The
last week has, we hope, made life a little more difficult for the
Masters
of War both in the US and in the UK (the little Master of War in
Australia
doesn't seem to count for very much). It is very difficult to
imagine
how President Bush can proceed with so much world opinion against
him,
though this world opinion is still very timid. Not much real moral
indignation
is being expressed and no-one is proposing that means should be
found
for punishing the US if it goes ahead.
Assuming
he does go ahead, Mr Bush's best hope must be what he is being
promised
by the INC: a quick victory followed by crowds cheering the
liberators
in Baghdad. And that might well be the result since the crowds in
Baghdad
will reasonably think that only a US victory will liberate them from
the
effects of US imposed sanctions. Though there's still a little matter of
compensation
'owed' to Kuwait that has to be sorted out. If Bush defies
world opinion
and gets this result then he will be in a very strong
position.
If on the other hand the campaign drags and the victory is clearly
not
welcomed by the Iraqi people then the blow to US influence and prestige
will be
enormous.
The
development that seems most likely at the present time is a decision to
postpone
the war until the climate of opinion is more favourable, perhaps
when a
crisis has been worked up over weapons inspections. And who knows? If
the
inspections are allowed to go ahead, perhaps they might even find
something
incriminating? In the interim, the US will try to tighten the
sanctions
regime. Is there a means by which the world opinion that has
opposed
war on such weak grounds ('We know that Saddam is a bloodthirsty
tyrant
who eats babies for breakfast, but ...') could be turned into a
really
effective campaign against sanctions.
UK
OPINION
* Iraq invasion "would be messy"
[says Field Marshall Bramall.]
* Church leaders warn Blair on Iraq [But the
extract I've picked is to do
with
Scott Ritter's invitation to address a fringe meeting on the first day
of the
Labour Party conference.]
* It is risky to attack Saddam; but it is much
more risky to leave him
alone
[Bruce Anderson's argument is based on the assumed monstrous
wickedness
of Saddam Hussein. It is, however, difficult to judge to what
extent
Mr Hussein's wickedness is gratuitous and to what extent it has been
a
product of circumstances. For the past ten years the major source of
suffering
in the area has not been Mr Hussein but USUK. Previous to that,
President
Hussein's worst offences were war crimes in the context of the
Iran/Iraq
conflict - crimes therefore of much the same nature as those that
were
committed by us during the conflicts with Germany, 1914-18, and
1939-45.
The wrong done to Iraq has of course been so enormous that it is
reasonable
to suppose the Iraqis will want revenge but, if we assume that
they
are a spirited people (and admittedly the behaviour of the various
defectors
and opposition groups in alliance with USUK suggests they might
not be)
then this should continue to be a danger whether Mr Hussein is still
around
or not.]
* PM urged to recall Parliament over Iraq [Tam
Dalyell. The article
includes
a reference to a newspaper letter written by ten trade union
leaders
which I have not seen.]
* We must agree before Saddam action [Douglas
('Lord') Hurd, the man
responsible
for the disastrous Anglo-Irish Agreement, pretends to be a wise
old
Hobbit and advocates that the UN Security Council should be used to
legitimise
the coming war on Iraq. The cloven hoof appears when he says: 'I
doubt
if there would be a Russian or any other veto - or serious opposition
from
any important country provided the evidence is clear.' There are
'important
countries (the five permanent members) and countries (most of the
countries
in the world) that are not important, countries inhabited by
small,
dark skinned people with odd religious ideas, who don't possess
nuclear
weapons. In any case, Hurd has accepted the US doctrine of the
pre-emptive
strike (the doctrine which justifies, abundantly, the Japanese
strike
on Pearl Harbour). And that is the end of even the smallest fig leaf
of
protection by 'international law'.]
* U.K. Clergy Urge Against Iraq Strike
* 2,000 British Clergy Oppose Iraq Attack
* The logic of empire [George Monbiot on the
need to resist US power and so
far as
possible to operate independently of it in international affairs.]
* We should keep clear of Bush's war [Brian
Sewell turns his gruff, grumpy
style
from savaging contemporary 'art' to opposing military adventurism. He
finishes
with an argument which we've seen before but which I don't find
very
convincing: 'We should wait: Saddam is 65 and soon enough death will do
the job
without charging us a penny'. 65 isn't that old. Is it?]
* And then what?' is no defence against action
in Iraq [Tim Hames is right
to
complain that many of the opponents of war accept too much of their
enemies'
case - as that Saddam Hussein is 'a professional psychopath' who is
straining
all his nerves to accumulate fiendish weapons merely for the
purpose
of doing evil. It needs to be said again and again that if Saddam
Hussein
did evil things there were reasons for it every bit as good (in
fact,
they were rather better) as the reasons we can advance for the evil
things
we have done (the systematic murder of at least tens of thousands of
Iraqi
citizens over the past ten years, for example ...]
* Ministers attack US war chaos [This is only
rumour and tittle tattle but,
as
rumour and tittle tattle go, its rather gratifying.]
* War with Iraq not inevitable, says minister
[Mike O'Brien in Libya. He
also
says: "It is more likely Libya will move away from terrorism if it is
part of
the international community and that's why I am meeting with Colonel
Gaddafi
...". Couldn't the same be said about another, er, head of an
important
oil-producing country?]
* Wars have to be justified by the conviction
that the alternative is worse
[This
is quite an interesting phenomenon - a ferocious, obviously deeply
felt,
attack on Saddam Hussein and those whom David Aaronovitch sees as his
apologists
(notably G.Galloway), arriving at the conclusion that,
regrettably,
the necessary conditions - a necessary consensus - haven't been
assembled
to justify a war. The nuns and bishops are silly in detail, he
thinks,
but right in the broad principle. He concludes, rightly in my view,
that:
'This is not a fact to be celebrated, because it leaves us with
sanctions
and no-fly zones, and it leaves the Iraqi people with Saddam.' A
word
could be said here about the Farhad Barzoft case. DA gives the
impression
that it all happened very quickly and that 'Mrs Thatcher, among
others,
pleaded for his life.' Mrs Thatcher did no such thing (can anyone
even
imagine her doing such a thing?) She demanded that FB be returned in
her
most characteristic bullying and hectoring style, informing the world
that
the judgments of the Iraqi judiciary (which had concluded that trying
to
obtain Iraqi military secrets for the purpose of broadcasting them to the
world
was an act of espionage) were beneath contempt. My distinct impression
at the
time (and I had no sympathy for Mr Hussein. My sympathies were with
the
Iranians) was that she left him with no choice but to carry out the
court's
death sentence. To have obeyed her orders would have been to admit
she was
right. It seemed to me then, and I still believe it, that Margaret
Thatcher
killed Farhad Barzoft as surely as if she had pulled the rope with
her own
hands. And this attempt to humiliate Saddam Hussein was, I believe,
the
beginning of the 'Gulf War'.]
* War on Iraq: a blunder and a crime [by Sir
Michael Quinlan, permanent
under-secretary
at the Ministry of Defence, 1988-92. This is indeed a
powerful
reinforcement for the anti-war cause but something of a poisoned
chalice
for the anti-sanctions cause since it argues that 'containment' has
worked
and should be continued.]
* Immoral and illogical: No convincing case
has been made for the slaughter
that
would follow an attack on Iraq [Another truly excellent article from
The
Guardian, and to myself as a Christian interested in politics it is
really
surprising to see such a well-developed political argument issuing
from
the pen of a Bishop (The Right Rev Colin Bennetts, Anglican Bishop of
Coventry).
And how long is it since the churches in general and the Church
of
England in particular have shown such moral self-confidence and sense of
leadership
('Churches are rightly at the forefront of an emerging coalition,
comprising
key elements of civil society such as trade unions, NGOs and
parliamentarians')?
Something is happening here but I don't know what it is
...]
* UK warns US against attacking Iraq [A useful
Indian roundup of items from
the
British press, some of which I missed, e.g.: 'The Daily Mirror,
meanwhile,
quoted a Labour Party insider saying that Blair's siding with
Bush
was the single-biggest reason why donations to the party were down a
staggering
88 percent on the same period last year.' Also a piece by Richard
Perle
in the Daily Telegraph in which British public opinion is dismissed
with a
contempt which is not likely to appeal even to Daily Telegraph
readers.]
* Unions to challenge Blair on Iraq war
AND, IN
NEWS, 3-10/8/02 (2)
US
OPINION
* Biden sees pre-emptive strike [though Mr
Biden also thinks Bush should be
securing
international support, which he plainly isn't doing. Others want a
debate
in Congress (though there's presumably little doubt as to the result)
and
'Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said
he
doesn't believe President Bush has made a "final decision" to attack
Saddam.']
* A Marshal plan for Iraq [Argues that the US
should do in Iraq what it did
in
Japan and Germany. Doesn't mention Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Tokyo,
Nagasaki
etc. but concentrates instead on post war construction. However, at
least
as regards Japan, it should be noted that Japan was a unified nation
state
and that the US (credit where credit is due) had the intelligence to
keep
the Emperor in place (not to have him hauled off to a war crimes
tribunal,
as some would have liked) to confer legitimacy on the proceedings.
There
is no equivalent sense of national unity or source of legitimacy in
Iraq
(though there could have been if the world hadn't acquiesced in the
suppression
of the caliphate). Also there is no Communist bloc to stimulate
the
current notoriously ungenerous US administration into generosity. There
is,
however, the prospect of opening up a huge market for genetically
modified
wheat ...]
* Democrats send mixed signals over Iraq
attack
* 3 options emerging for U.S. on Iraq regime
[Reasonable summary of the
arguments
for the three options invoked (war; containment; buying time to
build a
coalition for a future war). The option of ceasing to be a menace to
the
people of that part of the world is not discussed.]
* Bush adviser warns against war with Iraq
[Brent Scowcroft (Bush Sr
adviser)
in a round up of comments on US chat shows.]
* How American leadership can be the only
saviour [Mr Kasparov, famous as a
Soviet
chess champion, is in favour of a vigorous prosecution of the 'war
against
terror', which he identifies with Muslim Fundamentalism. It is easy
to
understand why this should lead him to advocate war against Riyadh and
Tehran
(as he does) but not so obvious why he should also want war with
Damascus
and Baghdad which have governments based on the non-Islamic
Fundamentalist
Arab political tradition. Nor is it obvious why he should
disapprove,
as he appears to, of Vladimir Putin's activities in Chechnya,
very
much in line with Israel's activities in Palestine or the policy he
advocates
in the whole area for the US. He has the analogy with Hitler and
'appeasement'
in mind. But Hitler was in full expansion in 1938/9.
Appeasement
was a matter of trying to mollify a power which inspired fear.
At
present the power which inspires fear and is in full expansion is the US.
So it is
Mr Kasparov who is advocating appeasement.]
* Iraq war can boost markets: Study
* Why Saddam's regime must go [My old chum
John O'Sullivan, formerly of the
Daily
Telegraph, advances a slightly (but only very slightly) more
sophisticated
case than the usual, arguing that 'unless the United States
overthrows
Saddam, there will be a conflagration in the Middle East, a
serious
threat to the Saudi regime and an Israeli-Palestinian dispute
without
end.' But his argument is based on the curious notion that Saddam
Hussein
is behind the Islamic fundamentalist movement, and that he is even
the
motivating factor behind the
Palestinian suicide bombers. This is so
far
from being the case as to be almost laughable. Again, he wants the US to
back
the Saudi despots against the Fundamentalist (or perhaps we should say
'more
Fundamentalist') challenge. But (and is this evidence that John
O'Sullivan
still has a bit of the bleating liberal inside him?] this
involves,
he says, promoting political and press freedom. Why he thinks that
will
favour US interests in the country is anyone's guess. There is one
argument
he has not made but he is intelligent enough to understand it. In
the
normal run of things Saddam Hussein should be 'our' friend, against the
hordes
of Islam (he broke the impetus of the Ayatollah Khomeini's
revolution).
We have made him our enemy. Our error in this respect may be
irreparable.
And if one is making calculations without any concern for the
thousands
of people who will be blown apart, then that might be a reason for
going
to war ...]
* U.S. advisers see Saudis as enemies [The
argument, which is developing in
popularity
in the US, that Iraq should be attacked BECAUSE the Arab world is
opposed
to the idea.]
* Al-Qaeda in Iraq: Rumsfeld [Donald Rumsfeld
admits that the assault on
Afghanistan
was in vain. Al Qaida have slipped through the net and are now
'all
over' the whole region.]
* Senate didn't hear from Iraq experts [The
experts in question being von
Sponeck,
Ekeus and Ritter. It is a wonderful thing that articles of this
quality
are beginning to appear in the US. The writer (Sean Gonsalves) in
particular
stresses, from von Sponeck, that the humanitarian problem under
sanctions
is not the importing of food and medicines but 'the lack of
adequate
water and electrical supply systems, which were intentionally
destroyed
in the Gulf War by U.S. bombs.']
* Huntington opposes invasion [Samuel (Clash
of Civilisations) Huntington.
Unfortunately
its just brief replies to questions without any substantial
argument
but nonetheless it adds more grist to the mill.]
* Bush faulted on Iraq policy by top
Republican [Dick Armey, House majority
leader.
First sign of a crack in the Republican political establishment.]
* 'No' to a Bay of Pigs in the Gulf [Doubts
from Clinton's national
security
adviser Sandy Berger (whose own method of dealing with Iraq was the
slow
but steady slaughter of its citizens by starvation and disease).]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/06/1028157935758.html
* White House unable to see beyond toppling
Saddam
Sydney
Morning Herald, 7th August
[Includes
the following memorable quote from G.Bush: "There's no telling how
many
wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland".]
AND, IN
NEWS, 3-10/8/02 (3)
IRAQI/MIDDLE
EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
* Al-Watan: Kuwait renew rejection to striking
Iraq [But not very
passionately
judging from this account.]
* Alba to ship [aluminium] products worth $6m
to Iraq soon
* Oman adds voice in rejecting US strike on
Iraq ["We are opposed to an
attack
on Iraq or any other Muslim state because we think that any
differences
with regard to the Middle East must be resolved under UN
auspices."
Which is fair enough but what he should be saying now, given the
US
subversion of the UN, is 'under Arab auspices'. And the Saudis should be
making
it clear that war on Iraq means the end of Saudi oil.]
* Iran, Saudi Arabia Seeking Convergence on
Palestine, Iraq [The
possibility
of a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the face of
current
developments is obviously very exciting; but to judge from this
interview
with a member of the Iranian majlis, the thinking is still very
timid.]
* Saddam's son fails to buy arms from Iran
[according to 'reformist Iranian
websites.']
* Iran Not to Repeat Mistake in Case of Iraqi
Refugee Influx [will set up
camps
on the Iraqi side of the border]
* Two Iraqi ministers visit Araar center on
Saudi border
* [Lebanese foreign minister Mahmoud] Hammoud
warns against US campaign in
Iraq
* US revises plans as kingdom courts Iraq
[Michael Evans presents the
Saudis
as wanting to cover themselves so that 'if President Bush's plans
went
wrong, Baghdad will not take revenge' on them. They seem to be the only
people
who think President Bush's plans might go wrong in such a way that Mr
Hussein
will be left in a position to take revenge.]
* Iraqi, Turkish FMs in Amman for Talks on
U.S. Pressure Against Baghdad
* Turkey Has not Agreed to Use its Land
Against Iraq: FM
* Jordan denies show of support for Iraq, the
Palestinians
URL
ONLY:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/06_08_02_b.htm
* The unseen dangers of a war on Iraq
by
Palestinian analyst, Abdeljabbar
Daily
Star, Lebanon, 6th August
[Things
President Hussein might do if he has the means; cost to the US;
effect
on the Israel/Palestine conflict.]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/08_08_02_b.htm
* Nasser makes a new debut on Egypt's stage
by
[Lebanese journalist] Saad Mehio
Daily
Star, Lebanon, 8th August
[Reflections
on the government led revival of the Nasser cult in Egypt and
what it
might mean, shorn of the socialism. The author concludes: 'The
beginnings
of sweeping change in the ideological-political order in the
region
have commenced. And more is bound to come." In the one brief
reference
to Iraq its imminent passing into the pro-US camp (a Baghdad Pact
Mark
II, grouping post-Saddam Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Jordan) is
taken
for granted.]
WEAPONS
INSPECTIONS
* Powell Dismisses Iraqi Gesture
["Inspection is not the issue, disarmament
is,
making sure that the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction,",
which,
one would have thought, requires inspections. The Article continues
with a
speech by a National Security Council staff member, Zalmay Khalilzad,
saying
Iran should help in the war against Iraq and vaguely threatening that
it too
is a possible target. But really nothing we haven't seen before.]
* U.N. Asks Iraq to Accept New Terms [This is
an account of the formal UN
response
from Baghdad's invitation to technical talks. The issue is UNSC
insistence
that, owing to their four years absence, the UN inspectors need
sixty
days free of constraint before a formal programme for inspections is
decided
(which would then have to be okayed by the UNSC, therefore by the
US, so
the prospects aren't very good). The Iraqi position, if I understand
it
aright, is that they need a formal programme to begin with to guard
against
the possibility of espionage in the present atmosphere of war.]
* Why not put our offer to the test?
[Congratulations to The Guardian for
letting
the case of the Iraqi government be heard. And congratulations to
Mudhafar
Amin for expressing it so well. And whatever the opposite of
congratulations
might be to the rest of the media for having ignored it so
determinedly.
Amin concludes: 'The UN's moral and legal authority is at a
crossroads.
If Britain supports US military action against Iraq, it will set
in
stone the beginning of the end of UN authority and the concept of
international
law.' I am of the opinion that 'UN authority and the concept
of
international law' came to an end (if they can ever be said to have
existed)
in the Balkans, but if they are able to stop the present US
juggernaut
I will be very happy to have been proved wrong.]
* Iraq brands UN chief weapons inspector a spy
URL
ONLY:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020803-14335276.htm
* Biochemical weapons boost Iraq's military
might
by Bill
Gertz
The
Washington Times, 3rd August
[I
think most of this has already appeared elsewhere. But Richard Butler
comes
over as more than usually pompous and inane: "I think the ultimate
goal of
Saddam is to have a nuclear weapon deliverable by missile," Mr.
Butler
said. "That's a very effective way to deliver a nuclear warhead. It's
by long
distance. You're well away from where the explosion will take
place."
What a great thing it is to be an expert.]
NORTHERN
IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN
* South Kurdistan under Turkish hegemony
[Readers may have wondered why
we've
been hearing so much of Jalal Talabani and the PUK these days, and so
little
of Masoud Barzani and the KDP. This article may provide part of the
answer.
The PUK has won the favour of Turkey. The KDP are too Kurdish for
the
tastes of the Turk. An interesting glimpse into that part of the world
in
which, we are sometimes told, the Kurds are enjoying unlimited freedom of
politics
and of expression under USUK's noble and self sacrificing
protection.]
* PUK Leader in U.S. to Discuss Iraqi Crisis:
Radio [Talabani assures the
Turks
that he is more enthusiastic about being an Iraqi than he is about
being a
Kurd. Barzani is less forthcoming and has not yet (Wed/Thurs)
decided
whether or not to attend the US summoned opposition conference.]
* Turkish army denies presence in northern
Iraq [They deny it, but Talabani
is
quoted appearing to confirm it.]
PREPARATIONS
FOR WAR
* Iraq to use bio-weapons 'soon' [says Ahmad
Chalabi]
* The Ark Royal and war on Iraq
* War plan [Account of satellite photos of the
al-Udeid air base in Qatar.
Is
there any suggestion that Qatar should be expelled from the Arab league?]
* Hussein likely to avoid desert fighting [And
because Mr Hussein declines
to lay
his military means out in the middle of the desert where they can be
bombed
and shot at will he will doubtless himself be held responsible for
the
civilian casualties of the USUK war effort.]
URLs
ONLY:
http://observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,769064,00.html
* Bush ready to declare war
by
Peter Beaumont, Gaby Hinsliff and Paul Beaver
The
Observer, 4th August
[This
and its companion piece, the following URL ONLY, are object lessons in
how to
cobble together a newspaper article when you have absolutely no
material
worthy of the name. The only thing I spotted that was worth
retaining
was the remark by Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesman Menzies
Campbell
about the famous dossier on SH's efforts to accumulate weapons of
mass
destruction: 'By delaying publication the Government has raised
expectations.
There would be a political price to pay if this much promised
document
did not amount to more than a collection of press cuttings'. Oh,
and a
large consignment of tan painted army trucks has been spotted passing
through
Chicago.]
http://observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,769074,00.html
* Amid the clouds of deception, US speeds along
road to war
by
Peter Beaumont
The
Observer, 4th August
THE
IRAQI COLLABORATION
* Defense Dept. to Take Over Funding of Iraqi
Opposition Group [the INC
Note
that this only refers to the 'use of U.S. money to lure defectors and
gather
intelligence from Iraq.' Previous reports have been rather vague as
to what
exactly the 'accounting irregularities' complained of were.This
report
seems to suggest that the flow of defectors with tales of WMD
production
(the only source of evidence that has so far had any public
existence)
was secured through the payment of quite large sums of money
which,
if this were a court of law, would raise serious questions as to its
value.
Note also the following: 'Phebe Marr, a government expert on Iraq for
more
than 20 years, most recently at the National Defense University, said
the
exile leadership groups would provide pro-U.S. leadership in Iraq.' So
much
for any pretence of democracy.]
* Al-Hakeem brother in Iraqi opposition meeting
under US support [Abdul
Aziz
al-Hakeem is the head of the Higher Council of the Islamic Revolution
in
Iraq. Actually it appears to be his son who is joining the opposition
groups
who have been summoned to the United States.]
* Iraqi Groups Claim Unified Stand [Only a
very short extract from an
article
which for the most part is the usual roundup of the present state of
opinion.
Its to do with the Iraqi opposition's visit to the USA. Remember
that
six groups were invited. They include the most powerful Kurdish groups
and the
SCIRI, the only group which is actually waging war (a type of war
which
in another context would be called 'terrorism') inside Iraq at the
present
time. Here only Chalabi is mentioned by name and the group get to
meet
two undersecretaries and to speak to Cheney on a secure video link (he
is on
his holidays). Is this how you would treat the people you seriously
believed
to be about to form the next government of Iraq?]
* Bush: No timetable for a decision on
attacking Iraq [Extracts giving a
further
account of the opposition meeting with the under secretaries. They
lasted
two hours. Colin Powell put in a brief appearance. Do these people,
who
travelled long distances and (in the case of the SCIRI) took some risks
with
their credibility not see that this is insulting?]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,
, 3-379228, 00.html
* US meets leaders vying to rule Iraq
by
Richard Beeston
Times,
10th August
[Includes
the following comical quotation from D.Rumsfeld: "Wouldn't it be a
wonderful
thing if Iraq were similar to Afghanistan? If a bad regime was
thrown
out, people were liberated, food could come in, borders could be
opened,
repression could stop, prisons could be opened." We look forwards to
DR
visiting Afghanistan and travelling about the place (outside Kabul) to
enjoy
the accolades of a grateful people. And who is responsible for food
not
coming in and borders being closed?]
AND, IN
NEWS, 3-10/8/02 (4)
IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS (Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, China,
Pakistan,
Ireland, Far East in general, Israel, France)
* War on Iraq won't help our interests [Doubts
from Canada about the effect
on the
Muslim world and the likely cost.]
* Schröder distances his party from raid on
Iraq [This includes the
following
encouraging passage: 'Wolfgang Schäuble, the foreign affairs
adviser
to Edmund Stoiber, the challenger for the chancellorship, said the
SPD
"was trying to paint the CDU in a pro-war corner while presenting itself
as the
party of peace".' Which suggests that the Christian Democrats don't
wish to
be painted into a pro-war corner. Is Germany beginning once again to
have a
life of its own?]
* A vote for me is a vote against war on Iraq,
says Schroeder
* [Australian] PM promises Iraq debate
* [Japanese]Antiterror law won't cover Iraq:
Nonaka
* China Welcomes Iraq's Invitation for UN
Weapons Experts
* Claim against Iraq may be withdrawn [This is
a curious item about a
Pakistani
claim made through the UN Compensation Committee. The Pakistanis
are
offering to negotiate it directly with the Iraqi government, but if they
expect
the imminent overthrow of the Iraqi government one would have thought
it was
in their interests to keep the issue in the hands of the INCC.]
* US Rejection of Iraq Dangerous, Canadian FM
[Canada won't join the US
without
a UN mandate, and has seen no evidence that Iraq possesses Weapons
of Mass
Destruction (Mr Blair hasn't shown them the famous dossier).]
* US denied [Irish] airspace for Iraq war
* Iraq complains to UN about Aust [ralia
over interference with shipping
in the
Gulf.]
* Japan says US must show restraint against
Iraq
* Asian govts oppose US strikes, urge Iraq to
obey UN [Roundup of Far
Eastern
opinion. Very encouraging, though to say that Australia is urging
caution
is perhaps a little exaggerated)]
* In the name of the father [Article from
Ha'aretz which starts off like a
tough,
mocking personal attack on George Bush but ends up endorsing the war
on Iraq.
I somehow missed the connection between the two parts of the
argument.]
* War on Iraq Could Seriously Damage Global
Economy: Analysts [According to
French
specialists]
MILITARY
MATTERS
* U.S. Jets Attack Target in Southern Iraq:
Military [Monday]
* The new nukes
AND, IN
NEWS, 3-10/8/02 (5)
INSIDE
IRAQ
* Saddam Hussein's Billions [Most of this
article is an account of sources
of
Iraqi government income outside Oil for Food. It shows that most of
Iraq's
neighbours are involved in this, thus giving the lie to the pretence
(which
in all fairness seems to have been pretty thoroughly abandoned) that
all the
horror was being imposed out of a selfless desire to protect the
neighbours.
The conclusion - that Oil for Food should be scrapped -does not
at all
follow from the argument. She's not suggesting that the Oil for Food
money
itself is being used for nefarious purposes. Only that it is not used
as
effectively as it should be. It is however, what is enabling most Iraqis
to live
at the present time. Susan Blaustein is therefore proposing a
measure
that will plunge the population into even greater misery and
starvation
without in any way affecting the regime's 'illicit' earnings. One
is left
wondering how such a level of irresponsible idiocy has been able to
find
its way into print.]
* Running dry: Sanctions hit Iraq's young the
hardest [Surprisingly full
account
of the effects of sanctions showing clearly that the problem does
not lie
in the inadequacies of Iraq's implementation of Oil for Food but
much
more in the inability to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed in the
1991
war (the inability to spend oil money inside Iraq and therefore bring
an
Iraqi economy back into existence is not discussed) . The article is
slightly
marred by the indications that its all ultimately Saddam Hussein's
fault
for not co-operating with weapons inspectors, when it has long been
obvious,
and sometimes said explicitly, that sanctions would be continued,
inspections
or no.]
* Iraq chose Saddam for good reason. The West
needs a history lesson [At
last. A
longer perspective on Iraqi history which does not suggest that
Saddam
Hussein suddenly appeared like a black cloud in a clear blue sky
(which
only needs to be removed for the clear blue sky to come back again).]
* Iraq targets 11pc annual growth over next
decade
* Amnesty for Iraq prisoners
* Iraq issues 10,000 dinar banknote
* Top officers retired on suspicion of
disloyalty [This piece, from an
anti-Saddam
source, does not suggest that he executed them 'on suspicion of
disloyalty']
* Oil-for-Food Chief Worries for Iraq
* Saddam Speaks to Attack Possibility [Sorry I
don't seem to have picked up
a
better account of S.Hussein's much publicised speech.]
* Iraqi leader tells Labour MP Galloway he
hopes Britain will not join
strike
OIL
MATTERS
* OPEC To Meet In Osaka Sep 19 - Spokesman
* Valero Urges US To Stop Retroactive Pricing
Of Iraqi Oil
* US, UK seek to suppress Iraqi oil sales:
Baghdad
REMNANTS
OF DECENCY
* Labour MP makes Iraq visit
* U.S. Anti-Sanctions Activists Protest at UN
Offices in Baghdad
This
week saw a continuation of the general drift of opinion against the
war. It
began with a meeting of iraqi opposition elements summoned to New
York,
where some important people gave them a few minutes' attention. In the
light
of the series of articles at the end of the Kurdistan section below it
seems
reasonable to speculate that the purpose of the meeting was to heal a
breach
that is widening between the Kurd leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal
Talabani,
and between Barzani and the Turks. Barzani is playing up the
distinct
Kurd interest and Talabani is playing it down. The thing fell flat
because
Barzani didn't turn up, possibly because he was prevented by the
Turks,
more probably because he didn't want to. This is all very bad news
for the
advocates of a 'minimalist' intervention use the Kurds like the
Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan; don't get bogged down in the business of
reconstructing
the country.
The INC
claimed to have obtained an assurance from Cheney that the US was
committed
to establishing 'democracy' in Iraq. In all the excitement caused
by this
(and I saw no evidence of any confirmation from Cheney himself) the
following
very interesting remark of the 'moderate', Colin Powell seems to
have
been overlooked. According to the article 'Spain official cautions U.S.
on
Iraq' (US Opinion below) he 'said the aim was to measure the
effectiveness
of the opposition elements to see whether a representative
form of
government could be put in place in Baghdad after Saddam. Powell
said he
was not sure this was possible ...'
A
number of articles on the pro-war side express dismay at the crudity of
the US
propaganda effort. They (especially The Observer in the British
Opinion
section below) argue that there is a liberal, left wing,
internationalist
case to be made for bombing Iraq but the Americans are
refusing
to make it; that the Americans don't seem to be making any efforts
to seek
allies in the fight. And indeed it is this shift of emphasis in the
rhetoric
(not the substance) of US policy, from Clinton to Bush, that has
strengthened
the anti-war movement. For that reason the current strength of
anti-war
sentiment may prove to be illusory.
Perhaps
the best article in what follows is 'Bush may get UN support for his
war' by
Dan Plesch (British Opinion, below). It indicates the weakness of
one of
the main arguments being used by opponents of the war. This tends to
concede
that the overthrow of Saddam would be a Good Thing but insists that
it has
to be done with the agreement of the UN Security Council. Plesch
points
out that the US might just get the agreement of the UN Security
Council.
While
this is all too possible, it should be noted that it would mark a
defeat
for the leading advocates of the war. They are not so stupid as to
think
that Iraq really poses a serious threat to the security of the US
(though
in time it might certainly pose a threat to Israel). For them, the
whole
point of the exercise is to assert US power in the world -
unilaterally,
outside all foreign entanglements. To seek a UN blessing is
to keep
up the pretence of recognising UN authority.
It may
also be noted that a UNSC blessing might not come cheaply. In
particular,
Russia will want some sort of guarantee that all the lucrative
contracts
Russian companies have signed with Hussein will be honoured by his
successors.
If the US goes it alone, whatever government they instal can
tear
those contracts up and reassign them to US companies.
The
hawks' maximalist position the US against The World has the
advantage
of clarity and should give the opponents' of US power a clearer
idea of
what needs to be done. Useless to appeal to the fiction of the
'International
Community' whose institutional expression is the US-dominated
UN
Security Council. Instead we should be turning to an at present
ill-defined
'world opinion', whose institutional expression is the UN
General
Assembly and the International Court (not the UNSC created War
Crimes
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) at The Hague. In this way the
hawks'
policy of the US against the world can serve a useful purpose. 'The
World'
will learn that it has to organise to meet the challenge.
BRITISH
OPINION
* Could the left back an Iraq war? [This
article is interesting for what it
reveals
about the psychology of The Observer. The poor Observer has been
trying
to develop a 'left wing' argument for the war on Iraq, continuing the
'extraordinary
turnaround in the sensitivities of the left on questions of
war and
peace in the 1990s' largely pioneered in Britain by its sister paper
The
Guardian in the context of the war on Serbia (and in Europe by Bernard
Kouchner
in France and Joschka Fischer in Germany). For the moment however
it
isn't working in the context of the war on Iraq. What is required is to
mobilise
'the universalist impulses that led their fore-runners to support
military
action during the second world and the Spanish civil war' (sic!)
and to
overcome that darned anti-American gut instinct that keeps getting in
the
way. The problem is however that, though Saddam's crime in murdering
5,000
people in a state of war in Halabja was indeed terrible it pales in
comparison
with the systematic murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of
people
through starvation and disease in a supposed state of peace. And that
is why
it is strictly impossible for USUK to make any sort of moral case for
the
invasion of Iraq.]
* The world needs a plan for Iraq [The
Observer expresses frustration that
its
attempts to work up a 'liberal humanitarian' case for bombing Iraq are
being drowned
out by the blare of trumpets coming from the coarse persons
currently
surrounding Mr Bush in America. What is required is a bit of
'courage
and inventiveness' of the kind the Observer modestly ascribes to
itself.
The Observer's courageous and inventive policy goes as follows: 'the
EU,
with the support of Russia and China, could propose delivering Saddam an
ultimatum:
open Iraq freely to weapons inspection while abandoning nuclear
and
chemical weapon manufacture or face trial at the International Criminal
Court,
and commit to use every means, including the possibility of invasion,
to
apprehend Saddam if he did not comply.']
* This is a recipe for global turmoil and
endless war [George Galloway,
writing
in the Guardian.]
* A man with a gift for making enemies [Most
of this article from
W.Rees-Mogg
is an attack on D.Rumsfeld whose personal arrogance, it is said,
is
making the development of a war policy that much more diffcult.
Unfortunately,
Rees-Mogg concludes, he can't be removed yet because it would
look
like a victory for Saddam. What Mr
Rees-Mogg, like the editorial line
in The
Observer, fails to realise however is that the policy of attacking
Iraq at
the present time is, in any normal way of looking at things, insane.
It
therefore requires craziness in high places if it is to be implemented.]
* U.S. can count on England [John O'Sullivan
reckons that current British
opposition
to the war is superficial and that British public opinion will
swing
round once the case for war is expressed better, ie not 'war against
Iraq'
but 'war to liberate Iraq', and not 'the US' but 'the allies'
(O'Sullivan
hasn't understood that the whole point of the exercise, in the
eyes of
its leading advocates, is to show that the US doesn't need allies).]
* British Band Joins Campaign Against Iraq
Attack [Massive Attack. We also
have
Primal Scream on our side, though they have had to re-record a song
they
produced in August 2001 under the title 'Bomb the Pentagon'.]
* Iraqi war "would spark more
attacks" [Islamic clerics warn England of
possible
consequences.]
* George Galloway: in from the cold
[Enthusiastic account by the Daily
Mirror
of the life and opinions of George Galloway, noting his membership in
the
1970s, after the Ba'ath takeover, of the Campaign Against Repression and
for
Democratic Rights in Iraq.]
* Bush may get UN support for his war [A very
perceptive article from The
Guardian.
Dan Plesch warns that 'MPs who have signed Alice Mahon's carefully
moderate
early day motion calling for UN support as a prerequisite to any
attack
will have found that they have trapped themselves into support for a
UN-sponsored
war.' He concludes that the best policy for the anti-war
movement
if it wants to play the card of 'legality' (in the UN understanding
of the
term) is to go back to the 1991 resolutions, which placed the problem
of Iraq
in the context of 'a wide-ranging list of objectives including a
nuclear
and other weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East,
control
of armaments in the region, a stronger biological weapons
convention,
universal adherence to the chemical weapons convention and the
obligations
under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.']
* MPs are sidelined over war on Iraq [Prescott
says Parliament can discuss
but
can't decide.]
* Cook Urged to Speak Out over War on Iraq
* Celebrity call to fight Iraq attacks
[Includes a possibility that Madonna
might
come out against the war on Iraq. Gosh.]
URLs
ONLY:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/fergal_keane/story.jsp?
story=323004
* America will brush aside our concerns and
attack Saddam in the spring
by
Fergal Keane
The
Independent, 10th August
[Fergal
Keane predicts that the US will invade and the slaughter will be
terrible
leaving a legacy of humiliation and bitterness throughout the Arab
world,
a gift for Al Qaida and its equivalents.]
http://observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,772579,00.html
* Doves launch last-ditch campaign for Gulf
peace
by
Jason Burke, Gaby Hinsliff and Ed Vulliamy in New York
The
Observer, 11th August
[On the
propaganda war (Ed Vulliamy being a specialist in the art of working
up wars
through propaganda). Last week, they say, the anti-war camp did very
well
but they expect the hawks to come back again (probably from their
holidays).
The article does indicate reassuringly that anti-war feeling is
strong
in Mr Blair's own constituency.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2188757.stm
* US adding to Iraq confusion - Mandelson
BBC,
12th August
[Non-descript
and non-committal intervention from P.Mandelson.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,773603,00.html
* Brutish, short, and probably pointless
by Ian
Buruma
The
Guardian, 13th August
[Ian
Buruma expresses puzzlement as to the US' reasons for wanting to go to
war, a
puzzlement compounded by some very vague but confidently asserted
notions
of general Euopean history. The conclusion, however, is OK: 'The
cobbled-together
Iraqi opposition in exile has now been assured by Richard
Cheney
and Donald Rumsfeld that a democratic revolution in Iraq will be
fully
backed by the US. This sounds very fine. But how long is the US
prepared
to stay in Iraq to see it through? Too long, and they will be
running
a colony, as they did in the Philippines. Too short, and the whole
thing
is likely to collapse in bloody chaos. Without a better idea about US
intentions,
a democratic citizen surely would be foolish to plump for going
to
war.']
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,774059,00.html
* George is nuts about Saddam's soft centre
by Rod
Liddle
The
Guardian, 14th August
[Unpleasant
expression of hatred directed against G.Galloway followed by
some
vaguely anti-war reflections over a bottle of (probably Australian)
Chardonnay.
We have to be glad at the support of people outside the circle
of 'the
usual suspects' but let us never forget that it is the 'usual
suspects',
notably G.Galloway, T.Dalyell and A.Mahon, who have the moral
edge
...]
http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/aug/16/16082002pa.htm
* Iraq War or Peace? Part-I War
by
Forrest E. Cookson
The
Bangladeshi Independent, 16th August
[Serious,
but very long, reply to last week's Economist article which gave
The
Case for War. The article reminds us that Bertrand Russell had advocated
nuclear
war against the Soviet Union at the time when the US had a monopoly
of
nuclear weapons. It also includes the following argument which is worth
retaining
because it isn't heard often enough: 'If biological weapons can be
made
then this may be achieved in any advanced biological laboratory. How is
one to
protect against this? There is no end to the interventions and
attacks
on people and countries when one starts out to eliminate potential
makers
of biological warfare weapons.']
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,775294,00.html
* One in six Iraqis are in exile, and they
want this war
by
Martin Woollacott
The
Guardian, 16th August
[Martin
Woollacott complains rightly that in discussions on possible war on
Iraq
the opinions of Iraqis have been neglected. He goes on to assert baldly
that
most Iraqi emigres favour war but provides no evidence for this except
that it
is the opinion of someone he happens to know. The great problem
appears
to be that Iraqi emigre opinion remains largely unorganised even by
those,
the INC for example, who would have had most interest in organising
it.]
AND, IN
NEWS, 10-17/8/02
(2)
INSIDE
IRAQ
* Iraq Makes Case Against U.S. Claims [Iraqi
officials escort a group of
journalists
'to a dusty laboratory to prove it wasn't a biological weapons
center'.]
* 'Saddam's Cubs' train at camp [A glimpse of
some of the boys who will
probably
be dead in the near future if Nick Cohen, Mark Leonard et al get