I am
going away for a week so this is by way of a stop-gap. Largely a
continuation
of last week's mailing. Iraq's neighbours are still holding
firm
against US military plans (remember the days when the US used to
pretend
it was doing it all for their sake?). Turkey also seems to be
holding
firm if we are to believe CNN (US and Turkey at odds over Iraq). The
Iraqi
officers' conference is over. It has opposed any US moves that might
kill
large numbers of Iraqis, which effectively means it has opposed an
invasion
since there is no other way of doing it. But it isn't clear if this
group
is serious about this or just going through the motions. Most
interesting
and sinister article below is, in my estimation: "Washington is
drooling
at the prospect of 'Iraq jackpot'" from the Lebanese Daily Star.
FINGER
POINTING AT IRAQ
* Iraq Weapons Glance [This looks like a piece
of irresponsible
scaremongering
from very tainted source (Anthony Cordesman, Center for
Strategic
and International Studies). If it is true, then the last report
issued
by UNSCOM saying Iraq was almost ready to be declared free, was
rubbish.
The ultimate attributed source is US and UN Officials and, in the
text
'The United Nations'. We know of course what that means. The
discrepancy
between what the 'weapons inspectors' are saying now and what
they
said then has of course been remarked upon in the past and the reply
has
been that the inspectors have had more time to think about the data they
collected.
What it looks like, though, is that then they wanted to dangle a
carrot
in front of the noses of the Iraqis (the possibility of an end to the
process)
and now they just want to say what needs to be said to get the war
off the
ground.]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-358039,00.html
* Evidence of Saddam's menace far from clear
by
Peter Riddell
The
Times, 17th July
[Includes
this curious extract from Blair's Question and Answer session in
Parliament:
"The only reason we have not published some of this
documentation
(on weapons of mass destruction) is that you have got to
choose
your time for doing this, otherwise you send something rocketing up
the
agenda when it is not necessarily there." This seems even less
convincing
than the standard protection of sources argument. The issue, one
would
have thought, is already fairly high up on the agenda. What he
presumably
means is that the 'evidence' should be put out at the moment when
war is
declared. That way, people won't have too much time to think about
it.]
INSIDE
IRAQ
* atlarge Iraq mainheadlines {This is indeed
all that is given as a
headline.
Saddam Hussein orders the execution of fishermen because he
thought
they were trying to assassinate him, or because they were fishing in
his
private lake, or because they were using explosives to go fishing, a
practise
he has banned, together with the use of poison.]
* Excerpts from Saddam Hussein's interview
* Iraq Lets Polish Diplomats Travel Again:
Diplomat [Why didn't the Poles,
who
are, after all, doing the Americans a favour by 'protecting' them in
Baghdad,
simply take one of the 'illegal' commercial flights?]
IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
* Cosying up to Iraq could prove costly
[Argument against S.African
friendly
relations with Iraq. L.Benjamin sees that Iraq is losing its pariah
status
in the Arab world and that this could provide an argument for
friendly
relations. But he says (and here he is probably right) that the
very
fact that relations between Iraq and its neighbours are improving makes
a US
and British attack more likely. Benjamin offers a bit of
pseudo-humanitarian
tosh to justify the war but basically believes S.Africa
should
back the winner. The success of the US propaganda machine in inducing
people
to believe absurdities is attested by the following: 'the
humanitarian
catastrophe that confronts Iraqi civilians as a result of more
than a
decade of sanctions and EQUALLY [my emphasis - PB] as a result of
Baghdad's
failure to adequately distribute humanitarian relief supplies.']
* Pakistan Questions Iraqis in Attack [on the
Protestant church in
Islamabad's
diplomatic quarter]
* Iraq accountable for misdeeds: Straw [Straw
speaking in China. He also
spoke
against North Korea. And the Chinese sat and listened to this gushing
torrent
of hypocrisy politely saying nothing?]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_18286,0005.htm
* Russia's Ivanov slams military action on
Iraq
Hindustani
Times (from Reuters), 16th July
['"News
of preparation of military action against Iraq worries us," Ivanov
told a
news conference.' Pretty pathetic, eh?]
IRAQI
OPPOSITION
* 'Saddam kills strong men' [The article is
part of the Times campaign to
whip
war fever in a population which is, generally, quite indifferent
(indifferent,
alas. Not actually hostile.). But it is still interesting, one
of the
best accounts I have yet seen of Ahmad Chalabi. We learn (or I learn,
I'm
sure others already knew it) that his family was close to the monarchy
and
that he himself has not been in Iraq since 1958, when the monarchy fell.
He was
thirteen years old at the time. He was in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone
from
1991 to 1995, organising the rebellion whose details are still so very
mysterious.
He denies vigorously being a US poodle and he is probably right.
It
would probably be more true to say he would like to be a US poodle but
the US
won't let him, largely because the US is still looking for the Strong
Man who
will hold Iraq together as a unit against the wishes of its people.
Given
that these are the only terms in which it seems possible to make sense
of his
quarrel with the US it is difficult to know why he should say so
confidently:
'If the United States is going to go to remove Saddam, there
will be
a democratic government in Iraq even if they invade the country with
hundreds
of thousands of troops as some people are advocating. What would
the US
military do in Iraq? Establish a dictatorship, protect a government
which
shoots demonstrators in the city? Of course not."' This also seems to
go
against the main thrust of the London conference which seems to be
wanting
to prevent the massive invasion in order to provide some possibility
of an
Iraqi input into the post Saddam regime.]
* Iraqi opposition leaders warn US and Britain
not to invade [They prefer
'a
swift intelligence operation' targeting Saddam. This will prompt the
Iraqi
people to rise in revolt. It really isn't very convincing.]
* Exiled generals promise civilian rule in new
Iraq [The meeting occurred
in a
building rented by the INC, using an emergency generator because the
INC
hadn't paid its electricity bill, because it hadn't received its money
from
the US. What is remarkable here is not the stinginess of the US but the
apparent
suggestion that the INC doesn't have sufficient support among the
Iraqi
exile community to pay an electricity bill ...]
* Iraqi dissidents 'seek change and the
removal of tyranny' [The Financial
Times
has noticed that in the event of a regime change, and in the absence
of a US
backed Sunni Strong Man, the likely beneficiaries are the Islamic
revolutionaries
of the SCIRI.]
URL
ONLY:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2128000/2128549.st
m
* Iraqi officers elect military council
BBC,
15th July
'"We
shall not allow ourselves to be a replacement to the Iraqi opposition -
our
council is at the service of the Iraqi opposition'"... Major al-Yassiri
.... is
an ally of Dr Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress
umbrella
group which supported the meeting.' Which sounds as though the
Military
Alliance is simply the military wing of the INC.
AND, IN
NEWS, 13-17/7/02
(2)
IRAQIS
OUTSIDE IRAQ
* Just another stage in the long journey to
freedom ['Once upon a time
Aowham
(pronounced O-ham) was one of six children of a prosperous Baghdad
merchant.
On holidays, they would accompany her father on business trips to
Cairo,
Hamburg, Teheran, Damascus, Kuwait and Delhi. "Life seemed in that
time an
endless, beautiful journey which only stopped when school started
over
again," she reminisces. Then came eight long years when, she says,
"we
felt
even the sky is more red than it should be when the sunset came" and
further
hardship "when America gathered armies and weapons from all over the
world
against my people". "We never imagined that with the end of the
bombing
we would start a new war against diseases and poverty. A life with
no
electricity, no medicine, with polluted water and polluted air."' One can
see why
Aowham is imprisoned in Woomera, Australia, and not attending a
conference
in Kensington.]
REMNANTS
OF DECENCY
* Top clerics opposed to invasion of Iraq [The
Pax Christi statement,
signed
by the man tipped to be next Archbishop of Canterbury, is excellent.]
* Before Setting Out for Iraq, Heed These
Words of War [At first glance you
might
think this article - surprisingly for the NY Daily News - is a
compassionate
cry that the lessons of the Vietnam war should not be
forgotten.
But when he says that '55,000 were killed in the long dance of
death
that was Vietnam.' it is clear that he isn't counting the Vietnamese,
Cambodian,
Laotian dead. The lesson he is talking about has in fact been
learned.
The US army kills at a great distance. It sees nothing, feels
nothing,
risks nothing. In this way of looking at things, only a couple of
hundred,
or less, were killed in the short spasm of death that was the Gulf
Massacre.]
* Weapons expert: Iraq attack wrong [Scott
Ritter outlines a counter-domino
theory
to the one outlined in the Lebanese Daily Star (('Washington is
drooling'
in Prospects for War). In Ritter's scheme the whole area falls to
fundamentalism
. A pity that in this and other versions of the same story,
he is
described as having been the 'head' of Unscom.]
IRAQI/UN
RELATIONS
* Iraq's FM in Belgium to discuss the return
of UN weapons inspectors [Iraq
wants a
reply to its 19 questions from the UN Security Council, not just
from Mr
Blix.]
PROSPECTS
FOR WAR
* Why it makes sense to end Saddam Hussein's
regime [There are two main
arguments
in this piece from The Scotsman. One is that the great threat to
the
peaceloving peoples of the world (ourselves) at the present time is the
'dysfunctional
state' (I love that 'y'); the second, inspired by watching
Albert
Finney on TV pretending to be Winston Churchill, is that we must
overcome
our natural pacifism to tackle the beast Saddam as Churchill urged
us to
do against Hitler.
The two
arguments are related, but perhaps not quite in the way the author
intended,
since Hitler's justification for the attack on Czechoslovakia was
precisely
that it had become a dysfunctional state and, consequently, a
danger
to its neighbours. We might also add that when Saddam Hussein invaded
Iran he
undoubtedly thought he was launching a pre emptive strike against a
dysfunctional
state that was a danger to its neighbours. Blair and Bush
would
have very little to say against him (but to be fair, the US President
at the
time had very little to say against him).
For the
author, Iraq is 'the prime dysfunctional state. Saddam Hussein is a
psychopathic
thug [there is much else in this vein] ... He rules a tiny bit
of the
state of Iraq around Baghdad using absolute terror.' Which implies
that
the Shia South is living in a condition of stateless freedom, which
would
probably suit them very well since Shi'ism is a system of law that is
well
adapted to operating in the absence of a state.
But the
centralised Iraqi state seems to be far from dysfunctional in the
area,
as witness, for example, the draining of the southern marshes, a major
state
initiative carried out against the wishes of the local inhabitants
very
far away from Baghdad. It is also difficult to see how a dysfunctional
state
could have coped with the eight year war with Iran, bringing it to a
more or
less successful conclusion; or with the extraordinarily difficult
conditions
of the 1990s.
What is
dysfunctional of course is the Iraqi economy but that is
unmistakeably
a straightforward consequence of US and British policy.
Some
time we are going to have to face the Hitler analogy more squarely than
we have
done so far but here are some preliminary thoughts. At the end of
the
First World War, Germany was subject to a blockade, disarmed, and
required
to pay outrageous sums in reparations. The Americans, British (and
French)
had discovered the virtues of insisting on unconditional surrender
and
refusing to negotiate terms with the enemy. Everything was done so that
Germany
would be ruined and humiliated, though this was still small beer
compared
to what was done to Iraq after the 'Gulf War'. Hitler was the
logical,
almost predictable consequence of this policy - a policy that,
contrary
to the usual myth, was perpetuated after he had assumed power. The
boycott,
the refusal to allow Germany to trade, the determination to fence
it
about with hostile nations, continued through the thirties. Hitler was
the
product of a policy of repression and sanctions and flourished in spite
of it.
His example is therefore far from providing an argument in favour of
repression
and sanctions as so many of those who brandish the Hitler
analogy,
as if Hitler popped out of the blue in a cloudless sky - as if
Saddam
Hussein popped out of the blue in a cloudless sky - seem to think.]
* NATO in Iraq [Alan Isenberg argues that the
best way for Europe to
preserve
its sense of its own power and dignity in the world, and to curb
the US
tendency to unilateralism, is to always do exactly whatever the US
wants
it to do.]
* Decoding the headlines about Iraq [Article
from CNN arguing that, behind
all the
leaks and counterleaks the idea of a war on Iraq is unravelling]
* Washington is drooling at the prospect of
'Iraq jackpot' [An intelligent
Lebanese
geopolitical analysis of the US strategy for the Middle East. A
real
domino theory. The taking of Baghdad delivers up the whole area, piece
by
piece. Stripped of all the nonsense about weapons of mass destruction
that is
put out for the consumption of the general public and Tony Blair,
this is
indeed probably what the US are thinking (assuming - as I tend to do
- that
there is a [process of thinking behind it all). It could of course
all go
horribly wrong, and whatever happens, it will be horrible for the
populations
concerned. One curious point. It is by no means obvious that the
Lebanese
Daily Star is opposed to it.]
* Britain backs US plan for attack on Iraq
[Despite the way this has been
reported,
I see little change from earlier statements. Yes, we must do
something.
No, I don't know what (the Boss hasn't yet told me.)]
URLs
ONLY:
http://observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,755032,00.html
* Crisis over over Iraq
by
Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Observer,
14th July
[Uninteresting
on the one hand ... on the other hand ... reflections from
the
Observer.]
http://observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,755036,00.html
* PM and Bush plan Iraq war summit
by
Kamal Ahmed, Jason Burke and Nick Pelham in Amman
The
Observer, 14th July
[The
Observer continues its important task of chasing after straws in the
wind.]
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=16&page=4274770
* Iraqi weapons seen as threat to U.S. troops,
not civilians
The
Bergen Record, New Jersey (from The Associated Press), 14th July
[This
has been widely reported but is only a statement of the obvious, viz.
that
Iraq will not be launching any missile attacks against the US mainland.
There
is a sensible and accurate remark from A,Cordesman, an event worth
remarking
upon: "Most people outside the U.S. feel we are crying wolf"]
http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-07-14/News_and_Views/Opinion/a-157414.asp
* Saudi Habit Gets a Kick
New
York Daily News, 14th July
[The US
plans to replace Saudi Arabia with Russia as its major source of
oil:
'The United States intends to topple dangerous Middle Eastern regimes,
starting
with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian
Authority.
The Saudis can either go along or get themselves added to the
American
hit list.' Its going to be amusing watching the process by which
Blair
persuades himself to go along with the attack on the Palestinian
authority
when it comes.]
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id={8625D934-DA40-4C62
884D-C651AE938F60}
* Iraq is bound to lose, quickly, completely
by John
Keegan
National
Post (Toronto), 16th July
[John
Keegan works himself up into a little frenzy at the excitement of it
all.]
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/52530.htm
* OCT. SURPRISE, PLEASE
New
York Post, 16th July
[New
York Post tells Bush he ought to attack Iraq to cover up the corporate
scandals.
It would be nice to be able to think this article was meant to be
satirical.]
NORTHERN
IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN
* Iraq herding Kurds [Interesting article on
the 'Arabisation' of the
Kirkuk
area. Makes it clear that this is the continuation of a policy that
was
well established (by the British) long before Mr Hussein appeared on the
scene.]
* Kurds against Saddam [Letter from Colin
Rowat. Three paragraphs of
coherent
thought in the midst of all the nonsense.]
AND, IN
NEWS, 13-17/7/02
(3)
IRAQI/MIDDLE
EAST-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
* Jordan invites Iraq to check if US military
is on its bases for attack [A
short
article with a surprisingly detailed account, from a Lebanese source,
of a
US-Jordan plot]
* Pressure on Iraq comes at bad time for
Turkey [The article suggests that
the US
is having difficulty thinking up yet more things to give Turkey in
return
for their support over Iraq. They are already 'the International
Monetary
Fund's largest single borrower, with $18bn of debt outstanding and
more on
the way.' ]
* Arab League Chief Says Hands-Off Iraq
* Iraq/business Jordan/ business unitedstates
atlarge/business biz ['Iraq
and the
United States continue to be the Kingdom's largest trade partners'.
One can
see the problem.]
* Hiding Jordan ['William M. Arkin, the author
of ten books and numerous
studies
on military affairs' gives an outline of the history of military
co-operation
between Jordan and the US, then expresses puzzlement as to why
Jordan
should be so unwilling to co-operate at the present time. He gives
four
possible explanations, favouring the idea that Arabs are hopelessly
duplicitous
and it is best to have nothing to do with them - or rather they
should
just be kept down without any attempt to secure their co-operation in
the
process. He doesn't consider the possibility that Jordan feels aggrieved
that
its economy has been wrecked and tens of thousands of its fellow Arabs
killed
in pursuit of a war which Jordan opposed and which was fought by a
force
which is supporting Jordan's worst enemy (the country that ethnically
cleansed
a large part of Jordan's present population); but that, largely as
a
consequence of the poverty imposed by US policy, Jordan has become
economically
dependent on the US, a situation that is hardly calculated to
encourage
feelings of affection towards the benefactor.]
* Qatar in dilemma over U.S. threat to Iraq
[Qatar begins to realise that
the
sheep should hesitate before it asks protection from the wolf.]
* Bahrain Opposed to U.S. Attack on Iraq
* Shahrudi [head of the Iranian judiciary]
warns Iraqi opposition against
US
"trap"
* Jordan opens door to air base amid reports
it's housing U.S. troops
preparing
Iraq strike [The Times clearly convicted of lying. Has this
created
any sort of scandal?]
* U.S. and Turkey at odds over Iraq [CNN does
its stuff again. Apparently
Ecevit
told Wolfowitz that 'he believed military action in Iraq would "lead
to
chaos in the region, would be destabilising, and cost Turkey very dearly
in
economic terms"']
* No State for Iraqi Kurds, U.S. Aide Assures
Turks [So not only has
Wolfowitz
failed to impress the Turks, he's also pretty well scuppered any
prospect
of co-operation with the Kurds.]
NO FLY
ZONES
* U.S. air assault injured 7, says Iraqi
military
* U.S-British force hits Iraqi sites
This is
just, for the record, completing the mailing of the week before
last. I
see nothing here worthy of note except the recognition, in the first
two
articles, that this time round the rape of Iraq will probably have to be
followed
by a more or less long period of concubinage. Which means that the
US
government will have to assume responsibility for rebuilding what it has
destroyed.
It was largely to prevent that awful eventuality that George Bush
Sr
decided to leave the country in the hands of Mr Hussein. It is perhaps
the one
consideration that would give his son a reason to hesitate.
THE
MORNING AFTER
* US would keep troops in Iraq to aid reform
[Although it seems very likely
that
the US will wish to hang on to Iraq if only to prevent it from falling
into
the hands of Iran, and to keep the Kurds and the Shi-i under control,
no
source worthy of the name is given. Only Anthony Cordesman.]
* Iraq: The Day After [Robert Kagan, a senior
associate at the Carnegie
Endowment
for International Peace, says Europeans are right to be anxious
since
'if the Bush administration is serious, then the United States is on
the
verge of making a huge commitment in Iraq and the Middle East, not
unlike
the commitment it made in Japan more than a half-century ago.'
Extracts.]
* Iraq turns to Belarus for expertise in oil
industry, manufacturing
* Goodbye Saddam, hello your Majesty [This
article, here taken from the
National
Post, 25th July, also appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the 19th
July,
under the heading 'If Iraqis want a king, Hassan of Jordan could be
their
man', so this seems an appropriate place to put it. Michael Rubin
praises
Hassan's 'genuine desire for peace', without mentioning that it was
manifested
in his efforts to prevent the US war on Iraq (and that Jordan,
like
the Yemen, was severely punished for it afterwards). He portrays Saddam
Hussein's
war on Iran as an act of wilful badness without indicating that
having
the Ayatollah Khomeini on your doorstep in the immediate aftermath of
the
Islamic revolution would be a disquieting experience, especially if you
have a
Shi'i majority in your country; he has Saddam suppressing the Kurds
without
mentioning that the Kurds were allied to the said Ayatollah, and
that
together they almost brought about the defeat of Iraq. A dishonest
article,
then, but no more so than most of the rest that has been written on
the
subject.]
* Jordan prince touted to succeed Saddam
[Michael Rubin's article could be
just an
individual's bright idea but this article from the Guardian suggests
that
Hassan has been cultivated by Wolfowitz and the Pentagon.]
INSIDE
IRAQ
* Saddam Says U.S. Won't Be Able to Oust
Government [Untendentious account
of
Saddam's 17th July speech from the Tehran Times.]
* Five reported dead in attack on Iraq
URL
ONLY:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,757067,00.html
* Saddam taunts 'evil tyrants' in 4,000-word
tirade
by
Brian Whitaker
The
Guardian, 18th July
[The
Guardian sneers that Saddam's 17th July speech was 'the mother of
speeches
- a 4,000 word tirade against "devils" and "oppressors",
wrapped in
a cloak
of religious piety.' Is 4,000 words that long?]
IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
* Iraq lodges protest against US for refusing
to grant visas ['to an Iraqi
delegation
that was supposed to take part in the preparatory meeting of the
International
Criminal Court in New York'. The article also reveals that the
US
played visa games with the Iraqi delegation going to negotiate the return
of
weapons inspectors with Kofi Annan, which is why the talks eventually
took
place in Vienna. If this is true it is surely deeply scandalous so why
is no
one making an issue of it?]
* Malaysia calls US action against Iraq
undemocratic
* France Opens Court Inquiry Into Gulf War
Syndrome
URL
ONLY:
http://www.dailystarnews.com/200207/20/n2072013.htm#BODY14
* Iraq sees progress in talks with UN on arms
inspection
Daily
Star (Bangladesh), 20th July
[Just worth
noting for the following, which should be kept in mind when
refusal
to allow the inspectors in is used as a pretext for a fresh
massacre:
'UN disarmament chief Hans Blix "was hesitant, apparently under US
pressure,
to accept an Iraqi proposal... to list what has been achieved in
disarmament,
the outstanding issues, and the means to settle them ..."'
NORTHERN
IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN
* Homeless and friendless [This article is
mainly about the condition of
the
Kurds in Turkey, especially since the EEC, which was once quite
sympathetic,
seems to have turned against them - just at the moment when
they
formally renounced the armed struggle. Given the crucial question of
the
role of the Kurds in Iraq this remains highly relevant to us but it is
still
proving very difficult to get any real sense of the relation between
the
Iraqi and Turkish Kurds (on the surface it looks simply as if the Iraqi
Kurds
have sold the Turkish Kurds down the river ...)]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,756978,00.html
* Iraq's Kurds assess risk of backing the US
by
Michael Howard in Sulaymaniyah
The
Guardian, 18th July
[Usual
account of the Kurdish dilemma as usual missing the point made
recently
by Colin Rowat that one of the Kurds' worries is that their
autonomy
may not be protected if Saddam Hussein is replaced by a pro-western
Sunni
strong man.]
AND, IN
NEWS, 17-20/7/02
(2):
IRAQI/MIDDLE
EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
* Hussein Tries to Mend Fences With Neighbors
[Readers of these news
reports
will know that Iraq's efforts to improve relations with other Arab
countries,
especially through the signing of trade agreements, long predate
Bush's
call for 'regime change'. Interesting (for those who didn't know it
already)
to note that Naji Sabri, like Tariq Aziz, comes from a Christian
background.
Extracts]
* Turks deny debt deal the price of support
* Israel TV shows "distribution" of
cheques from Iraq to "families of
terrorists"
[This article speaks volumes for the mentality of Israeli TV at
the
present time. It begins by saying: 'The families of terrorists receive
financial
compensation sent by Iraqi President Saddam Husayn. For the first
time,
the camera documented the distribution of such funds in Gaza.' Then it
continues:
'The members of the bereaved families, who this time were not the
parents
of suicide bombers ...' So the bereaved families were, in this case
- the
one 'documented' by the camera 'for the first time' - simply ordinary
victims
of Israeli terror. Yet the first sentence blandly characterises them
as
'families of terrorists ...']
AMERICAN
OPINION
* Invading Iraq: Would the public go along?
[Some indications that the
American
public is not quite as enthusiastic for war as we are led to
think.]
* 'Let's get Saddam,' soldiers tell Bush
* US senator demands vote before strike
against Iraq
IRAQI
OPPOSITION
* Iraqi exiles in Iran agree to help US:
Attack to overthrow Saddam [The
SCIRI
(here called SAIRI) says that if the US would confine themselves to
helping
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, then that would be all right.]
PROSPECT
FOR WAR
* We're gonna kill Saddam, but we need an
excuse [Christopher Hitchens, not
saying
anything we don't know and not committing himself but doing so quite
eloquently.]
* Pentagon Probes Leak on Iraq Plans [But it
is still difficult to believe
that
the leak was not government inspired. It will be interesting to see if
the
'perpetrator' is indeed caught and punished. Doubly interesting if it
turns
out to be Gen. Wayne Downing.]
This
brings us back up to date again, but the sheer quantity of material
that's
around at the present time is difficult to handle. Nothing much
appears
to be happening but a great deal is being said. The anti-Saddam Iraq
Press
(http://www.ip-iraqpress.com/ - which I haven't been using as a source
so far)
reports intensified repression and paranoia within Iraq, which would
hardly
be surprising; but the public record in the mainstream press (my main
source)
suggests an impressive calm in the fact of great provocation. There
is an
understandable frantic jockeying among the 'opposition' to see who is
best
placed in the event of an invasion of Iraq. And, unpleasant as the
spectacle
may be, it should be said that all Iraqis must be deeply concerned
at the
present time about how to salvage the best possible result out of the
catastrophe
if it occurs. Given the difficulty of developing a varied
political
life within Iraq itself, the Iraqis in exile are in a difficult
position;
and the question to what extent they should co-operate with the
forces
that have inflicted such terrible suffering on their country is
agonising
rather like the questions faced by the French in 1940. Is some
form of
collaboration the only possible way to preserve some form of
sovereignty?
With the question further complicated by the contradictory
interests
of the different peoples involved (and, in addition to Kurds and
Shi'i,
the Turkomans are beginning to come into view, especially since it
appears
they are particularly numerous around the much disputed city of
Kirkuk).
Most of these peoples living in Iraq have a long tradition of
governments
that are brutal, arrogant and alien to them so the Americans
probably
won't appear to be that much different from what they've had to
deal
with in the past
WILL
WE, WON'T WE? (Britain)
* Tough standing shoulder to shoulder [Likely
political and economic
consequences
to UK of participation in US war.]
* Defence chief replaced for being
'off-message' over Iraq invasion
* Opposition grows to new war on Iraq
* Commons to have no say on Iraq [The article
reminds us of the following:
'No
member of the United Nations can declare war formally, or attack another
nation.
Under the UN Charter, only its Security Council can authorise the
use of
force.' Which, readers will remember, is why war was never declared
on
Serbia.]
* Parliament and Iraq: Blair must be
accountable not evasive
URL
ONLY:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=316850
* IRAQ? LET'S NOT GO THERE
by Joan
Smith
Sunday
Independent, 21st July
[Superficial
argument against the war. The article presents all sorts of
reasons
why Mr Hussein should be overthrown but says there's no particular
reason
for wanting to do it right now. Except that the Americans want to.
But if
it ought to be done, the fact that the only power capable of doing it
quickly
has decided to do it would seem to be as good a reason as any ...]
WILL
WE, WON'T WE? (Europe)
* EU pessimism over impasse on Iraqi weapons
* Europe can overrule US on Iraq, Mideast
[American columnist William Pfaff
suggests
what Europe would do if it was serious about its opposition to war
on
Iraq: 'The Europeans could refuse US use of NATO's European assets in an
attack
on Iraq on the grounds that such an attack does not fall under the
agreements
on countering terrorism that produced NATO's antiterrorism
resolution
of last September.' He argues that the Europeans could get away
with it
because actually the US needs NATO more than Europe does (it
legitimises
the US presence in Europe). But he concludes realistically: 'do
the
Europeans really want this? Or is it all talk?']
WILL
WE, WON'T WE? (US)
* Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq [The
Observer continues its work of
preparing
us mentally to accept the inevitability of war. The article ends:
'Iraq
began to end a decade of diplomatic isolation in March at the Arab
summit'
As has been pointed out before, Iraq had been working to end its
diplomatic
isolation, especially but not exclusively in the Arab world, long
before
Sept 11 (see these News Mailings throughout 2001). Its success in
doing
this, and the awareness that sanctions were cracking under the strain
of it,
is probably the main reason for the present US determination to go to
war.]
* Farrakhan warns U.S. on Arafat, Saddam
* The clash of battling war plans [Amusing
account of how things could go
horribly
wrong ^Ê]
* Gore Questions Iraq Invasion Timing [Curious
remark that "I certainly
question
why we would be publicly blustering and announcing an invasion a
year or
two years in advance," indicates that Gore, who surely wouldn't want
to
appear not to be in the know, doesn't take the predictions for October or
even
next Spring too seriously.]
* Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in
Iraq [The debate between a
slow
policy of keeping Iraq in a state of destitution and a speedy policy of
massacre
continues. I would have thought myself that the policy of slow
torture
was best from an Imperialist standpoint. With regard to the speedy
massacre,
this is one of the rare articles in which the following little
genie
is allowed to pop his head up above the rim of the bottle: 'a defense
official
said, "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a
campaign
against the Kurds and Shiites."']
URL
ONLY:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,764173,00.html
* Bush and Blair agree terms for Iraq attack
by
Simon Tisdall and Richard Norton-Taylor
The
Guardian, 27th July
[This
strikes me as a non-article. Unnamed US officials say Mr Bush reckons
he can
count on Mr Blair (don't we all?), and the usual speculation about
strategy
(massive invasion or 'Bay of Goats'?). The only piece of original
news,
if its true, appears to be this: 'The US officials say Mr Bush has
also
obtained agreement in principle for support from France in
conversations
with President Jacques Chirac.']
IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS (Australia, Russia, Japan)
* [Australian] Farmers keep faith on Iraq
wheat trade [We learn here that
Australia
is the main supplier of wheat to Iraq. Presumably pre-1990 it was
the US.
Numerous articles in previous mailings have looked at the
problematic
efforts to import wheat from India and Pakistan.]
* Australians puzzled over government's
support to war on Iraq
* Baghdad May Turn to Moscow for Grain
* Japan's ambivalence on war with Iraq [The US
anxious to restore Japan as
a major
military power. Japan apparently contemplating a new 'anti-terror'
law
allowing it expressly to do anything necessary to support the US in any
way it
wants. It must be true love.]
* Russian envoy voices support for lifting
sanctions on Iraq [It can't be
completely
without significance that the Russian deputy Foreign Minister
should
go to Iraq at the present time and that Putin should send a message
of
congratulations on the July 17 revolution.]
* [Australian] Wheat board may send delegation
to Iraq
AND, IN
NEWS, 20-27/7/02
(2)
IRAQI/MIDDLE
EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
* Iraq foreign minister visits Algeria
* Iraq, Iran swap remains of 1,736 soldiers
* Kuwait warns US over Iraq action
* Iraq: Men linked to Iran planned sabotage
* An Iraqi press delegation in Damascus
* Iraq for an extraordinary session for the AL
[If the Arab league was
worth
anything this meeting would already have been held.]
* Iran pays tribute to 570 dead soldiers
repatriated by Iraq
* Al-Jazeera TV News Returns to Iraq
[Apparently they were banned for not
showing
sufficient respect to President Hussein.]
* Iraq arrests two 'terrorists' linked to Iran
* Jordan Set to Ink Free Trade Deal With Iraq
* Morocco- Iraq to boost scientific
co-operation
* Kuwaiti new camp for UN forces: We will not
oppose a unanimity to attack
Iraq
[Rather ambiguous signals coming from Kuwait]
* Iran denies interference in Iraq's affairs
* Kuwait to get its archives back, rejects
striking Iraq
* MKO [Iranian anti-government guerrilla -
hey, that's a word we haven't
heard
much of lately! - group] says "terrorist" agents shelled Iraq camp
* Improving of Iraqi ties with Syria worries
west
* Damascus makes common cause with 'axis of
evil'
* Iraq's Minister Due in Tehran
* Al-Rai: Iraq ends boycot of Jordanian
companies suspected to deal with
Israel
URL
ONLY:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/25_07_02_b.htm
* Mideast governments' duality: No to toppling
Saddam, but yes to
inheriting
from him
Daily
Star (Lebanon), 25th July
[A
cynical article arguing that all Iraq's neighbours who publicly oppose
war are
already preparing to tumble in when the time comes. And let it be
said
that the opposition of all parties to the war has not risen to the
pitch
of moral indignation that the situation would merit if they meant to
be
taken seriously (eg they're still treating the US as if it is a
respectable
member of the family of nations).]
NO FLY
ZONES
* Five Iraqis killed in an American attack
[Thursday/Friday, 18th-19th
July]
* U.S. Planes Attack Iraqi Site
[Monday/Tuesday]
* One Iraqi killed, 22 wounded in a raid
against southern Iraq [Tuesday]
* Pentagon Confirms U.S.-British Air Raid in
Southern Iraq [Tuesday]
* IRAQ: IRAQI MILITARY SPOKESMAN SAYS U.S.,
BRITISH WARPLANES "VIOLATE IRAQ
AIRSPACE"
[Wednesday]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2674-2002Jul25.html
* 'No-Fly' Patrols Praised
by
Vernon Loeb
Washington
Post, 26th July
[Gone
are the days, not so very long ago, when it was thought to be an
expensive
waste of time.]
NEW
WORLD ORDER
* Bush missteps make the world more perilous
[Intelligent critique of
Bush's
foreign policy from a more old-fashioned US foreign policy
standpoint,
one that imagines that the only superpower in the world needs to
make friends
...]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60192-2002Jul24.html
* U.S., Russia and Global Entente
by Jim
Hoagland
Washington
Post, 25th July
[Jim
Hoagland on the possibility that Europe can be completely sidelined in
international
affairs through a US/Russian alliance. The possibility and
advantages
of this are shown through Putin's abandonment of opposition to
the
Strategic defense Initiative.]
AND IN NEWS, 20-27/7/02 (3)
IRAQI
OPPOSITIONS
* Jury out on anti-Saddam move by Prince
Hassan [Interesting and apparently
well-informed
article which only deepens the mystery of Hassan's appearance
at the
conference in London. It appears that he arrived 'arm in arm with Dr.
Ahmed
Chalabi', not a popular man in Jordan. And yet, we are reminded,
'Prince
Hassan has a long history of opposing American aggression against
Iraq
since 1991'. In passing, we learn that Hassan is chairman of the Club
of
Rome.]
* Iraq opposition aims for territorial base
[Includes reference to 'a new
opposition
group, the Iraqi National Movement' as well as to a 'Free Iraqi
Council.'
Note incidentally the unselfconsciously racist way in which the
disagreements
among the Iraqi opposition, in what is an extremely difficult
situation,
are routinely referred to as 'squabbling.']
* Iraqi Opposition Delays Announcement of
"Provisional Govt."
* Iraq Rebels, U.S. to Discuss Saddam
* Iraqi National Movement calls for
Provisional Government in Iraq [Best
account
I've seen of the 'Iraqi National Movement' formed, also on the basis
of
remnants of the Iraqi army, in opposition to the 'Iraqi National
Coalition'
recently formed with much publicity in London in alliance with
the
Iraqi National Congress, not to be confused with the Iraqi National
Accord.
This one includes Major General Hasan al-Naqib and Brigadier General
Ahmad
al-Samarra'i. Lt-Gen Nizar al Khazraji, in Denmark, who is supposed to
be
forming a military council (Iraqi opposition to form military council to
fill
post-Saddam vacuum -report in News,
6-13/7/02 (3)), isn't mentioned,
nor is
Maj-Gen Wafiq al-Samarra'i, unless he is the same person as Brigadier
General
Ahmad al-Samarra'i. Confused?]
REMNANTS
OF DECENCY
* Go on, call Bush's bluff [A very powerful
summary of the present
situation
by Hans von Sponeck stressing Iraq's improved relations with its
neighbours
and their reluctance to go to war. As the title suggests,
however,
he concludes that 'The Iraqis would be well advised to seize this
opportunity
and open their doors without delay to time-limited arms
inspectors,
thereby confirming that they indeed have nothing to hide.' The
problem
is that the US, which controls Mr Annan, would not allow
'time-limited'
inspections. Under the present circumstances of imminent war,
and
given the previous record of UNSCOM (as revealed in Per Klevsnas' recent
very
important message) Iraqi concerns about spies are 100% justified, yet
they
have been dismissed out of hand in the negotiations with Annan. If they
got
under way, the US would certainly insist on inspections which would blow
open
such things as Mr Hussein's personal security arrangements. Which the
Iraqis
would have to refuse. So we would be back to square one. And then
again,
the inspectors would obviously have access to all information on
Iraqi
defense arrangements which is not a very pleasant prospect for a
country
threatened with imminent, devastating war.]