The most significant item in what follows may be the resignation of former General Wayne Downing, author of the 'Downing Plan' for taking out the Iraqi
government quickly and cheaply. His dissatisfaction suggests that the
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz faction isn't doing quite as well as we have been led to
believe. Otherwise its all business much as usual. Two raids in the No Fly
Zones and the incompetent propaganda piece by John Sweeney (I call it
incompetent even though it may have been effective among people who don't
think very much. But if he wanted to make a strong case against Saddam
Hussein's government he could have done better working his way through
articles that have been posted over the past two years in the present
mailing list. I think I could have done better without stirring from my
computer screen)
ENFORCING
THE BLOCKADE
* [Australian] Navy ship heads for terror duty [The
interception of fishing
boats smuggling dates out of Iraq is now being
described as an essential
part of the War against Terror.]
* Iraq Slams Turkey for Extending Mandate for
U.S.-British Forces
* Western
warplanes hit Iraqi air defences [27th June]
* U.S. planes attack Iraqi command center [28th June. This is an
attack on
the southern zone, where the previous one was an attack on the
northern
zone, so we may assume thay are different attacks. Yet here it is
stated
that 'The last U.S. attack was on June 20']
* Iraq Says One Civilian Hurt in Western Air
Raid
* US says Iran no longer
helping Iraq smuggle oil
INSIDE IRAQ
* How Saddam 'staged' fake baby funerals [This
article, from John Sweeney
in The Observer, has been much circulated and discussed on the list. See in
particular
the excellent mediaLens posting from Katy Connell on 28th June.
The
article is only included here for the record. One small observation,
though,
on the subject of mass funerals of babies. Though they have
certainly
taken place, they're hardly an important part of the international
campaign.
In two years of producing this news mailing I don't remember a
single
article on the subject. I did a quick search on the word 'funeral'
and the
only reference I could find to mass funerals of babies was in an
article
by Robert Fisk ('These children had cancer. Now they are dead. I
believe
they were killed by depleted uranium' Independent, 10 January 2001:
Depleted
Uranium Supplement, 19/12/0014/1/01.). Fisk, who, we imagine, is
on our
side in these matters, dismissed the funerals as Iraqi government
propaganda
but says that this does not change the fact that large numbers of
real
children are dying.]
* Saddam's
moment of truth [Iraqi election on October 15th]
* Sayyed Muhammad Taqi al-Hakim [Times
obituary for leading Iraqi Shi'i
jurist.]
IRAQIS OUTSIDE
IRAQ
* 35 Australia Asylum
Seekers Break Out
IRAQI/MIDDLE EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
* Iraq, Iran set timetable for repatriation of
refugees
* Iraq's culture minister
to visit Iran
* Iraq protests to
UN at Iran truce breaches
*
Iraqi's message welcomed in Sidon [Lebanon] after marathon walk
URL
ONLY:
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=55538
* UAE 'has most liberal economic system'
by
Nadim Kawach
Gulf News, 25th June
[According to the Index of Economic
Freedom. The UAE ranks 23rd out of 156
countries. Iraq ranks 155th. But is
it mentioned that under the system
imposed by the US and its allies, all
Iraq's oil revenue is given in lump
sums to the Iraqi government which is
only allowed to spend it on items
approved by a UN committee made up of
its enemies, which will not allow
expenditure on any internal Iraqi
economic activity. This doesn't exactly
make for the development of an
economic life free of government control,
does it?]
NEW WORLD
ORDER
* UN urged to oppose
US immunity [The US proposal isn't quite as ridiculous
as it appears, if
this account is to be believed. It calls for a 'blanket
protection from
prosecution by the court for all personnel taking part in
all UN
operations.' 'UN operations' presumably means operations approved by
the
Security Council which is under the malignant spell of the Permanent
Members'
veto. But in theory, keeping to the terms of this report, US troops
would
still be liable for prosecution for actions taken outside the UN
framework,
eg during the war on Serbia, which didn't have UNSC backing (nor,
I
believe, did the war on Afghanistan). My own instinct would be to accept
this
exemption, but work for a tighter definition of what constitutes a 'UN
operation';
and for a strict internal UN disciplinary procedure.]
* Belgian court rejects war-crimes case vs.
Israel's Sharon [While it might
have been satisfying to see Ariel Sharon
arraigned for war crimes, the
ambition of national courts to obtain
international jurisdiction is
ridiculous and deserves to be squashed. It
may be noted that the basis for
this judgement is not that AS didn't
commit war crimes, but that he doesn't
live in Belgium.]
* Two world orders [Useful summary of the New
World Order which is being
constructed, in which 'The new supreme power
has substituted the "rule of
law" by a doctrine of "ruling
above the law".' The only cavil being with the
idea that things have
changed, that the US behaved any differently in
Vietnam, Laos or
Cambodia.]
* A time for dissent in
America [Refers to an article in the current
edition of the US journal
Foreign Policy by Immanuel Wallerstein advancing
the interesting case that
US power is still in decline following its defeat
by the Vietnamese in
1970: 'We look best, he declares, when we attack
countries without armies,
triumphing in Panama and Grenada.']
URLs ONLY:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/27_06_02/art19.asp
* Murky machinations in US dragnet for
Al-Qaeda
by Ed Blanche
The Daily Star, Lebanon
[Nothing much to
do with Iraq but quite an interesting roundup of the
success or lack of it
so far in rounding up al-Qaida.]
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/27_06_02/art20.asp
* Will US think tanks hatch a viable Mideast
peace?
by George S. Hishmeh
The Daily Star, Lebanon, 27th June
[Account
of new 'think tank' on the Middle East - the Saban centre for
Middle East
Policy in the Brookings Institute, headed by a pro-Israeli
lobbyist,
Martin Indyk but claiming to represent a balanced, middle of the
road
approach towards such issues as - er - organising a post-Saddam Iraq.]
OIL
POLITICS
* Opec job likely
to stay with Venezuela [One of the reasons for the
attempt to overthrow
Hugo Chavez was the US hope that Venezuela (like Kuwait
in 1989/90) would
break OPEC oil quotas. It seems that even with the return
of Chavez this
hope is still alive - one of the arguments being that
Venezuela must
increase production to make up for what was lost during the
strike!]
* France Wants End to Iraqi Oil Policy
[Includes quite a clear account of
the present problems over oil pricing.
the French proposal is another way of
exercising discipline over Iraq
without disrupting the market.]
*
OPEC to hold steady on oil output
* DJ. UN Panel Approves Iraq Oil Prices For Europe, June 1-15
* OPEC has new leader, plan
AND,
IN NEWS, 22-29/6/02
(2)
PROSPECTS FOR PEACE
* By invading Iraq, America will lose the war on terror [A brief
column
piece. Scott Ritter is quoted - approvingly - as saying: "When
America
becomes the arrogant, international bully, we will lose the world
on this."
Which is fine, but the process described has already
occurred. The problem
is how to turn 'the world' into an effective
political force.]
* Peace has to
remain an option [A good summary of the run-up to war so
far,
concentrating the attention on the dismissal of Jose Bustani, with his
proposal
for international rather than US controlled weapons inspections in
Iraq.]
* Bush warned against hasty action on Iraq [Anxieties
G.Bush doesn't have
to worry about from Britain; and anxieties he does
have to worry about from
Congress]
*
No reason behind Iraq attack [Refers to an article in the Wall
Street
Journal by Khidr Hamza, reminiscing about how, back in the 1980s,
he had
been working on a dirty bomb. The present article is strong on the
contrast
between the anti-Iraq rhetoric and the lack of any real evidence
that Iraq
poses a danger. Which is fine but of course it can easily be
construed as an
argument for maintaining sanctions (which keep Iraq in the
desired position
of powerlessness).]
* White House hawk [General Wayne Downing ] on Saddam quits
* Anti-terror chief quits after being
'ignored' [Extract]
PROSPECTS FOR WAR
* Sighting in on Saddam [This purports to be
the background story behind
G.Bush's determination to go after Iraq, the
switch from Colin Powell to
Donald Rumsfeld. It more or less follows the
course of the media reporting
on the affair - a rash of articles on
defectors' tales of WMDs and contacts
with al-Qaida, followed by a sort of
hangover in which second thoughts
appear. Except that, according to the
article, the decisions made before the
second thoughts began to appear
still stand. One assumes however that the US
administration is less
subject than this implies to the vagaries of the
media and that it has its
own agenda to pursue. Which it isn't going to
share with us.]
* Spooks vs. Saddam [A rather strange article
from J.Hoagland saying that
the CIA aren't any good at sneaky operations
and shouldn't do them. They
should only operate in support of outfront,
honest activities such as
massive bombing campaigns which have public
support. The article seems to
suggest that 'recruiting an Iraqi general to
put a bullet in the brain of
Saddam Hussein or ... mounting any other
successful covert operation that
would avoid a U.S. invasion of Iraq'
falls into the category of sneaky
activities. Mr Hoagland wants lots of
ass to be kicked and to be seen to be
kicked.]
* Gulf War Lessons for
the Bush Administration [This article appears to be
proposing a brilliant
strategy for taking out the Iraqi government without
deploying thousands
of US troops or killing thousands of Iraqis. The essence
of the thing
appears to be to air-drop large numbers of troops into the
middle of Iraq,
thus cutting Baghdad off from the borders. But I don't feel
I've quite
grasped it yet.]
* US near
appointment of Iraq envoy [to Iraqi opposition. Opposition
elements who
want to deal with the US should note the respect in which they
are held:
'US officials contend that dealing with the opposition is - in the
words
of one - like ''herding cats''']
*
American reinforcement in Turkey for striking Iraq; Baghdad:
dialogue
with the UN will not bring back the inspectors [The article
quotes a Turkish
daily newspaper as saying: 'following its decision to
start military
operations against Baghdad during the two next month ...
the number of US
troopers in Turkey will be increased from 7,000 to 25,000
during July.']
News titles,
29/6-6/7/02
I am finding some difficulty in understanding why so
many of those who
supported the war on Serbia seem to be opposed to the
war on Iraq. What are
the differences between Slobodan Milosevic and
Saddam Hussein? Well, chiefly
that Mr Milosevic was democratically elected
and was engaged in a war
against a terrorist campaign taking place in what
is still recognised as
being legally part of Serbia. His treatment of
ethnic Albanians certainly
wasn't any worse than Mr Hussein's treatment of
the Kurds (which hasn't been
much worse than the Turks' treatment of the
Kurds, but that's another
matter). In fact, prior to the actual launching
of the war, any comparison
between the two is really outrageous. The
'Racak massacre' which provided
the pretext for the war was small beer compared
to the massacres the US have
been engaging in in Afghanistan (and the
dispute, civilian or terrorist?
Greatly resembles the dispute over the
latest wedding party massacre). Large
sections of European and British
opinion need to be told: if the bombing of
Serbia was justified then
there's nothing to be said against the bombing of
Iraq; if the bombing of
Iraq is wrong, then there's nothing to be said in
favour of the bombing of
Serbia.
That having been said, the most depressing piece of news in
what follows is
to be found in the International section - 'Eritrea eager
for U.S. military
partnership'. Perhaps the breakdown of the talks on
weapons inspections is
also depressing but it was predictable. Kofi Annan
is not a man of moral
courage and was not in a position to offer the terms
under which a return of
the weapons inspectors would have been acceptable.
But the whole thing is
farcical since it is perfectly obvious that with
the blockade in place
around Iraq it is virtually impossible that any
substantial quantities of
material for weapons of mass destruction could
be getting in. Even when the
inspectors were there all their work turned
round old stocks not new
material. As a pretext for war the problem of
'eapons of mass destruction is
not so much a fig leaf as a magnifying
glass ...
FINGER
POINTING AT IRAQ
* Israel's
submarine menace raises stakes {Details of the latest stage in
Israel's US
approved Weapons of Mass Destruction programme. The article ends
with a
little piece on Iraq's WMD capacity in 1990/1 which is all that is
given
here, but the rest of it is interesting for those who like that sort
of
thing.]
* The real case against
Saddam [New York Post. Quotes Jesse Helms' 'former
chief Iraq staffer',
Danielle Pletka as saying: "Nobody credible makes the
case that
there's some connection between Saddam Hussein and what happened
Sept.
11." So much for William Safire et al. Goes on to say that there is
nonetheless
a demonstrably true case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It
comes in 4
points. Of these, the first (that Saddam Hussein is clearly evil
and
reckless) could equally be applied to any US President one might care to
name
(one would like to make an exception of Carter but he did have Zbigniew
Brzezinski
for his Secretary of State). The second point - that he is trying
to get
weapons of mass destruction - has turned out to be as difficult to
prove
as the connection with Sept 11 (though it is not difficult to prove
that
Israel is chock a block with them). Only the last two points are
demonstrably
true: that Iraq is potentially a very strong nation, and that
current US
policy is unravelling.]
* Iraq
using new mobile missile launchers: Jane's [At last, solid proof of
Iraq's
aggressive intentions]
* A
shameful attack [Mark Seddon of Tribune criticises John Sweeney's
Mother
of All Ironies programme. Unfortunately he rather leaves the
impression
that he thought he could control the content of the programme
through the
privileged position he occupies as the person who can get
reporters into
Iraq; and is rather miffed that he found he couldn't. Not the
best
critique that could have been made of the programme (that was made by
MediaLens,
circulated to list by Katy Connell on 24th June)]
* BBC was fair on Iraq [Letter in reply to
above from Mark Damazer, Deputy
director, BBC News]
IRAQI LIFE
AND CULTURE
* Iraqi
President Discharges 3 Elderly Ministers
* Baghdad slams UNESCO over World Heritage List
* Diverse Iraqi painting revealed in all its
richness
IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (South Africa, Pakistan,
India, Czech
Republic, Europe, Eritrea, Russia)
* Iraqi Deputy Minister Visits SA
* Baghdad accepts 31,000 tons wheat
* India's FICCI [Federation of Indian Chambers
of Commerce and Industry] to
send delegation to Iraq
* Iraq denounces the Free Europe radio
* EU approves aid package to Iraq [Curious
little item that perhaps hasn't
attracted the attention it deserves. Given
that we are told the problem does
not lie in access to (imported) food and
medicines but in infrastructure, is
that what the European proposal
addresses?]
* Eritrea eager for
U.S. military partnership [It is deeply distressing to
see Eritrea which,
some years ago, appeared to me at least to be a beacon to
the world,
apparently offering to turn itself into a US aircraft carrier:
'Eritrea
could also serve a launching point for a future attack on Iraq,
Asmerom
(Eritrean ambassador to the US) said.'
*
Iraqi Ambassador Talks the Talk [Abbas Khalaf, Iraq's new ambassador
to
Moscow.]
NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN
* Kurds grit teeth for US strike [The thesis
is that the Kurds don't want
to go to war but will be obliged to do so by
the Americans. At present,
they're happy because they can drink, women
don't have to wear the veil, and
they get a monthly food basket, though
there is still a lot of poverty.
Sounds a bit like the rest of
Iraq.]
* Restaurant Explosion
Injures 20 in Kurdish-run northern Iraq
*
'88 gassing still killing Iraqi Kurds [John Sweeney, in one of his
exchanges
with anti-sanctions campaigners, suggested we should go to
Halabja. I've
seeen no sign that Mr Sweeney has ever been to Halabja but
this article is
by someone who has, and he finds it disgracefully neglected
by the
'international community' (and by implication the Kurdish
authorities).
Long-term after effects of the 1988 chemical attack haven't
been properly
researched, partly for fear of the consequences for the
Western firms that
supplied the chemicals. The US is willing to use Halabja
for propaganda
purposes but will do nothing to alleviate the suffering. On
the whole its
an all round desolating story (one small interesting detail.
Halabja is
outside the zone 'protected' by the US/British air forces.)]
* Iraq Turns Up Heat on Ethnic Kurds,
Non-Arabs in Kirkuk [The arrival in
the autonomous zone of large numbers
of Kurds apparently expelled from the
Kirkuk region is one of the more
serious and verifiable charges that can be
made against Saddam Hussein -
though John Sweeney wasn't very interested in
it. In this particular
article the effect is a little weakened by a young
Turkoman who seems to
be fleeing 'one or two years' military service. Much
as one might
sympathise with him on a personal basis, that's what military
service was
until recently in France. The fact that in the Iraqi army he
risks being killed
is more the fault of those (who include the author of the
article) who
want to wage war on Iraq. And the way things are going he
probably doesn't
have a lot of advantage going to the autonomous zone.]
AND, IN
NEWS, 29/6-6/7/02
(2)
IRAQI/MIDDLE EAST-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
* Iranian pilgrims to Iraq have doubled to
7,000 a week
* Jordan denies the
existence of American forces to strike Iraq
* U.S. buildup in Qatar may foreshadow Iraq attack
* Two American secret military bases in Qatar
[Arab report in rather
imperfect English emphasising Qatari anxiety that
their treachery should be
kept secret]
* Al-Sharq al-Awsat: the next war against Syria [Prospects for an
imminent
Israeli attack against Syria, possibly under cover of the US war
against
Iraq.]
* Iraq grants
Turkish companies oil contracts
URLs ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10739-2002Jul1.html
* Arab Report Cites Development
Obstacles
by Karen DeYoung
Washington Post, 2nd July
[UN report
written by Arabs says Arabs are backward. Still too much interest
in
matters other than making money.]
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/features/01_07_02_a.htm
* A way of seeing - book takes look at Arab
visual culture
by Jim Quilty
Daily Star, Lebanon, 1st July
[Book
on Arab photography - an art form whose very existence shows how far
the
Arab peoples have fallen since the days when any sort of illusionistic
copy
of the external appearances of nature was regarded with contempt, and
calligraphy
was recognised as among the highest forms of human activity.]
NEW
WORLD ORDER
* Policy goes
too far to combat terrorism [At last someone - in this case
an editorial
in the Atlanta Constitution - has noticed that by the standards
now being
proclaimed by Mr Bush: 'Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor could be
considered
a justified pre emptive strike ...' Only quibble I have is with
the
reference to 'our newly aggressive approach.' How long is it since the
US
has waged a war that could by any stretch of the imagination be termed
'defensive'?]
* World exclusive interview: George Michael
[Long article from the Daily
Mirror (was it all really published) which
was, it appears, behind
G.Michael's recent decision to enter into
political, um, debate. Michael's
main anxiety appears to be that Britain
might get attacked, not that we
might kill a lot of people He gives the
impression of wanting to appease the
terrorists to prevent another
September 11th on his doorstep. It really
isn't true to say that
'Britain's the second most dangerous place on earth
right now' -
presumably after the US, but Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan,
Somalia ,
Kashmir etc are still more dangerous than either of them. Only a
short
extract dealing with Iraq is given here (and again, anxiety about what
Saddam
Hussein might do if cornered prevails over anxiety as to what we
might do
to Iraq.)]
* Rise of a new
imperialism [Extract from a new book by John Pilger. He
suggests that the
new imperialists are losing any inhibitions they may ever
have had about
behaving like the old imperialists. But he does suggest that
they are
still inhibited about the name, 'imperialist'. Has he not read the
recent
pieces by old Foreign Office hand, Robert Cooper?]
* U.S. Is Right to Spurn Int'l Criminal Court
[The New York Daily News
opposes the International Criminal Court on the
grounds that Americans could
be subjected to the jurisdiction of a bunch
of wogs from worthless places
like Lesotho. The paper fears that 'If the
court had existed before now,
President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and Secretary of State
Powell might be dodging subpoenas. The
U.S., after all, has killed civilians
in Afghanistan.' And they may be
right. All the court's defenders are
assuring us that the US has nothing
to fear but if it can't prevent what the
US did in Afghanistan then surely
it isn't worth having.]
* Liberty
Mutual fined for Iraqi dealings
*
The rogue State [John Pilger attacks the US - mainly on Afghanistan
-
from the pages of the Daily Mirror. Piers Morgan's commitment to this
sort
of thing is heartening but it still needs some sort of effective
embodiment
in politics, outside the Labour Party 'usual suspects' group.
Are Morgan and
the Labour group willing to organise a real opposition (and
could they do it
without getting nobbled by the SWP?)]
URLs
ONLY:
http://www.cleveland.com/world/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_sta
ndard.xsl?/base/news/102542968797940.xml
* Experts fear crude bomb could be built
by
Charles J. Hanley
The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 30th June
[Scary
thoughts on the possible proliferation of nuclear materials. But
worried
as the Americans might be they don't appear to be that worried: 'The
IAEA's
advocates, meanwhile, say it's time the U.N. watchdog agency's budget
-
long frozen because of Washington's anti-U.N. sentiment - be increased.']
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/181/focus/We_ll_strike_first+.shtml
* We'll strike first
by Robert
Schlesinger, 6/30/2002
Boston Globe, 30th June
[Reflections on the
rights and wrongs of pre-emptive strikes. Problem of
arguing why, with the
removal of the only serious competing power, one has
to become more, not
less, aggressive.]
http://allafrica.com/stories/200207010293.html
* Bridging The Dangerous Gap Between The West
And The Muslim World
by Paul Wolfowitz
Weekly Trust (Kaduna, Africa),
1st July
[Second part of a long semi-philosophical reflection by Paul
Wolfowitz on
the difference between good Muslims (willing to recognise
Israel) and bad
ones (terrorists). But he doesn't seem to have explored
the question very
far: 'Strikingly, by the way, even in a portion of Iraq
-in the
Kurdish-controlled areas in the North we see an example of the kind of
self-government Muslims can
achieve. There, beyond the reach of the Baghdad
regime, the people are
healthy and they enjoy a level of prosperity that far
surpasses the rest
of Iraq.' This is something of an exaggeration but
assuming we concede the
case we may well wonder: if the Kurds can do so well
left to their own
devices why isn't Mr Wolfowitz supporting their autonomy
vis a vis
Turkey?]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,747559,00.html
* Contempt of court
The Guardian, 2nd
July
[The Guardian waxes indignant about US refusal to countenance
the
International Criminal Court. But so far as I can see they've missed
the
point. They think the ICC is an extension of the kangaroo courts set
up for
ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It isn't. These were responsible to the
United
Nations Security Council, which is controlled at least negatively
by the US
(it might not do everything the US wants but it won't do
anything the US
doesn't want). The US was NEVER going to support an
international court not
under its control. This is nothing to do with 'the
suspicious, slab-sided
rightwing psyche that informs and so badly skewers
Bush administration
attitudes to most international issues'. Clinton would
have (in fact we are
told he did) come to the same conclusion. In refusing
the ICC the US is
consistent with itself. In backing a court which will do
its political will
it is acting consistently with itself. In backing a US
controlled court and
pretending it has international legitimacy (the ex
Yugoslavia Tribunal) the
Guardian is merely acting consistently with its
own delusions of moral
grandeur.]
http://cgi.worldnews.com/?action=display&article=14457633&template=worldnews
/search.txt&index=recent
* Cos. Pay Gov't Millions in Fines
The
Associated Press, 3rd July
[Fines for breaking US imposed sanctions on
Afghanistan and Cuba]
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/laweekly/20020703/lo/36259_1.html
* The Last Defender of the American Republic?:
An interview with Gore Vidal
by Marc Cooper
Yahoo (from Los Angeles
Weekly), 3rd July
[What makes Gore Vidal particularly interesting is that
he represents a
substantial American political tradition - isolationism -
which probably
corresponds to the instincts of many if not most of the US
population but
which has almost no political expression, except perhaps on
the extreme
fringes of the extreme right. Which helps to explain Vidal's
sympathetic
interest in Timothy McVeigh: 'And when it comes to Oklahoma
City and Tim
McVeigh, well, he had his reasons as well to carry out his
dirty deed.
Millions of Americans agree with his general reasoning, though
no one, I
think, agrees with the value of blowing up children. ... The
whole Patriot
movement in the U.S. was based on folks run off their family
farms. Or had
their parents or grandparents run off. We have millions of
disaffected
American citizens who do not like the way the place is run and
see no place
in it where they can prosper. They can be slaves. Or pick
cotton. Or
whatever the latest uncomfortable thing there is to do. But
they are not
going to have, as Richard Nixon said, "a piece of the
action." The article
is long and not much about Iraq so I'm not
giving it but its worth having a
look at.]
http://www.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=a
d_topright_topfin&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_po
sition1_topfin&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=APSQ54xXXSXJhbiBC
* Iran Bond Attracts European Banks Ignoring
`Evil' Tag (Update2)
by Gavin Serkin
Bloomberg.com. 4th July
'Iran's
first foreign bond sale since the Islamic revolution of 1979 is
attracting
interest from Deutsche Bank AG, Pictet & Cie and other banks who
aren't
put off by its place in U.S. President George W. Bush's ``axis of
evil.'''
The article includes the following curious little tidbit of
information:
'Colm McDonagh, who helps manage $110 million for Aberdeen
Asset
Management, has about half of his $13 million Exotic Debt Fund
invested in
Iraqi and North Korean debt, on expectations the loans will be
repaid if
Saddam Hussein is ousted or the two Koreas reunite. The fund has
gained 24
percent this year after dropping by the same percentage in 2001.
"It's
toxic stuff, but when it moves, it really moves,'' McDonagh said.
"All
we need is one of these countries to happen and our holdings
will
sky-rocket.'' ' By 'happen' I think he means 'get bombed to pieces'
(am I
wrong to be reminded of Gogol's novel 'Dead Souls'?)]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2050431&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=dialogue
* Deformed US foreign policy obsessed with
terrorism
by Gwynne Dyer
New Zealand Herald, 5th July
[Article
notable for the following rather witty sentence: 'The average
person's
grasp of risk factors is so poor that it's commonplace to meet
cigarette
smokers who worry about terrorism.' Also for reminding us of the
existence
of Ha'aretz as an effective centre for Israeli opposition to the
Sharon/Bush
perspective.]
http://www.dailystarnews.com/200207/06/n2070609.htm#BODY3
* Arabs and Red-Indians: Brothers in
fate!
by Yamin Zakaria
Daily Star (Bangla Desh), 6th July
[Quite
exhilarating piece of Muslim, anti-'Judaeo-Christian' propaganda. But
it
may be remarked that, although many 'Christians' have been won over to
the
view that Israel is the homeland for 'the Jews' this is not the
Christian
position, which is that it is now the Christians who are 'the
Jews', heirs
to the Biblical promises. The people who call themselves Jews
are the
people who have betrayed their destiny as Jews by failing to
recognise the
Messiah. Far from supporting the Jewish claim to Jerusalem for
religious
reasons, Christians should be reasserting their own claim to
Jerusalem,
for religious reasons. That would throw a spanner in the works
...]
http://www.iht.com/articles/63613.html
* Changing the Arab world will take people
power
by David Ignatius
International Herald Tribune (from
Washington Post), 6th July
[An amazing piece of prose which turns
President Bush's recent speech into
an expression of concern for the
wellbeing of the Palestinian people.
Ignatius goes on to argue that though
bombs will certainly be necessary to
introduce democracy in Arab lands, a
bit of funding of dissident movements
might not be a bad idea as
well].
AND, IN NEWS, 29/6-6/7/02 (3)
OIL
* GCC states take $20b oil price hit
* BAGHDAD: Iraq ups West Qorna output
* Iraq to drill wildcats
IRAQI
OPPOSITION
* Iraq rebels
oppose U.S strike to topple govt-paper [The Supreme Council
for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who appeared a few months ago to be
toying
with supporting the Americans, are beginning to figure out what an
American
occupation might mean. Not great for champions of the Islamic
Revolution
...]
* Iraqi exiles dream of
toppling Hussein [On the newly formed Iraqi
National Movement, the sons of
privilege in Iraq wanting their privileges
back. But given that they
openly support a US invasion of their country why
should the Syrians be
offering them a base in Damascus?]
IRAQIS OUTSIDE IRAQ
* Activists accused of 'dumping'
asylum-seekers in the desert [in the
Woomera breakout]
* Officials: Saddam's stepson admits mistake
over US visa
POLICING THE BLOCKADE
* U.S. Bombs Iraqi Defense System
PROSPECTS
FOR WAR
* US has plan to
kill Saddam, says Iraqi opposition leader
* Time to deploy a large American military force [Jim Hoagland
argues for a
massive US military presence permanently installed in Iraq as
the best
recipe for solving the Israel/Palestinian confrontation. The core
of his
thesis is that once the Arabs get democracy, they will be happy to
recognise
the state of Israel. He doesn't quite explain how he makes the
connection
but we suspect the massive US military presence might have
something to do
with it (what is behind all this is probably the notion
that the Arab world
can be remodelled like the Japanese and Germans at the
end of the 1939-45
war).]
*
Failure of other efforts led U.S. to plan war on Saddam [The
article
turns round the following interesting paragraph: 'The evidence
that Saddam
still possesses such weapons remains murky - particularly in
the view of
America's European allies, most of whom have argued against a
new war on
Iraq. In the United States and its principal Middle East ally,
Israel,
however, a number of senior officials - including Prime Minister
Ariel
Sharon and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak - believe that a
post-Saddam
Iraq could be fashioned into some form of democracy.'
Interesting because it
begins with an important fact that is rarely
acknowledged - the near total
absence of any evidence that Iraq has
access, or is even seeking access - to
weapons of mass destruction. But
then, with a 'however', the paragraph
changes subjects. The US and Ariel
Sharon (!) think Iraq could become
'democratic'. The next paragraph tells
us what the word 'democratic' means.
Iraq is to be conquered and thousands
of Iraqis killed in order to 'secure
Israel's eastern flank'. The sentence
also reveals what the word 'terrorism'
means willingness to support
Palestinian opposition to the Israeli
occupation of Palestine. A later
paragraph tells us that 'They [Kurdish
leaders] also want Kurdish cities
protected from the kind of onslaught that
Saddam unleashed during the
Clinton administration's failed attempt to
dislodge the Iraqi leader. The
failure forced the CIA to evacuate partisans
from Iraq at a cost of more
than $100 million, according to administration
officials.' My
understanding is that the 'partisans', insofar as they were
Iraqi, were
left behind and killed. It was the Americans who were lifted
out. And as
always the author forgets that the Iraqi army was invited in by
the KDP in
order to prevent a combined Iranian/PUK takeover of the
territory.]
URLs
ONLY:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/51466.htm
* TO INVADE IRAQ:, SEND IN THE
'EXPERTS'!
by Ralph Peters
New York Post, 1st July
[Tough
talkin' case, published in the New York Post, for stomping on Saddam
Hussein
with massive force: 'First, that sucker needs to go down, and he
needs to
go down ugly. The world needs to see pain on his decomposing snout
so that
all the other scumbag dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere get
the
message that the gringos are back in the game and feeling mean. Bring
down
one dictator, and the next 10 will think twice before they mess with
Uncle
Sugar and the Stars and Stripes. That's real pre-emption.' Want to
read
any more?]
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html
* U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack
on 3 Sides
by ERIC SCHMITT
New York Times, 5th July
[This has
achieved some publicity but I don't see anything in it we haven't
had
before. With the administration constantly talking up the need for
regime
change it is hardly surprising that the Pentagon is drawing up all
sorts
of plans, but, as the article says: 'Nothing in the Central Command
document
or in interviews with senior military officials suggests that an
attack on
Iraq is imminent.' In fact it appears that the document has been
leaked by
someone (I wonder can we guess who. Would the name begin with D,
by any
chance?) who is dissatisfied with the present state of preparations
for
war.]
IRAQI/UN RELATIONS
* UN: United Nations Compensation Commission approves awards of
USD4.9Bn
for compensation [The absurdity of the figures cited in this
article is
staggering. Note the website address: www.uncc.ch (when I tried
it it
worked, but became www.unog.ch/uncc/]
* UN deal leaves Iraq's Kurds at mercy of
Baghdad [This is a rather more
detailed version of the charge levelled by
John Sweeney that Baghdad
prevents the flow of essential supplies to the
Kurdish north. What is
surprising is that no-one (least of all Sweeney)
seems to be making the
obvious point that the Kurdish autonomous zone,
supposedly outside the
administration of the wicked Baghdadis, shouldn't
be subject to sanctions at
all, or at least should be supplied directly
and not through UN agencies
based in Baghdad. One can only guess that the
obstacle is Turkey, but are
the Turks so mighty that they can prevent the
question even being
discussed?]
*
Iraq, UN fail to agree on arms inspections
News titles, 6-13/7/02
The
mailing this week is huge and I apologise for this, especially since
most
of it seems to me to be a lot of fluff produced with the intention of
accustoming
us to the idea that war is inevitable. Among British papers, The
Times
and, more surprisingly, the Financial Times have been particularly
guilty
in this respect, though let us not forget the unstinting efforts of
The
Observer. Without wishing to encourage complacency on the list, however,
I
still don't see how an attack can be launched without the collaboration
of
a land neighbour. And all the neighbours, including Kuwait, have
refused in
terms that make it difficult to see how they could be induced
to change
their minds.
Turkey of course remains a possibility.
But to attack from Turkey requires
the co-operation of the Kurds and they,
for the moment, are not being very
co-operative. It is easy to see the
problem. The Turks will only co-operate
on terms that are unacceptable to
the Kurds and the Kurds will only
co-operate on terms that are
unacceptable to the Turks. A problem that could
only be handled with great
finesse - a quality lacking in the present US
administration.
The
only sense I can make of the current media campaign is the hope that a
jittery
Iraq will do something foolish (a possibility mooted in an article
by
Rupert Cornwell - 'America rattles Saddam's cage ...' given below as a
URL
Only under 'Criminal Conspiracies'). For the moment, however, the Iraqi
government's
handling of the situation seems to be superb. They're just
continuing to
use what resources they have at their disposal to increase the
links with
the world which they were developing before it all started (see
the
'Middle East' and 'International' sections below. See especially my
favourite
article in what follows: '26 Iranian Wrestlers, Coaches Depart for
Iraq').
That
having been said, a very likely consequence of the current US/British/
Iraqi
exile warmongering is intensified internal repression. By the time the
invasion
starts, if it starts, a lot of potential leaders within Iraq will
most
likely be dead. But perhaps the US and Iraqi exile warmongers won't
think
that's a bad thing (we remember Stalin holding back to allow Hitler to
deal
with the Polish resistance ...).
If the war did get underway it
could presumably be won quite quickly
(difficult as it is to admit, we
would have to hope for that. The quicker it
takes, the fewer people the US
will massacre). This is on the assumption
that the Iraqi government has
very little in the way of weaponry, never mind
weapons of mass
destruction. Embarrassing situation for Mr Bush: the
justification for the
war is the possibility that Iraq is acquiring weapons
of mass destruction.
But fear of what Saddam might do with his weapons of
mass destruction if
cornered is one of the main arguments being used against
the war. Leading
to a secondary, perhaps stronger, argument. The blockade
can't last
forever. As it crumbles, as it is doing, Saddam's ability to get
hold of
WMDs will increase. And since it is clear that they have deterrent
power
(otherwise what would be our justification for having them?) he has
every
interest in acquiring them. Therefore he should be toppled now, before
he
gets them.
Our position in all this presents some difficulties. In
general we argue
that Saddam can't have much in the way of weapons of mass
destruction
because the blockade has been so effective. But this amounts
to an argument
in favour of the blockade (if, despite the blockade, he is
armed to the
teeth as the Jim Hoaglands of this world would have us
believe, then the
absurd criminality of the blockade is only made all the
more evident). If
the blockade is lifted, as we want it to be, the opportunities
for President
Hussein to acquire such weapons will be greatly enhanced. We
have to be able
to argue that this would not pose a serious threat to the
security of the
world.
And one of the articles below, from the
International Herald Tribune of all
places, actually does argue this
('Take a better route to regime change'
under 'Efforts at crime
prevention'). It really isn't all that difficult.
Though we are constantly
reminded that President Hussein has used chemical
weapons in the past we
are not so often reminded that he only used them in
very extreme
circumstances when the continued existence of Iraq was in
jeopardy. How
would the rest of us have reacted if Iraq had been overrun by
the Islamic
hordes of Iran, still under the leadership of the Ayatollah
Khomeini? And
how would Ariel Sharon, the well known 'man of peace', have
reacted if he
found himself in a similar position?
If Saddam manages to work his
country out of its 'cage' he will be a very
happy man and it is most
unlikely that he will embark on new adventures. A
war against Israel? Far
be it from me to justify Israel's possession of
nuclear submarines but the
fact is that they make an outright war against
Israel very unlikely.
This
still leaves one argument in the enemy's arsenal: that a powerful,
well-armed
state could, discreetly, give help to freelance (ie non-state
based)
'terrorists'. But what is said about a powerful, well-armed state
could
equally be said about powerful and rich individuals. The US attempt to
cut
off the sources of terrorism logically leads to the refusal to allow the
continued
existence of any powerful, disaffected person or group of persons.
It is
an absurd and impossible struggle. If disaffection is the enemy it
would
surely be easier to stop acting in such a way as to provoke
disaffection.
Some Americans in high places are beginning to say that. Will
they ever be
listened to?
News, 6-13/7/02 (1)
CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACIES
* UK to send
30,000 to help oust Saddam [This is the article Mil Rai
interprets as an
inspired leak that reveals when the war will begin (Spring
2003). It ends
with the remark that: "Justifying any attack would not be a
problem
because the evidence exists that he has weapons of mass destruction.
It
will not be made public yet because it would compromise the means by
which
it was acquired." Judging from the scepticism of other European
leaders
it seems that this information isn't even being shared with them,
never
mind the general public.]
* Bush
to use 'all tools' for ousting Saddam [Despite the headline, the
substance
of Bush's remarks - though perhaps this isn't the best account -
seems to
me to be putting off the evil day rather than bringing it on.]
* Barak warns Iraq, Iran next targets in
terror war [Inviting Ehud Barak to
an 'anti-terror' conference is a bit
like inviting Josef Goebbels to a
conference on freedom of the press. And
how could anyone imagine that the
man who talks so blandly about
massacring the inhabitants of two of his
neighbours is a serious
interlocutor for peace? And why should the Agence
France Presse, never
mind IranMania, allow itself to publish the following
monstrous sentence:
'Barak was pushed out of office by Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon after
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected a peace deal proposed
by Barak
and then president Bill Clinton at Camp David in July 1999,
sparking off
renewed Palestinian unrest in Israel.']
*
US questions Iraq offer on MIA [US refuses Iraq's offer of a full
public
inquiry in the presence of impartial witnesses and the media, into
the Scott
Speicher case.]
URLs ONLY:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/12/1026185108444.html
* West's agents stir strife in Iraq
by Toby
Harnden
The Age (Australia), 13th July
[This is only notable for the
headline. Otherwise it reads like a drunken
conversation with a low level
civil servant in a bar. But perhaps this
sentence should be retained: 'A
lot of other European countries don't see
the same threat because we don't
share intelligence with them," he said.' So
much for the EEC (and
frankly the notion that British intelligence is better
than the German BND
at fabricating evidence for weapons of mass destruction
is ludicrous)]
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=751622002
* British secret services on the ground in
Iraq
The Scotsman, 12th July
[More of the same. Might have expected
better of The Scotsman.]
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=638616&in
_review_text_id=609237
* British 'to support Iraq invasion'
by
Patrick Hennessy and Colin Adamson
London Evening Standard, 12th
July
[More of the same]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=314570
* America rattles Saddam's cage hoping he will
lash out in anger
by Rupert Cornwell
Independent, 13th July
[The
article begins with some mockery of the current spate of sabre-rattling
leaks,
leading me to think that Rupert Cornwell was not the slavish
mouthpiece of
US imperialism that I thought he was. But he quickly falls
back to
type.]
NEW WORLD ORDER CRIMES
* US shelves a study on Iraq abuses [The study in question was
compiled
with a view to setting up an international war crimes court like
those that
have been established for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The article
claims that the
US government have done a major U turn on the issue. Not
only are they
opposed to the ICC (which has some pretence to being out of
their control);
they have also turned against the Rwanda and Yugoslav
courts though the
latter in particular was a creature of their policy.
They say they won't
support it beyond 2008, though the idea that it should
continue in existence
that long is perfectly monstrous. The article does
not suggest that US
implication in the war crimes attributed to President
Hussein (not only
those of 1988 when Mr Hussein was the US's ally, but
also those of 1991
which were rendered inevitable by US policy, and
carried out under the noses
of the US military) might have something to do
with their reluctance to hold
a trial.]
* In the Killing Fields [Review of Samantha Power's A Problem from
Hell.
S.Power is one of those who wants the US to go to war to prevent
genocide
but who fail to notice that the US way of making war (massive
attack from a
great distance) is itself inherently genocidal. These self
righteous
humanitarian warriors succeeded in prolonging the war in Bosnia
and all its
attendant horrors for at least five years ending up with a
settlement no-one
wants to implement. The review concludes, interestingly
and perceptively:
'What we knew of war in 1900 was that 85 percent of its
casualties would be
warriors themselves - and only 15 percent civilians.
But according to the
latest United Nations figures, by the end of the 20th
century, that ratio
had pretty much reversed itself. More than 80 percent
of the damage is
collateral. Which, of course, is insane.' One of the main
events that helped
bring this about was the massive, genocidal bombing
raids on Germany and
Japan at the end of the 1939-45 war. The difference
between the good guys
and the bad guys is not as great as the likes of
Samantha Power, who thinks
the US has the right to act as judge of the
rest of the world, would have us
believe. And, incidentally, the 'age of
genocide' was the nineteenth
century, when whole peoples were, literally,
wiped out to make way for the
USA, Australia and New Zealand.]
* U.S. argues need for doing it alone
['"You hear Europeans say Bush is a
cowboy from Texas," said
William Wohlforth, an associate professor of
government at Dartmouth.
"But when the Europeans were at the top of the
international heap,
they were hard-bitten realists about using power ...'
Well, not much to
argue with there ...]
CRIMES OF THE TIMES
* US seeks ways to try Saddam for war crimes
[Short article turning round
Indict, surely the most pointless,
nauseatingly self righteous political
pressure group in existence in
British politics at the present time. A war
crimes trial for the Iraqi
Ba'ath leadership can only be a) a pretext for
war if the Ba'ath are still
in power or b) (like the infamous Nuremberg
trials) a device for
whitewashing the war crimes of the victor in the case
of a successful
campaign to overthrow them.]
* Put
a war with Iraq in the diary for January [ The Times argues that an
invasion
of Iraq would be very easy and popular with the population of Iraq
(Iraqis,
like Afghanis, don't mind seeing their friends and relatives being
blown
to pieces by their liberators) despite squeals from the European left.
The
author's benign attitude to the Iraqi army and the knowing reference to
'the
equilibrium between family clans that is the essence of traditional
Iraqi
society' suggests that the article was written after a good lunch with
a
member of the Iraqi National Accord.]
*
Iraq building up deadly arsenal, say defectors ['Apart from defectors
and
the monitoring of Iraq's known smuggling routes for dual-use components,
not
even Americas sophisticated technical intelligence-gathering systems
can
uncover what Saddam is really up to.' Could it be because he really
isn't up
to very much? Interesting to learn, though, that 'Terence Taylor,
a UN
weapons inspector in Iraq for four years up to 1997' is now
'president of
the International Institute for Strategic Studies in
Washington'.]
* Allies remain
lukewarm [The Times contemptuously dismisses the opposition
of other
powers to a war on Iraq, e.g.: 'US officials hope that the promise
of oil
contracts with a successor regime, together with access to the $8
billion
that Russia is owed by Iraq, will earn Mr Putin's tacit approval.'
But why
should The Times assume that the US has a right to make such
promises on
behalf of a 'successor regime.'? What type of creature would be
willing to
assume power under such circumstances (but I forgot. there are
70-90 of
them meeting in London at the present time ...]
* Iraqi sites for bio-war revealed by defector
[Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, who
claims to have replastered walls in
underground installations which might
have served for the manufacture of
chemical and biological weapons, is here
represented as being the 'least
talked about defector since the Gulf War',
which is a bit unkind on the
writers who produced the bumper crop of
articles on him around
December/January. Three of them can be found in News,
13 22/12/01 (1).
From these earlier articles we learn that the 'former
weapons inspector'
quoted here was Richard Butler.]
URL ONLY:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-352781,00.html
* Dictator alerts depleted forces
by
Richard Beeston
The Times, 11th July
[Iraqi government attempts to
marshal its defenses under difficult
circumstances. An important subject
but one doesn't get the impression the
author of the article knows much
more about it than you or I.]
AND, IN NEWS, 6-13/7/02 (2)
CRIMES
OF THE FINANCIAL TIMES
*
Saddam's vicious circle [This article argues that, without
chemical
weapons, Iraq would probably have gone under to Iran. Given that
the author
of the article, presumably, would not have wished Iraq to be
taken over by
the Iran, does this not provide a justification for Iraq's
use of chemical
weapons?]
*
Iraq 'seeks Ukraine arms links' [Considering how important it is for
the
war-mongers we get surprisingly few stories about Iraq seeking arms
(though
we may assume that any country that has to face the sort of
threats Iraq is
facing at the present time will seek arms). This story
comes from a very
tainted source (Timothy McCarthy, a former United
Nations weapons inspector)
and proves very little, certainly very little
on the subject of WMDs. So why
is the Financial Times, of all papers,
lending itself to this sort of thing?
See also 'Kiev Denies Iraq Arms
Sales Report' in the International section
below.]
* Absence of weapons inspectors helps Iraq
keep its secrets [This article
begins by making an incredibly ignorant and
irresponsible confusion between
Unscom (the US spying enterprise) and the
IAEA (the international body
charged with regulating the flow of nuclear
material in the world. A body
which, we learned last week, is being
deliberately sabotaged by US
underfunding): 'By 1998, the IAEA had
destroyed facilities and removed from
Iraq weapons-grade nuclear material.
But in 1998, the inspectors were
expelled ...' It took four leading FT
journalists to write those two
sentences, As we know, of course, the IAEA
is still present in Iraq; it was
only the spies who were expelled. (NOTE
2003. I should of course have known
better than to write blandly that they
had been expelled. My error in this
respect was due to the fact that I
always thought they should have been
expelled. But in fact they were
withdrawn to facilitate Desert Fox. And
then, quite justifiably, they
weren't allowed back again) The rest of the
article comes from unnamed
'experts' and 'officials' and, of course, Unscom.
It includes the
following: 'UK officials say that if Iraq were no longer
subject to UN
sanctions, it could produce a nuclear weapon within five
years.' My memory
is that this was a 'calculation' - probably made on the
back of a packet
of Woodbines, to coin a phrase - made by the German BND,
the ones who
brought us the wholly fictitious 'Operation Horseshoe' as
justification
for the war against Serbia. The article doesn't amount to an
argument for
war, but it is still poison because it is an argument for
maintaining
sanctions.]
* Iraq talk fuelled by
Kosovo pull-out
* No plans to
attack Iraq, says Downing Street [It appears from this that
the much
vaunted reduction of British troops in Kosovo was announced a month
ago.]
WIDE
ANGLE CRIMES
* Documentary
says al Qaeda gunmen in Iraq [The documentary in question is
the first in
the 'Wide Angle' series to be hosted by our old enemy, James
Rubin, Clinton's
resident warmonger, doubtless trying to find a niche for
himself in the
current order of things. The list has been alerted to this by
Roger Van
Stroope and Drew Hamre.]
*
Officials: 'No evidence' defector saw bin Laden in Iraq [The 'Wide
Angle'
programme. One may wonder why the CIA is so reticent about
al-Qaida/S.Hussein
links. Given the record, it can hardly be a
straightforward concern for
the truth, can it?]
* We all can
see what Saddam is [Jim Hoagland on the 'Wide Angle'
programme. He sees the
suffering inflicted by Saddam Hussein on the Kurds,
but fails to see the
suffering inflicted by G.Bush on the Iraqis. He fails
to see that when he
looks at S.Hussein, he is looking in a mirror.]
CRIME AGAINST
JORDAN
* US 'To attack Iraq
via Jordan' [It seems absurd to imagine that the
Jordanian government
could survive if it engaged in the contemptible piece
of treachery
attributed to it in this clearly malicious article. One would
be tempted
to put this down to Iraqi exile wishful thinking (and to despise
the Amman
based Iraqi National Accord accordingly). But could it be that
this and
its fellow articles on the same lines are designed to provoke the
only
circumstances in which the Jordanian government might be able to
co-operate
in this way - an Iraqi pre-emptive strike on Jordan? Either way,
savour
the wonderful insouciance with which the Observer journalists (it
took
three of them to put this together!) can pen a sentence such as the
following:
'The US has apparently given Jordan and other Arab states the
freedom to
pay lip-service to support for Iraq.']
*
Jordan to let US troops use bases for war on Iraq [Article which
could
have been included among the 'Crimes of the Times. Despite the
headline,
what is being referred to is 'a US manned radar station and
American search
and rescue teams to operate out of the country to pick up
US pilots.' Which
although disgusting enough (but Jordan is a US
dependant. ie it is not a
free and sovereign country) is not quite the
same thing.]
* Jordan denies US
Iraq reports [This comes from Abdullah's uncle, Prince
Hassan, a man of
integrity who argued strongly for a peaceful solution to
the crisis of
1990/91]
* U.S. considers Jordan
as a base for staging attacks on Iraq [The New York
Times has a more
intelligent idea than The Observer of the difference
between what the US
might 'consider' and what Jordan could deliver.]
* Talk of war puts Arabs on same wavelength
[Fine piece by Suzanne
Goldenberg on how the Jordanian population see news
reports on the
possibility that Jordan will be used to launch the
war.]
AND IN NEWS, 6-13/7/02 (3)
EFFORTS
AT CRIME PREVENTION
* Still
a bad idea / A leaked plan for a possible attack on Iraq [The
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette comes out against an attack on Iraq on the grounds
that no-one
would support it except the US and Israel (Britain, quite
reasonably
slipped their minds). Splendid as this is, the article does
contain an
example of the misconceptions that are around when it says the
following:
'Saudi Arabia opened its border with Iraq -- closed since 1990 --
to
normal trade in late May.' Normal trade? When Iraq can't export anything
except
oil and everything it imports has to be approved by its enemies?]
* The Iraqi mutiny [This is a witty summing up
of the absurdity of the
present plans for invasion and of the
embarrassments of the position in
which G.Bush has placed himself. Only
quibble I have is with the following:
'Curiously enough, as things stand,
Bush's Iraq policy is doing fine. We
have not had a cheep out of Saddam
since September 11. Having specifically
rejected a policy of containment,
the president is actually executing a
remarkably successful one.' So far
as I can see, Saddam Hussein's behaviour
(shooting at planes that
illegally violate Iraqi airspace and supporting
Palestinian opposition to
the illegal occupation of their land) hasn't
changed at all under the
pressure of all the US sabre rattling.]
*
Bush plan to invade Iraq challenged by senators [Another sign that,
after
September 11, elements of intelligence are beginning to resurface in
US
mainstream politics.]
* We
need to talk about the war on Iraq before it begins [I am not one of
Hugo
Young's admirers but this is quite good on the absurdity of T.Blair's
rely
to the question of whether or not Britain would support a war on Iraq:
"I
suggest we have that discussion when the decisions are actually about to
be
taken."]
* Take a better
route to regime change [Article in the International Herald
Tribune
arguing that regime change can be effected by lifting sanctions and
allowing
the Iraqi people to do it themselves. The author acknowledges that
this
might allow Saddam Hussein access to some heavy weaponry but he
wouldn't
be able to use it because he knows what the consequences would be -
and,
it might be added, he would have something to lose. A little glimmer of
common
sense in a sea of nonsense.]
*
Iraq visit shows weapon sites 'destroyed' [Von Sponeck on his visits
to
places the US claimed were producing chemical weapons: 'he first went
to the
Al-Dora plant on the outskirts of Baghdad, which used to produce
vaccines
for foot-and-mouth disease but was destroyed by U.N. weapons
inspectors
...'. The piece comes from CNN. Am I alone in beginning to feel
twinges of
admiration for CNN, especially as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News
Agency
increasingly is creeping up on us?]
URLs ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31285-2002Jul6.html
* Why Don't We Listen Anymore?
by Clyde
Prestowitz
Washington Post, 7th July
[Long, thoughtful article about
European and far eastern perceptions of the
US. The conclusion (not stated
quite so bluntly) is that if the US wants to
rule the world it should
allow other parts of the world at least an
appearance of input into its
policy making.]
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1025793456613&p=1012571727162
* The hard road to Baghdad
by Michael
O'Hanlon
Financial Times, 10th July
[A senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution points out some of the
difficulties of an invasion of Iraq.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,754485,00.html
* Sleepwalking to war
The Guardian
(Leader), 13th July
[The Guardian is getting worried and suggests we
should have a serious
debate.]
FARRAKHAN'S VISIT
* Farrakhan warns against U.S. attack on Iraq
[Louis Farrakhan's visit to
Iraq. It may be embarrassing to admit it but
on this occasion, Farrakhan has
said exactly what needs to be said:
'"This delegation believes that if the
American people really
understood and knew the horror of sanctions and what
these sanctions have
produced -- of suffering among the Iraqi people -- that
the American
people would rise up against such a policy," he said.' Perhaps
another
million man march might do the trick?]
*
He may be banned from entering Britain, but he's going to save the
world
* Farrakhan denies 'Iraqi
victory' quote
TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES [This heading for, among other
things, the London
conference of members of Saddam's military machine is
justified by most of
what has been written on the subject. Nonetheless,
the article 'Ex-Iraq
Officers, Groups Talk Saddam' provides some grounds
for second thoughts on
the matter.]
* Iraqi opposition to form military council to fill
post-Saddam vacuum -
report.
[This
military council is, it appears, quite separate from the meeting of
Iraqi
officers in London being held under the auspices of 'the Iraqi
Coalition',
a recently formed body. Nor, apparently, is it to be confused
with the
'Iraqi National Accord', the body which, we are told, also
represents exiled
elements of the Iraqi army and which, according to The
Observer, intends
to march up the road to Baghdad (most probably in the
baggage train of the
US army). Its all one terrible mess. But is there any
part of the Iraqi
'opposition' which has the elementary decency to refuse
any co-operation
with the torturers of the Iraqi people? Yes, there is.
There is the Iraqi
Communist Party. And there is the Supreme Council for the
Islamic
Revolution in Iraq.]
* Exiled
generals prepare for march on Baghdad ['One Western source said:
"One
of the biggest problems faced by the opposition is the danger of making
a
pact with the Devil."' "'The devil" referred to here is the
Iraqi army.
But these are people who may have sold their souls to a worse
devil than
that ...]
* Iraqi
dissident spells out his post-Saddam policy on oil [Assuming that a
post
Saddam Iraq will see free and fair elections (let's just pretend to
assume
that for a moment) why should Ahmed Chalabi think he will be in a
position
to dictate oil policy. Especially since elsewhere ('Iraqi exiles
plot
Saddam's fall') he tells us 'My job will end with the liberation of
Iraq'.]
*
Magnificent Seventy gun for Saddam [The article ends with a brief
rundown
of opposition groups. the Iraqi Communist Party is mentioned but
no more.
The article claims that the main item on the programme for the
'Iraqi
Military Alliance' (not the Iraqi National Coalition?) is a
resolution that
the military will not take power but will hand over to a
civilian
government.]
*
Ex-Iraq Officers, Groups Talk Saddam [Here they've become the
Iraqi
National Coalition Military Alliance. Some credibility is bestowed
upon them
by the presence of Prince Hassan of Jordan; and of course by the
fact (if it
is true) that they're not being funded by the US. The
hypothesis should be
considered that they are simply a group of Iraqi army
people meeting to
discuss the very real problem of how Iraq can be saved
from chaos in the
event of a US attack on their country. Simply that and
not a bunch of people
hoping to get back into Iraq on the back of a US
massacre.]
* Iraqi exiles plot
Saddam's fall [This is the article that quotes Ahmed
Chalabi promising not
to seek power in the event of the 'liberation' of
Iraq. It remains to be
seen.]
INSIDE IRAQ
*
Most staff for U.S. have left Iraqi capital
* Iraq told to let Polish envoys travel [This
explains the previous
article. The problem is that US interests are
represented in Baghdad by the
Polish Embassy. So the Iraqis won't allow
them to travel overland
(presumably, under present circumstances, to
prevent them from spying out
the land). But the US won't allow them to
fly, because, they claim, the
flights are in contravention of UN
sanctions. Catch 22? They've now all
decided to take a break because they
managed to get on a 'legitimate'
humanitarian flight.]
* Saddam hated, but wins the blame game
[Australian Murdoch press
journalist finds that Iraqis in Iraq know
perfectly well who is responsible
for their present suffering. He puts
this down to the effectiveness of Iraqi
government propaganda.]
AND,
IN NEWS, 6-13/7/02
(4)
NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN
* UN deal leaves Iraq Kurds at Baghdad's mercy
[Complaints about the system
of administering Oil for Food in the Kurdish
Autonomous Zone where it seems
Baghdad treats the Kurds in much the same
way that the US treats Baghdad.]
*
Rebel groups reject CIA overtures down on the farm [Interesting
account
of the terrible mess of US relations with Iraqi opposition
elements, in this
case the Kurds.]
* Gunfights break out in northern Iraq [PUK/Islamist clashes near
Halabja]
* Kurds draw up
post-Saddam constitution for Iraq [But CNN doesn't choose
to tell us very
much about it.]
* Kurdish Leader
Talabani in Talks With Saudi Officials: PUK
IRAQI/MIDDLE
EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
*
Iraq to Return Kuwaiti Archives Soon
* Al-Thawra: Third border center between Iraq, Iran
* 26 Iranian Wrestlers, Coaches Depart for
Iraq
* Baghdad, Ankara sign a
minute of meetings for joint cooperation [Is this
what you do when you're
planning to hand your country over to act as an
aircraft carrier for a
superpower about to launch an all-out war of
destruction on your
neighbour?]
* Saudi Arabia to hold
trade fair in Iraq in Sept
*
Turkey's struggle for stability
*
Yemen sells Iraqi ships to India
*
Kuwait won't serve as launch pad for US attack on Iraq [But of course
the
US want us to believe that their friends and allies are lying through
their
teeth.]
* Wolfowitz to
Discuss Iraq in Turkey [The article suggests that in the
present
circumstances of Turkish politics W's visit is pretty pointless,
since
whoever he is talking to is unlikely to be around for very long.]
News, 6-13/7/02 (5)
IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
* Iraq's Aziz says
US attack would strengthen Saddam [Aziz on visit to
South Africa.]
* Iraq's Saddam foresees changed US role
[Remarks made in the context of
the visit to Iraq of the Indian petroleum
minister. Strange the extent to
which life is continuing as normal despite
all the bloodcurdling noises
issuing from Mr Bush.]
* Iraq and India ties warmed by oil
deals
* India eyes Iran, Iraq to
lift sagging sugar sales
*
Military action against Iraq inadmissible, says Russia
* Russian, Jordanian leaders discuss Mideast
peace, Iraq
* Iraq appeals to
[South African firm] Eskom to help rebuild power grids
* Kiev Denies Iraq Arms Sales Report [See
'Iraq 'seeks Ukraine arms links'
under Crimes of the Financial Times,
above}
* Govt Ordered to Repay
Loans to Iraq [Is Uganda the only country in the
world where the judiciary
is sufficiently independent-minded to find in
favour of Iraq in a dispute
between Iraq and its own government? Or is there
something I have
misunderstood?]
IRAQI/UN RELATIONS
* Iraq: UN caving to United States pressure
[in reference to Annan and
Blix's refusal to engage in serious
negotiations for the return of weapons
inspectors to Iraq.]
OIL
MATTERS
* Iraq says 35 bln
bbls oil reserves postponed by sanctions.
* West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields [The Times
takes it
for granted that after the war the US will control Iraq. i.e.,
they don't
pay any heed to all the bla about Iraqis being allowed to
choose their own
government (a democratic Iraq might surely be expected to
feel some
resentment against the power that has inflicted so much
suffering on them).
Read this article and then fill up the petrol tank of
your car with a clear
conscience, if you can.]
LEST WE
FORGET
* Missiles fired at
US, British planes: Iraq
IRAQIS OUTSIDE IRAQ
* Saddam's Stepson Back in New Zealand
URL
ONLY:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2097427&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=general
* Quiet engineer's flight to nightmare
by
Eugene Bingham and Geoff Cumming
New Zealand Herald, 13th July
[A
very long detailed account of the Mohammad Saffi (Saddam's stepson)
incident.
Its almost certainly the best account we're ever likely to get but
the
issue is really marginal, the article is extraordinarily long, and I'm
at
the end of my tether.]
DREARY, UNCLASSIFIABLE NONSENSE
URL
ONLY:
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/international/ap_saddam07102002.htm
* Saddam was urged early on to seek power and
glory, analyst says
Boston Herald (from Associated Press), 10th July
[Psychoanalysis
by CIA expert. Utterly predictable and uninteresting. One
can only hope
that more high quality thinking is taking place out of the
public gaze.
Equally uninteresting remarks are made about Fidel Castro,
Yasser Arafat
and Kim Jong Il]