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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]
*Ý Excerpts from Saddam Hussein's interview
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.']
*Ý Pakistan Questions Iraqis in Attack [on the
Protestant church in
Islamabad's
diplomatic quarter]
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý '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.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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 ...]
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý Top clerics opposed to invasion of Iraq [The
Pax Christi statement,
signed
by the man tipped to be next Archbishop of Canterbury, is excellent.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]Ý
PROSPECTS
FOR WAR
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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}
*Ý Iraq is bound to lose, quickly, completely
by John
KeeganÝÝÝ
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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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
*Ý 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]
*Ý 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.' ]
*Ý Arab League Chief Says Hands-Off Iraq
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý Bahrain Opposed to U.S. Attack on Iraq
*Ý Shahrudi [head of the Iranian judiciary]
warns Iraqi opposition against
US
"trap"
*Ý 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?]
*Ý 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"']
*Ý 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
*Ý U.S. air assault injured 7, says Iraqi
military
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý Iraq turns to Belarus for expertise in oil
industry, manufacturing
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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
*Ý Saddam Says U.S. Won't Be Able to Oust
Government [Untendentious account
of
Saddam's 17th July speech from the Tehran Times.]
*Ý Five reported dead in attack on Iraq
URL
ONLY:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,757067,00.html
*Ý 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
*Ý 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?]
*Ý Malaysia calls US action against Iraq
undemocratic
*Ý France Opens Court Inquiry Into Gulf War
Syndrome
URL
ONLY:
http://www.dailystarnews.com/200207/20/n2072013.htm#BODY14
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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]
*Ý Turks deny debt deal the price of support
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 'Let's get Saddam,' soldiers tell Bush
*Ý US senator demands vote before strike
against Iraq
IRAQI
OPPOSITION
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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)
*Ý Tough standing shoulder to shoulder [Likely
political and economic
consequences
to UK of participation in US war.]
*Ý Defence chief replaced for being
'off-message' over Iraq invasion
*Ý Opposition grows to new war on Iraq
*Ý 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.]
*Ý Parliament and Iraq: Blair must be
accountable not evasive
URL
ONLY:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=316850
*Ý 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)
*Ý EU pessimism over impasse on Iraqi weapons
*Ý 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)
*Ý 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.]
*Ý Farrakhan warns U.S. on Arafat, Saddam
*Ý The clash of battling war plans [Amusing
account of how things could go
horribly
wrong ^ ]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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
*Ý 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)
*Ý [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.]
*Ý Australians puzzled over government's
support to war on Iraq
*Ý Baghdad May Turn to Moscow for Grain
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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.]
*Ý [Australian] Wheat board may send delegation
to Iraq
AND, IN
NEWS, 20-27/7/02
(2)
IRAQI/MIDDLE
EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS
*Ý Iraq foreign minister visits Algeria
*Ý Iraq, Iran swap remains of 1,736 soldiers
*Ý Kuwait warns US over Iraq action
*Ý Iraq: Men linked to Iran planned sabotage
*Ý An Iraqi press delegation in Damascus
*Ý Iraq for an extraordinary session for the AL
[If the Arab league was
worth
anything this meeting would already have been held.]
*Ý Iran pays tribute to 570 dead soldiers
repatriated by Iraq
*Ý Al-Jazeera TV News Returns to Iraq
[Apparently they were banned for not
showing
sufficient respect to President Hussein.]
*Ý Iraq arrests two 'terrorists' linked to Iran
*Ý Jordan Set to Ink Free Trade Deal With Iraq
*Ý Morocco- Iraq to boost scientific
co-operation
*Ý Kuwaiti new camp for UN forces: We will not
oppose a unanimity to attack
Iraq
[Rather ambiguous signals coming from Kuwait]
*Ý Iran denies interference in Iraq's affairs
*Ý Kuwait to get its archives back, rejects
striking Iraq
*Ý MKO [Iranian anti-government guerrilla -
hey, that's a word we haven't
heard
much of lately! - group] says "terrorist" agents shelled Iraq camp
*Ý Improving of Iraqi ties with Syria worries
west
*Ý Damascus makes common cause with 'axis of
evil'
*Ý Iraq's Minister Due in Tehran
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý Five Iraqis killed in an American attack
[Thursday/Friday, 18th-19th
July]
*Ý U.S. Planes Attack Iraqi Site
[Monday/Tuesday]
*Ý One Iraqi killed, 22 wounded in a raid
against southern Iraq [Tuesday]
*Ý Pentagon Confirms U.S.-British Air Raid in
Southern Iraq [Tuesday]
*Ý 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
*Ý '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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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
*Ý 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.]
*Ý 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.']
*Ý Iraqi Opposition Delays Announcement of
"Provisional Govt."
*Ý Iraq Rebels, U.S. to Discuss Saddam
*Ý 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-SaddamÝ 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
*Ý 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.]
TURKS
'N' KURDS
*Ý Turkey asks US to pay for losses from Iraq
strike
*Ý Turkey Warns of Lengthy Iraq War
*Ý Kurdish State without Kirkuk is fine by
Turkey [Extracts from an article
which,
in a rather imperfect English translation, argues that the real
dispute
between Iraq, Turkey and the Kurds is not over an autonomous or even
an
independent Iraqi Kurdistan but more specifically over (oil rich) Kirkuk.
For
example he says: 'If Iraqi Kurds seeking separation and [sic. had?]
accepted
the existing crumbs without Kirkuk, most probably Saddam Hussein
would
have been the first one in history who recognised an independent
Kurdish
State.' Which, if it is true (and the author is strongly
anti-Saddam)
means the Kurds aren't getting anything from the 'International
Community'
that they couldn't have got from President Hussein. The article
also
suggests that war against the Kurds is the main reason for the
militarisation
of Turkey which is in turn the main reason for its
impoverishment
and dependence on the West. I have cut out a long historical
reflection
on the formation of the Turkish psyche.]
*ÝÝ 'Al Qaeda' influence grows in Iraq [A
fuller account than usual of the
Ansar
el-Islam in the Kurdish zone, with evidence for a link to the Iraqi
government,
via a captured Iraqi intelligence officer. Though links with
militant
Islamic groups is hardly something the Americans are in a position
to
complain about ...]
*Ý Wolfowitz's visit to Turkey sparks debate on
Iraq strike, relations with
the
West
[A
short lesson in the philosophy of history from P.Wolfowitz: '"Turkey's
aspiration
to join the European Union is a development that should be
welcomed
by all people who share the values of freedom and democracy that
grew
out of the European civilization," adding that "these are not only
Western
values, but Muslim, Asian and universal values as well."' So Muslim,
Asian
and even Universal values 'grew out of the European civilization'. The
article
details the sort of money for which Turkey is willing to sell itself
($36
billion, to be precise. Oh, and access to the European civilisation,
source
of Muslim, Asian and universal values).]
IRAQI/UN
RELATIONS
*Ý U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq
*Ý U.S. denies it received Iraqi visa request
[Referring to the complaint
reported
last week (17-20/7/02): 'Iraq lodges protest against US for
refusing
to grant visas']
*Ý Annan rejects new talks with Iraq without
progress [This article provides
a few
more vague indications of what actually happened during the talks but
no
journalist seems yet to have really applied him/herself to finding out.]
*Ý Iraqi health minister, WHO regional official
discuss cooperation
WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION
*Ý Iraq seeks steel for nukes [Without
suggesting that Iraq isn't seeking
material
for making nuclear weapons, its difficult to believe that this is
the
only purpose that is served by stainless steel tubes.]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/07/21/MN97915.
DTL
*Ý Mass destruction's foil could be foam
by John
Hendren,
San
Francisco Chronicle (from Los Angeles Times), 21st July
[This
is an interesting idea. Clearly a foam that could seep in everywhere
could,
if delivered in sufficient quantities, suffocate every living thing
that
might be found underneath the earth. Families hiding in cellars, for
example,
that sort of thing ... And of course it would leave the buildings
and
other property more or less intact - though that might not be a good
thing
since it would do away with much of the business opportunities offered
by a
rebuilding programme.]
In the
debate on the war against Iraq a danger for the anti-sanctions
movement
is to fall into arguments which justify the use of sanctions ('so
long as
Saddam is kept securely in his box he can't pose any danger to his
neighbours').
The debate in the mainstream press is between 'containment'
and
war; but we are opposed to both options, which means arguing either:
1) that
President Hussein unbound would not, all other things being equal,
pose a
threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq. This happens to be my
own
opinion. But of course I could be wrong ...
or
2) that
some means can be devised by which Iraq can remain bound militarily
while
its civilian economy is freed. An intrusive but clearly honest and
independent
inspections regime might just do the trick, and the Iraqi
government
has accepted it in principle. But its difficult to put in place
under
the malign eye of Washington.
The
hearings on the prospective war in Congress this week were not concerned
with
the moral rightness of the war, nor with the option of ending
sanctions.
They were simply concerned with the practical implications of a
war
whose rightness in principle was taken for granted. But even on the most
benign
reading of the war (the Iraqi army throws its guns down at the first
shot
and the population of Baghdad come out to cheer their liberators) these
practical
implications appear enormous - both in terms of money and of
longterm
commitment. There is a very real possibility that the Americans
would
at last have to turn themselves into a real Imperialist power and take
direct,
governmental responsibility for the mess they have created. Assuming
that
they want to maintain the unity of Iraq they would have to engage in
the
process of nation-building, continuing the so far not entirely
successful
efforts of the British, the Hashemite monarchy and the Ba'ath
Socialist
Party. Or, against ferocious opposition throughout the region,
they
would have to undertake a process of partition. Or of course they could
just
let the whole thing fall into civil war and mayhem with the prospects
of rich
pickings for Iran, Syria and Turkey.
None of
these implications are very pleasant ‚ and only the most naive of
hippy
idealists would be content, like Thomas Friedman ('War on Iraq II ')
or the
Daily Telegraph ('The world after Saddam'), to make peace signs with
his
fingers and mumble the magic words 'democracy, man'. The result was
that,
though the hearings were generally pro-war, the general effect was to
put a
dampener on the whole exercise. So that by the end of the week the
prospect
of war seemed to have receded a little.
It was
a good moment for the Iraqi government to invite Mr Blix to Baghdad
(at the
time of writing no formal reply has been given. While the US and
Britain
may express scepticism, its difficult to see any good reason why
they
should refuse. Especially since they are still a long way off an actual
declaration
of war and therefore can't complain that Iraq is stalling for
time).
But again, the public discussion over the return of inspectors is
one-sided.
It is assumed that the Iraqi government is simply putting off the
evil
day. But they have real and reasonable grounds for concern. Under
Richard
Butler, UNSCOM had indeed allowed itself to become a vehicle for US
political
brinkmanship and intelligence gathering. This charge was widely
accepted
in 1998 and it has recently been confirmed by Butler's predecessor,
Rolf
Ekeus ('Weapons inspections were 'manipulated'' below). It was in
recognition
of this that the constitution was remodelled to reduce the
possibility
of interference by national governments when UNMOVIC was formed.
Given
all that, the countries that were responsible for the subversion and
failure
of UNSCOM (the US and Britain) cannot simply repeat 'any time, any
where'
(it tends to become 'any time, any place, any where', because all
good
things come in threes). Especially in the context of imminent war, the
Iraqi
government have the right and duty to defend themselves against any
possibility
of espionage. The former deputy chairman of UNSCOM, Charles
Duelfer,
almost acknowledges this in his article 'Prospects remain dim for
inspectors
allowed in sites'. He argues that the weapons inspections are
useless,
not because of unreasonable conditions imposed by the Iraqi
government
but because of conditions that are in themselves entirely
reasonable.
If we
go to war, it will be because of a hypothetical possibility that Mr
Hussein
might sponsor an act of devastating terrorism some time in the
future
(the argument can be found inter alia in the Economist's 'The case
for
war' below). Although under the circumstances his restraint over the
past
ten years has been remarkable, no-one could say for certain that such
fears
are unjustified. The trouble is that anyone might sponsor an act of
devastating
terrorism some time in the future. September 11 was managed by a
handful
of men armed with box cutters and some rudimentary knowledge of how
to
handle an aeroplane. The leadership of Al-Qaida may have known about it
in
advance, might even have facilitated some of the details, but they
weren't
necessary to it. And it didn't need the support of a state, not even
the
shelter provided by the Taliban in Afghanistan. All it required was a
handful
of spirited people with a sense of grievance. And that is exactly
what
the current direction of US policy is guaranteed to produce in
abundance.Ý
BACK IN
THE USA
*Ý Mideast US Congress Seeks Information on
Possible Iraq Invasion
*Ý Profound Effect on U.S. Economy Seen in a
War on Iraq
*Ý Bush stockpiles oil for multibillion-dollar
war with Iraq
*Ý GOP will tie ANWR [the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge] to Iraq
*Ý War on Iraq II [Part One was a not very
interesting piece by Graham T.
Allison
from the Washington Post. In this one, Thomas Friedman suggests that
a
successful outcome in Iraq could result in a huge increase in Iraqi oil
production,
a huge fall in oil prices and hence popular revolts in the other
OPEC
countries which, such is the bizarre mood that prevails in the US at
the
present time, it is assumed would bring to power governments favourable
to the
US and to Israel. The same result (increased oil production, lower
prices,
trouble for OPEC) could, however, probably be achieved more simply
by
lifting sanctions ...]
*Ý US Senate told of Iraq's deadly virus
laboratory
*Ý Bush, Jordan King Disagree on Iraq [Extracts
indicating that King
Abdullah
has been diplomatic in his dealings with President Bush. We learn
too
that Mr Shimon Peres, the well known man of peace, is in favour of war
on
Iraq.]
*Ý The Empire Strikes Back Again, Redux, Part 2
[A splendid piece of
anti-war
rhetoric, giving a catastrophic view of the possible consequences,
but
marred by the bizarre statement that 'a Turkish Kurdish group, the
Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK), has split off from Iraqi Kurds as it
launches
guerrilla attacks within Turkey' (the PKK is of course the body
that
was maintaining a guerrilla war in Turkey, took refuge in Iraq, called
a
ceasefire after the arrest of its leader, but is currently being pursued,
in
Iraq, with Iraqi Kurd complicity, by the Turks.)]
*Ý Ten questions to ask before we go to war
[Doubts on the advisability of
war
from a point of view which assumes the basic decency of the US.]
*Ý Post-Saddam Iraq will cost you, US warned
[Evidence before the Senate
Commission
from the Iraqi Foundation, anxious at the possibility of a messy
collapse
and unimpressed by what has happened in Afghanistan (but do we know
what
has happened in Afghanistan?). The Iraqi Foundation calls for a
'democratic'
solution but that is surely not something that can be secured
easily
or painlessly either. Perhaps if the US was capable of acting like an
intelligent
and disinterested monarch? of playing a Juan Carlos role?]
*Ý White House says Sept. 11 skyjacker had met
Iraqi agent [Difficult to
entirely
let go of the only card you've got? The article certainly doesn't
bring
forward any new evidence.]
URLs
ONLY:
http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/printArticle.pl?path=/articles/2002/07
/27/1027497418339.html
*Ý Foundations are in place for martial law in
the US
by Ritt
Goldstein
Sydney
morning Herald, 27th July
[Possibility
of emergency legislation developed by the Federal Emergency
Management
Agency (FEMA), a body which had previously produced proposals for
the
detention "of at least 21million American Negroes". Useful in the
event
of a
Louis Farrakhan inspired million man march.]
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1028039809322&p=1012571727162
*Ý Strikes on Iraq 'highly unlikely' this year
by
Richard Wolffe in Washington
Financial
Times, 31st July
[says
'Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee
... the
most influential foreign policy figure in Congress.'
AND, IN
NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02
(2)
BACK IN
THE UK
*Ý The Reverend Blair has met his match
[Possibility that Archbishop
Williams
might find a useful role for the Church of England in line with
Coleridge's
dictum that it is 'the compensating counterforce to the inherent
and
inevitable evils and defects of the state' (pity Dr Williams appears to
be in
favour of disestablishment).]
*Ý There should be no war in Iraq without more
jaw-jaw [Mainly concerned
with
practical, not moral, difficulties. Menzies Campbell (Lib Dem foreign
affairs
spokesman, missing another opportunity to establish the Lib Dems as
a real
party of opposition) supports the immoral status quo.]
*Ý Rift over Saddam [Sunday Mirror thinks the
unthinkable - that Mr Blair
may yet
express disagreement with Mr Bush.]
*Ý MP warns of Iraq attack backlash [Bruce
George, who chairs the Commons
Defence
Select Committee. He wants a UN mandate.]
*Ý Blair warned: Iraq attack 'illegal' [in
'highly confidential' advice from
unnamed
government lawyers.]
*Ý The madness of war with Iraq [After arguing
that a war would become a
quagmire,
General Sir Michael Rose concludes: 'A more successful strategy
would
be to strengthen economic sanctions, help create a viable political
and
military opposition to the regime within Iraq, obtain improved
intelligence
about his arsenal of weapons and whereabouts, and where
necessary
carry out limited airstrikes against associated targets.' Which is
more or
less the current policy. Which is coming apart at the seams.]
*Ý The world after Saddam [The Daily Telegraph
decides that it needs to
stiffen
the resolve to take on Saddam. It does so by painting a ridiculously
rosy
view of the benefits that would ensue and presenting the war as a
crusade
for democracy. The problem is that democracy would mean (if it means
anything.
Perhaps it doesn't) rule by the people. And the Arab people are
not
enthusiastic supporters of the American world view. (But this comment
doesn't
do justice to the unimaginable depths of self satisfied, murderous
pomposity
the article manages to plumb, its contempt for the lesser peoples
of the
world and for the peculiarities of their own history and culture; and
its
conviction that all the problems of the world can be solved by the
application
of a sufficient degree of terror.)]
*Ý No mandate: no war [This article mentions in
passing that the war on
Kosovo
was fought without a mandate from the UN Security Council. It says
this
mustn't be allowed to happen this time. But the precedent in Serbia,
which
the Guardian supported with great enthusiasm, was fatal. Once the pot
is
broken it cannot be put together again.]
*ÝÝ If we must go to war, for God's sake tell
us why [Somewhat rambling
piece
by Simon Jenkins.]
*Ý Army not equipped for Iraq war [It appears
that the British army is not
well
equipped for fighting in the desert. Since it is very unlikely that a
British
army whose only role was to defend Britain would have to fight in
the
desert this should not matter very much. Should it?]
*Ý Blair's worries over Iraq invasion revealed
[by King Abdullah of Jordan]
*Ý Only Bush, Blair want a war on Iraq [Hugo
Young reminds us that in
addition
to 'the usual suspects' there are people who supported the evil of
the
1990 Gulf Massacre, the evil of the subsequent sanctions, the evil of
the
international intervention in the Balkans which prolonged the war and
climaxed
in the bombing of Serbia, and the evil of the war on Afghanistan -
but who
balk at the evil of the renewed war on Iraq. While of course
tactically
we may be grateful for this it looks rather like a case of
straining
at a gnat after you've swallowed the camel. Mr Young says that in
this
case, unlike the others, Iraq hasn't been engaged in any acts of
aggression;
but that is only because, for reasons of their own, Bush's
advisers
have decided not to make an issue of the ethnic cleansing of Kurds
from
around Kirkuk; or of the Marsh Arabs - allegations that are every bit
as
serious as anything that could reasonably be alleged against Mr
Milosevic.
And of course, the Hugo Youngs, who don't have the stomach for
war,
will do nothing to stop the policy of slow genocide that goes under the
misleading
name of 'sanctions'. The machinery of US military power is now in
place
throughout the world, advancing into the vacuum left by the collapse
of the
Soviet Union, cheered on by the opinion formers who excite Mr Young's
admiration
(as opposed to the despised 'usual subjects'). It is of its
nature
that it cannot stop its advance. The only thing that could make a
convincing
obstacle is a world opinion acting on principle. Such a
development
could occur through the UN General Assembly or through the
International
Court at the Hague, but one of its principles would have to be
a
rejection of the authority of the UNSC. Any obstacles placed in the way of
the
Juggernaut by the UNSC itself can only be temporary. They will be
flattened
unless the US decides, for purely domestic considerations, to
pretend
to take account of them. That (using the UNSC as an excuse to do
what
the US government has already decided to do anyway) is the best option
that
the Hugo Youngs of this world are able to offer.]
*Ý Deaths of SAS men spur talk of Iraq attack
*Ý The case for war [The Economist almost seems
to attain to something
resembling
genuine passion in the pitch of its moral indignation pitted
against
Saddam Hussein. But its difficult to see how those who defend the
US'
right to pre-emptive action against the very remote danger posed to it
by Iraq
can complain against the pre-emptive action Mr Hussein attempted
against
the very immediate danger posed to Iraq by Iran in 1979. Highly
dishonest
of course to mention the gassing of Kurds before the war on Iran
as if
it preceded it and was not a consequence of Iraq's near defeat at the
hands
of Iran (something I imagine the Economist would have regretted).
Nor has
a paper which supports the right of the US and Britain (countries
whose
geographical situation renders them eminently free from any danger of
invasion)
to possess weapons of mass destruction much to say against the
right
of a country like Iraq, threatened on every side, to have them. The
Economist
calls on the US not to ask for a UN Security Council mandate on
the
grounds that it would be embarrassing (but not fatal to the project) if
they
didn't get it. I would respect that position if the Economist was
calling
for the disbandment of the UN Security Council. But it isn't. It is
accepting
the logic built into the Security Council system and calling for a
principle
of one law for the mighty, rich and racially superior nations of
the
world and another for the lesser breeds, who are expected to abide by
the
'laws' created by their betters in the UNSC.
The
article is prefaced with the dictum: 'If you will the end, it is only
honest
to will the means'. It looks like a quote but no source is given. But
isn't
it the same thought - exactly the same thought - as underlines the
famous
phrase: 'the end justifies the means', associated with the Communists
and
usually, these days, thought to be discreditable?
Finally,
the Economist pulls out its biggest argument: 'if Mr Hussein had
already
had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait 11 years ago, he might
still
be there.' Perhaps and perhaps not. There isn't room here to argue the
case
but there is a case to be argued. But perhaps also some hundreds of
thousands
of people, many of them children, murdered by Mr Bush and his
predecessors
and by Mr Blair and his predecessors would still be alive
today.]
AND, IN
NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02
(3)
BACK IN
THE UN
*Ý Dangers of going it alone against Saddam [If
you're a 'UN correspondent'
you
presumably have an interest in attaching importance to the UN and its
'security
council', but Carola Hoyos and the diplomat who is quoted as
saying:
"No matter how big you are, if you don't have moral authority, you
get
into trouble pretty quickly," said one diplomat. "You can't win just
because
you are big and tough. It is the force of argument rather than the
argument
of force that counts." '(!) seem to have forgotten the war on
Serbia
which was fought without a UN mandate to the general delight of the
British
media.]
*Ý Weapons inspections were 'manipulated' [The
Financial Times takes up the
story
of Rolf Ekeus' interview in Sweden. To what we learned from Per
Klevnas
they add that in another interview Ekeus claimed that after his
departure,
ie under R.Butler, the US inserted two of their own agents into
UNSCOM.
All this was of course perfectly obvious to anyone following the
events
of the time but its good to have it on the record. And if Mr Ekeus is
a
little late in saying it, he nonetheless has chosen his moment rather well
...]
*Ý Iraq complains against US prevention of 2000
civilian contracts
*Ý Iraq Asks U.N. Inspector For Meeting
*Ý Blix underlines gulf separating UN and Iraq
[Clarification of differences
in
discussions with Iraq. The UNSC insists that the UN inspectors should
have
two months investigating what might have happened after 1998 before
they
devise a definite programme of action. The Iraqis want a programme of
action
to be agreed before they are allowed to enter.]
*Ý Strikes on Iraq will be unwise: Annan
*Ý How the inspections broke down [Rather
selective chronology which gives
no idea
of why the inspections broke down. Doesn't mention the February 1998
negotiations
with Kofi Annan. As I remember these, Iraq wanted the
inspectors
to be accompanied by a group of diplomats from other members of
the UN
Security Council. Annan agreed but somehow (and I never found out
how) it
didn't happen. We are usually told that Annan was gulled by the
Iraqis
but my memory was that he was seriously wrongfooted by the US.]
*Ý Prospects remain dim for inspectors allowed
in sites [Charles Duelfer
says
that it is impossible to ensure genuinely surprise inspections. He even
argues
this quite reasonably saying: 'is it reasonable to demand that Iraq
turn
off its entire air defence system so inspectors may fly into Iraq
anytime,
and anywhere? Baghdad will reasonably point out that it has a
legitimate
air defence system and some accommodation must be made to provide
information
on UN flights. From this, the Iraqi government can derive
warning
information on inspections. Similar accommodations will sprout in
virtually
all inspection activities.' He concludes that the US should just
go
ahead and overthrow Mr Hussein anyway, for the sake of the wellbeing of
the
Iraqi people, regardless of inspections.]
*Ý Powell Rejects Iraqi Invitation to UN Arms
Inspector [The article also
gives
the UN response (offer not in keeping with UNSC requirements) and the
Russian
response (positive. See next article)]
*Ý Russia hails Iraqi decision to invite chief
UN weapons inspector to
Baghdad
[The Russians claim to have had a hand in securing the Iraqi
initiative
which may make them all the more anxious to defend it.]
BACK IN
IRAQ
*Ý Depleted Uranium held responsible for Down's
Syndrome in Iraq: Study
*Ý Iraq stops visas for Asian groups [Mainly
Indians and Pakistanis visiting
Shi'i
holy places.]
*Ý Iraq to sue French company over AIDS
polluted blood
*Ý Pracsi gets seven Iraqi contracts worth
$1.6m [Control systems for the
oil and
gas industry.]
*Ý Iraq: report on construction of a detection
and prevention system against
environmental
contamination [Good to see that the Iraqi government has a
conscience
in ecological matters.]
*Ý Iraq Goes Quiet on Invasion Date [2nd
August, invasion of Kuwait.]
URL
ONLY:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,767337,00.html
*Ý The writing on the wall
by
Jonathan Glancey
The
Guardian, 3rd August [or The Observer, 4th August?]
[A very
nice article by an enthusiast for the area's history passing through
Iraq
and meeting Syrian Orthodox and Yazidis as well as visiting the ancient
city of
Eridu. Too long for inclusion here but worth a visit.]
BACK IN
THE KURDISH AUTONOMOUS ZONE
*Ý Kurds, 'Al Qaida men' in tense stand-off [We
learn that, in addition to
the
Ansar el-Islam in the east of the Kurdish autonomous zone there are also
the
more - but apparently not very - moderate Islamic League and the Islamic
Movement.
The (Kurdish) Islamic Movement is quoted as being strongly opposed
to a US
war against Iraq. At the risk of proving to be badly wrong, the
Ansar
el-Islam desecration of Sufi holy sites suggests to me that they are
closer
to the Wahhabi, militant Sunni (therefore possibly al-Qaida) position
than to
the Iranians.]
*Ý Narsai David, a Bay Area link to north Iraq
[Somewhat chatty account of
the
role of Assyrian Christians in the Kurdish zone.]
AND, IN
NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02
(4)
BACK IN
TURKEY
*Ý Turkish non- governmental organizations
stand against striking Iraq [The
Turkish
Dentists' Union has come out against the war. Well, every little
helps
...]
*Ý Tough political choices lie ahead for Turkey
on Iraq [A variety of
positions
being canvassed in Turkey, coming to the following rather
problematic
conclusion: 'In exchange for lending a hand to an attack on
Iraq,
the Turks will insist on the following conditions being met: No
Kurdish
state; autonomy for the Turcomans; and a major part in future
investment
in Iraq. To avoid the negative ramifications of its participation
in
America's war on Iraq in its relations with the Arab world, Ankara wants
Washington
to ensure that Saudi Arabia will publicly and actively support
this
course of action.']
*Ý Turkey determined not to be the loser in a
possible regime change in
Baghdad
[Turkey proposes to occupy Southern Kurdistan until a government is
established
in Baghdad to their satisfaction.]
*Ý Iraqi Turcomen Democratic Party established
in London [Interestingly this
party,
while wanting to do its bit to overthrow Saddam, says: 'the Turcomen
have
been the most affected group from the embargo enforced on Iraq ...
every
year thousands of Turcomen have died because of the lack of drugs and
nutrition.']
* ÝIraq waives surcharge on new Turkey supply
BACK IN
THE REST OF THE WORLD
*Ý French Leader Warns on Iraq Attack [Chirac
wants Iraq to accept
inspectors
and no war on Iraq without a UNSC mandate. So does Schroeder. No
sign
that either of them have any understanding of the legitimacy of Iraq's
anxieties
over the inspections.]
*Ý Is it possible that Mr Blair will not back
President Bush over Iraq?
[Article
in The Independent which suggests that if the US were to set about
seriously
getting European support they would probably succeed. If they
haven't
tried its because they don't care very much ...]
*Ý Australian involvement likely, says Howard
[Commentators frequently refer
to
Britain (and sometimes Israel) as the US's only potential ally in the war
against
Iraq, but they are forgetting Australia which has shown such
gratuitous
enthusiasm over the past few weeks that it risks losing an
important
wheat contract with Iraq.]
*Ý Irish neutrality warning over Iraq [The
Workers Party (formerly Official
Sinn
Fein) points out that allowing US military boats and planes to use
Irish
port facilities is a violation of the principle of neutrality.]
*Ý German SPD to Campaign on Opposition to Iraq
Attack
MIDDLE
EAST/ARAB WORLD
*Ý Saudis, Gulf Emirs Bitterly Divided over US Iraq
War; Mubarak to Stay out
[This
is only indirectly about Iraq but a story about an attempt on King
Fahd's
life involving at least three known members of al-Qaida; of al-Qaida
members
providing personal security for Crown Prince Abdullah; and a
statement
made with great confidence that Jordan is in the pro-war camp -
all
these seem worthy of note. Debka.com, it should be said, is an Israeli
news
agency. And according to an article in Dawn ('Saudi prince found dead
in
desert', 31st July), Fahd has been in Switzerland since May (not July as
stated
here) and has only just left a hospital in Geneva where he underwent
a
successful eye operation.]
*Ý Lebanon: Iraqi readiness to fund development
of system for oil refining
in
Lebanon
*Ý Any attack must be a knockout: Kuwait [If
the Kuwaiti information
minister
talks like this in the press it suggests that Kuwaiti opposition to
the war
doesn't go very far.]
*Ý Souring Relations Between Qatar and Saudi
Arabia Threaten U.S. Forces
*Ý Hardliners threaten Middle East peace, says
Abdullah [Times interview
with
Prince Abdullah of Jordan. Most interesting comment is probably about
Hassan's
attendance at the Iraqi opposition conference: 'The King called his
uncle's
last-minute decision to attend the meeting unfortunate. "Prince
Hassan
blundered into something he did not realise he was getting into and
we're
all picking up the pieces."' That's as may be, but Hassan is a very
experienced
politician ...]
*Ý Arabic Press Review [This interesting
article is divided into several
parts:
first, on the possibility that the US are pressuring Jordan by
imposing
an embargo on the port of Aqaba; and then a couple of very
dismissive
comments (from Jordan and From Saudi Arabia) on the worth of the
emigre
opposition.]
*Ý Abdullah: Foreign Leaders Oppose Attack
*Ý Baghdad, Riyadh, Manama [Bahrain] talk free
trade zones
*Ý Iraq 's Ibrahim gets a message from Qatar 's
crown prince [Is this little
item
significant, in the light of the assumption that Qatar is the US's most
secure
base in the region?]
AND, IN
NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02
(5)
MILITARY
MATTERS
*Ý Iraqi protest over [US and Australian] navy
action
*Ý U.S. refurbishes Iraqi air bases in North
*Ý Intercepts of Iraqi Vessels Widened
*Ý Western Morning News: HMS Ocean will not go
to Iraq, says MoD
*Ý US, UK planes raid 16 regions: Iraq
*Ý Iraqi buildup near border puts Kuwait on
heightened alert
*Ý UN sees no Iraqi troop buildup near Kuwait
*Ý Whitehall dossier says Saddam plans
biological weapons for Palestinians
[If we
judge uniquely from the text of this article then it is a disgraceful
piece
of work. It provides no indication that evidence of any sort has been
found.
It is, or appears to be, simply a speculation as to what sort of
activities
Saddam Hussein might get up to that wouldn't yield any evidence.
An
inattentive reader might think these are known facts, especially in the
light
of the following sentence: 'Analysis of US satellite imagery over the
past
four years has provided sufficient evidence to show what Saddam has
been
doing since the expulsion of the United Nations weapons inspectors in
December
1998.'Ý Really? But this is followed by
the statement that Saddam
has
concentrated all his attention on biological weapons because they can't
be
picked up by satellites. Presumably US satellites have spotted some
trailers
and 'analysis' (by unbiased, objective, purely technically minded
analysts
like the UNSCOM weapons inspectors) have concluded that they may be
laboratories
for biological weapons. And then, one thinks, what might he do
with the
results? Well, he gives money to the families of dead Palestinians,
so
perhaps ...]
STRATEGIES
*Ý US may go straight for Iraqi jugular
[Another military strategy (the
'inside
out' strategy) to chat about in the pub after a day's work if you've
nothing
better to do.]
NO URL
(sent through list)
*Ý U.S. Fears "Basra Breakout"
by Tony
Allen-Mills
The
Times, 28th July
[Lurid
speculations by A. Cordesman on what Mr Hussein might do to fight
back.
One feels that his intention in painting such a grim picture of Iraq's
military
capacities is to turn the war from self indulgence that could be
foregone
into a grim duty that must be assumed ...]
URLs
ONLY:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1258086
*Ý The son of all battles?
The
Economist (Global Agenda internet service), 29th July
[The
Economist performs its usual trick of telling us what we already know
about
the 'debate' on intervention in Iraq as if it was revealing great
hidden
truths only accessible to the cognoscenti.]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-369183,00.html
*Ý Dangers in gamble of going for a city too
far
by
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
The
Times, 30th July
[The
'inside out', Baghdad first, option compared to the 'bridge too far'
attack
on Arnhem in 1944. The Times defence editor doesn't think its a good
idea.]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=319687
*Ý Analysis: The 'inside-out' solution to the
problem of Saddam
by
Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Independent,
30th July
[Yet
another trudge round the well worn circuit of arguments about a
possible
war.]
IRAQI
OPPOSITION
*Ý The last thing the US wants is democracy in
Iraq [The Guardian's Nick
Cohen
continuing his support for the INC against the option of another Sunni
strongman]
*Ý Salvation council appeals Saddam Hussein to
resign [The Iraqi army in
exile
seems to be going into overdrive at the present time. In addition to
the
longstanding Iraqi National Accord, we have the Iraqi National Council,
formed
at the recent meeting in London and allied, it seems to the Iraqi
National
Congress; then we have the Iraqi National Movement (see Iraqi
National
Movement calls for Provisional Government in Iraq in News,
20-27/7/02
(3)); and now we have the Higher Council for National Salvation.
The
reference to Denmark gives us a clue as to who is behind that. This body
makes
the original observation that "there are Arab countries which
expressed
readiness to receive Saddam Hussein and give him political asylum,
if that
will avert Iraq [sic] an American strike.", which would be
interesting
if true, but all the signs are that that would be impossible
given
the present idiotic fashion for war crimes trials which leaves blood
soaked
tyrants with no option but to fight to the finish.]
NEW
WORLD ORDER
*Ý Studies Find No Link between Depleted
Uranium And Balkans Health
Problems:
Pentagon [So that's ok]
URLs
ONLY:
http://www.iht.com/articles/66024.html
*Ý Iran reactor may test first-strike doctrine
by Dana
Priest
The
Washington Post, 29th July
[Slightly
off the focus on Iraq but the possibility that the US or Israel
might
do to Busheir what Israel did to the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981
should
be kept in mind. Interesting to note that Iraq bombed the Busheir
site
twice during the 1980-8 war.]
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/07/30/204.html
*Ý Evil Axis Ramifications
by
Dilip Hiro
Moscow
Times (from Washington Post), 30th July
[Reflections
on the possibility that Bush might succeed in creating an
Iran-Iraq-Syria
axis. The article is interesting on Iran's reasons for
feeling
aggrieved over Afghanistan.]