirac proposed a two-stage approach yesterday that could result in U.N authorization of a military strike against Iraq. In an interview, Chirac proposed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would lay out for Iraq a three-week deadline for readmitting U.N. weapons inspectors without "restrictions or preconditions." If Hussein refused to readmit inspectors, or interfered with their work, then a second U.N. resolution should be passed on the use of military force, Chirac said.

Chirac said he was in favor of a new government in Iraq, but any attempt to remove Hussein from power without the backing of a U.N. Security Council resolution would disrupt global affairs.

Speaking on the overthrow of Hussein, Chirac said, "One can wish for it. I do wish for it, naturally. But a few principles and a little order are needed to run the affairs of the world."

There are many governments throughout the world whose overthrow would be favorable to Western leaders, Chirac said, adding, "If we go down that road, where are we going?" (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Sept. 9).

After meeting with Bush at Camp David this weekend, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday that he believed those nations opposed to military action against Iraq would be convinced once they saw evidence of Iraq's aims regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Critics "are asking what I call sensible questions" about the possible international effects of a strike on Iraq, he said, adding that those critics would soon be convinced of the necessity of such action.

"I think people in that second camp can be convinced if they see the evidence, hear the arguments and realize that we're not simply ... striding out on our own, not bothering about other people, but realize that we're going out and trying to win as much support internationally as possible," Blair told Sky News television

The United Kingdom hopes to release a compilation of evidence on Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Blair said (Associated Press/New York Times, Aug. 8).

During remarks made at the beginning of the Camp David meeting, Blair said he fully supported Bush's plans to destroy Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. "The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," Blair said.

Officials did not say what diplomatic and military options Blair and Bush discussed during their meeting. "One active idea" was that the United Kingdom, rather than the United States, would introduce a U.N. resolution to enforce the terms of the cease-fire Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, a senior administration official said.

The meeting's agenda also included discussions on the military feasibility of "coercive inspections" -- weapons inspections teams backed by military forces, an official said.

"There are a number of options we're exploring, and coercive inspections are among them," a senior official said just before Blair arrived at Camp David (David Sanger, New York Times, Sept. 8).


U.S. Says New Evidence Shows Iraqi Weapons Capabilities

Iraq has increased its pursuit of nuclear weapons and has begun a worldwide search for the materials needed to make such weapons, Bush administration officials said Saturday.

In the last 14 months, Iraq has attempted to purchase thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which U.S. officials believe are for use in centrifuges to enrich uranium, according to the New York Times. Several attempts to purchase the tubes were blocked or intercepted, U.S. officials said, declining to say how the shipments were stopped because of intelligence concerns.

The technical specifications of the tubes had convinced U.S. intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear weapons program, officials said, adding that the last attempt to purchase the tubes had occurred in recent months.

Hussein has also met with Iraqi nuclear scientists and praised their efforts as part of his campaign against Western nations, according to U.S. intelligence. Defectors from Iraq's nuclear weapons program have said that obtaining a nuclear weapon has again become a top priority for Hussein, according to the Times.

If Hussein is able to acquire a nuclear weapon, it could increase the chance that he would use biological or chemical weapons in response to a U.S. attack, Bush administration officials said. Hussein did not use such weapons during the Gulf War because of fears that the United States would respond with a nuclear attack and Hussein might now believe the United States would not attempt such a response if he also had nuclear weapons, they said.

"The jewel in the crown is nuclear," a senior administration official said. "The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card."

An Iraqi defector has said that Hussein is also attempting to develop new types of chemical weapons, the Times reported. An Iraqi opposition leader has given U.S. officials a paper taken from Iranian intelligence that says Hussein has authorized Iraqi regional commanders to use chemical and biological weapons to crush any Shiite Muslim resistance that might occur as a result of a U.S. attack.

Abdalaziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite Muslim opposition group based in Iran, provided U.S. officials with the paper during a recent visit to the United States along with other Iraqi opposition leaders.

During interviews in a European capital last month, a defector from Iraq's chemical weapons program said that Hussein has never stopped producing chemical agents such as VX, even when weapons inspectors were inside the country.

The defector, who goes under the pseudonym Ahmed al-Shemri, said Iraq had continued to develop and produce chemical weapons at a number of mobile and fixed sites, many located underground.

"All of Iraq is one large storage facility," said al-Shemri, who claimed to have worked for a number of years at the Muthanna State Enterprise, once Iraq's chemical weapons plant.

Iraq had produced five tons of liquid VX between 1994 and 1998, before inspectors were forced to withdraw from Iraq, Shemri said. He said that some of this VX had been made at secret facilities in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the southern Iraqi city of Basra, which U.N. inspectors said they rarely visited because of their far distance from Baghdad.

Another concern is al-Shemri's claim that Iraq had also developed, and is now producing, a solid form of VX that clings to a soldier's protective gear and hinders decontamination efforts, the Times reported. A October 1990 U.S. intelligence report indicated concerns that Iraq might have been able to produce "dusty VX," even though there was no evidence Iraq had actually done so.

"Dusty agents can penetrate U.S. C.B.W. overgarments under certain conditions," the report said, indicating that U.S. forces should put ponchos over their protective gear if such agents were used (Gordon/Miller, New York Times, Sept. 8).


U.S. Attack Would Be "Historical Mistake," Former U.N. Inspector Says

Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, said yesterday that the United States is close to making a "historical mistake" in threatening to overthrow Hussein.

"My country seems to be on the verge of making an historical mistake," Ritter said in an address before the Iraqi Parliament. The United States had "set forth on a policy of unilateral intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the U.N. Charter."

The United States so far has not backed up its claims that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, Ritter said.

"The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government has not, to date, been backed by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for September 11 attacks on the United States," he said.

In comments made to the London Times, Ritter denied that his comments provided Iraq with a propaganda victory.

"I basically reiterated the international community's position that Iraq must allow unconditional return of inspectors and give them unfettered access. How is this a propaganda coup?" he said.

"Bush and Blair are gearing up to go to war on Iraq based on unsubstantiated allegations that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration itself has said repeatedly that, while they call for the return of inspectors, this will not prevent them from continuing to seek regime change in Iraq," Ritter said. "So my timing is designed precisely to expose the hypocrisy of the Bush position" (Michael Theodoulou, London Times, Sept. 9).

In his address to the Iraqi Parliament, Ritter called for an "honest broker mechanism," which would allow for the immediate return of weapons inspectors to Iraq and compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, according to Agence France-Presse.

Such a mechanism would entail the weapons inspectors' "unconditional return and yet provides assurances to Iraq that unfettered access would only be applied to disarmament issues and not be used to infringe Iraq's sovereignty, dignity and national security," Ritter said.

Ritter said he had had discussions with representatives from several countries about the idea and they have indicated their willingness to work with Iraq and the U.N. secretary general to serve as such an honest broker.

"To have credibility in Iraq and to avoid perceptions of pressure from the Security Council or its members, such an honest broker would have to come from outside the U.N. framework, Ritter said (Agence France-Presse, Sept. 8).

Edited by author 09-09-2002 06:21 PM
Blair reveals deadline for Iraq

September 10, 2002

Lenore Taylor in London for Financial Review

British Prime Minister Tony Blair will today reveal that the US and Britain will demand the United Nations accepts a specific deadline to enforce its resolutions against Saddam Hussein and endorse military action against Iraq if that fails.

The "last chance" for the UN, agreed at weekend talks between Mr Blair and US President George Bush, edges away from threats of unilateral action and could bolster a campaign by the two nations to wear down international opposition to an attack on Iraq.

In the first sign that they have a chance of success in that mission, French President Jacques Chirac - often portrayed as an implacable opponent of action against Iraq - has proposed his own two-stage plan that could lead to UN authorisation of an attack.

And Prime Minister John Howard has stepped up Australia's calls for the UN to take a tougher stance against Iraq. He said Iraq's failure to comply with UN sanctions was "also a failure of the UN to ensure compliance".

Mr Chirac told The New York Times that France would propose a resolution to the UN security council - of which it is a permanent member - giving Iraq a three-week deadline for admitting UN weapons inspectors "without restrictions or preconditions".

If Iraq did not comply in full, a second UN resolution would be needed to authorise military force - with French backing depending on the specific wording of it.

President Chirac warned that military action without the backing of a Security Council resolution would create chaos in global affairs.

The US and the UK have yet to spell out publicly the specific terms of their proposed UN resolution, but briefings by UK sources suggest a deadline of between four and six weeks to allow in weapons inspectors and six months for weapons to be decommissioned.

The US Ambassador to Australia, Thomas Schieffer, said yesterday: "The international community, if it wants to have an international response, has to step up and say, 'We are prepared to do something about it, even if it's tough and involves risk'."

The crucial difference between the US/UK and French plans appears to be that the US/UK plan does not envisage a second resolution should Iraq begin to hamper the work of the weapons inspectors and instead would activate an automatic UN backing for a military strike.

Other permanent members of the Security Council - China and Russia - are sceptical about an attack on Iraq, but the US and the UK hope they may be convinced that the credibility of the UN is at stake.

British officials also believe that Russia may be persuaded to endorse action if the US provides economic compensation for the billions of dollars Moscow is owed by Baghdad.

As well as intensifying diplomatic efforts to win international support, the US and the UK continue to build a case that Mr Hussein's regime poses a nuclear, chemical and biological threat to the world.

These efforts were to some extent aided by an independent report from a leading strategic defence institute in London, released yesterday, which found Iraq had significant stockpiles of conventional, biological and chemical weaponry and the capability to deploy them.

The International Institute of Strategic Studies also found that Iraq would be able to build a nuclear bomb within months, but did not yet have access to the enriched uranium it would need to do so - a less dire assessment than that presented in recent days by US and UK officials.

But government sources said Mr Blair's own long-promised "dossier" of evidence against Iraq, expected to be published next week, had more up-to-date intelligence information.

Mr Blair's speech outlining the strategy he agreed with President Bush will be made to a hostile audience of unionists at the annual meeting of Britain's Trade Union Congress, two days before Mr Bush's crucial address to the UN General Assembly on Thursday.

Many British Labour politicians (including members of Mr Blair's Cabinet) and unionists are angry at Mr Blair's support for the US strategy against Iraq and the congress is expected to give almost universal backing to a motion calling for military action only as an action of absolute last resort.

In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has made it clear he would not support military action even with a specific UN mandate.

US-British strike hits Iraqi facility
September 10 06:50
AFR wires

Allied aircraft struck Iraq for the third time in a week, bombing a military facility southeast of Baghdad on Monday, defence officials said.

The attack came after Iraqi forces fired on one of the United States-British patrols in the no-fly zone, and it followed bombings on Thursday and Saturday, Pentagon officials said.

It brought to 37 the number of strikes reported this year by the Us and the UK coalition put together to patrol zones in the north and south of Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War.

"There is a price to pay when you attack US and British planes," Marine General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon.

In Monday's strike, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to hit an air defence command-and-control facility near Al Amarah, about 270km southeast of the Iraqi capital, the US Central Command said. The command called it "a self-defence measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft".

The strike was in the southern zone, set up to protect Shiite Muslims, and it was the 27th in the zone this year. In the northern zone, set up to protect Kurds, there have been 10 this year.

Both groups were given protection after unsuccessfully revolting against the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Counterattacks by coalition planes were made 43 times in the northern and southern zones last year and 80 times in 2000, officials said.

Asked if Iraq was increasing its attempt to shoot down coalition planes or the United States was trying to make some point with the frequent retaliations, Pace said that over time, the number of Iraqi attacks has been fairly consistent.

"What we are certainly trying to do is to not accept that at all and to ensure that any time that they shoot at our coalition aircraft that we respond," Pace said in an interview with wire service reporters.

The strikes came as Western nations had harsh words for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but with little indication they had been persuaded by the United States to support military action to overthrow him.

Spain and the Netherlands joined anxious allies in denouncing the Iraqi leader in what appeared to be an effort to pressure Iraq to allow the return of UN weapons inspectors.

While not signing on to Mr Bush's case for military action, France's president offered a plan that included an eventual military option.

In its first statement on the issue, the Vatican said military action against Iraq should only be undertaken with United Nations authorisation.

Only Britain squarely backs Mr Bush's view that Mr Hussein must be forcibly ousted to end any risk that he may develop weapons of mass destruction.

UN inspectors trying to determine whether Iraq possesses biological, chemical or nuclear weapons left Iraq in 1998 and have been barred from returning.

Italy has said its airspace would be available for any US-led attack on Iraq. Russia has said it opposes the use of force. Germany has categorically rejected the military option.

"The most foolish of wars"

By Ghazal Shafiei
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
Printed on Sunday, September 08, 2002 @ 02:32:40 EDT

(YellowTimes.org) - These days what seems to be in every headline in the newspapers all around the world is the impending war with Iraq. It is deemed to be the next 'step' in the famous war on terrorism by the Bush administration, and it has the whole world on edge. Yet with all his so-called justifications and saber rattling, Bush has met only resistance in his quest for Saddam's head. Never before in recent U.S. history have other countries of the world, including our own close allies, been so adamantly against a U.S. policy or resisted with such resentment as now, thanks to Mr. Bush and his hawkish advisors.

It seems as if the Bush administration has come to the conclusion that the United States is the only country that matters in this, and its interests should be taken care of by the rest of the world. In its arrogant quest to attack a small, impoverished and suffering nation that has done nothing to jeopardize our security, the Bush administration has not only isolated our country from the rest of the world, it has also revealed our hypocrisy.

In the mad dash for any justification for such a war, three main reasons are given by the Bush administration for an assault against Iraq. The first one is that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. But this administration, not for lack of trying, has not been able to provide any tangible and convincing evidence for this accusation. They suspect that ever since UN inspectors came out of Iraq in 1998, Hussein may have been amassing these weapons of mass destruction. However, the UN inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam, they decided to leave on their own. Moreover, even if Saddam does possess these weapons, he is not the only leader who has them. Many other countries in the Middle East, and the rest of the world for that matter, have these weapons. Their leaders are not known for their benevolence, but we do not insist on attacking them.

Pakistan has a military dictator who possesses nuclear weapons and is itself a country with more than its fair share of terrorist groups and supporters of Osama bin Laden. In fact, many think that it is the current base of the al Qaeda network. According to the CIA world fact book, Saudi Arabia spends 18.4 billion dollars per year, or 13 percent of its GDP on sophisticated weaponry ranking it seventh in the world and has an autocratic dictatorship at the helm. Israel is controlled by an extreme right-wing leader armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons including nuclear armed submarines, and has repeatedly threatened its neighbors with war.

The truth of the matter is that every country in the world, friendly or unfriendly, has weapons to protect itself. The idea that a country's possession of weapons of mass destruction is enough to justify an attack is not only ridiculous and dangerous, but if taken seriously by the rest of the world would lead to thousands of wars.

The second reason given for war against Iraq is that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and will do so against others; thus, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is justified. There is no question that Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and the Iranians during the 1980s; however, he did so with both the knowledge and support of the United States. Donald Rumsfeld, the current hawkish Secretary of Defense, visited Hussein as the representative of then-President Reagan during the late 1980s, and applauded him for being such a wonderful ally in his war with Iran.

Now those same weapons are used as a justification for forcing a regime change by the very same country that had no qualms about their use when it served its own purpose - clearly the irony and the hypocrisy of this has not been lost on the rest of the world. In addition, although Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, he is not a stupid dictator. He wants to retain power more than anything and knows that the use of any weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies would be signing his death warrant. However, if we do attack him and he has nothing else to lose, then he will have no reservations about using those weapons.

The Bush administration makes the argument that even if Hussein does not use the weapons, he will give them to terrorist groups. The idea that Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator who has crushed Islamic resistance groups in his own country, would give weapons to those very same groups is laughable. Yet all these "trivial" facts seem to be insignificant to Bush in his search for any justification for war.

The final reason given for Hussein's removal is that he is an evil man and that the world would be a better place without him. Many argue his removal would pave the way for a more democratic Middle East. The good versus evil story lines might work well in the cowboy movies, but the real world is a little more complicated. Of course the world would be a wonderful place without Saddam Hussein, but it would also be a better place without many other leaders too. It is not the business of the United States to decide for other people who their leaders should or should not be. For a champion of democracy, it is a most undemocratic policy for Mr. Bush to decide for other countries who should lead them. Given its history of failures of imposing leaders and/or ruling systems on other countries, the U.S. should have learned its lesson, and acknowledge that change must come from within a society for it to be a lasting change.

Instead of attacking Iraq to instigate a regime change, the U.S. should support and encourage change from within Iraqi society. The idea that the violent overthrow of a leader by a country 7000 miles away, and the replacement of that leader with another pro-western puppet dictator who would bring democracy to the Middle East is an idea lost in delusion. The fact that the Bush administration does not insist on a system of democracy for its allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf states), and indeed actually supports those dictatorial regimes reveals the hypocrisy of the administration. Again, this is an inconsistency not lost on the people of those countries. The day the United States stops its support of all dictators in the region, and in the world, is the day when America will find allies in unusual places and will turn back the tide of anti-Americanism.

So what are the real reasons for a war in Iraq, if not the flimsy justifications I outlined above? Why the insistence, against all international pressure, to go ahead with this war? Control of almost half the world's oil supplies is a good start. If the United States overthrows Saddam Hussein and installs a pro-American dictatorship like it did with Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, then oil would flow much easier. Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the region that are not under the control of the United States and do not have pro-western friendly dictatorships. It is not a coincidence that these two countries shared the spotlight in President Bush's "axis of evil" speech. It is not a coincidence that Washington threatens these two countries daily. (Incidentally, based on President Bush's own pre-emptive strike policy, since these countries are threatened so often, don't they have the right to defend themselves by invading the United States and forcing a regime change?)

Israel's position and defense is also another main reason for the war against Iraq. It is no surprise that Israel is virtually the only country pleading with the United States to go ahead with this war. Israel's domination of the Middle East would be ensured if the threat of Iraq was eliminated, and would further isolate Iran as the only unfriendly country in the Middle East. These real reasons are obviously seldom mentioned in the mainstream news media, but must be considered if war is to come.

All of America's allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia have warned the United States against invading Iraq. All have warned against the consequences of such an action. To destabilize an already volatile region could lead to unimaginable disasters. Most Europeans and Arab countries do not share the same view with America that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat. Saddam's neighbors, the ones who should be most afraid of any attack by Iraq, seem to be the most opposed to an invasion. The rest of the world seems to understand that the costs of such a war far outweigh the supposed spoils.

Contrary to what some hawks in the Bush administration say, this will not be a "cake walk." This is an invasion of another country and the people of Iraq will defend their homeland with a lot more zeal than these arrogant hawks think. The deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in street fighting, the danger of Saddam using whatever weapons he has against American troops leading to heavy casualties, the sheer chaos that could ensue if Saddam is overthrown, and the increase in anti-American sentiment all prey on the minds of the Europeans as they plead with the United States to consider other options.

No other country wants this war right now, and what the United States must respect are the wishes of those countries that will be most affected by this war - the surrounding Arab states. To impose its own style of justice on the rest of the world and to act unilaterally would jeopardize everything the Bush administration has been bringing together since September 11.

In an area of the world where anti-American feelings are at a fever pitch due to the Israeli-Palestinian debacle, attacking an Arab and Muslim country that has done nothing to the United States could only unleash more Osama bin Ladens and would jeopardize every single American life at home and abroad.

[Ghazal Shafiei is 19 years old and was born in Tehran, Iran. She and her family fled Iran during the devastating Iran-Iraq war and came to America in 1986 when she was 4 years old. They live in Chicago, and Ghazal attends Benedictine University majoring in political science with an emphasis on international relations. She has many views on the role that Israel and the United States play in perpetuating undemocratic values in the Middle East and Asia. This article was previously published in The Candor at Benedictine University.]

Ghazal Shafiei encourages your comments:
seltaeb8988@hotmail.com

Arguments opposing an attack on Iraq from the US right

Don't Attack Saddam

COMMENTARY By BRENT SCOWCROFT

August 15, 2002

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

Think Carefully

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities -- notably the war on terrorism -- as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail -- much less their actual use -- would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counterterrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

No-Notice Inspections

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests -- including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.

Mr. Scowcroft, national security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1029371...8069195.djm,00.html

Updated August 15, 2002

Copyright 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your
Subscription agreement and Copyright laws.
For information about subscribing go to http://www.wsj.com

Despite rhetoric nothing has really changed

September 11, 2002

Peter Hartcher Financial Review

The terrorist attacks on the US created a rare moment for the rethinking of American policies and priorities, and a breathless America sensed the occasion.

But the national leadership, determined to proceed with its pre-existing political agenda, decided not to take the opportunity.

The public, told repeatedly that "everything had changed", saw that very little had changed, and was left wandering in a twilight zone of heady rhetoric, but a curiously unaltered reality.

The Bush administration made only the barest concessions to the necessities of responding to the terrorist attacks before returning to its earlier preoccupations.

Of course, the administration's pre-existing agenda did involve a good deal of change - it's just that it had very little to do with terrorism.

Exactly one day after the anniversary of the Al Qaeda attacks President George Bush formally will re-cross the temporal threshold.

By standing before the UN General Assembly to urge the confrontation of Iraq, he will be taking the world back to his pre-September 11 foreign policy agenda.

"The administration is trying to channel the people's September 11 anger into its own agenda - Iraq," said the former US ambassador to Israel and head of the new Saban Centre for Middle East Studies, Martin Indyk.

September 11 proved to be not so much an inspiration for a fresh approach as a licence to justify an old one. Or, to draw on an old but apt line, the Bush administration uses 9/11 much as a drunk uses a lamppost - not so much for illumination as support.

A puzzled people, waving small flags and being patted down at airports, increasingly wonders whatever happened to the war on terrorists.

The anti-terror agenda, left half-finished, seems to have been supplanted by the inexplicably urgent need to attack Saddam Hussein.

The people, taking their cue from their leaders, have decided that terrorism can't be such an urgent issue after all.

Only 19 per cent believe terrorism to be the country's main problem, according to Gallup polling, well behind the proportion who worry most about the economy. And perhaps the most fascinating phenomenon of all after September 11 - the way that Americans, rather than shrink in fright, rose to the prospect of a challenge - has also gone into reverse.

After the terrorist attacks, the percentage of Americans who felt the country was headed in the right direction shifted sharply upwards to a record 71 per cent.

But now that terrorism and the fight against it seems increasingly remote, this has slumped to a despondent minority at 47 per cent.

The conservative seer and scholar Francis Fukuyama said of the post-September 11 "everything has changed" mantra: "What was that supposed to mean? There are only a couple of changes in the character of the country.

"One is the whole move away from small government and back to big government. Terrorism and then Enron really put a dampener on 20 years of the idea of favouring small government.

"We now know that we need an air force, we need a Securities and Exchange Commission . . . The pendulum was going to swing back in the direction of a larger role for the state anyway, but this has given it a bigger push.

"And the other change is probably that everyone is a little more unified. Otherwise, we're back to the same silly preoccupations we had before September 11."


As with the national government and the public eye, so with politics. The leading political analyst Charlie Cook, publisher of The Cook Political Report, concurs that September 11 had but a glancing effect on US politics.

None of this is to say that there was no effect on the country. There has been a good deal of activity in response.

The administration was quick to hit Afghanistan and to issue démarches to governments around the globe - "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," - the so-called Bush Doctrine.

And it moved swiftly to limit the rights of anyone suspected of terrorist-related activity.

But on a much broader front of policy, the Bush administration has been enormously resistant to any change in agenda.

At home, it refused to reorganise its failed intelligence agencies. It also resisted for nine months the creation of a new department of homeland security - until forced by a Congress under pressure of a series of embarrassing revelations about the conduct of domestic counter-terrorism.

And the administration decided against any measure to lift the fuel efficiency of its cars to international norms, despite the newly revealed precariousness of US dependency on Saudi oil.


The US did not seriously stop to rethink its support for dictators repressing Muslim populations in the oil-rich Middle East, support which has created the anti-American backlash spearheaded by Osama bin Laden.

Instead, it extended the same approach to a whole new region, embracing dictators repressing Muslim peoples across Central Asia around the oil-rich Caspian Sea basin.

Rather than rethink the forcible imposition of its will on the rest of the world, the US is actually intensifying it.

Or, as Bush himself once put it when speaking of policy at home: "When people understand my heart, I believe people will come around . . . If they don't," he shrugged "that's democracy."

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

Sunday Herald (UK), September 8, 2002

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'

©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd

Edited by author 09-10-2002 09:02 PM
THE HINDU

Date:08/09/2002 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/mag/2002/09/08/sto...002090800410100.htm

The spasms of 9/11

Somewhere at the back of our minds is the knowledge that stunned us on 9/11 — knowledge about how America is seen, about how our democracies are vulnerable, and about what we are capable of at our very best — or worst — individually and collectively. Because September 11 is still one of a kind, people perceive it to be what they want — an invasion, a crime or a statement. But what about the American response? ILIJA TROJANOW and RANJIT HOSKOTE´ write about it all.

THE events of September 11, 2001, have been widely described as a tragedy, and so they were, for the victims and their families. But, as we all know, one person's tragedy can be another person's windfall. The greatest beneficiary of these attacks, and of the perception of national threat they produced, is the military-industrial establishment that dominates the United States, and by extension, the world. It is ironic that the Pentagon, a key target of the operation, has since risen to a position of unchallenged global supremacy, an achievement signalled shortly after September 11, when the most gargantuan defence budget in history was rushed through legislation without occasioning even a ripple of dissent.

Since then, no one in the U.S. establishment has challenged the view that the best way to deal with terrorists is to out-gun, out-bomb, and out-massacre them — along with any non-combatants who happen to get in the way. And the few voices that were heard after the attacks, which drew attention to the underlying conditions of oppression and injustice that breed terrorism, have been quickly sidelined and silenced.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the American Government and mainstream media have spent the last year working spin-offs from the perceived threat. Right after September 11, there were doomsday prophecies of further terrorist attacks, followed by the mass hysteria over the anthrax letters. The former never materialised; the latter were traced back to U.S. Army biological warfare facilities, which, by the way, have never been visited by U.N. inspectors.

The interested parties will surely do all that is necessary to ensure that the American public continues to feel besieged and under threat. The public discussion concerning the future of the World Trade Center (WTC) site in New York, for instance, reveals a strong impulse towards building a memorial shrine to the feeling of injustice, the sense of having been wronged. As is customary with patriotic monuments, which serve to declare one's own innocence and essential virtue, while emphasising the irrationality and essential evil of the enemy: they foreground a combination of martyrdom, triumphalism, and ritualised grief.

Interestingly, and not so paradoxically, the Pentagon, although it has grown exponentially in power, has become completely invisible in the patriotic iconography of the September 11 events. As the headquarters of the U.S. Army, the Pentagon cannot afford exposure in the dramatic and by-now globally televised demonstration of American vulnerability. Instead, it is the civilian target, the WTC, which has been fixed as the iconic reminder of the attacks. The twin towers, ablaze and collapsing, are a contemporary version of the burning ships keeling over in Pearl Harbor: they symbolise the American identity, the self-image of a people always ready to do good in the world, but who are often misunderstood, and once in an epic while, subjected to treacherous attack.

But the global scenario today is light-years away from that of 1941. In the aftermath of September 11, the U.S. has programmatically swept aside the model of equity among nations. U.S. unilateralism becomes more entrenched with every successive operation. The bombing of Afghanistan was justified, however thinly, by invoking <147,1,0>Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373: the U.S. deliberately misread both as authorising nation-states to launch military action in self-defence against international terrorism. But this year, the U.S. establishment has skipped even that flimsy and dubious sanction in proposing an invasion of Iraq: high U.S. officials have repeatedly declared that they can and will attack Iraq simply because they wish to do so.

This unilateralism is in line with a corresponding strategy of withdrawal, by which the U.S. has stepped back from most of the mutual obligations that commit it to collaboration with other nations. It has reneged on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) agreements that it signed with the erstwhile USSR and continued with the Confederation of Independent States (CIS) successor states, and which mandate the signatories to limit their ballistic-missile capabilities. The U.S. has also failed to ratify all the major treaties of recent years, including the Kyoto Agreement. In May, it withdrew from the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC); Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) partners against contemplating any future action against U.S. defence personnel, proclaiming that his country "will regard as illegitimate any attempt by the court, or state parties to the treaty, to assert the ICC's jurisdiction over American citizens."

And in the international groupings of which it continues to be a member, the U.S. plays the bully. This April, it ousted the director general of the U.N. Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, Jose Bustani, who refused, as he testified, "to take orders from the U.S. delegation". Again, in July, the U.S. forced U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson to resign, for her vocal criticism of U.S. human-rights violations during the "war against terror".

The Maslakh refugee camp in Afghanistan ... the validity of American actions.

No nation in the world has signalled its support for the U.S. plan to attack Iraq. For one, there is not a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein has managed to re-stock his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, in the teeth of a drastic international embargo that prevents even paediatric medicines from entering his country. For another, the Iraqi ruler has been notably quiescent. There were many occasions during his long reign when he could have been deposed on humanitarian grounds — such as when he used poison gas against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels. But then, in those balmy days, he was the U.S. establishment's trusted point man against Khomeini's Islamic Revolution, not the leader of a "rogue state".

In the post-September 11 world order, the U.S. propaganda machine no longer deems it necessary to convince the world of the validity of American actions. For, after all: "When Caesar says `Do this', it is perform'd." And so, with or without the support of its allies, the U.S. will move towards brutally establishing its control over the second largest oil reserve in the world. Already, through their man in Kabul, the former oil-company executive Hamid Karzai, U.S. political interests have hijacked the fragile democratic process embodied by the Loya Jirga, re-empowering the warlords at the cost of progressive civil-society groups, so as to lock their hold on the Central Asian oil pipelines.

The God-fearing George W. Bush has not deigned, so far, to offer any moral justification for U.S. military aggression. To find a philosophical basis for it, we turn to the statement, "What We Are Fighting For", signed by a group of 60 U.S. intellectuals and widely publicised this February. The signatories include reigning gurus and media pundits like Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama and Michael Walzer. Defining "radical Islam" as the global enemy and summarily dealing with concepts like pacifism, realism and holy war, they establish the universal moral principle of a "just war", arguing for a limited and specific use of military aggression when all other means have been exhausted. One of the pillars of morality is the principle of commensurate justice. Attacking a group of German intellectuals who have criticised their position, the U.S. intellectuals offer specious acrobatics instead: "It is moral blindness to compare the unintentional killing of civilians in a war that is morally justified, and in which it is every soldier's aim to minimise civilian casualties, with the premeditated murder of civilians in an office building by terrorists whose prime aim is to maximise the number of civilian casualties."

Evidently, this grotesque nonsense is the best that the intellectual elite of the Free World can come up with, to justify the slaughter of Afghans. Perhaps the Afghans gathered at an open-air wedding celebration in Kakarak on July 1 should have been working quietly in office buildings; they might then have qualified as legitimate civilians in the eyes of Huntington, Fukuyama, Walzer and their fellow luminaries. Instead, they suffered a two-hour U.S. Air Force bombardment. A U.N. team investigating this casualty of the "just war" reported that 80 people had been killed and 200 injured in this maniacal attack. Later, U.S. ground forces bound the women's hands (standard practice, apparently) and denied the injured medical treatment for several hours, while "sanitising" the site by removing shrapnel and other image-damaging evidence.

The only justification offered for the bombing of Afghanistan was the capture of the alleged perpetrators of September 11. That aim has not been achieved. The act of killing nearly 10,000 people, fighters and civilians, only so as to fail to capture a few Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) acolytes-turned-terrorist masterminds, hardly meets the criterion of commensurate justice. Instead, it is evidence of an extraordinary cynicism, and testifies to the horrifying U.S. penchant for unleashing Beelzebub to drive out the Devil.

© Copyright 2000 - 2002 The Hindu

Edited by author 09-10-2002 09:01 PM
Don't look now: Saddam is drowning kittens

The warmongers failed to win public opinion, so they're suddenly cobbling together 'evidence'

By Mark Steel 05 September 2002

Independent.co.uk

So, they've got the evidence, about the weapons of mass destruction, but we can't see it just yet. Is it still at the printers? Is it being held up by a row about how you spell "aflatoxin"? Perhaps there's a problem with the plot, and the scriptwriters are refusing to let it go because the character of Tariq Aziz is left in the air and the relationship between Saddam and the scud missiles left hopelessly unresolved.

If they know the evidence, why can't they tell us the main points until we have the dossier? Or at least make a trailer: "This is a story of a man for whom mass destruction was simply a hobby - 'Soon all my chemical weapons will be in place' -- and two men determined to stop him - 'My God, there's enough uranium in there to murder every living thing in every country affiliated to Nato. And look at this delivery notice, it says he's getting his last crucial warhead in exactly three months' - Together they have 90 days to stop the axis of evil."

Or when it comes they might announce: "We don't have any photos of his weapons of mass destruction just yet - but we have got drawings. In felt pen."

And what a coincidence, that this evidence should promise to pop up now, just as it becomes clear public opinion is against a war. It all looks as desperate as a couple coming back from holiday and incompetently trying to carry out an insurance fiddle. Blair and Bush are almost kicking each other under the table as they mutter: "They've definitely got plutonium. Uranium. No, plutonium. Hang on a minute - I thought we agreed uranium."

In a couple of weeks Blair will hold another press conference and announce he's left the evidence on the Tube. But he has finished it, honest. Then that night he'll ring Bush and say: "Can I copy yours?"

So for the time being we're left with statements such as the one by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who said the war must go ahead because "Saddam has not lived up to his promise to allow inspectors into the country". He was then asked if the war would still go ahead if Saddam did allow them into the country, and Fleischer answered: "The policy of the US is regime change, with or without inspectors." So if Saddam does admit inspectors, they'll be doing the most pointless inspecting in the world. You couldn't blame them if they sat in the shade for a fortnight and sent back a note saying: "He's got a machine that can turn us all into tadpoles.".

Which would be at the level of one paper's cut-out guide to "Iraq's evil arsenal", pride of place going to "Scud missiles". It admits the accuracy of these things is less than a mile, so can we really go to war with someone for possessing a large firework? They might as well include "The Dead Leg. Evil thigh-tingling weapon that could numb several people in one day". The Scud, we are told, has a "range of 200 miles, making Israel, Cyprus, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait possible targets". So either the demand is that Saddam gets rid of his Scuds, or that he moves Iraq to somewhere more than 200 miles from the nearest country.

But the tabloid also mentions nuclear weapons. For, "if Saddam acquires enriched uranium, he could be just months from building a warhead". If the Women's Institute acquired enriched uranium, they could be just months from building a warhead. There is, however, a fair amount of evidence that Saddam doesn't have the military power that Blair and Bush claim. Scott Ritter, who led the UN inspections team, has stated repeatedly that any nuclear potential was destroyed. And the last bunch of inspectors eventually left because they admitted they were acting as spies.

The other argument for war, that Saddam's evil is proved by his war against Iran and his treatment of Kurds, is poetic in its hypocrisy. It's true he did both those things but we were backing him at the time. The Americans shot down a civilian Iranian plane, vetoed a United Nations resolution condemning the attacks on the Kurds and dismissed anyone who pointed out this barbarism. It's as if Alex Ferguson decided to bomb Roy Keane, screaming "But this is a man prepared to hack down his own colleagues" at anyone who suggested he shouldn't.

So it could be that because the warmongers are failing to win public opinion, they're suddenly cobbling together "evidence". And there will be piles of it. Just like the stories of Germans raping nuns in 1914 and Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in 1990, admitted as lies once those wars were over. There will be grainy film of Saddam chucking kittens in canals and crackly tape of him threatening to ruin David Beckham's hair. But the football manager the Americans will try to copy once the war starts will be Arsène Wenger. Every time hundreds of civilians are slaughtered by wayward bombs, the US spokesman will look blank and say: "Well I didn't see that incident so I really can't comment. But aren't we doing well?"

Don't bomb Iraq, says Putin

By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor

07 September 2002 Independent.co.uk

American efforts to win international support for military action against Iraq suffered a severe setback yesterday when President Vladimir Putin warned of his "deep doubts" about using force to topple Saddam Hussein.

As Tony Blair prepared to fly out to meet President George Bush at Camp David in Maryland today, the Russian President told the Prime Minister that such an attack posed a real risk of destabilising the whole of the Middle East and undermining the global coalition against terrorism.

The Russian leader made his concerns known during a phone call. Mr Blair also telephoned the French leader, Jacques Chirac, and met the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, at Downing Street yesterday.

The high-level contacts followed the bombing on Thursday by up to 100 British and US jets of a facility south-west of Baghdad after Iraqi forces attacked one of their patrols in a no-fly zone.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, underlined Britain's hawkish stance in a speech in Birmingham yesterday. "It would be wildly irresponsible to argue that patience with Iraq should be unlimited or that military action should not be an option," he said.

The former president Bill Clinton criticised the more hardline elements of the Bush administration, urging the White House to concentrate more on pursuing al-Qa'ida than on Iraq.

* Of 100 Labour backbench MPs surveyed for BBC Radio 4's Today, 88 said there were insufficient grounds to declare war.

Edited by author 09-10-2002 09:38 PM
SMH Home | Text-only index]

 Date: September 10 2002
   

George, mate, grab Saddam and throw out a line

 I have been following the unfolding of the war against terrorism for almost 12 months now and it seems that the two main bullies - George and Saddam - need some good old Aussie hospitality to sort this mess out.
   I reckon a week-long fishing holiday at Port Douglas for George and Saddam, both sharing the same room, could quickly diffuse this volatile situation.
    I mean, the best way to resolve your differences is to actually talk, face to face, with one another and not use a third party - the media - to air your grievances. Geez, I learnt that in primary school.
    I will also volunteer the use of my Hyundai for the two to visit Mossman, the Daintree River and to go the night markets in Cairns.
     The offer's on the table, guys.
 John McCulloch, Mannering Park, September 8.
 

On September 11, I suggest everyone drive with their headlights on to show their support for the victims' families, the American people and a world now hoping that this sort of tragic event should never happen again. The pictures we will see in the media will bring back the darkness of September 11. Turn on your lights for sympathy and hope.
   Karen Smith, McMahons Point, September 9.
 

The coverage of the September 11 anniversary so far has been disturbing. Nobody could fail to be moved by the stories of children left without parents, or wives whose husbands never returned from work. But why do we never get to read page-long interviews with Afghan mothers whose children were killed during the war to oust the Taliban from their country, for example?
    Sadly, the coverage of the "day the world changed" looks set to be a perfect example of the world view the terrorists loathed - a world where a Western life is valued more highly than a non-Western one. It seems that, while Americans will never forget September 11, they aren't going to learn anything from it, either.
 Dr Michelle Arrow, Bondi, September 9.
 

The world would be a much better place if all innocent victims of all terrorism were mourned.
 Marcel Maeder, Cardiff, September 9.
  Could someone please educate me about the event we are supposed to be commemorating on November 9? Everywhere I look I keep seeing reference to some world-changing event that happened last year on 9/11. Did I miss something?
 Tim Smith, Ryde, September 9.
 

When did the war against terrorism metamorphose into war against Iraq? When did September 11, with Saudi nationals making up most of the plane hijackers, become war with Iraq, which does not appear to have been connected with September 11? What is the connection between September 11 and Iraq?
     The only connection I can see is oil and the failure of George Bush snr to conclude the Gulf War to the satisfaction of the United States.
 G.M. Healey, Petersham, September 9.
 

It is indeed difficult to understand Americans. At the same time as they remember their dead from September 11, they prepare to make war on Iraq which will inevitably result in the destruction of a country and the death of thousands of Iraqis. Can they not see the injustice of their action or do they consider that Iraqi lives are just collateral damage?
 David James, Warriewood, September 8.
 

Over the past year, I have thought about the terror and courage of the passengers on the four doomed planes, the heroism of the rescue workers who ran into danger to save lives, the people - some badly injured - who through sheer determination walked down numerous flights of stairs to escape an inferno and the families of those who died during these horrific events who must live with grief on a daily basis.
    I ask the people of Australia to remember all these men and women.
 Display the flag, call your parents and tell them how much you love them, kiss your spouse like it was your wedding day, pull out that trolley for the old lady at the supermarket. Defy evil with acts of kindness and compassion.
    Lastly, light a candle on Wednesday evening and pray for peace and all affected by the tragedy of September 11.
 Ann Jeffers, Wahroonga, September 8.
 

Just a moment, three deep breaths and count to 10. Let's put things in some perspective.
   On the night of March 9, 1945, a single bombing raid killed more than 100,000 people in and around Yokohama Bay. In July 1943, more than 40,000 people were killed in Hamburg in a firestorm following a single air raid. And then there were Dresden, Bremen, Coventry, Hiroshima ... all civilians. The holocausts of Europe, Cambodia and Rwanda were all acts of government policy. The world has not changed one bit in the last year, just the means by which we indulge in our ruthless barbarities, shattering the collective innocence of successive generations.
  Let us think a bit more deeply as to what is really going on here and leave the propaganda out of it.
 Peter Watson, Armidale, September 8.
 

I'd be right behind George and his lunacy if only he'd target our TV stations before Wednesday.
 Roger Cooper, Schofields, September 9.
 

When asked if Australia would support the US, without a UN mandate, in military action against Iraq, the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, said it was "a very difficult question to answer" (Herald, September 9). Wrong: the question is uncomplicated and the answer is simple - "no".
     Examples of difficult questions to answer are: who decided what order to put the alphabet in; why do flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, and does a fish get cramps after eating?
 Vincent Scoppa, Leichhardt, September 8.
 

The US is right to take action to ensure the terrorists cannot do it again. It is also right to hit the states that sponsor the terrorists and make their doomsday weapons. When fundamentalists despise the only means human beings have of resolving differences - reason - and live to kill, no dialogue is possible. Only the proper retaliatory use of force will serve.
    When you remember the scale of devastation in Manhattan, no half measures will do.
 Tom Minchin, Bayswater (Vic), September 8.
 

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
[SMH Home | Text-only index]

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

Oil fuels the wheels of revenge more than truth

 
One year after the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is clear that the United States has not made the obvious connection between those attacks and its foreign policy.
    An attack on Iraq may have the unexpected consequence of the US losing access to all Arab-controlled oil supplies by bringing to a boil the Islamic world's already simmering resentment of US Middle East policy.
    It is clear to the Arab world that the renewed belligerency of the US towards Iraq is not because of any change in Saddam Hussein's policies or even simply to remove him, but has the obvious goal of gaining control of Iraq's oil resources.
   Globalisation gone mad.
     Col Friel, Alawa (NT), September 8.
 

Last week I was astounded to hear a group of young business executives seriously discussing whether or not they would fly on September 11. Admittedly, my view is somewhat influenced by having lived in England during World War II, but I am concerned that such overreaction to last year's dreadful event in New York heralds one more notch in the Americanisation of Australia.
     We have largely accepted their lifestyle (fast-food outlets), their language (9/11), and their culture (Hollywood films), but must we also accept their psyche? Whatever happened to good old Australian level-headedness?
 Louise Luscombe, St Ives, September 8.
 

Malaysia's Ezam Mohamed Noor ("Conspiracy theories keep Asia humming", Herald, September 7) is the unfortunate hidden victim of anti-terrorism.
    Ezam is not a terrorist, not an extremist, not a traitor. He is a concerned and aware citizen with principles and the belief that corruption and abuse of power will result in the destruction of the nation and humanity. He acted with conscience to expose the corruption and greed of the elite.
     The campaign against terrorism in Malaysia unfortunately is being exploited by Mahathir as a pretext to unleash a new wave of oppression against his political opponents such as Ezam and the jailed former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim.
   Under the oppressive regime in Malaysia, corruption is no crime but to expose corruption, to defend human rights and social justices are heinous crimes.
 Daniel S. Lim, Strathfield, September 8.
 

September 11 was terrible and those responsible should be punished. That does not excuse the Australian Government's attitude to David Hicks. If an Australian citizen is held by a foreign power indefinitely, without charge, and (it now appears) with the refusal of that power's judiciary to intervene, one would expect the Government to show something other than total spinelessness. It has not.
 David Ash, Bondi, September 8.
 

On September 11, could you please express my condolences to the relatives of the pilots and cabin staff who were rostered on that fateful day? Twelve months on and we have not seen a single US airport erect a memorial to these pilots.
         Surely the job of a pilot is as dangerous as firemen, ambulance and police workers. How about getting the Australian press to be the first to push for a memorial to the pilots of September 11.
 B. Mahoney, Sans Souci, September 8.
 

Must we be subjected to another endless barrage of footage on the September 11 tragedy this year? While sympathising greatly with those who were victims and condemning the perpetrators, this is way over the top. A one-hour presentation would be fine. This is Sydney, not New York.
 Brian McGee, Balgowlah, September 8.
 

It is well to remember when we mourn the victims of September 11 that they are not just 3000-odd innocent American lives, but the much larger number of innocent Afghani civilian lives that were taken by the US bombing of Afghanistan.
 None of these people bore any responsibility for that awful event in New York. Indeed, they were the victims of the very same forces that caused it.
     They just happened to get in the way of the US wreaking its indiscriminate revenge. Their lives were just as valuable as the Americans who died, but our inbuilt racism prevents us from even acknowledging that.
  Les MacDonald, Balmain, September 8.
 

For much the same reason we choose a designated driver on other occasions, I believe that every Australian family should elect one member to remain unexposed to the media on September 11.
 Michael Haisman, Cook (ACT), September 8.
 

In reflecting (December 11, 2001) on the building of a memorial at the World Trade Centre site, Bush said in his grand Texan way that "for those of us who lived through these events, the only marker we'll ever need is the tick of a clock at the 46th minute of the eighth hour of the 11th day".
  The trouble is that, after three months, he still hadn't worked out that 8.46am is actually towards the end of the ninth hour!
       This is the same man who spoke publicly of "nucular" force, very publicly, for some months before his elocution minders got to him.
    What worries me is that he likes the grand statement and the strong action, but seems to perceive no need for accuracy. I do not feel safe with my fate in his hands.
 Fred McArdle, West Brunswick (Vic), September 8.
 

I've missed something!
 Will someone please remind me again of the real link between September 11 and Saddam Hussein?
 Gus Plater, Saratoga, September 8.
  Well, Pete and Andre and Venus and Serena have played their hearts out and it is fitting that this year's US Open tennis ends this way.
    I have read the thoughts of many people about September11 including the cynical, the caring and the non-caring.
  I put myself in the shoes of Americans and ask: how would I feel if it had happened in Australia?
     I would want something good to watch that would take my mind off the sadness that must envelop most Americans, most days and especially as the first anniversary approaches.
  Noel Galvin, Yamba, September 8.

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.
 
 [SMH Home | Text-only index]

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b091002.html

September 10, 2002

Preventive or Preemptive War?

Do you believe President Bush and Prime Minister Blair that there are new reports suggesting that Saddam Hussein is getting somewhat close to being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon, or do you believe the International Atomic Energy Agency, which says it has no such evidence? In terms of justifying an attack on Iraq, it might not make any difference at all – although the likelihood is that Bush and Blair are exaggerating the threat. As the administration and its allies scramble to gather evidence convincing enough to justify a military attack, it might be useful to step back and consider just what kind of evidence would be sufficient. Unless something much more compelling emerges, it appears U.S. leaders are constructing a novel and troubling rationale for military invasion.

PREEMPTIVE OR PREVENTIVE?

There has been talk of a preemptive strike or a preemptive war. But even if everything that has been leaked and much, much more turns out to be true in spades, what the Bush administration is talking about is not a preemptive war but a preventive war. That is something the United States has never done before. We should think long and hard before we allow our leaders to do it this time.

"There’s a well-accepted definition for preemptive war in international law," Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment, told me on the telephone last week. "Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable."

During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel attacked first, but Egyptian and Syrian troops were massing on the border and airplanes were being mobilized. For most observers that was the very definition of a preemptive attack, although scholars and international relations experts are still able to debate whether the attack was justified under international law. But there is little question that there was an imminent threat.

THREAT? MAYBE. IMMINENT? NO

What the administration is discussing in terms of Iraq is not an imminent threat of attack on the United States – which might justify a preemptive strike – or even on any of Iraq’s neighbors. What the administration wants to do is to attack Iraq to prevent or neutralize a potential future threat. That’s very different from an imminent threat.

The United States has never undertaken a "preventive" war in all of its history. (Some would say that invasion of Panama that led to the capture of Manuel Noriega was preventive rather than preemptive, and maybe it was. But that was a relatively low-level incursion with a few troops, that lasted longer than the interventionists expected but still was over fairly quickly. Even the most modest plans against Iraq are more ambitious and costly by orders of magnitude.

If the criteria for such a war were simply that a country be dictatorial and despotic and have weapons of mass destruction, the world does not lack for candidates, including Pakistan (whose leader installed by a coup, who recently unilaterally changed the constitution to give him something approaching dictator-for-life, recently pledged new fealty to the administration's war without end) China, North Korea and maybe Russia.

THE IMPERIAL MANDATE

Let’s be clear. To justify an attack on Iraq or any other country on the grounds that it is assembling weapons of mass destruction, the leaders of a country cannot be operating in a context of equally sovereign nations, the reigning myth of current international relations. The country in question would simply have to view itself as a world-straddling imperial power, whose mission is to keep lesser countries – whether related to it by colonial ties or not – in line.

I don’t think most Americans view this country as an imperial power mandated to intervene in any dispute and drive any leader out of power who displeases us – although many Americans in moments of anger or pique come close to saying something like that. But talk reasonably with most Americans about whether that is a universal principle, that America’s job is to fix the world wherever the world is less than perfect in the eyes of our leaders, and they’ll back off. They might still want to be helpful in certain instances, but they would want to pick and choose their spots. It’s also generally been the case that U.S. leaders have sought to justify military actions so as to make the United States either the aggrieved or attacked party or the defender of an innocent victim of aggression. Before the last Gulf War Saddam Hussein did invade and occupy Kuwait. One can argue as to whether he got a wink-and-nod from U.S. diplomats or even whether the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border was an artificial product of early 20th-century British imperialism, but Saddam did indeed invade. This time he has been careful - whether because of deterrence or his own circumspection, not to create a clear-cut provocation. U.S. leaders felt the need to blow up the Gulf of Tonkin incident – probably dishonestly as later investigation indicates – into an unprovoked attack on the United States, making our escalation of the Vietnam war a response rather than aggression. Historians disagree as to whether the U.S. purposely set up the Pearl Harbor attack, but however you come down on that, it was an attack. It was unlikely back then (however much they itched to get involved) that the FDR administration would have been able to pull the American people into a full-scale war without a provocation of similar magnitude.

These days, however, no provocation is deemed necessary. Administration leaders may babble about how Saddam has violated the UN mandates and sanctions, but if that’s the case the UN rather than the US is the aggrieved party. There is not even a hint of a credible threat of an attack by Saddam on the United States, and not much of a hint of an attack on its multifarious interests overseas. There is just the possibility that at some time in the indeterminate future he might have enough weapons to give some to terrorists (unlikely as my column last week pointed out) or might attack his neighbors.

In the 21st century that has become enough for the sole remaining superpower to make war. And most members of the administration don’t even make more than a cursory bow toward the U.S. Constitution, insisting that going to Congress will be merely for approval or consultation, not a recognition that Congress has the sole power to declare war and that the founders put this in the document purposely.

PRETEXT FOR AGGRESSION

Attacking Iraq because it poses a potential future threat someday might not strictly be, as Cato Institute foreign policy analyst Ted Carpenter suggested to me, "a pretext for outright aggression." But it would be a dangerous precedent. Do we want the United States to be the country that strikes first whenever it sees a potential problem? That would keep our military very busy and provide plenty of grist for those who see this country as an imperialist aggressor.

Mr. Cirincione, who recently co-authored the new book, Deady Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction, believes it is virtually certain that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and is probably trying to obtain nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t make the threat imminent. The news trumpeted by the compliant media last Friday suggesting that United Nations inspectors say that satellite photos show some new buildings and some reconstruction at former Iraqi nuclear sites, Mr. Cirincione said, "cuts two ways. On one hand, it shows there is new activity - which we had expected anyway. But it also demonstrates that we can see this activity, and we’re likely to be able to see most of what Saddam is likely to do of any significance before the threat is imminent."

The Carnegie Endowment thinks "coercive inspections" backed by a multinational military force would be a good step short of war. It has prepared a series of papers and a summary of the idea, believing it would be an acceptable and workable compromise between doing nothing about Saddam until an attack really is imminent and outright war.

Ted Carpenter is skeptical, suggesting that Iraq would never submit to allowing such military forces, and its refusal would then be the kind of pretext Bush might be able to sell to the "international community" to back an outright military attack. I’m inclined to agree with Ted, although I’m willing to believe that what the Carnegie people think they are doing is suggesting alternatives to defuse the situation and avoid a military invasion except as a last-last-ditch alternative.

What is certain is that a preventive war is different from a preemptive war. An outright, open preventive war of this magnitude would be unprecedented in our history, an acknowledgment that our leaders view the country as a universal empire rather than a free republic.

- Alan Bock

Edited by author 09-10-2002 10:13 PM

The Iraqi threat: real or imagined?

80-page IISS dossier details Iraqi capabilities

Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday September 10, 2002
The Guardian

War, sanctions and UN weapons inspections have reversed and retarded - but not eliminated - Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and long-range missile capacities, the International Institute for Strategic Studies concludes in yesterday's report.
The 80-page dossier, drawn mainly from the experience of UN weapons inspectors, provides as much ammunition for opponents of a military attack on the country as for those advocating one. John Chipman, IISS director, said yesterday the dossier "does not attempt to make a case, either way, as to whether Saddam Hussein's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] arsenal is a casus belli per se".

He added: "Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used."

But his underlying message was clear: "The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim."

Nuclear/radiological

Dr Chipman's reference in interviews to the suggestion that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained fissile material was seized on by the media. What the report actually says is: "There is a nuclear wildcard. If, somehow, Iraq were able to acquire sufficient nuclear material from foreign sources, it could probably produce nuclear weapons on short order, probably in a matter of months."

The dossier says Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons. It would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build production facilities for such material.

Iraq, it says, could take a number of measures to hide a 1,000-machine centrifuge plant from surveillance but it would be difficult to acquire foreign materials, equipment and components for such a plant without detection.

The dossier says: "Assuming that 1998 [the year UN inspectors left Iraq] is the starting point, most experts do not believe that Iraq could have completed a facility for the production of nuclear weapons-usable nuclear material in only a few years."

Iraq's current interest in radiological weapons is unknown. It could divert civil-use radioisotopes or seek to obtain foreign material for a crude device.

Biological

Iraq probably retained substantial growth media and biological weapons agents - perhaps thousands of litres of anthrax - from pre-1991 stocks.

It is capable of resuming biological weapons agent production on short notice - weeks - from existing civilian facilities and could have produced thousands of litres of anthrax, botulinum toxin and other agents since 1998. Actual stocks are unknown.

The country's production of viral agents and possession of smallpox are unknown. "Aside from conventional military munitions, delivery of BW [biological weapons] by individuals or small groups acting as commandos or terrorists remains a plausible threat that is very difficult to defend against."

Refurbished L-29 trainer aircraft could operate as weapons-carrying unmanned aerial vehicles with a range of 375 miles. In theory, these could be more effective in delivering biological (and chemical) weapons than missiles which would destroy the agents on impact.

Chemical

The Gulf war devastated Iraq's primary chemical weapons production and a large portion of its munitions. However, Iraq probably retained a few hundred tonnes of mustard gas and precursors for a few hundred tonnes of sarin/ cyclosarin and perhaps VX nerve gas from pre-1991 stocks.

It is capable of resuming chemical weapons production on short notice - months - from existing civilian facilities and it could have produced hundreds of tonnes of mustard gas and nerve agents since 1998. Actual stocks are unknown.

"Iraq's current CW [chemical weapons] capability does not appear to pose a decisive threat against opposing military forces who would be protected against CW attack ... [and] ... are unlikely to cause mass casualties."

Ballistic missiles

Iraq probably retained a small force of 406-mile range al-Hussein missiles, perhaps around a dozen. These could be "politically significant", the dossier says, "especially if armed with chemical or biological weapons which could reach cities in Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran". Iraq does not possess facilities to produce long-range missiles, and it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to construct them.

Iraq may have produced some al-Samoud missiles, with ranges up to 125 miles. It is capable of manufacturing rudimentary chemical and biological weapons warheads, but development of more advanced designs is unknown.

Iraq is capable of converting civilian vehicles to mobile launchers.

Other delivery means

Iraq is capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons, including artillery shells, rockets and aerial bombs. It could have a few thousand chemical weapons tactical munitions. It is capable of delivering biological weapons with simple airborne wet spray devices.

The military has a small stock of modern strike aircraft - MiG-23 and Mirage F1 - with 469-mile combat radius; some ground attack aircraft (Su22, Su24, Su25); helicopters, possible unmanned aerial vehicles based on the L-29 trainer. Iraq could also use special forces or terrorists to conduct attacks.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies is a London-based company with charitable status and an annual turnover of £4m.

It has strong US links and raises money from a wide range of international bodies, corporate and individual membership fees, and publications, notably its authoritative Military Balance and Strategic Survey annual reports.

It receives grants from mainly US bodies, including the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation and Smith Richardson Foundation. It has also received grants from Germany's Volkswagen Foundation and is drawing up an "armed conflict database" with the Department for International Development. It also receives funding from governments for international conferences and research projects. Individuals from ministries of defence and foreign affairs (including Britain's) are seconded to the institute.

Its council members include Carl Bildt, former UN high representative in the Balkans, and Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff. Head of its Washington office is Colonel Terence Taylor, former member of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq. Gary Samore, who edited yesterday's report, was a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

Edited by author 09-12-2002 03:02 AM
Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace

In a rare interview, the South African demands that George W. Bush win United Nations support before attacking Iraq
 
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
 
Sept. 10 - Nelson Mandela, 84, may be the world’s most respected statesman. Sentenced to life in prison on desolate Robben Island in 1964 for advocating armed resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress leader emerged in 1990 to lead his country in a transition to non-racial elections. As president, his priority was racial reconciliation; today South Africans of all races refer to him by his Xhosa clan honorific, Madiba. Mandela stepped down in 1999 after a single five-year term. He now heads two foundations focused on children. He met with NEWSWEEK’S Tom Masland early Monday morning in his office in Houghton, a Johannesburg suburb, before flying to Limpopo Province to address traditional leaders on the country’s AIDS crisis.

NEWSWEEK: Why are you speaking out on Iraq? Do you want to mediate, as you tried to on the Mideast a couple of years ago? It seems you are reentering the fray now.

Nelson Mandela: If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate. We must understand the seriousness of this situation. The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. If you look at those factors, you’ll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost power and influence, can never be a suitable mediator.
        
What about the argument that’s being made about the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s efforts to build a nuclear weapons. After all, he has invaded other countries, he has fired missiles at Israel. On Thursday, President Bush is going to stand up in front of the United Nations and point to what he says is evidence of...
          
Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white.
       
So you see this as a racial question?
Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don’t have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn’t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people.
       
What kind of compromise can you see that might avoid the coming confrontation?
There is one compromise and one only, and that is the United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United Nations and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we must do something about it, we would all support it.
       
Do you think that the Bush administration’s U.N. diplomatic effort now is genuine, or is the President just looking for political cover by speaking to the U.N. even as he remains intent on forging ahead unilaterally?
Well, there is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like. And of course we must consider the men and the women around the president. Gen. Colin Powell commanded the United States army in peacetime and in wartime during the Gulf war. He knows the disastrous effect of international tension and war, when innocent people are going to die, young men are going to die. He knows and he showed this after September 11 last year. He went around briefing the allies of the United States of America and asking for their support for the war in Afghanistan. But people like Dick Cheney… I see yesterday there was an article that said he is the real president of the United States of America, I don’t know how true that is. Dick Cheney, [Defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, they are people who are unfortunately misleading the president. Because my impression of the president is that this is a man with whom you can do business. But it is the men who around him who are dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age. The only man, the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era is Gen. Colin Powell, the secretary of State.
       
I gather you are particularly concerned about Vice President Cheney?
Well, there is no doubt. He opposed the decision to release me from prison (laughs). The majority of the U.S. Congress was in favor of my release, and he opposed it. But it’s not because of that. Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick Cheney.
       
I’m interested in your decision to speak out now about Iraq. When you left office, you said, - I’m going to go down to Transkei, and have a rest. - Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you’ve been very active.
I really wanted to retire and rest and spend more time with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife. But the problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can use whatever influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it’s difficult to say no.
       
© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
 
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly - New York, New York

Thursday September 12 10:39 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

 Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with the international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Edited by author 09-13-2002 03:46 PM
Flash Info No 59
12 September 2002

Office of the Director-General
Spokesperson
Tel. 00 33 1 45 68 13 26
Email: m.de-pierrebourg@unesco.org

UNESCO welcomes return of the United States of America

Following the announcement made by President Bush at the UN General Assembly of the return of the United States of America to UNESCO, the Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, has issued the following statement :

"In my capacity of Director-General, I warmly welcome President George W. Bush’s decision to officially re-engage the United States of America in the work of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. I’m sure all 188 Member States of UNESCO will also welcome this good news.

"The United States was a founding member of UNESCO, helping to shape its 1945 Constitution upholding fundamental human rights, the free flow of ideas and information, scientific and cultural cooperation, and educational opportunity for all. I am proud to offer my full commitment to assist in reintegrating the United States into the life and work of the Organization.

"I look forward to the possibility of closer collaboration with the enormous intellectual and cultural resources of the American academic and scientific communities, and fuller contact with the extraordinary cultural diversity that characterizes American life. Their energy and ideas are vital in the effort to shape policies that can improve the lives of people everywhere.

"I believe the United States’ return to UNESCO supports effective reform and renewal within the multilateral system, affirming UNESCO’s steady forward progress over the past years. It has been my personal mission over the last three years to shape UNESCO into the most dynamic, efficient and relevant organization it can be, open and accountable to all stakeholders. We look forward to working with American representatives to continue the process of reform and the continuous improvement of our services to Member States."

Allies hopeful despite buildup

By Marian Wilkinson

The Age United States Correspondent

Washington, September 14 2002 Original

America's allies last night detected a small glimmer of hope of averting war with Iraq, after US President George Bush sought United Nations backing for arms inspections to ensure Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

But, at the same time, the United States has positioned forces in the Persian Gulf region, which analysts say, could allow it to launch an attack within weeks.

European diplomats said peace prospects now hinged on the UN persuading Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to cooperate on the return of weapons inspectors - who are likely to include Australians.

The slim opening came after Mr Bush laid down a challenge to the UN Security Council to force Iraq to comply with resolutions calling on it to eliminate its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs or face the consequences of US action.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Mr Bush urged the UN to stand up to Mr Saddam, warning that the US was prepared to act alone if the Iraqi leader failed to comply with the resolutions.

He told representatives of almost 200 nations that the US was ready to work with them "to meet our common challenge" of ending Iraq's defiance of 10 years of UN demands. "But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted," Mr Bush said. Resolutions ordering Iraqi disarmament and other UN demands "will be enforced - or action will be unavoidable", he said.

Last night Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, before a speech to the UN, said Mr Saddam faced the "last roll of the dice" and should allow in weapons inspectors or face the consequences. "I don't think we need to put a number of days on it, but obviously they don't have much time," Mr Downer said.

Mr Bush's speech was widely welcomed by US allies, some of whom have been concerned that the US would take action against Iraq without UN backing.

Iraq's ambassador to the UN, Mohammed Aldouri, dismissed the speech as a long series of fabrications motivated by "revenge, oil, personal ambitions and the security of Israel".

But French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, one of the five permanent Security Council members, said: "The President . . . stressed the central role the United Nations must play and this is a very good thing. We appreciate this. We have to act legitimately, collectively and responsibly. We have to make sure that we don't add to the crisis, add to the instability, to create, which we risk creating, new sources of frustration and imbalances."

Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham said: "The world community accepts his (Bush's) declaration of support for the United Nations with a great deal of enthusiasm."

Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, whose country is one of 10 other Security Council members, said: "What was positive in his speech is that future action is rooted in the United Nations. I felt his speech today was multilateral, more than I have heard from the United States in other speeches."

Diplomats at the UN said they expected talks on a Security Council resolution to begin in small groups and informally toward the end of next week.

Germany, one of Washington's least supportive allies on Iraq, said it was worried about the cohesion of the coalition against terrorism, the stability of the Middle East and the lack of plans for Iraq after a change of government.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa welcomed Mr Bush's appeal to the Security Council but asked for more time for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to talk to Iraq. He said he believed the Iraqis would allow UN inspectors to return.

The head of the UN weapons inspection program, Hans Blix, said inspections could work but Iraq had to make up its mind.

"I have said to them, if you are ready to start this then go for it because in our view inspections are an opportunity for them rather than a penalty," he said in an interview with The Age.

Dr Blix said he had a team of inspectors ready to go to Iraq, including several Australians on his staff.

He also questioned the strength of new evidence suggesting Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear capability. He was aware of new satellite images showing construction at Iraq's old nuclear and missile sites but said: "We are not drawing any conclusions as to what they are doing inside the buildings.

"The images are useful for us to decide on where we might want to go but nothing more. They are not proof."

Dr Blix said it was unclear what chemical or biological weapons programs had been developed in Iraq since weapons inspectors were forced out four years ago.

- with Reuters

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Address on Iraq

Thursday, 12 September, 2002

"Mr. President, distinguished heads of state and government, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot begin today without reflecting on yesterday's anniversary and on the criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces on 11 September 2001.

The terrorist attacks of that day were not an isolated event. They were an extreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained and global response.

Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite against it. Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, or overnight. It requires patience and persistence.

And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.

Mr. President, I believe that such a response can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions.

I stand before you today as a multilateralist by precedent, by principle, by charter and by duty.

I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. And all states have a clear interest, as well as clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.

Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learned that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression.

They recognized that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities like land, oil or gold which one state can acquire at another's expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one state has, the more its neighbors are likely to have.

And they recognized that by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.

If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalization?

On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.

Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all.

Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease.

Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming, from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings.

That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism.

Individual states may defend themselves by striking back at terrorist groups and at the countries that harbor or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all states, with constant systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying the terrorists their opportunities.

On all these matters, for any one state large or small, choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.

When countries work together in multilateral institutions developing, respecting and when necessary, enforcing international law, they also develop mutual trust and more effective cooperation on other issues.

The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values, the more others will trust and respect it and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.

And among multilateral institutions, this universal organization has a special place.

Any state, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Member states attach importance, great importance in fact, to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law. They have shown notably in the action to liberate Kuwait, twelve years ago that they are willing to take actions under the authority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing to take without it.

The existence of an effective international security system depends on the Council's authority and therefore on the Council having the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive at the outset. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council's agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.

Mr. President, let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadership and effective action are badly needed.

First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Recently, many of us have been struggling to reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs.

But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. We must return to the search for a just and comprehensive solution, which alone can bring security and prosperity to both peoples, and indeed to the whole region.

The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement is well known. It was defined long ago in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and its Israeli-Palestinian components were spelled out even more clearly in Resolution 1397: land for peace; end to terror and to occupation; two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.

Both parties accept this vision. But we can reach it only if we move rapidly and in parallel on all fronts. The so-called ``sequential'' approach has failed.

As we agreed at the Quartet meeting in Washington last May, an international peace conference is needed without delay to set out a roadmap of parallel steps: steps to strengthen Israel's security, steps to strengthen Palestinian economic and political institutions and steps to settle the details of the final peace agreement. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified. The need is urgent.

Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, including the need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions.

Efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the Council's resolutions must continue. I appeal to all those who have influence with Iraq's leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is the indispensable first step towards assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and let me stress towards the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so many hardships for the Iraqi people.

I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq's defiance continues the Security Council must face its responsibilities.

Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the international community, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan.

I know I speak for all in welcoming President Karzai to this Assembly, and congratulating him on his escape from last week's vicious assassination attempt -- a graphic reminder of how hard it is to uproot the remnants of terrorism in any country where it has taken root. It was the international community's shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed the country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for al-Qaida.

Today, Afghanistan urgently needs help in two areas.

The government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country. Without this, all else may fail. And donors must follow through on their commitments to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. Otherwise the Afghan people will lose hope and desperation, we know, breeds violence.

And finally, in South Asia the world has recently come closer than for many years past to a direct conflict between two countries with nuclear capability. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remains perilous. The underlying cause must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupts, the international community might have a role to play. Though I gladly acknowledge and indeed, strongly welcome the efforts made by well-placed Member States to help the two leaders find a solution.

Excellencies, let me conclude by reminding you of your pledge two years ago, at the Millennium summit, ``to make the United Nations a more effective instrument'' in the service of the people of the world.

Today I ask all of you to honor that pledge.

Let us all recognize, from now on in each capital, in every nation, large and small that the global interest is our national interest.

Thank you very much."

When truth is the first casualty: The problems of evidence and Iraq

Compiled by David Spratt for Victorian Peace Network
12 September 2002

In a press briefing in September 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted occasions during World War II when false information about US troop movements was leaked to confuse the enemy. He paraphrased Winston Churchill, saying: "Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
[Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, September 06, 2002]

"It is not for us to prove they have it [weapons of mass destruction], it is for them to prove they don't have it.² ‹ Colin Powell, NBC "Today" show, 9 September 2002.

³The policy of the US is regime change, with or without [weapons] inspectors." - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

CASE STUDIES

CASE 1: The Bush-Blair meeting, 7 September 2002

THE CLAIM
British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "The threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability ... that threat is real", citing a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad¹s development of nuclear weapons.
 US President George Bush: "I don't know what more evidence we need," citing a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that said Iraq could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

THE FACTS
The 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability. Instead the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed. The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq¹s nuclear infrastructure.
 Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush¹s and Blair¹s assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized on 6 September. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told NBC News¹ Robert Windrem. Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. ³There is not a single building we see,² he said.
[Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp]

CASE 2: The International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) report "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment"

THE CLAIM
Iraq could field nuclear weapons "within months" and the IISS report provides evidence that would justify an attack on Iraq.

THE FACTS
"There's nothing new here, no killer fact that makes me believe we should go to war." - Paul Beaver, of Jane's Defence Weekly commenting on the IISS Strategic Dossier "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment" (quoted in The South African Star, 10 Sept 2002)

CASE 3: Aluminium tubes

THE CLAIM
Iraq is trying to acquire aluminium tubes which may be used in manufacturing a centrifuge to manufacture weapons-grade material.

THE FACTS
"We're going to go to war over thousands of aluminum pipes? This is patently ridiculous. These are aluminum pipes coming in for civilian use. They are not being transferred to a covert nuclear processing plant. I'm going to need a helluva lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war." ‹ Ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter

CASE 4: Overwhelming evidence

THE CLAIM
Generalised and repeated claims by political leaders, including President Bush, that there is ³overwhelming evidence².

THE FACTS
Classified briefings by President George Bush's top advisers have
failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against
Iraq, congressional Democrats said yesterday after attending a classified briefing by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA director George Tenet yesterday. Democrat Senator Richard DurbinŠ said the administration had provided "no groundbreaking news" on Iraq's ability to strike the US or other enemies with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Further compounding the problems for the White House and President Bush was an admission by senior intelligence officials that the government had not come up with the "smoking gun" - an updated, cross- agency assessment of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capacities, known as a national intelligence estimate.
[³Smoking gun'³ still eludes Bush team, By Jim VandeHei, Juliet Eilperin, AGE, September 12 2002]

CASE 5: The weapons inspectors who spied

THE STORY
Repeated claims by the government of Iraq that weapons inspection teams, run by the United Nations Special Commission or UNSCOM, were full of "American spies and agents" were simply an excuse to ³throw them out².

THE FACTS
On January 7, 1999, the New York Times confirmed rumors that United States planted spies on the United Nations: "United States officials said on Wednesday that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors ferreting out secret Iraqi weapons programs." The Washington Post and Boston Globe further reported that the operation was aimed at Saddam Hussein himself. NBC News reported that U.N. communication equipment was used by U.S. intelligence to pass along intercepted Iraqi messages.
[By Martin Kelley, "NVWeb Upfront" Featured Essay, January 15, 1999]

CASE 6: Why the inspectors left Iraq

THE STORY
Iraq threw the weapons inspectors out of the country in 1988

THE FACTS
So why did Saddam expel UN weapons inspectors in 1998? He didn't. The
head of the inspection team, Richard Butler, ordered the inspectors
to leave Baghdad in anticipation of an attack ordered by US President Clinton. The Russian ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, criticised Butler for withdrawing the inspectors without seeking the permission of the UN Security Council.
[Washington Post, 17 December 1988]

CASE 7: The rationale for bombings since 1991

THE STORY
Bombing raids by the US and UK since 1991 have been directed at Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction.

THE FACTS
Senior U.S. officials told NBC News that the main targets of Decemmer 1998 attack weren't military but economic. The cruise missiles weren't aimed at any alleged nuclear or biological weapons factories but instead at the oil fields, specifically, the Basra oil refining facilities in southern Iraq. NBC also quoted Fadhil Chalabi, an oil industry analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London, as saying Iraq's oil producing neightbors are "hoping that Iraq's oil installations will be destroyed as a result of American air strikes. Then the [U.N.-mandated] oil-for food program would be paralyzed and the market would improve by the disappearance of Iraqi oil altogether."
[By Martin Kelley "NVWeb Upfront" Featured Essay, January 15, 1999]

CASE 8: The babies in incubators story

THE CLAIM
In late 1990 in the leadup to the 1991 Gulf War, members of the US Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah. In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, ³I saw Iraq soldiers come into the hospitals with guns, and go into a room where 15 babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators and left the babies on the cold floor to die."
 Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."

THE FACTS
Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital. She had been coached ­ along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story ­ by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth $11.6 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.
 "We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion."

CASE 9: The April Glaspie story

THE CLAIM
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 without any support from the United States

THE FACTS
Only weeks before Iraq¹s invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the US
ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told the Iraqis: ³We don¹t have an opinion on inter-Arab disputes such as your border dispute with Kuwait, and we have directed our official spokesman to reiterate this stand,¹² and ³I have a directive from the President, persoanlly, that I should work to expand and deepen relations with Iraq.² No wonder that Saddam Hussein was under the impression that the US would not intervene! Glaspie, in congressional testimony on 20 March 1991, said that her strongest statements had been deleted from the Iraqi-released transcript of her meeting with Saddam. The Government has refused to release its transcript of the meeting.
 After her testimony, some commentators suggested that Glaspie had not been as forceful with Saddam Hussein as she subsequently claimed, whilst others thought she was a scapegoat for diplomatic infighting. ³The new official line is a transparent lie,² commentator William Safire wrote. Glaspie gave a candid postwar interview to the New York Times in which she said, 'We never expected they would take all of Kuwait' ‹ suggesting that the Americans were indeed expecting some military action by Iraq.
[Penny Johnston, 'The case of April Glaspie', Pegasus Mideast.Forum, 19 April 1991]

CASE 10: The case of the troops who weren¹t there

THE CLAIM
When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, part of the administration¹s case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid-September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

THE FACTS
Shortly before US strikes began in the 1991 Gulf War, Jean Heller the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up ­ jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases ­ but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis. "That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.
[1]

CASE 11: The effect of sanctions

THE CLAIM
The sanctions have produced temporary hardship for the Iraqi people but are an effective, nonviolent way to pressure the Iraqi government.

THE FACTS
Surveys by Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, have found that almost one-third of Iraqi children are suffering chronic malnutrition. An April, 1997 UNICEF report says that 4,500 children continue to die each month for lack of adequate food or medicine. The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs reports that "public health services are near total collapse - basic medicines, life-saving drugs and essential medical supplies are lacking throughout the country. 50% of rural people have no access to potable water and waste water treatment facilities have stopped functioning in most urban areas."

CASE 11: Upholding UN resolutions

THE CLAIM
The US government wants to enforce UN Resolutions and uphold the rule of law.

THE FACTS
The US has consistently employed a double standard when it comes to UN Resolutions and international law. For decades, the US has vetoed UN resolutions condemning Israel's occupation of Arab territories. The USA is in technical violation of a global treaty to dismantle chemical weapons. A Senate bill passed in 1997 allows the president to deny international inspections of US weapons sites "on grounds of national security." UN sanctions against Iraq, which continue to be imposed at the insistence of the USA are a gross violation of the Geneva Protocol 1, Article 54; Starvation of Civilians as a Method of Warfare is Prohibited. It's significant that the USA, which has yet to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, considered using nuclear weapons against Iraq in February, 1998.

Bush bends the world to his will

September 14, 2002

Peter Hartcher in Washington for Financial Review

The Administration of George W. Bush may be angry, but, after its display of cunning in the latest phase of its campaign to topple Saddam Hussein, it is certainly not stupid.

Former US president Jimmy Carter has been seething with frustration at the behaviour of the Bush Administration. He called his country's leadership "belligerent and divisive".

And in capital cities around the world, the Bush regime has been labelled "unilateralist", a word spat out like a swear-word, spoken in fear and anger, perhaps the modern world's most arcane insult.

And the charge of unilateralism - a high-handed, one-handed, and back-handed treatment of the rest of the world - is made with good cause.

In just 20 months, George Bush's America has torn up or walked away from international treaties covering control of nuclear arms, biological weapons, and land mines; and abandoned protocols for environmental protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals.

The country that, more than any other, designed the world's post-war systems for the civilised conduct of nations, is suddenly trampling them like a crazed elephant.

"The US acted as foremost producer of global public goods," especially security and trade, explains Josef Joffe, publisher of Germany's Die Zeit and a foreign policy expert.

"The problem today is that the US seems to take more out of the system than it invests in it."

So when the Bush Administration threatened to stride straight past the United Nations on its way to attack Iraq, no-one doubted that it was in deadly earnest.

But still it was America the rogue state, and the onus was on Bush to make the case for why, now, it was suddenly so urgent to topple Iraqi dictator.

And the administration was not doing a terribly impressive job of persuading the world, or his own Congress, that there was much of a case.

The onus of proof had rested on Bush - the world was waiting to see the evidence to prove that Hussein posed an urgent threat to world security. A sober and sceptical United Nations sat, as if in judgment, to hear the US President's much-anticipated speech on Thursday.

But Bush abruptly shifted the onus away from the US and onto the United Nations:

"The US helped found the United Nations," Bush told the 190 countries represented in the general assembly.

"We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. "And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.

Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime."

Bush listed all the UN resolutions that Hussein has flouted over the past decade, then continued:

"My nation will work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account.

"We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable."

The noted American foreign policy scholar Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and author of an excellent analysis of US diplomacy called Special Providence, is a registered Democrat and therefore carries no water for a Republican administration. Yet he described Bush's speech as "brilliant".

"He has given the UN Security Council a choice," says Mead. "One is to agree that its own demands on Iraq have to be enforced. Or it can say we didn't really mean all that stuff in our resolutions over the years and you don't have to take us seriously.

"And there is an implicit threat - the US is going to do this anyway. Do you guys in the UN want to look relevant?"

Bush put it bluntly in his speech to the UN: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance.

"All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

Mead explains the full implications for the UN if it chooses the wrong answer:

"If the UN Security Council says no, then it looks weak in two ways. One, a great power can just go ahead without it.

"And two, the Security Council will have just admitted that it really is a League of Nations," the international body that was set up after World War I but, when the US refused to join, was rendered toothless. It proved powerless to prevent World War Two.

"Is the UN prepared to admit that it is another League of Nations - just an empty talking shop?" Mead asks.

So the onus is no longer on Bush to prove his case against Iraq, but on the UN to prove it has the credibility to enforce its own orders.

Despite the gauntlet that Bush threw at the feet of the UN, the foreign ministers of other countries were relieved, even grateful that Bush had given the UN a chance to get involved.

"The President," said France's Dominique de Villepin, "stressed the central role the UN must play and this is a very good thing. We appreciate this."

The US has been holding discussions privately with the key members of the Security Council, the permanent members who have veto power over decisions. There are five of these permanent members - the US, Britain, China, Russia and France.

Informed observers said that while some of the other members had taken a hard line publicly, all were now prepared to allow the US a resolution to confront Iraq.

And once Bush wins a resolution from the Security Council, his own Congress will not dare oppose him if he demands a war against Iraq. Bush seems to be well on the way to winning support at home and abroad for exactly what he wants.

But Bush went yet further in his appeal for UN support. He also announced that, 18 years after the US had walked out of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation arguing that it was a corrupt hotbed of socialist sympathisers, America was going to return as a member "as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity".

Mead explains the significance of this:

"The US has now paid all its outstanding dues to the UN, rejoined UNESCO, and taken the Iraq problem right up to the UN Security Council. To anyone calling the US unilateralist, Bush can now say, 'What's your beef?"'

Bush even reversed the accusation, throwing it back at Iraq, the unilateral breaker of UN rules.

Does this mean that Bush's America is no longer a unilateralist power?

"No," says Mead. "What it means is that Bush understands he can be unilateralist, but he can also be multilateralist. It's not just one or the other - life's a buffet, and he takes the dishes as he likes."

One faction in his government urged the President to completely bypass the UN. This group of unilateralists, the neo-conservatives, is led intellectually by the Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, with the sympathy and support of the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

The philosophy of this hardline faction is expressed by a sympathetic columnist, Charles Krauthammer:

"Rather than contain US power within a vast web of constraining international agreements, the new unilateralism seeks to enhance US power and unashamedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global ends."

Their syndrome was captured by Mel Brooks with "It's fun to be king."

The neo-conservatives believe that the US had to behave much more moderately and co-operatively when nations had a choice and could be drawn into the Soviet sphere. But now that US hegemony is uncontested, it's no more Mr Nice Superpower.

Countering this group is the more moderate Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage - both former serving soldiers. Although it is a much smaller group, "it just so happens that Colin Powell is not only the Secretary of State and the most popular man in America, he also knows it," says the former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, head of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"Powell's power comes from his independent popularity. He is a Westphalian man, he believes in the sanctity of borders, and an international order."

And Bush's decision to approach Iraq through the UN is a major victory for the Powell worldview.

In short, Bush is bending the world to his will, using whatever approach is best suited to his purpose, mediating between two competing schools of thought in his own administration, but moving relentlessly closer to getting what he wants.

"Not bad for a dumb guy," says Mead sarcastically. "My friends keep telling me what an idiot Bush is. All he's done is persuade a lot of rich and powerful guys to give him money and power, they say. And now he's made a very clever move in the UN. I wish I could be so dumb."

Bush at the U.N.: 'Diplomacy' in the Age of the American Empire
  
by Robert Jensen and Rahul Mahajan

Published on Friday, September 13, 2002 by CommonDreams.org

In the age of American empire, this is what diplomacy looks like:

After months of open expressions of contempt for international law and disregard for the opinions of other nations (allies and enemies alike), the U.S. president deigned to appear before the United Nations on September 12. In the hectoring tones of an annoyed parent scolding a fussy child, George Bush explained that he would be happy to go to war with the endorsement of the Security Council but that he does not consider such endorsement necessary. The United Nations can have a role, the president conceded, but if it makes the wrong decision it will be "irrelevant."

For this cynical maneuver, the emperor was applauded, at home and abroad. For this abandonment of any real commitment to multilateralism, all praised Bush the New Multilateralist.

The implications of this are frightening, long term and short, but at least now it's all out in the open. The approval of the U.N. Security Council and Congress will be easier to secure after Bush's pious posturing.

World leaders, apparently desperate to save some scrap of dignity in the face of the president's condescension, suggested that this blatant rejection of any role for the United Nations beyond the cosmetic was a "positive" step (Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik) that showed how Bush had recognized the "central role" of the United Nations (French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin).

Meanwhile, back in the homeland, politicians rushed to the microphones to pronounce the speech "brilliant" (Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat) and "a powerful and convincing indictment of Saddam Hussein and the grave threat he poses" (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, another Democrat). The fact that Bush offered no new evidence or arguments in the course of "making his case" seemed to matter little to Lieberman, or anyone else.

Perhaps the most telling moment in the speech came when Bush said he wanted the United Nations to be "effective, and respectful, and successful." A text posted by the Associated Press almost immediately after Bush delivered the speech (from an advance copy provided by the White House, one assumes) used the word "respected" instead of "respectful." Did Bush intend to say that he hoped the U.N. would be respected? Or did he want to tell the U.N. that its effectiveness and success depended on being respectful (to Bush and the United States, one assumes)? Was it a Freudian slip, or a conscious choice?

Perhaps it does not matter, for the rest of the speech was unambiguous: The empire has served notice that the world's governing body can either act in accord with the empire's wishes, or step back and watch the empire do its work.

The work, of course, is the bloody work of war against Iraq.

In the coming days, U.S. diplomats will hammer out a Security Council resolution that gives Iraq some specified amount of time (probably no more than a few weeks) to open up to unlimited weapons inspection of unprecedented intrusiveness or face military action. If Iraq refuses, the war will come sooner. If it accepts inspections, the war will be later, after the United States finds a new pretext. But Bush -- along with Cheney and others in the administration -- has made it clear the war will come, inspections or not.

Bush's case against Saddam Hussein is based on the Iraqi leader's disregard for U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on Iraq to disarm and respect human rights. It certainly is true that the Iraqi regime has long denied basic political and human rights to its citizens (including when Hussein was a valued U.S. ally in the 1980s). And while there is no clear evidence about the current state of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, it is plausible that Iraq has attempted to reconstitute some of those programs.

Although much of the administration's rhetoric is overwrought -- sometimes bordering on the hysterical in claims that Saddam is on his way to a nuclear strike against the United States -- there is no doubt the Iraqi regime is a menace, to its own people today and possibly to the region in the future.

Bush pointed out that Hussein has used chemical weapons in the war against Iran and on Kurdish citizens in Halabja, but failed to point out that at that time he was a U.S. ally; Hussein has been bold enough to use such weapons only when he had the United States to protect him from serious international sanction, as U.S. officials at the time did.

Hussein's Iraq has refused to fully comply with Security Council resolutions, but it is hardly alone in this. It is not a secret that Israel stands in violation of Security Council resolutions, among them SCR 242 calling for withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Thirty-five years later, the United States' response to that violation remains massive economic and military aid that allows Israel to remain defiant.

As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States has the right to veto resolutions it doesn't like. Though the United States' illegal invasion of Panama in 1989 drew condemnations around the world, no Security Council resolution would be passed calling on the United States to withdraw, hence no need for the United States to violate such a resolution.

The question has never been whether Saddam is a nice guy, but rather how to deal with his regime. The U.S. strategy to date -- under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II -- has been to offer disincentives rather than incentives.

Beginning under the first President Bush and continuing in the Clinton years, U.S. demanded Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections but also said that even if inspections certified that Iraq to be clean of weapons of mass destruction, the economic sanctions might well stay in place "in perpetuity." In other words, the message to Hussein was: Comply with the rules, but your punishment will never end.

Finally, after manipulating the inspections process to provoke a confrontation by demanding the right to inspect sensitive sites, inspectors were pulled out on U.S. orders -- not evicted by Iraq -- in December 1998 right before the United States launched cruise missile strikes on Iraq. Not surprisingly, Iraq has not been eager to allow inspectors to return, especially after it was revealed that what Iraq had long contended was true -- the United States had used inspectors to spy on the Iraqi regime.

Bush I and Clinton had always talked "regime change," but after 9/11/01 Bush II upped the ante by stating openly that such change likely would come through a U.S. war. The United States continued to demand inspections while at the same time saying that even a completely clean inspections report would not deter the United States from direct intervention to topple Hussein. In other words: Comply with the rules, but we will bomb you anyway.

Saddam Hussein is a thug, but even a thug can see the obvious. It is clear that Hussein is most concerned with his own survival, and to date the United States has given him every reason to continue on a path of defiance. If you are told the most powerful nation in the world will wage war on you no matter what you do, what incentive is there for anything less than defiance and preparation for war?

At this point, perhaps the only thing that Bush and Hussein have in common -- besides a shared contempt for the United Nations -- is a desire for war. One can assume Hussein sees no other path open for himself at this point.

The reason that Bush -- and with him a certain stratum of elites in the United States -- might want war is equally clear: Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, just behind Saudi Arabia. After putting up with Hussein for more than a decade after the Gulf War, the time seems ripe to American hawks to go further than mere "containment." Bringing down Hussein and replacing him with a compliant leader along the lines of Hamid Karzai (the United States' hand-picked puppet in Afghanistan) will allow indefinite military occupation and further solidify U.S. control well into the future.

Shoehorning such a war on Iraq into the rubric of the "war on terrorism" makes such a war easier to sell to a U.S. public frightened by the reality of terrorism and the rhetoric of the Bush administration. The rest of the world (perhaps with the exception of Tony Blair) is not taken in by such rhetoric, but to the Washington crowd the rest of the world is not of great concern. Old ideas about building coalitions are unattractive when the officials of the empire believe they can go it alone; as Donald Rumsfeld has put it, "The mission must determine the coalition. The coalition must not determine the mission." Other nations may express concerns, but in the end, force carries the day.

Bush said that the United States "has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long." The problem is that he has no quarrel with them and also no concern for their fate. Assuming that Hussein is not going to simply pack up and leave quietly when U.S. forces arrive, it is sensible to assume there will be a war of some duration and that the U.S. military will use its preferred tactics -- high-altitude bombing to "soften up" areas before ground troops go in, which guarantees high levels of civilian casualties; the use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster bombs; and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure such as electrical-power generation and water facilities. Whether the military will discover Iraqi underground bunkers that can only be reached with "bunker buster" tactical nuclear warheads is unknown.

An attack on Iraq will have nothing to do with stopping terrorism. It will have nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. And it will be only marginally concerned with weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, this will be a war to extend and deepen U.S. control over the energy-rich Middle East, the single most important source of strategic power in an industrial world that runs on oil.

Bush and others in his administration have made it clear for some time that they desperately want this war. Many in the antiwar movement have felt desperately alone in the quest to stop the war.

After Bush's U.N. appearance, it is clear that, in some sense, we are alone. Other nations have signaled they will not take risks to derail the empire. U.S. politicians have shown they will not take the lead to challenge an imperial president.

The burden of stopping this war of empire rests where it always has, on the shoulders of the citizens of the empire who are willing to organize against it.

Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas and author of "Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream." He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. Rahul Mahajan is the author of "The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism." He can be reached at rahul@tao.ca.

The last emperor

One thing was made crystal clear yesterday: there is no other authority than America, no law but US law

Polly Toynbee
Friday September 13, 2002
The Guardian

There he stood, this unlikely emperor of the world, telling the UN's 190 nations how it is going to be. The assembled nations may not be quite the toothless Roman senate of imperial times, but at the UN the hyperpower and its commander-in-chief are in control as never before: how could it be otherwise when the US army is the UN's only enforcer? This is, President Bush said, "a difficult and defining moment" for the UN, a challenge that will show whether it has become "irrelevant". He pointed his silver-tongued gun with some delicacy and a certain noblesse oblige, but there was no doubt he was holding it to the UN's head: pass a resolution or be bypassed.
It was a fine and gracious speech that might have been borrowed from better presidents in better times. He spoke of a just and lasting peace for Palestine. He promised a surprise return by the US to Unesco. He spoke of the tragedy of world poverty, disease and suffering, of offering US aid, trade and healthcare. Earnest and uplifting, it was very like the speech he made soon after the twin towers attack last year. But how long ago that suddenly seemed. Back then the world tried hard to believe him, full of sympathy and hope that this earth-quake had indeed turned him internationalist. But this time belief was stretched beyond breaking. The skills of the best speech writer could not blot out the gulf between last year's rhetoric and the reality that followed.

Maybe it was the cut-away to Hamid Karzai in his green striped coat of many colours sitting in the chamber. It came as a sharp reminder of America's failure to invest in serious nation-building in Afghanistan, failure to send in enough troops to stop the old warlords seizing power again, the paucity of aid and the brazen carelessness once war was won. So Bush's conjured images of a postwar Iraq, peaceful and democratic, sounded like empty phantasms. War in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban was necessary - but so was investing in long-lasting security and prosperity if he wanted to prove how democracy wins over fundamentalist fury. From Kyoto and Johannesburg, to the ICC, steel tariffs, NMD and nuclear testing, too much has happened (or not happened) since last year's speech to take this one at face value.

Even so, good words are still preferable to bad ones. It was, after all, remarkable that the president was there in that chamber at all. A month ago the strident voices coming out of the White House would have none of it. The Rumsfeld/Cheney axis of war was in the ascendant, the UN was for wimps. The hawks would never have let their emperor stand there soliciting UN support in dulcet tones. It would be nice to believe that Tony Blair played some part in strengthening the arm of the Colin Powell internationalists who won the argument on the need for UN legitimacy. Sadly, he features hardly at all in US commentators' accounts of the internal Republican rows that finally brought Bush to the UN. For a very little influence, Blair has paid a frighteningly high price: the split with the rest of Europe, weakening his own influence by becoming Bush's tool, never again an independent honest broker. At home there is angry puzzlement among many more in his own party than the usual suspects. Was it worth so much damage? Only if in the end this war is successfully averted.

Even now, the drafters are working at a UN resolution to square (or fudge) the needs of the US war party with French and Russian hesitation. Deals are brokered, poor countries' arms are twisted with aid and trade while Russia may be allowed to kill a few more Chechens. But a deal there must be. The only ones who hope the UN fumbles are the Rumsfeld/Cheney warriors who want no straitjacket, no option for Saddam to avoid the war now sharpening its knives on his borders. Moving command headquarters from Florida to Qatar could hardly send a louder message: America wants war, America means war.

The only hope of avoiding it is that Saddam takes fright at a security council resolution with a firm time limit for the weapons inspectors to return - any time, any place or else, no run-around or obstruction. The message that the US means war has been conveyed to him forcefully by everyone who has his ear, including former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The US sabre is out of its scabbard: just let him look Cheney and Rumsfeld in the eye. The world will hold its breath and hope he blinks or, better still, that he is overthrown by others who see what's coming.

For those who supported the wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, the enslaved peoples of Iraq are no less just a cause. Once legitimised by the UN and international law, there is no moral difference in the need to liberate Iraqis and relieve the potential threat Saddam poses to his neighbours. None would mourn his passing from power. The difference is pragmatic, not moral. There were very good reasons why Bush senior did not march on Baghdad in 1991, reasons that remain unchanged. Saddam's elite troops around Baghdad would inflict very heavy casualties. In his death throes, he would certainly use anthrax and nerve gases. Iraq might fall apart, with Shi'ite lands defecting to Iran, strengthening another vile regime, destabilising others. If Afghanistan cannot hold US attention for one short year, how would far more complex Iraq be nurtured long term? Fermenting terror, recruiting generations of terrorists to come, the cure looks worse than the disease.

Curiously, the louder Bush and Blair call for an end to this villain, the less convincing it sounds. Why now? That remains the perplexing question. Containment works well: few observers think Saddam can launch anything under present no-fly, daily bombing pressure. What is Bush's obsession? It remains a mystery. It is not a vote-winner in the US where the danger looks not clear and present, but cloudy and distant. The risks are frightening and the costs staggering. Petrol prices rise while stock exchanges fall at the prospect. Oil say some, but if US companies want Saddam's oil, an oil-driven cynical administration could make peace not war and help themselves to fat contracts.

No, it appears to spring from a new ideology, a neo-conservative dream which Charles Krauthammer, guru of the right, calls the US's "uniquely benign imperium". Hyperpower is not enough unless it is exerted so forcefully that no state ever again challenges benign US authority. One thing was made crystal clear yesterday - there is no other source of authority but America, and that means there is no other law but US law. What the US wants, the UN had better solemnise with a suitable resolution - very like the Roman senate and one of its lesser god-emperors. But this is not the real America. A small cultish sect is battling for the "imperium" within this bizarre administration, resisted by mainstream Republicans - so what is Tony Blair doing in there with them?

p.toynbee@guardian.co.uk

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in the information for research and educational purposes.)

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue: U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool

Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway

Washington Post (US), September 15, 2002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...8841-2002Sep14.html

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.

"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."

Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.

While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.

Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.

While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.

Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.

The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.

On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.

Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.

But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.

Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.

Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.

While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.

Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.

The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.

Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.

But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

Neil Mackay

The Sunday Herald (UK), September 15, 2002

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

* refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

* describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

* reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

* says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

* spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

* calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

* hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

* and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

Edited by author 09-16-2002 03:04 AM
Syria Says 'Blind Bias' Behind Focus on Iraq.

Reuters 15 September 2002.

UNITED NATIONS -- Syria said on Sunday "blind bias" was behind threats against Iraq at a time when Israel violates U.N. resolutions, possesses nuclear weapons and uses U.S. weapons against Palestinians under occupation.

"Why should the world request Iraq to adhere to Security Council resolutions, while Israel is allowed to be above international law?" Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara told the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

"We see no justification for igniting a new war in the Middle East. We strongly believe that striking Iraq, which no longer occupies the lands of others, while keeping silent about the Israeli occupation ... represents blind bias and a distorted vision of the real situation," he added.

Arab countries say they oppose the use of force against Iraq but Shara's speech was the strongest statement in New York so far of the Arab view that U.S. policies toward Iraq and Israel, a U.S. ally, show a double standard.

This year alone, the U.N. Security Council has demanded several times that Israel end its incursions into Palestinian cities, which have continued despite the calls.

Israel also blocked a U.N. attempt to investigate the facts about killings during Israeli actions inside a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank town of Hebron [not to mention Jenin!], saying it could not accept U.N. terms for the mission.

Arabs say Israel has violated since 1967 U.N. Security Council resolution 242, which calls for withdrawal from territory occupied in the June 1967 war.

Shara said the world was in a state of confusion and tension because of "an increasing tendency toward practices that are characterized by unilateralism and an appetite for hegemony over the fortunes of others" -- a reference to the role of the United States as the most powerful country.

"It is indeed odd that the United States considers Israel acting in self-defense in occupied territories that are acknowledged to be occupied by Security Council resolutions which the United States played a role in drafting," he added.

Shara added: "It is regrettable that some parties only focus on certain Arab or Muslim countries, ignoring in the meantime the nuclear arsenal that Israel possesses."

Syria repeated an Arab offer to make the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction, provided that Israel also agrees and opens its nuclear plants to inspection.

Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammad bin Mubarak al-Khalifa later joined the call for inspections in Israel.

"We call upon the United Nations to press Israel to accede to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, with all its nuclear facilities being subject to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) comprehensive safeguards system," he said.

Challenging the U.S. policy of "regime change" in Iraq, Shara said only the Iraqi people should decide their future, without any interference in their internal affairs.

Iraq bows to UN demands

September 17, 2002

AFP

Iraq has agreed to accept the unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said after receiving a letter from the Iraqi government today.

"I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying their decision to allow the return of the inspectors without conditions to continue their work," he said.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri delivered the letter to Annan in the presence of the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Musa.

The Iraqis had also agreed "to start immediate discussions on the practical arrangements for the return of the inspectors," Annan said.

Annan said a speech last week to the UN General Assembly by US President George W Bush had "galvanised the international community".

"Almost every speaker in the General Assembly urged Iraq to accept the return of the inspectors," Annan said.

Bush challenged the UN to enforce the demands made of Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, in particular that it give up all its weapons of mass destruction.

There was no immediate response from the White House to the announcement.

"I would want to pay particular tribute to all the states of the Arab League who played a key role in this," Annan said.

He singled out Musa, for "his strenuous efforts in helping to convince Iraq to allow the return of the inspectors".

Annan said he would pass the letter on to the Security Council "and they will have to decide what they do next".

He said the inspectors in the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and their chairman Hans Blix were "ready to continue their work".

Australians don't want war, voters tell Howard
By NATHAN VASS
September 15, 2002

HALF of all Australians oppose a US-led strike against Iraq under any circumstances, according to an exclusive national survey.

The Sunday Telegraph/Newspoll survey reveals 47 per cent of Australians are opposed to a mission against Saddam Hussein, regardless of any evidence produced by the US or the United Nations.

And at least 20 per cent of Australia is still undecided.

According to The Sunday Telegraph/Newspoll survey, even if Prime Minister John Howard produces strong evidence to support the US, 74 per cent of people say Australia should have nothing to do with the bombing of Baghdad unless the action is formally sanctioned by the United Nations.

And 75 per cent say they will not support war against Iraq if Mr Howard fails to build a credible case against the Saddam regime.

The poll makes it clear that Mr Howard will be under heavy public pressure not to blindly follow the US into war against Iraq.

Eighty-five per cent of people said Mr Howard must publicly detail, in advance, what evidence the Government has to justify Australia's involvement in a war against Iraq.

Two-thirds of Australians said that they opposed any action against Iraq if the US and the UN failed to produce evidence that Saddam had the capability to launch nuclear weapons.

A mere 15 per cent said they would favour a strike on Baghdad even if such evidence was not produced.

And 37 per cent of people would still be opposed to Australian involvement in an invasion of Baghdad even if evidence supported the strike.

More than 80 per cent of people said Australia would be at much greater risk of being attacked by terrorists if it joined a US crusade against Saddam.

Men (40 per cent support) are much more likely than women (26 per cent) to support a military strike against Baghdad.

Only 19 per cent of Australians said they would support action without UN backing.

Nearly 90 per cent of Australians demanded that UN weapons inspectors investigate Saddam's armoury before any strike goes ahead.

Finally, if the US and the UN both fail to produce any evidence of a dangerous nuclear and chemical weapons stockpile in Baghdad, two-thirds of Australians say there should be no military campaign against Saddam.

Even if Mr Howard can present a detailed argument in favour of invading Baghdad, only half of the nation (54 per cent) support Australian troops being part of the mission.

Only 25 per cent strongly supported Australia being part of the strike, while 23 per cent were strongly against our involvement.

If Mr Howard can't produce evidence to justify a strike, only nine per cent of Australians strongly favour bombing Baghdad.

But 58 per cent would still be strongly opposed.

Sunday Telegraph

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri has written to UN secretary-general Kofi Annan to announce Iraq will allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. Following is the full text of that letter.

Full text: Sept 17, 2002

Dear Secretary-General,

I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the secretary-general of the League of Arab States (Amr Moussa).

I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

The government of the Republic of Iraq has responded to this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the secretary-general of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

The government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction.

This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including 687 (1991).

To this end, the government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

In this context, the government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all member states of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

I would be grateful if you bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

Please accept, Mr Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Dr Naji Sabri
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq

White House Dismisses Iraqi Offer.

AP 16 September 2002.

By GEORGE GEDDA Associated Press Writer AP/Stephen Chernin

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The White House dismissed an Iraqi offer Monday to let weapons inspectors return there unconditionally, calling it a tactical move that did not change the Bush administration's desire to remove Saddam Hussein.

The White House released a written statement that called the offer ``a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action.''

``As such, it is a tactic that will fail,'' spokesman Scott McClellan said in the statement.

``This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions,'' McClellan said in Washington.

The administration still is demanding a decree from the United Nations that would make plain that the organization will enforce the 16 resolutions Saddam has broken, McClellan said. The statement did not mention the White House's previous insistence that Iraq allow inspectors to go anywhere in the country, at any time.

It demanded a ``new, effective U.N. Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region and to the world.''

Secretary of State Colin Powell said the U.N. Security Council is moving toward the U.S. position on Iraq, but France objected strongly to the Bush administration's insistence that Saddam must go.

As Powell consulted with council members, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, working with Iraqi and Arab League officials, came up with a letter pledging that Iraq would let U.N. weapons inspectors return unconditionally.

Annan credited President Bush for the Iraqi reversal of policy. He said the president has ``galvanized the international community'' with his speech last Thursday.

Earlier, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, ``We have one goal, which is the fight against proliferation'' of weapons of mass destruction.

``There has been talk about working for regime change,'' de Villepin said. ``This is not included in the mandate of the United Nations. If we begin discussing it, where will it end? It's a totally different process.''

De Villepin spoke during a luncheon with reporters.

The goal of removing Saddam from power was adopted during President Clinton's tenure, and President Bush, pursuing the objective, is threatening to use force to achieve it. The U.S. policy is that disarmament in Iraq, as ordered by U.N. Security Council resolutions, will not be possible so long as Saddam remains in power, with or without renewed U.N. inspections.

A broad consensus appears to be developing in support of a resolution demanding that Iraq accept the unconditional return of weapons inspectors in the next several weeks. It was not clear whether the proposed Iraqi letter being discussed Monday would meet the council's requirements.

Five days after Bush demanded in a speech at the United Nations that the organization stand up to Iraq, Powell said he was absolutely sure of continued progress toward approval of a new resolution.

``The political dynamic has changed, and there is a great deal of pressure now being placed on Iraq to come into compliance with the U.N. mandates of the last 12 years,'' Powell said, meeting with reporters.

He said council members are only beginning to consider what a new resolution might say.

Powell met Monday with delegates from several Security Council countries, including Britain, Colombia and Mexico. Also planned was an evening meeting with a fourth Council member, Syria.

The administration favors a resolution that not only would mandate return of inspectors with full access to all areas of Iraq but also would permit the use of force should Iraq refuse.

That stand goes beyond what France would be willing to accept. De Villepin said the resolution should be limited only to the need for the return of inspectors. If Iraq should refuse, he said, the Council should reconvene to debate what comes next.

De Villepin suggested that three weeks would be a reasonable amount of time for Saddam to respond to a Security Council demand for the inspectors' return.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday that Bush has not decided to go to war.

At Dubuque, Iowa, the president pressed his case for deposing Saddam. Outside the Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds, he called the Iraqi a ``tyrant (who) must be dealt with.'' About 100 demonstrators held signs that read, ``Drop Bush Not Bombs'' and ``Please No War in Iraq.''

Bush issued a fresh challenge to the United Nations to show resolve against the Iraqi leader, whom Bush tried to link, if only in rhetoric, to the al-Qaida terrorists accused of pulling off the Sept. 11 attacks last year.

The war on terror is more than hunting down al-Qaida, Bush said. ``It also means dealing with true and real threats that we can foresee. One of the most dangerous threats America faces is a terrorist network teaming up with some of the world's worst leaders who develop the world's worst weapons,'' he said.

``If Iraq's regime continues to defy us and the world, (the United States) will move deliberately yet decisively to hold Iraq to account,'' with or without the United Nations, Bush said.

Before leaving the White House early Monday, Bush telephoned Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri and spoke for about 10 minutes on Iraq and the war on terror.

Associated Press writer Dafna Linzer from the United Nations contributed to this report.

Edited by author 09-17-2002 08:52 PM
How Saddam Happened

America helped make a monster.
What to do with him - and what happens after he’s gone - has haunted us for a quarter century
 
By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
NEWSWEEK
 
Sept. 23 issue - The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

THE ONCE AND FUTURE Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by NEWSWEEK. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President’s greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.
Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America’s big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam’s armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.
    
FORMER ALLIES
Rumsfeld is not the first American diplomat to wish for the demise of a former ally. After all, before the cold war, the Soviet Union was America’s partner against Hitler in World War II. In the real world, as the saying goes, nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests. Nonetheless, Rumsfeld’s long-ago interlude with Saddam is a reminder that today’s friend can be tomorrow’s mortal threat. As President George W. Bush and his war cabinet ponder Saddam’s successor’s regime, they would do well to contemplate how and why the last three presidents allowed the Butcher of Baghdad to stay in power so long.

The history of America’s relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam’s predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. But it happened.

America’s past stumbles, while embarrassing, are not an argument for inaction in the future. Saddam probably is the "grave and gathering danger" described by President Bush in his speech to the United Nations last week. It may also be true that "whoever replaces Saddam is not going to be worse," as a senior administration official put it to NEWSWEEK. But the story of how America helped create a Frankenstein monster it now wishes to strangle is sobering. It illustrates the power of wishful thinking, as well as the iron law of unintended consequences.

TRANSFIXED BY SADDAM
America did not put Saddam in power. He emerged after two decades of turmoil in the ’60s and ’70s, as various strongmen tried to gain control of a nation that had been concocted by British imperialists in the 1920s out of three distinct and rival factions, the Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurds. But during the cold war, America competed with the Soviets for Saddam’s attention and welcomed his war with the religious fanatics of Iran. Having cozied up to Saddam, Washington found it hard to break away even after going to war with him in 1991. Through years of both tacit and overt support, the West helped create the Saddam of today, giving him time to build deadly arsenals and dominate his people. Successive administrations always worried that if Saddam fell, chaos would follow, rippling through the region and possibly igniting another Middle East war. At times it seemed that Washington was transfixed by Saddam.

The Bush administration wants to finally break the spell. If the administration’s true believers are right, Baghdad after Saddam falls will look something like Paris after the Germans fled in August 1944. American troops will be cheered as liberators, and democracy will spread forth and push Middle Eastern despotism back into the shadows. Yet if the gloomy predictions of the administration’s many critics come true, the Arab street, inflamed by Yankee imperialism, will rise up and replace the shaky but friendly autocrats in the region with Islamic fanatics.

While the Middle East is unlikely to become a democratic nirvana, the worst-case scenarios, always a staple of the press, are probably also wrong or exaggerated. Assuming that a cornered and doomed Saddam does not kill thousands of Americans in some kind of horrific Gotterdmmerung-a scary possibility, one that deeply worries administration officials-the greatest risk of his fall is that one strongman may simply be replaced by another. Saddam’s successor may not be a paranoid sadist. But there is no assurance that he will be America’s friend or forswear the development of weapons of mass destruction.
       
A TASTE FOR NASTY WEAPONS
American officials have known that Saddam was a psychopath ever since he became the country’s de facto ruler in the early 1970s. One of Saddam’s early acts after he took the title of president in 1979 was to videotape a session of his party’s congress, during which he personally ordered several members executed on the spot. The message, carefully conveyed to the Arab press, was not that these men were executed for plotting against Saddam, but rather for thinking about plotting against him. From the beginning, U.S. officials worried about Saddam’s taste for nasty weaponry; indeed, at their meeting in 1983, Rumsfeld warned that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons might "inhibit" American assistance. But top officials in the Reagan administration saw Saddam as a useful surrogate. By going to war with Iran, he could bleed the radical mullahs who had seized control of Iran from the pro-American shah. Some Reagan officials even saw Saddam as another Anwar Sadat, capable of making Iraq into a modern secular state, just as Sadat had tried to lift up Egypt before his assassination in 1981.

But Saddam had to be rescued first. The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran’s "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam’s armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand. After Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal - American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam’s Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.
       
‘WHO IS GOING TO SAY ANYTHING?’
The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam’s own forces. There was only token official protest at the time. Saddam’s men were unfazed. An Iraqi audiotape, later captured by the Kurds, records Saddam’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid (known as Ali Chemical) talking to his fellow officers about gassing the Kurds. "Who is going to say anything?" he asks. "The international community? F--k them!"

The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.)

Edited by author 09-17-2002 09:26 PM
U.N., Iraq Plan Inspectors' Return

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
AP/Kathy Willens

SEPTEMBER 17, 20:58 ET

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - As U.N. weapons inspectors moved ahead with plans to return to Iraq, the United States and Russia clashed on Tuesday over whether to take Baghdad at its word or impose a new ultimatum. ``We have seen this game before,'' said a skeptical Colin Powell.

The secretary of state reaffirmed Washington's call for a tough anti-Iraq resolution by the U.N. Security Council, despite Iraq's sudden about-face on inspections.

But Russia's foreign minister said he saw no immediate need for new U.N. demands if the inspectors are quickly dispatched. He was backed up by Arab leaders, Moscow's traditional allies. The ``logic of war'' may now be replaced by ``the logic of peace,'' said one.

The 15-member Security Council majority decided, despite a U.S. request for more time, to quickly schedule a meeting, possibly Wednesday, with chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to discuss renewed inspections. The Americans, supported by Britain and Colombia, wanted first to prepare a new resolution, diplomats said.

Blix then met with Iraqi representatives, after which the weapons inspection agency said talks on final arrangements for the return of inspectors would take place ``and be concluded'' at a meeting in Vienna during the week of Sept. 30. Earlier Tuesday, the Iraqis said the talks would be held in 10 days.

In the Middle East, the business of preparing for war went on, as American warplanes flew under aggressive new rules over Iraq, and U.S. commanders considered basing heavy bombers closer by.

At a U.N. news conference at which Powell and Russia's Igor Ivanov laid out conflicting views, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed for them to stick together on Iraq.

This is ``the beginning, not an end,'' he said. ``We should try to maintain the unity of purpose that has emerged.''

The Security Council then went into closed-door consultations on a timetable for dealing with the fast-changing Iraq issue.

The council sent weapons inspectors into Iraq after the 1990-91 Gulf War, to ensure that President Saddam Hussein's regime destroyed any chemical or biological weapons it possessed, and any capacity to produce those or nuclear weapons.

The inspectors left in 1998, ahead of U.S. airstrikes, amid Iraqi allegations that some were spying for the United States and countercharges that Baghdad wasn't cooperating with the inspection teams.

The international ``unity of purpose'' Annan cited emerged after President Bush, in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly last Thursday, forcefully called for the Security Council to threaten action against Iraq if it did not allow the inspectors back.

If the world body didn't act, Bush made clear, Washington would feel free to launch a military attack.

Bush's was the opening move in what may become a high-stakes diplomatic chess game.

Iraq's surprise reply came late Monday, in a letter to Annan in which Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said Baghdad would allow the inspectors back ``without conditions'' in order to ``remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction.''

On Tuesday, Annan told reporters that chief inspector Blix ``is ready to move as quickly as is practicable.''

Asked when the inspectors might actually return to Baghdad, Iraqi representative Saeed Hasan replied, ``It depends on Mr. Blix's arrangements.''

The secretary-general indicated he didn't believe any formal reauthorization is needed from the Security Council, whose previous resolutions set out specific conditions for their return.

The Bush administration late Monday had dismissed the Iraqi move as a ploy to split the Security Council. On Tuesday, Powell was equally dismissive.

``We cannot just take a one-and-a-quarter-page letter as the end of this matter,'' Powell told reporters. ``We have seen this game before'' - a reference to Iraqi delays and obstructions of past inspections.

He did not specify what Washington would seek in a new resolution - a firm deadline, a threat of force or other tough elements. But he said the council should discuss an inspection plan and the ``consequences'' of an Iraqi failure to comply. Washington stresses the need for unrestricted access for the inspectors.

Russia's Ivanov said it was important that Baghdad, which previously had sought an easing of anti-Iraq U.N. sanctions, had placed no preconditions on the inspectors' return.

``Whether we can trust this letter or not, I think that only facts alone can corrobrate this,'' he said. ``We need to bring about the speedy return of inspectors to Iraq.''

He said a new Security Council resolution is unneeded. ``All the necessary resolutions, all the necessary decisions on that are'' in existing council documents, he said. His government's veto power can block any resolution it opposes.

Arab foreign ministers, meeting in New York, welcomed Iraq's readiness to allow inspectors back and expressed hope that a ``positive response by the United Nations'' will lead to the lifting of sanctions and the ``alleviation of the suffering of the Iraqi people,'' the Arab League said in a statement.

Speaking for the European Union, the Danish foreign minister, Per Stig Moeller, said the council should take up the question of whether Iraq's letter meets its demands. And meantime, he added on a skeptical note, ``I would sleep with my eyes wide open and with my boots on.''

Ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso of Colombia, a Security Council member, also was skeptical, saying he believed additional pressure - a deadline - needed to be put on Iraq to ensure compliance.

Arab spokesmen were more positive.

Iraq's letter raises hopes that ``the logic of war will finally be replaced by the logic of peace,'' Algeria's president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, said in an address to the General Assembly. Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, said he saw no need for new resolutions. ``The problem was weapons of mass destruction. Now we found a way to resume the inspections,'' he said.

Speaking to reporters, the Iraqi minister, Sabri, said he hoped for a ``smooth'' resumption of inspections, ``with no pressures, no complications, so we can finish this job quickly.'' Certification of Iraqi disarmament would lead to a lifting of U.N. sanctions.

Out in the Middle East, meanwhile, the U.S. military prepared for possible confrontation.

The Pentagon disclosed it had ordered pilots, as they patrol Iraqi skies, to attack command and communications links in Iraq's anti-aircraft system. It also said it might base B-2 stealth bombers on Britain's Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia; that would halve their normal flight time from U.S. bases to Iraq. And the U.S. Navy said it was trying to contract a commercial ship to move military equipment to the Persian Gulf.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.)

Edited by author 09-18-2002 07:18 PM
IRAQ: Security Council Divided As Weapons Inspectors Prepare To Return

By Jim Wurst, UN Wire, September 18, 2002

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations is laying the groundwork for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq as divisions grow among Security Council members on the need for a new resolution defining Iraq's responsibilities and the consequences if Baghdad does not cooperate with the inspectors.

Hans Blix, the head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) met yesterday with two Iraqi officials in their first meeting since Iraq delivered a letter Monday evening saying inspectors could return "without conditions." The discussions were "about practical arrangements related to the resumption of inspections," according to an UNMOVIC statement.

In talks in July in Vienna, UNMOVIC listed those arrangements, including communications both within Iraq and with New York, accommodations, transportation, Iraqi minders, overflight rights and the possibilities of establishing regional offices in Basra and Mosul. The two sides also agreed to hold another meeting in Vienna at the end of this month.

The statement said Iraq had also agreed to provide UNMOVIC with the backlog of reports on the location and status of sites containing "dual-use" equipment ... supplies that can have military and civilian uses. These reports are supposed to be filed every six months, but Iraq has not filed one since June 1998.

UNMOVIC spokesman Ewen Buchanan said the reports are an important first step before inspectors can return. "That would help us during our so-called 're-baselining' inspections," he told UN Wire, "going back to the facilities which were under monitoring in the past to see are they still doing the same things? Have they been changed? Have they been reconfigured?" He added, "That's to try to re-establish the baseline to get a grip again on what is the disposition of dual-use equipment and materials throughout Iraq."

Once the arrangements are settled, Buchanan said, "There's no reason why we couldn't have people going to Baghdad to start sorting out some of these practical things within 10 days or a couple of weeks." Those people would be the specialists needed to get facilities operating again, not the inspectors. Concerning their return, he said, "It would not be an instant, overnight thing, but we would want to move as quickly as we can. We have been ready to do this task for more than a year. ... We will do it as quickly as we can."

As to which sites inspectors are likely to examine first, Buchanan said, "Clearly I do not wish at this stage to disclose any of those."

One of the Iraqi participants, Sayed Hassan, told journalists, "We expressed the willingness of Iraq for the speedy and smooth resumption" of inspections in order to "implement fully all the provisions of Security Council resolutions in order to lift sanctions and return the situation to normal." The other Iraqi official at the meeting was General Hossan Amin, who is in charge of dealings with UNMOVIC.

The momentum building in the council in favor of a U.S. proposal for a new resolution demanding Baghdad's compliance with the previous resolutions on the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been disrupted since Iraq's change of position on Monday. In particular, Russia, which has veto power on the council, has shifted its position from qualified support for a new resolution to the belief that no new resolution is necessary.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said at a news conference yesterday, "From our standpoint we don't need any special resolution. ... All the necessary resolutions, all the necessary decisions ... are to hand." He added, "We have a decision taken by Iraq to receive the inspectors without conditions. They have to get there now. And after the work of the inspectors, we have to judge by very specific facts whether they can do their job."

At the same news conference, however, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "It's quite appropriate, in light of the fact that the inspectors have not been there for the past four years, for the Security Council to consider the circumstances under which they might return, what they must be free to do, what additional instructions may be appropriate. And I think it is a reasonable discussion for the Security Council to have as to what the consequences for inaction or failure to abide by on the part on the Iraqis would have for Iraq."

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller, whose country currently holds the rotating European Union presidency and spoke on behalf of the EU at the same briefing, sided with the United States. "It is evident that the admittance of the inspectors is not sufficient. The Iraqi authorities will also have to extend their full cooperation. So we must have full clarity on these aspects, and there it's required that we know exactly what has been offered, what can be done. If I were sitting in the Security Council, which I'm not, I would in the next days sleep with my eyes wide open and the boots on."

Council diplomats say they will not take up the question of a new resolution until Friday at the earliest.

Australian Senate Votes Against No War Option

18 September 2002

Greens Amendment against Australian involvement in War on Iraq voted down by Government and ALP
The ALP and Government have combined in the Senate to vote down Greens Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle’s amendment opposing Australian involvement in an invasion of Iraq.

"This is a indictment of the Government and ALP. That they are still so open to committing Australia to an invasion of Iraq that would kill thousands of innocent Iraqis is terrifying," Senator Brown said.

"Australia should be playing a independent role in helping avoid war, and not acting as some kind of cheer squad to the adventurism of George Bush.

"International effort, involving the United Nations and leaders from Arabic nations must be centred on finding a diplomatic solution. Instead George Bush, backed by John Howard, continues to beat the drum of war," Senator Nettle said.

The Greens amendment, which was supported by the Democrats and Senator Lees was as follows,

Senator Brown and Nettle to move:

"and the Senate, opposing the use of Australian personnel in any invasion of Iraq, calls on the Australian government to:
a) urge restraint on the Bush administration and Iraq
b) commit to working with the United Nations and Arabic leaders in particular to ensure Iraq abides by past UN resolutions
c) use all possible influence to protect innocent Iraqi lives

Edited by author 09-18-2002 08:57 PM
 
This statement is presented to the Australian Government and public by the people and organisations listed.

NO TO WAR ON IRAQ

War on Iraq?

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001 our Government has been part of an alliance with the United States pursuing the so-called War on Terrorism.

In recent months US President George W Bush has been talking about an alarming extension of this war to new fronts. In particular, public comments by the US and Australian Government have focused on Iraq as a military target.

No evidence

This planned attack on Iraq is despite the fact that there is no evidence linking the Iraqi Government or people to the attacks of September 11.

President Bush has said that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But little evidence that Iraq has these weapons has been released to the Australian Government or the public.

On the contrary, many commentators, including a former UN weapons inspector, say that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction capability.

The US push for regime change through war is undermining international pressure to send in UN weapons inspectors to find out what weapons, if any, Iraq actually holds.

No law

A US attack on Iraq would not be an act of self-defence. It would be a 'pre-emptive strike' - an unprovoked attack by a strong country against a weak one.

Pre-emptive strikes are against all international law and conventions. They breach the UN Charter, as well as international human rights agreements. Yet our Government has made Australia one of very few countries in the world offering enthusiastic support for an attack.

If the US supports a policy of pre-emptive strike, the door will be opened for other countries to launch unprovoked attacks against other states. This has a destabilising effect on an already fragile international community.

This would greatly undermine Australia's security. In a world where an unknown number of countries have nuclear weapons, the consequences could be too terrible to imagine.

No peace

We are extremely concerned that any attack on Iraq would have a range of unpredictable and dangerous consequences in the Middle East and worldwide.

Already, the first casualty of these escalating threats is immediate efforts for peace in Iraq and the region. Neither President Bush nor the Australian Government have a plan for how an attack on Iraq will lead to peace.

Iraq has already suffered under inhumane sanctions for nearly a decade. Further military attacks would make a recovery to prosperity and democracy even more difficult.

An illegal military attack, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, is an unacceptable response to dictatorship. Two wrongs do not make a right.

We support democracy and peace in Iraq and the region. We call for the countries of the United Nations to show commitment to defending and supporting the Iraqi people.


16 September 2002

Senator Bob Brown " Senator Kerry Nettle " Australian Council of Trade Unions " Victorian Trades Hall Council " Australian Education Union " Independent Education Union of Australia " NSW Independent Education Union " Unions Tasmania " Queensland Council of Unions " Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (NSW) " National Union of Students (NSW Branch) " Warren Smith, Assistant General Secretary, Communist Party of Australia " Archbishop Paul Saliba, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand " Catholic Commission for Justice & Peace " Justice and International Mission Unit, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia " Alexander Kouttab, Secretary, Australian Arabic Council " Mohamed Yoosuff, Executive Committe Member, Supreme Islamic Council of NSW " Fouad Elhage, Chairman, The Australian-Iraqi Friendship Association " Buddhist Peace Fellowship " Quaker Peace and Justice NSW " The Australian Civil Liberties Union " Western Suburbs Legal Service Inc " Doctors Reform Society " National Coalition for Gun Control " Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney " Chris Vernon, President UQ Student Union " Kylie Rooke, President Newcastle University Students' Association " Susan Hopgood, Deputy Federal Secretary, Australian Education Union " Amanda Perkins, Secretary Printing Division NSW, Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union " Tony Benson, State Secretary, CFMEU (C&G Div) Tas Branch " Janice Hamilton, Secretary, Unemployed Workers Union " Richard de Simone, General Secretary, Friendly Society " Sr Celestine Pooley, Sisters of Mercy North Sydney " Sr Gabriella Gresz rsm, Projects Co-ordinator, The Mercy Foundation " Sister Joan Evans, Congregation of Presentation Sisters (WA) " Sr Margaret Skehan, Presentation Congregation Queensland " Rev Vera Bourne, Christ's Community Church " Revd Cameron Venables, Anglican Church of Australia " Peg Putt MHA, Leader of Tasmanian Greens " Margaret Reynolds, Former ALP Senator " Amanda Tattersall, Member NSW ALP International Relations Committee " Matthew Collins, Convenor, ALP (Qld Branch) Social Justice Policy Committee; President, Queensland Young Labor " Ryan Heath, Vice President, NSW Young Labor " Cr Ros Irwin, Lismore City Council " Councillor Stephen Senise " John Kaye, Greens NSW Education Spokesperson " Wendy White, Secretary, Maitland Greens " Ms Pamela Curr Greens Candidate Brunswick " Nic Faulkne, Independent Candidate for Richmond 2001 " Meredith Peace, Deputy Vice President, Australian Education Union Vic Branch " Bill White, Assistant Secretary, CFMEU (C&G Div) Tas Branch " Sally McManus, Assistant Secretary, Australian Services Union (NSW & ACT Services Branch) " Carmel Cook, Regional Secretary, L.H.M.U. Newcastle " Philippines Australia Union Link " Ellen Kleimaker, Women's & Equity Officer, Victorian Trades Hall Council " Annie Delaney, Outwork Coordinator, TCFUA, Textile,Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia, Victoria " Jo Fox, Industrial Officer, NTEU Tasmanian Division " Dianne Kempe, Regional Organiser, LHMU - Newcastle " Frank Barnes Organiser NSW Teachers Federation " Colin Hesse, Organiser, National Tertiary Education Union " Duncan McLaren, organiser with the CFMEU - NSW Construction and General Division " Ghazi Noshie, Organiser, AMWU " Maggie May, Organiser, AMWU Qld " Anita Ceravolo, PA to Brian Parker, CFMEU NSW (Construction & General Division) " Robyn Hamilton-Smith, Office Manager, CFMEU (C&G Div) Tas Branch " Sharon Gibbard, ACTU Events Manager, Indigenous Co-ordinator " Nicola Griggs, NSW Teachers Federation " Hainee Pengelly, Distribution Manager, NSW Teachers Federation " Mrs. Vanessa Yardley-Langridge , ASU Delegate (Australian Services Union) " Jodi Hayes, Administration Officer; Friendly Society " Rev Judy Redman, Uniting Church Chaplain to the University of New England " Sister Patricia Black, Presentation Congress " Leonie Jewell, Assistant General Secretary Friendly Society " Catherine Byrne, Community Economic Development Worker; Friendly Society " Lorraine Lewis, Administrative Assistant - Churches of Christ Overseas Mission Board " Dr Sue Wareham, President and Ms Giji Gya, Executive Officer, Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia " Dr Hannah Middleton, Stop Star Wars campaigner, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition; Australian representative, Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space " Denis Doherty, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition " Annette Brownlie, Co-Convenor, Just Peace " Mrs Beth Gordon, Secretary of Just Peace Qld " Bill Briner MAP, Psychologists for the Promotion of World Peace " Simon Wood, Acting Co-ordinator, Western Suburbs Legal Service " Sally McHenry, Community Campaigner, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad South Australia " Jen Anderson, Program Coordinator, Cambodia programs, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad " Jacqueline Wheadon, Women in Black, Sydney " Kirsten Blair and Mark Wakeham, Coordinators, Environment Centre of the Northern Territory " Alice Garner, Co-Founder, Actors for Refugees, Patron, A Just Australia " Pauline Mitchell, Secretary, Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament " Father Claude Mostowik MSC, National Director, MSC Justice and Peace Centre " Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament W.A. " Nick Everett, No War on Iraq " Farida Iqbal, Community Anti Nuclear Network of Western Australia " Natalie Stevens, Campaigner, People for Nuclear Disarmament " Ray Bergmann,Treasurer, Palestinian-Jewish Dialogue for Peace and Justice " Irene Gale AM, Secretary and Ron Gray, Treasurer, Australian Peace Committee (South Australian Branch) Inc. " Shobha Joseph, women building peace " Jacob Grech Ozpeace " Michael Priceman, Convenor, People Against a Nuclear Reactor " Terence Seymour, Launceston Peace Action Network " No War, Heather Saville " Peter Murphy, SEARCH Foundation " John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia " James Sprunt, Program Coordinator, Pacific, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad " Geoff Muirden, Research Officer, Australian Civil Liberties Union " Dave Kimble, Secretary, Mission Beach Environmental Management Group " Helen McCance, Legal Adviser, Legal Services Commission / South Australia " Kirsty Bennett, Aged Care Project Officer, UnitingCare Victoria and Tasmania " Gloria Meltzer, Journalist, Australian Jewish Democratic Society " Josephine Duigan, Community Corrections Officer, Mount Gambier Community Correctional Centre " Andy Dunstan, Manager Undersea Explorer " Joanne Dunstan, Social Worker, Cairns Anglican Youth Shelter " Jennifer McLaren, Research Assistant, Research & Social Policy Team, The Smith Family " Igor O'Neill, Mineral Policy Institute " Kirsten Blair and Mark Wakeham, Coordinators, Environment Centre of the Northern Territory " Indra Esguerra, Station Manager, Community Radio 2XX 98.3fm " Ellie (Ford) Kamara, Director Administration & Finance, Medecins sans Frontieres Australia " Dr Lee Andresen, President, East Ballina Landcare Incorporated " Mannie De Saxe, SPAIDS (Sydney Park AIDS Memorial Groves Tree Planting Project) " Maung Maung Than ,campaign co-ordinator from Free Burma Action Committee " Natalie Wasley, The Lorax Environment Centre, Cycling For Sustainability " Phill Parsons, The Environment Association, Convenor " Ray Jackson, President/Public Officer, Indigenous Social Justice Association " Kendall Lovett, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne " Bob Birch, Friends of Palestine, Newcastle " Sr Christine Symonds " Diana Greentree, Actors for Refugees " Jane Tassie , Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Centre " Kate Walsh, AID/WATCH " Steen, Catalyst, a community based project " David Langdon, Co-ordinator of worker's cooperative " Steve Georgopoulos, HOPE Caravan " Pam O'Connor, Rural Australians for Refugees Mount Gambier " Andrew McNorton, Australian East Timor Association (NSW) " Odyssey, Brisbane community arts movement " Tricia Hanson, Alcohol & Other Drugs Project Officer, Youth Action and Policy Association NSW " Prof. A.J. McMichael, Director, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health Australian National University " Dr. Bob Boughton, Senior Lecturer, Adult Education & Training, School of Professional Development and Leadership, University of New England " Dr. Anthony Burke, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Politics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Adelaide " Emma Lea PhD, ARC Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Health Sciences, Deakin University " Justin Kenardy PhD, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, University of Queensland " Dr Tim Anderson, University of Sydney " Jane Mills, Honorary Associate, The University of Sydney; Senior Research Associate, Australian Film, Television & Radio School " Dr. N. Win Hman, Psychology Coordinator, School of Medicine James Cook University, Townsville " Maddy Phillips, Psychologist, School of Applied Psychology Griffith University " Ms. Gloria Lappin, Ph.d candidate, La Trobe University, School of Law and Legal Studies " James Montgomery, PhD Student, Bond University " Juliet Rogers, Consultant CGF, PhD Candidate, School of Law and Legal Studies, La Trobe University " Clayton Bolitho, Cataloguing librarian, La Trobe University " Dr Tom Griffiths, University of Newcastle " Janine Martin, School of Psychology, University of Tasmania " Karen Turner, Triple P Clinic Director and Program Development Coordinator, Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland " Robin Tennant-Wood, Political Science Dept., Australian National University " Trish Luker, Postgraduate Student, Law and Legal Studies, La Trobe University " Dr Evan Jones, Political Economy Discipline, University of Sydney " Helen Bonanno, lecturer, Learning Centre, University of Sydney " Dr Henrike Körner, Research Fellow, National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales " Dr. Ian Hampson, School of Industrial Relations and Organisational Behaviour, University of New South Wales " Ian Watson, Senior Researcher, Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (ACIRRT), University of Sydney " Janice Ann Knapman, Personal Assistant to the Director, National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales " Janet Jones, Head, Learning Centre, University of Sydney " Mr. John Slavin, Film and Television School, Victorian College of the Arts " Juliet Richters PhD, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales " Dr Peter Kelly, Lecturer (Organisational Behaviour and Theory), Bowater School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University (Geelong) " Dr Raelene Frances, Associate Professor of History, University of New South Wales " Mr Drago Heler, Lecturer,University of NSW " Professor Susan Kippax, Director, National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales " Dr Suzanne M. Fraser, National Centre in HIV Social Research, UNSW " Kalervo Gulson, School of Education, Macquarie University " Associate Professor Dick Bryan, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney " Dr William Donohue, Project Officer, C-CLEARLY, Community Hepatitis C Care Education and Prevention Programme, University of Adelaide " April Kelly, Graduate Researcher, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research, Royal Melbourne Hospital " Mr Casey Quinn, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University " Dr Gary Rogers, Director, Health in Human Diversity Unit, Department of General Practice, University of Adelaide " Dr Adeel Khan, Lecturer in Health Management, Co-ordinator: Doctor of Health Services Management, School of Health, University of New England " Kasumi Nishigaya, Ph.D Candidate, Health Transition Centre, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University " Dr Kerrie Schaefer, Lecturer in Drama, Faculty of Education and Arts, University of Newcastle " Dr. Neil Mudford, University College, UNSW at ADFA " Dr. Norie Neumark, University of Technology, Sydney " Assoc Prof Peter Lovibond, Head, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales " Professor E. James Kehoe, Professor of Psychology, The University of New South Wales " Dr Seetal Dodd, Research Fellow, Department of Pharmaceutics,Victorian College of Pharmacy, Monash University " Mr Chris Thompson & Ms Celia Thompson , Postgraduate Student, School of Geography & Oceanography, UNSW " Gillian Bushell Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, Griffith University " Amanda Namaliu, Southern Cross University " Becky Batagol, PhD Student, Faculty of Law Monash University " Erica Matthews, Monash Gippsland " Michael Paddon, Centre for Local Government, UTS " Dr. Rachel Fensham, School of Literary, Visual & Performance Studies, Monash University " Dr Andrew R. Wallace, Senior Lecturer in Education, Charles Sturt University " Beth Fuller, Programs and Advocacy, Australian International Health Institute, University of Melbourne " Chris Hartley, Community Service Officer, New College, UNSW " Janet Hunt, Adjunct Professor International and Community Development, Deakin University " Dr Juergen Bauhus, ANU Forestry, School of Resources, Environment & Society, Australian National University " Dr Zhang-Yue Zhou, The University of Sydney " Tony McKenzie, Educational Developer, Faculty of Rural Management, The University of Sydney " Dr Emma Rooksby, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics " Andrew Taylor , Lecturer And Filmmaker, Media Arts, University Of Technology, Sydney " Annmarie Chandler, Senior Lecturer, UTS " Tony Ilott, Senior Business Analyst, PRG Schultz International " Wayne Coles-Janess, Producer, Ipso-facto Productions " Mark Kernich, Lawyer, Legal Services Commission of S.A. " Anne Phelan, Actor " Deidre Rubenstein, Actor " Rachel Maza, Actor " Terry Norris, Actor " James Condon, Actor " Alice Garner, Actor " Katherine Lyall-Watson, Arts writer, Time Off Publications " Pri Fernando, Managing Director, IDSS Pty Ltd " Pat Fiske, Bower Bird Films " Rosemary Blight, Producer, RB Films " National Association of Community Legal Centres " David Musgrave, IT Manager, Manchester Unity Australia " Ben Grant, RB Films " Mitchell Hunt, Michael Page International, Information Services " Bob Pritchard, Director, Sakti Pty Ltd " Roland Lubett, Director, Last-First Networks " Marlene Jackson, Director of Acalene Pty Ltd " Joan Cunningham, She'll Be Write " Karen Jennings, She'll Be Write " Kaye Swanton, Executive Director, LifeWorks Relationship Counselling and Education Services " Cassandra Sinclair, Executive Assistant to General Manager, Superannuation and Investments, Royal & Sun Alliance Financial Services " Libby Jeffery, employment worker at the Multicultural Development Association, Brisbane " G. Rosen, Marketing Coordinator, Horwitz Martin Education " R Williams, Williams & Associates Pty Limited " Robert Falkenbach, Manager Operations " Michael McManus, Business Development & Project Manager, Social Change Media " Erica Midgley, Project Engineer, EarthTech Engineering " Lorraine Phillips, Co-owner, Australia Dry Tech " TaikOz - "Japanese Taiko Drumming Fusion" " Pablo Percusso - "High Energy Junk-Percussion" " Jill Byrnes, Whistling Kite Consulting " Fiona A. Villella, Editor, Senses Of Cinema " Chérie Hoyle, Urban Ecology Australia Inc " Brian Walters SC, Barrister, Flagstaff Chambers " Jane Hutchison, Manager, Hobart Community Legal Service " Andrea Rankin, Administrative Officer, University of South Australia " Claire Vincent, Member Australian Student Christian Movement " Kathleen Carroll, Occupational Therapist, St Vincents Hospital Melbourne " Emad Soliman, Australian Democrats " Gareth W R Smith and Maxine Caron " Bob Phillips, Newcastle Greens " Helen Newton, School Counsellor " Hugh Woolford, Psychologist " Ann Hughes & Michael Fortescue " Jane Touzeau, Adult Educator " John Edward Lehn, Retired Public Servant (Department of Defence) " Maree Kavanagh, Library Officer, Deakin University " Dr Max Whisson, Haematologist " Neal Vickers, Social Worker " Dr. Paul R. Collins, Green Activist " Paula Nolan, Office Manager, ACTU Organising Centre " Penelope Svensson, registered psychologist " Tim CarterTony Robertson, Community Jester, Ritual Maker, Social Activist " viv mehes, photographer " Dr Bob Montgomery PhD FAPS, Psychologist " Miss Ari Reid, Social Work Student,University of South Australia " Brenda Mason, Teacher & AEU Branch Councillor, Department of Education & Training " Dave Abbott, Research and Projects Officer, Academic Administration, University of Tasmania " Jennie Grundy, Training Officer Headway Victoria " Joan O'Dwyer, Manager Strategic Planning and Policy, Office of the Protective Commissioner " Laura Daley, Student, University of New England " Elizabeth Rout, Primary School Teacher, Victoria " Matthew Ireland, Student at National Marine Science Centre at Coffs Harbour " Max Vizard, Industrial Officer " Kerry Lawrence, Social Worker " Will Callahan, student, Deakin University, Geelong " Jill Campbell Registered Nurse " Julie Carrol, IT Support, University of NSW Library, University of NSW " Helena Brusic, UNSW Graphic Designer " Erin Brown, Business Analyst, Centrelink " Heather Scrimshaw, Course Administration Officer, Centre of Personal Education " Jan Davis, Founding Member, Maitland Greens " Margaret Edwards, Membership Secretary, Maitland Greens " Karen Pitt , Corporate Lawyer, Copyright Agency Ltd " Dr Max Whisson, Haematologist " Marian McLaren, School Counsellor " Philip Eggleston, Legislation Review, Public Health, Department of Human Services " Deborah Kelly, Artist/ Curator " Emma Elizabeth Parry, Receptionist, Centre of Personal Education " Duane Riley, Globalwormming " Denise Warren, Teacher And Grandmother " Hans-Willem van Hall, Senior Clinical Psychologist, Department for Community Development " George Hatzirodos, Project Manager, Legal Services Commission " Kate Howard, Para-legal adviser, Legal Services Commission of SA " Iain Henderson, Community Education and Training COPE a Division of Relationships Australia " Mr Ian McCullock, Psychologist " Jane van Beek, High School Teacher, IEU member " Martha Ansara, Documentary Film Producer " Nette Lowe, Project officer, Department of Human Services Victoria " Stephen Andrews, Administration Coordinator, St Leo's College " Zoe Cozens, Environmental Health Research Assistant " Karen Tydeman, Solicitor " Phil Maher, Financial Manager, Streetwize Communications " Neil Taylor, Proprietor, Managing for Productivity " Alfred Said, Director, NSW Office of Private Forestry " Lorraine Leach, Event Director, Yarra Valley Expo Pty Ltd " Ms Alison Southern, Proprietor, Hidden Valley Handcrafts " Bren Weatherstone, Enviro-Ed " Bob Holderness-Roddam, Adult Educator " Sara Bennett, Consultant, Post-Production & Event Management for Film & Television " Maree Fieldes, UNSW " Mrs Sharon Fitzjohn, Attorney Generals Department " Sally Mounsey, Project Officer, Victorian Department of Human Services " Liz Sharp, Clinic Information and Support Worker, East West Primary Health Team " Alison Lyssa Member, Eastern Suburbs Greens " Ms Kathryn Allen, Local Government " Tom Bertuleit, Member of Socialist Alliance, Adelaide branch " Tony Mullen, Union District Organiser " Alan Hardy " Francesca Balsamo " Adrian Shackley " Dr. Andrew Francis " Ann Crosson " Anne O'Byrne " Greg Andresen " Antonia Feitz " Ben Leighton " Brian Manning " Cate Kyne " Christine Davis " Clare Schulz " Betty and David Dyer " Frances Murrell " David McKelvey " David Tait " Denis Hay " Don and Miriam Tonkin " Dr. Dougald D. McLean " Carol R. McLean " Elizabeth Dyer " Elizabeth Weiss " James Ryan " Ms. Janine Chugg " Ms Jo Di Pietro " Joanne Morris " John Hooker " Julie Rigg " Kathleen Halfpenny " Maureen Kelly " Barbara and Max Bound " Michael Dickson " Dr Muhammad Essop " Nancy Atkin " Noel Kaufmann " Patricia Hovey " Paul de Burgh-Day " Paul Yaourtis " Peter Clancy " Philip Hall, Solicitor " Robert R Mulholland " Bruce Robertson " Sally Smith " Sally Bound " Sarah Dyer " Debbie Hewitt " Shawn Whelan " Sr Christine Symonds " Stu Cook " Susan Newman-Lever " Sylvia Lawson " Therese Laverty " Rosemary von Behrens " Anne Clair " Annette Vasey " Ann Tonks " David Blyth " Carmel Boyle " Cathy Fitzgerald " David Nicks " Craig Bossie " Jean Turner " David Potter " Deb Foskey " David Spratt " John Hallam " Irene Gale AM " Pauline Mitchell " Ingrid Kalf " Jen Hughes " John Nightingale " Julie Copeland " Jurgen Bebber " Lyn McLeavy " Mrs Margaret Midgley " Mr Roger G Midgley " Marie Kennedy " Mark Smith " Martin Oliver " Charlotte McKercher " Sr. P. A. Grundy " Patsy Gomularz " Rowan Cahill, Historian " Ms Sandra White " Stephen Rix " David Winderlich " George Sanders " Gabrielle Smith " Rebecca Essex " Carolyn Allen " Bethany Roche " Clive Ross " Debra Currie " Derek Hudson " Don Sutherland " Edmond Kennedy " Dr Gianni Zappala " Dr Gwenda Davey " Joanna Cairns " Jude Stoddart " Jane M Watson " Kathryn Kang " Leah Bloomfield " Monica Leahy " Mary and Maurice Sexto " Susan Aujard " Marcus Doolette " Mary Okello " Melissa Lee " Michelle Garnett " Nigel Abbott " Paula Novotna " Anne Bourne " Ruth McHugh " Miss Sarah MacCana " Aniko Cripps Clark And The Whole Cripps Clark Family " J.K.Evans PBVM " Trudy Moore " Ms Vivienne Armati " Carol Medcalf " Sue Bushell " Val Thomson " Elizabeth Knight " Les McDonald " Kier Tyson " Aine Renke " Enaam Oudih " Ian S. D. Maguire LLB " Andrea Fogarty " Brenda J Rosser " Colleen O'Malley " Ian Bowie " Kate Cartwright " Kirsten Challinor " Maree Alexander " Terri Mayr " Patty Delaney " Mr Graeme Smith " Seb Thirlway " Ms Amy Cupitt " Belinda Goldate " Mr. Ben Tucker " Dr. Beverley Symons " Belinda Murdoch " Brigid Cook " Carol Kee, public servant, ABS " Peta Montgomery " Christopher Lawson " Claudia Graham " Mr. D Wilkins " The Hoban Family - Des, Carolyn, Kirsty and Sean " Desmond Murphy " Louise Dorrat Boothby " Emily Grace " Fiona Allison " Mardi Flick " Ms Frennie Beytagh " Wendy Giles " Glenn Osboldstone " Goolam H Laher " Greg O'Reilly " Dr Helen Tweeddale " Dr Helena Grehan " Ian Terry & Helen Semler " Deborah Davison " Jan O'Leary " Gae Mulvogue " Jeff Moffat " Jo-Anne Everingham " Louise M Davy " Lyn Malone " Professor Marcia Neave " Maria Hilario " Marisa Moliterno " Hamish Mark Tweeddale " Matthew Phillips " Melinda Reakes " Naomi Kemmerer " Mrs. Nidhi Qualmann " Rodney G Peers " Susanne Provis " Rae Wells " Rayyar Farhat " Rhyall Gordon " Mr Richard Scrivener " Robyn Atkinson " Caroline Russell " Andrew Russell " Joshua O'Connor " Connor Russell " Julian Russell " Jonathan Dyer " Storm Watson " Tim Askew " Tony Blattman " Tony Joseph " Russell Williams " Aaron Milburn " Adriana Bellicanta " Liz Ahern " Alan Griffiths " Alice Garner " Amanda Morrison " Andrew Devenish " Andrew Robinson " Michael Andreacchio " Anne Colquhoun " Avinashi Saraswati " Ms Bridget Farrer " Barbara Glass " Barvara Hush " Ben Hicks " Bernardo Lando " Dr. Betty Mclellan, Psychotherapist " Bill & Robyn Edebohls " Julie Bourke " Georgia Close " Rob Close " Brett Constable " Catherine Mulvenna " Dr Charles Cranfield " Charles Wayne Smith " Timothy Chaston " Dr Cheryl Clark, Psychologist " Chris Ansted " Christina Mico " David Addison " Dave Cavill " David Chaston " David Howell " David Woodside " Diane Johnson " Jim Dixon " Diana Rubel " Dr Doug Cocks " Jihong Li " Ed Nind " Eddie Clynes " Elaine Cozens " Ms Elinor Jean " Elisabeth Davis " Elizabeth Macnish " Fiona Gonzalez " Ms Frances Voon " Gavin O'loughlin " George Irving, Barrister " Ms Sharon Griffiths " Hanna Barcha " Helen Murnane-Simpson, Farmer " Ian Young " Inese Petersons, Teacher " Ingrid Laemmle-Ruff " Jane Castle " Jane E Jelbart " Ms Jane Lodge " Jenne Perlstein " Jenny Grounds " Veronica Grehan " Joel Magarey, Freelance Writer " John Mason " Beth And Jeff Dillon " Jon & Lynne Cook " Josephine Grieve " Josephine Simsa " Judith Gamper " Julie Oberin " Karin Peters " Kate Harrison " Mrs KM Young " Kelly Braddock " Kirsty Bennett " Kit Guyatt " Leona & Brian O'Connor " Leonie Stubbs " Libby Varcoe, Writer " Miss Liz Arday " Ilona Cummin " Virginia Anne Lyon " Maria Ilic " Madge Sceriha " Grace Henman " Rhonda And Stuart Flynn " Michael Sceriha " Paul Magarey " Marie Buckley " Susan Geraghty " Mark Stretch " Marsha Emerman " Bob Phelps " Mary Raftos " Betty Dixon " Maureen Murphy " Max Watts " Simone McDonnell " Megan Rogers " Bradley Hughes " Melissa Jade Cooper, Teacher " M.A. Strain, Solicitor " Michael Mcgrath, Editor, Freesail " Michael Roper, Teacher " Miguel Heatwole " Michael And Patricia Varga " Moira Smith " Moira Neagle " Timothy Pettersen " Nancy Atkin " Mr Nathan Simmonds " Nick Fahey " Nicola Wells, Freelance Writer " Stephen Nield " Pam Copperwaite " Sue Finucane " Pamela Walker " Patricia Saunders " Patricia Régo " Denise Dillon-Smith " Peter Fleming " Patricia Maughan " Peter Backhouse " Patrick & Lois O'Shea " Pigott, Tony " Rachel Coombs " Dr. Ralph A.Van Gelder, Agricultural Consultant " Mrs.A.Van Gelder, Education Consultant " Rebecca Haddow " Jennifer Redden " Rob Kellock " Robert White " Robin Davidson " Ron Fraser " Rosie Balko, Clinical Psychologist " Rosie Wagstaff " Rowena Jameson " Margaret Sainsbury " Sandy Fyon " Sandra Hand " Lud & Julie Schmidt " Shanlee Perry " Mrs Corinne Spadotto " Elinder Moore " Steve O'Connor " Leigh Graham " Carol, Ray, Bear, Jo, Lara, Savannah And Maxim Drew " Jessica Craig " John Cox " Gordon Dowd " Ian McHugh " Jenny McHugh " Peter Jago " Carole Powell " Susie And Adrian Smith " Adam Taylor, Teacher " Tess Collie " Claire Teisen " Therese Self " Thomas Birt " Tina Wilkie " Trudy-Anne Doyle " Vince Canning " Kali Ward " Wendy Rowell " Wolf Seemann " Yvonne Francis " Ivan Hanigan

Why Iraq debate is upside down

By THOMAS FRIEDMAN, THE NEW YORK TIMES

RECENTLY, I have had the chance to travel around the country and do some call-in radio shows, during which the question of Iraq has come up often. And here is what I can report from a totally unscientific sample: Do not believe that most Americans favour a military strike against Iraq. It is not true.

It is also not true that the public is solidly against taking on President Saddam Hussein. What is true is that most Americans are perplexed.

The most often-asked question I heard was some variation of: 'How come all of a sudden we have to launch a war against Saddam? I realise that he's thumbed his nose at the United Nations, and he has dangerous weapons, but he's never threatened us, and, if he does, couldn't we just vaporise him? What worries me are Osama and the terrorists still out there.'

That is where I think most Americans are at. Deep down they believe that Mr Saddam is 'deterrable'. He does not threaten the United States and he never has, because he has been deterred the way that Russia, China and North Korea have been. He knows that if he even hints at threatening us, we will destroy him. He has always been homicidal, not suicidal. Indeed, he has spent a lifetime perfecting the art of survival.

No, what worries Americans are not the deterrables. What worries them are the 'undeterrables' - the kind of young Arab-Muslim men who hit us on 911, and are still lurking.

Americans would pay any price to eliminate the threat from the undeterrables - the terrorists who hate us more than they love their own lives, and thus cannot be deterred.

I share this view, which is why I think the Iraq debate is upside down. Most strategists insist that the reason we must go into Iraq - and the only reason - is to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, not regime change and democracy building. I disagree.

I think the chances of Mr Saddam being willing, or able, to use a weapon of mass destruction against us are being exaggerated.

What terrifies me is the prospect of another 911 triggered by angry young Muslims, motivated by some pseudo-religious radicalism cooked up in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan.

And I believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up - namely all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables.

So I am for invading Iraq, only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratisation.

Because what the Arab world needs is a model that works - a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratisation and modernisation around the region.

I have no illusions about how hard it would be to democratise a fractious Iraq. It would be a huge, long, costly task - if it can be done at all, and I am not embarrassed to say that I don't know if it can be. All I know is that it is the most important task worth doing and debating. Because only by helping the Arabs gradually change their context - a context now dominated by anti-democratic regimes and anti-modernist religious leaders and educators - are we going to break the engine that is producing one generation after another of undeterrables.

These are young men full of rage, as they are raised to see Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see widespread poverty, ignorance and repression.

They are humiliated by it, humiliated by the contrast with the West and how it makes them feel, and it is this humiliation - this poverty of dignity - that drives them to suicidal revenge. The quest for dignity is a powerful force in human relations.

Closing that dignity gap is a decades-long project. We can help, but it can succeed only if people there have the will.

But maybe that is what we are starting to see. Look at how Palestinian legislators voted no confidence in President Yasser Arafat; look at how some courageous Arab thinkers produced an Arab Human Development Report, which declared that the Arab-Muslim world was backward because of its deficits of freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.

If we do not find some way to help these countries reverse these deficits now - while access to smaller and smaller nuclear weapons is still limited - their undeterrables will blow us up long before Mr Saddam does.

Original

US is a bully - Mandela

JOHANNESBURG Posted Tue, 17 Sep 2002

Former president Nelson Mandela on Tuesday continued his strong criticism of the United States over its threat to attack Iraq, declaring that the US wanted to bully the entire world.

Mandela said US President George W. Bush was in no position to question whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was genuine in his offer to allow the unconditional return of United Nations arms inspectors to his country.

On Monday, Iraq agreed to the return of UN inspectors, who were pulled out of the country in 1998, amid intense diplomatic pressure to head off US threats of war over what the US alleges is a programme by Baghdad to develop weapons of mass destruction.

"What right has he (Bush) to come and say that that offer is not genuine. We must condemn that very strongly. That's why I criticise leaders for keeping quiet when one country wants to bully the whole world," an angry Mandela told reporters at his house in Johannesburg.

Mandela said he although he had received help from Bush and former US president Bill Clinton he would not remain silent when Washington made mistakes.

"I will speak out when they are wrong, and on this question of Iraq they're absolutely wrong," he said. "That is a matter for the United Nations."

The White House branded Iraq's offer "a tactic that will fail" to prevent UN action to disarm Baghdad and called for a tough new Security Council resolution to deal with Saddam, French news agency AFP reported.

Meanwhile, the South African government welcomed the decision by Iraq to readmit the UN weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

"This underlines the critical role that the UN can play in resolving differences among member states," Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa said.

Mamoepa said South Africa had always maintained the need for Iraq to readmit UN weapons inspectors, thus complying with a UN Security Council resolution.

South Africa had raised the matter consistently in diplomatic interactions with Iraqi leaders, Mamoepa said.


Sapa

Edited by author 09-18-2002 09:52 PM

Downer's statement to Parliament

September 17 2002
Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Parliament House, Canberra, 17 September 2002
Statement by The Minister for Foreign Affairs

Mr Speaker

The announcement this morning by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, that
Iraq has told him that it has decided to allow the return of weapons
inspectors immediately and without conditions is, on the face of it, a
promising first step.

I hope this is the start of a genuine diplomatic solution, a course
Australia has always supported. But experience with Iraq demonstrates that
the international community must not take Saddam Hussein's commitments at
face value. Caution is essential.

Australia has never been naive about Saddam Hussein. He is a past master of
last-minute manoeuvres to head off decisive action. And he is renowned for
his unpredictability.

Mr Speaker

A return of inspectors would, of itself, provide no assurance to the
international community which explains Australia's firm position that
resumed inspections must be unfettered and unconditional, and lead to the
complete and permanent disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Speaker

I seek leave to table the letter from the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Dr Naji
Sabri, to the Secretary General of the United Nations, and the Secretary
General's letter to the president of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr Speaker

Just under a week ago we marked the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of
September 11. Attacks that created a new dimension in international
affairs.

On September 11, terrorists turned civil aircraft into missiles and brought
a new and threatening challenge to our security and to our way of life.
This change has inevitably brought with it a new sense of vulnerability. A
sense that is not unique to the United States, but applies equally to
countries such as Australia. For Australia is not immune from the threats
posed by irrational actors and new and devastating categories of weapons.

Responsible governments, Mr Speaker, are compelled to respond and address
this vulnerability. We must identify those who use terror and those who
have the capacity and the motive to acquire and use weapons of mass
destruction. For they seek to undermine free societies, the values we share
and to harm our citizens. We need to challenge those who challenge
international order.

As the Prime Minister has emphasised, we can no longer afford to leave such
threats unattended.

Against this background Saddam Hussein's ambition to develop and deploy
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons simply cannot be ignored. Combined
with his record of aggression, both within and across Iraq's borders, he
threatens international security and directly challenges the authority of
the United Nations and international law.

Mr Speaker

The international community is confronted with a grave threat.

The international community concluded years ago that Saddam Hussein's
regime was a regime with an appalling record.

Without provocation, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and later Kuwait resulting
in the deaths of over one million people. During the five-year war against
Iran Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons mustard and nerve agents on at
least ten occasions. Between 25,000 and 30,000 people died.

In its attacks against its neighbours Iraq has also used SCUD missiles,
firing more than 500 at Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and almost 90 at
Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain during the Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein has been equally brutal towards his own people. He has not
hesitated to use chemical weapons against them. His aircraft bombed the
town of Halabja in Iraq itself with chemical weapons in 1988, leaving 5,000
Iraqi Kurds dead and 7,000 injured or with long-term illnesses.

More generally, his record of human rights abuses is appalling. His regime
routinely tortures and ill-treats detainees. Suspected political opponents
and their relatives are arrested arbitrarily. A ruthless and pervasive
internal security apparatus keeps the Iraqi people in a climate of fear,
intolerance, uncertainty and deprivation.

Mr Speaker

While our concern about Saddam Hussein is not new, it is now more
immediate. His regime's actions remain a matter of great and growing
concern to the international community and to Australia. We are a country
with global interests, and a history of active and responsible
participation in world affairs. We cannot just stand by.

It is important that Parliament and the Australian community more broadly
understand the reasons for our heightened concerns about Iraq and why we
believe it is necessary to address them.

Mr Speaker, I will address four issues here today.

First, Iraq's persistent failure to comply with UN Security Council
resolutions.

Second, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including the implication of
Iraq's refusal since 1998 to accept UN inspectors, and its links with
international terrorism.

Third, possible developments in the UN Security Council based on my
discussions with Council members and several Middle Eastern Foreign
Ministers, including Dr Naji Sabri from Iraq.

And finally, why we have important national interests at stake in the
resolution of the Iraq issue.

But, Mr Speaker, we are still in a diplomatic phase, with the objective of
persuading Iraq to comply with its United Nations' obligations. We are not
at the stage of making decisions about possible military commitments. The
United States has made no decision to take military action and we have not
been invited to participate in military action.

Mr Speaker

For over a decade Iraq has persistently defied legally binding obligations
to disclose and eradicate its weapons of mass destruction programs and
capabilities. It has flouted and frustrated UN resolutions, UN inspections
and UN sanctions.

In April 1991, following the Gulf War, the UN Security Council passed
Resolution 687 - a resolution that laid down the conditions of the
ceasefire between the UN-sanctioned allies and Iraq.

Importantly, it required Iraq to accept unconditionally the destruction and
removal of all chemical and biological weapons, all stocks of agents, and
all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres.

The resolution also required Iraq to agree not to acquire or develop
nuclear weapons. It had to declare all elements of its chemical,
biological, nuclear and missile programs within 15 days.

The resolution established UNSCOM, the UN agency mandated to carry out
inspections and destroy or remove Iraq's chemical and biological weapons
and missiles. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was to uncover
and dismantle Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq initially accepted inspectors from both UNSCOM and the IAEA, and these
agencies subsequently discovered, documented and destroyed substantial
elements of a large, advanced and lethal weapons of mass destruction
program, a point I will return to shortly. But as the inspectors made more
and more significant inroads into the Iraqi weapons program, Iraq became
more and more obstructionist. Its actions constituted clear and material
breaches of Security Council resolutions.

New Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance were passed
when Iraq systematically blocked the full access of inspectors to suspect
sites, or when Iraq concealed or removed materials from sites inspectors
were about to visit. But the Security Council's attempts to steer Iraq back
on course were met with a continuing pattern of obstruction and
non-compliance.

Inspectors learned that in 1991 Iraq had destroyed critical evidence about
its weapons of mass destruction. For instance, only in the face of
information provided by a high-level defection in 1995 did Iraq admit it
had produced and concealed biological weapons.

Iraq's pattern of frustrating the UNSCOM inspection program continued until
UNSCOM was forced out in 1998.

In short, Iraq consistently refused to comply fully with nearly all of the
obligations imposed upon it: that is, 23 out of 27 obligations contained in
nine Security Council resolutions. It is a serial transgressor.

The resolutions were entirely reasonable. They set out what the
international community required so it could be satisfied that Iraq no
longer presented an unacceptable threat to its neighbours or to global
security.

Mr Speaker, at this point I table a 15-page UNSCOM document. It provides an
extraordinary chronology of main events associated with UNSCOM's work, in
particular the way in which Iraq frustrated its work. Given today's
undertaking by Iraq, it justifies our caution and I recommend all members
read the document carefully.

Let us be very clear the reason for the present crisis lies at no nation's
door but Iraq's. Iraq has had more than a decade to determine that its
interests and those of its people lay with compliance and to act
accordingly.

Iraq's persistent defiance displays a clear pattern of lies, concealment
and harassment that would be dangerous to ignore. Now the international
community has to decide how to deal with this defiance.

Mr Speaker, let me now turn to my second point: Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction.

Throughout the 1990s, UN inspectors in Iraq supervised or verified the
destruction of:

about 100,000 chemical munitions

over 400 tonnes of bulk chemical agents, and

over 2,600 tonnes of chemicals, known as precursors, which could have been
used to make weapons.

Iraq initially lied to UN inspectors about producing VX, one of the most
toxic of all known chemical warfare agents. It continues to deny ever
weaponising VX, even though UN inspectors uncovered unambiguous physical
evidence in 1998.

UNSCOM uncovered documentation which suggested Iraq had in the order of an
additional 6000 undeclared chemical munitions. UNSCOM could not confirm
Iraq's claim to have destroyed 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas
and 500 aerial bombs for delivery of chemical weapons.

UNSCOM assessed that major uncertainties still exist concerning some 4000
tonnes of declared chemical precursors, including 200 tonnes of precursors
used in the production of VX.

Only after the defection in 1995 of General Hussein Kamil Saddam Hussein's
son-in-law did Iraq admit it had produced over 19,000 litres of botulinum
toxin, almost 8,500 litres of anthrax and over 2,000 litres of aflatoxin.
At the end of 1998, UN inspectors judged that Iraq could have produced two
to four times more biological weapons agent than it had declared.

UNSCOM judged the BW program to be the most incompletely documented of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It concluded that Iraq
possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base through which
biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume, if Iraq
decided to do so. UNSCOM reported that in 1997 Iraq still had 79 facilities
capable of playing a role in biological weapons production.

Iraq admitted to UN inspectors that it had produced missile warheads filled
with chemical and biological weapons. The inspectors supervised or verified
the destruction of several different types of delivery systems, including
ballistic missile warheads, artillery shells and aerial bombs. But UN
inspectors were unable to establish that all these warheads had been
destroyed.

Iraq is known to have tested unmanned aerial vehicles and airborne spraying
devices as possible delivery systems for biological and chemical weapons.

After it was effectively forced to leave Iraq, UNSCOM reported to the UN
Security Council in early 1999 that Iraq's claims that it had destroyed all
its chemical and biological weapons could not be verified.

At the time the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, UNSCOM assessed that
Iraq had:

a residual, illegal long-range missile capability

a quantity of chemical munitions

the ability to manufacture more of those, including the toxic VX agent, and

a biological weapons manufacturing capability.

Mr Speaker

Let us not forget what these chemical and biological weapons do to their
victims.

The effects of chemical weapons are horrific.

Mustard burns or blisters any part of the skin it touches. Many Australian
families will recall the awful and persistent effects it had on Australian
soldiers who fought during the first World War.

Just a few droplets of chemical nerve agents such as tabun, sarin and VX
will kill within minutes if inhaled or within hours if absorbed through the
skin. These agents attack the central nervous system, causing rapid
paralysis, respiratory failure and death by asphyxiation.

Biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, gas gangrene, aflatoxin
and ricin are either lethal or incapacitate people in various ways. Like
chemical weapons, they are indiscriminate in their application.

Mr Speaker

Since 1998 and the departure of the UN inspectors, there has been an
accumulation of intelligence information from a range of human and
technical sources pointing to Saddam Hussein's having continued or stepped
up his weapons of mass destruction programs.

Australian intelligence agencies report Iraq's continuing attempts to
procure equipment, material and technologies that could assist its weapons
of mass destruction program. They judge that Saddam Hussein's desire for
weapons of mass destruction remains undiminished.

Iraq has been working to increase its chemical and biological weapon
capability over the past four years. Let me give you three examples, based
on intelligence reports.

First, there has been some reconstruction and renovation of dual-use
chemical weapon production facilities, like chlorine and phenol plants.
This includes chemical production facilities at Fallujah on the outskirts
of Baghdad.

Secondly, defectors involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program
reported the continuing development of its biological and chemical
capability, including in mobile biological weapons production plants and in
hospitals.

Thirdly, in 2001 Iraq announced it would be renovating a facility at
al-Dawrah that it claims is a Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine facility. This
facility was known to be a biological weapon agent production facility
before the Gulf War.

In addition, Iraq is also believed to retain a small number of SCUD variant
missiles, launchers and warheads. UNSCOM was unable fully to account for
Iraqi SCUD-type missiles, warheads and components. In particular, it was
not able to verify Iraq's claims relating to the number of missiles and
warheads it claimed to have destroyed unilaterally.

During the 1980s, Iraq developed the capacity to build and to extend the
range of SCUD missiles, capable of delivering both chemical and biological
warheads.

The extended range SCUDs have a range of around 650km, making them capable
of striking neighbouring countries, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran
and some other Gulf States. Iraq is forbidden by Security Council
Resolution 687 from possessing ballistic missiles with a range greater than
150km. Iraq is also suspected of retaining components and production
equipment for these missiles.

Mr Speaker

Before the Gulf War, Iraq also conducted an extensive, clandestine nuclear
weapons program in clear breach of its obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

IAEA inspectors mandated to implement the nuclear dimension of the UN
Security Council resolutions were, like UNSCOM, denied access to Iraq after
1998.

As with chemical and biological weapons, the Australian Government has no
reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has abandoned his ambition to acquire
nuclear weapons.

All the circumstances suggest the opposite.

Australian intelligence agencies believe there is evidence of a pattern of
acquisition of equipment which could be used in a uranium enrichment
program. Iraq's attempted acquisition of very specific types of aluminium
tubes may be part of that pattern.

Iraq still has the expertise and the information to reconstitute a nuclear
weapons program and may have continued work on uranium enrichment and
weapons design.

And Iraq could shorten the lead-time for producing nuclear weapons if it
were able to acquire fissile material from elsewhere. The International
Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organisation -
concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if
he were able to obtain fissile material.

Iraq may also be using its program for the development of short-range
missiles, permitted by the UN, to develop prohibited longer-range missiles.
There have been recent indications, including in intelligence, of new
construction work on missile-related production and test facilities. Iraq
may be developing longer-range missiles prohibited by Security Council
resolution 687.

Mr Speaker

The Government's view is that there is good reason to be extremely worried
about the current status of Iraq's programs. Any reasonable person would
have to share that view. Indeed, while in New York I was struck by the
broad consensus which exists regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities.

It would be appropriate at this stage to say something about the Iraqi
regime's involvement with international terrorism.

Terrorism is contrary to all civilized values. Iraq has a long history of
state-sponsored terrorism. Saddam Hussein has consistently used terror as a
key instrument of his regime's policies and has supported its use by
others.

The Iraqi regime has long supported, hosted, funded and trained Palestinian
and other terrorist groups including the Abu Nidal organisation and the
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), led by Abu Abbas. The Abu Nidal
Organisation is responsible for major terrorist attacks in twenty
countries. The PLF has mounted many attacks against Israel. Members may
remember the attack on the cruise ship Achille Lauro some years ago. And it
has undertaken state-directed terrorist activities in other countries,
including many of Iraq's neighbours, over a long period.

Iraq has developed and supported the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, which undertakes
terrorist acts against Iraq's neighbour, Iran, and in other countries
including Australia. I remind the House that it was this body that attacked
Iranian diplomats in Canberra in 1992.

The Mujaheddin-e-Khalq has several thousand armed supporters located at
bases throughout Iraq. It is armed with weapons including tanks, infantry
fighting vehicles and artillery.

In recent times, the Iraqi regime has openly praised suicide attacks
against Israelis. It provides substantial financial grants, to the sum of
US$25,000, to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

A nightmare for the international community would be for Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction to find their way into the hands of terrorist
organisation.

And also, Mr Speaker, recent intelligence sources have confirmed the
presence of al-Qaeda members in Iraq.

Mr Speaker, let me now turn to my third point.

We have been in extensive consultations with the U.S. Administration for a
number of months on Iraq. Recently the Prime Minister spoke to President
Bush on the matter. We are very pleased with the process outlined by the
President in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 12.

I have just returned today from New York where I had the opportunity to
discuss Iraq with a range of colleagues, including with US Secretary of
State Colin Powell, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, UK
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, French Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, the President of the EU Foreign
Ministers, Per Stig Moller, and several foreign ministers from Arab
countries.

Everyone I spoke to agreed that the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction programs were real and could not be ignored by the
international community. There was also a clear understanding that the
authority of the United Nations was at stake a point also made by the UN
Secretary General, Mr Annan.

I stressed the importance of what can be broadly described as due process
and the need for the Security Council to meet its responsibilities in
addressing the threat to international peace and security.

I said Australia's considered view was that the longer we wait, the more
time we gave Iraq to work on new and covert ways to produce and deliver
these weapons.

I said Australia believed that the United Nations has been patient. It had
worked hard to satisfy Iraq's concerns about the previous inspection body,
UNSCOM, by designing a new and more streamlined inspection body, UNMOVIC.
The Secretary General had been unstinting in his efforts to get Iraq to
comply with Security Council resolutions.

I also said that the requirements set out in United Nations resolutions
would be satisfied only if inspectors are given immediate, unconditional
and unrestricted access to all areas, facilities, equipment, records and
relevant Iraqi officials.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I said while Australia would welcome new leadership in
Baghdad, our primary concern was the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and its fundamental breach of international law.

With all relevant interlocutors in New York, especially the permanent
members of the Security Council, I urged a fresh resolution be passed
condemning Iraq for non-compliance with existing resolutions, demanding the
immediate return of inspectors to fulfil their responsibilities and a short
timeframe for this resolution to be adhered to. Australia is agnostic on
the question of whether there should be more than one resolution.

It is clear from my discussions that the Permanent Members of the Security
Council are very conscious of their responsibilities and are indeed engaged
in discussions on possible resolutions.

Mr Speaker, I also had a meeting with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Dr Naji
Sabri. Although some countries have refused contact with the Iraqi regime,
I judged that Australia should leave no stone unturned in our efforts to
get Iraq to comply with international law and disarm and destroy its WMD
programs.

I asked him quite directly why, if Iraq has nothing to hide, his government
refused to allow comprehensive inspections. I told him that if Iraq has
nothing to hide from the international community it also has nothing to
fear from the international community. Indeed by meeting the demands of the
international community Iraq and its people have everything to gain.

Iraq's announcement today that it is prepared to accept the immediate and
unconditional return of weapons inspectors is a direct response to the
strong stand taken by the international community, including Iraq's Arab
neighbours. Australia has been playing, and will continue to play, its part
in bringing pressure to bear on Iraq.

Mr Speaker

The onus is now squarely on Iraq to allow immediate and unfettered
inspections leading to the complete and permanent disarmament of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council cannot allow Iraq to
resile from today's commitment, as it has so often in the past.

My fourth point, Mr Speaker, relates to Australia's national interests,
which are directly involved here, and in very concrete ways.

We have a fundamental interest in global security. And we need to
understand the ramifications that could flow from Iraq continuing to defy
the authority of the Security Council and successfully pursue its program
for weapons of mass destruction.

It would do enormous damage to the system of co