The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi-analysis] casi-news digest, Vol 1 #8 - 4 msgs

[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]

This is an automated compilation of submissions to

Articles for inclusion in this daily news mailing should be sent to 
Please include a full reference to the source of the article.

Today's Topics:

   1. Iraq "could get state oil firm" (ppg)
   2. UK Pays Families of Iraqis Killed by Brits (cafe-uni)
   3. Full Text - Statement Issued By The Hutton Inquiry (cafe-uni)
   4. Carnegie Group Says Bush Made Wrong Claims on WMD (cafe-uni)


Message: 1
From: "ppg" <>
To: <>
Subject: Iraq "could get state oil firm"
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:57:57 -0500

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Story from BBC NEWS:
Thursday, 8 January, 2004, 17:35 GMT

Iraq 'could get state oil firm'

US advisers and Iraqi officials are considering the setting up of a state-r=
un oil company in Iraq, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The move would significantly limit the role of foreign oil companies in Ira=
q, which has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world.

It also would help allay criticism that the US-led invasion was primarily a=
imed at securing control of oil fields.

"It's just pragmatism", a coalition authority adviser told the paper.

Protected from politics

Under the proposals, the day-to-day running of the company would be carried=
 out by a professional management team.

While an oil minister would be ultimately responsible for what was happenin=
g, the company would be somewhat insulated from political interference, the=
 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) said.

A similar structure is in place in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and according to=
 Robert McKee, an oil adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority, "our=
 preference is definitely in that direction".

Interim oil minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum is meeting separately with indus=
try officials and plans to unveil a study on restructuring at an oil confer=
ence in Baghdad next month.

The advisers argue that a politically independent company would be able to =
boost production and improve operations without fuelling nationalistic ange=
r that the country's assets were being stripped.

No decision yet

And that, in the long run, may help bring an end to the social unrest that =
has seen oil pipelines attacked and led to jostling between Kurds in the no=
rth and Shia in the south, the WSJ said.

A spokeswoman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US-led administr=
ation that has run Iraq since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, was keen to po=
int out that Mr McKee's role is purely one of adviser.

The final decision on how Iraq's oil industry is run will ultimately be dec=
ided by the Iraqi people themselves.

"Nothing has been ruled out, nothing has been ruled in," she said.


Message: 2
From: "cafe-uni" <>
To: "casi news" <>
Subject: UK Pays Families of Iraqis Killed by Brits
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:18:51 -0000

Use  WWW.CAFE-UNI.CO.UK  for news  on Iraq
and other Middle East News

> MoD pays out for Iraqi civilian deaths
> Richard Norton-Taylor
> Wednesday January 7, 2004
> The Guardian
> The government has paid compensation believed to amount to
thousands of
> pounds to three families of Iraqi civilians allegedly
killed by British
> troops, it was disclosed yesterday.
> A further 13 claims following the deaths of Iraqi
civilians are being
> investigated, the Ministry of Defence said.
> One of the payments has been made to the family of Baha
Mousa, the son of a
> police colonel, who died allegedly after being assaulted
with seven other
> young Iraqis by British soldiers in Basra last September.
> A British army death certificate is reported to state that
Mr Mousa died of
> "asphyxia".
> One of the survivors of the alleged incident is reported
to have suffered
> serious kidney failure.
> The MoD yesterday declined to comment on a report that it
had offered the
> Mousa family =A34,500 in compensation.
> However, it insisted that money given to Iraqi families
was in the form of
> "ex gratia payments". That did not mean the MoD accepted
liability for any
> of the deaths, it said. "We do not accept admission of
guilt. That is the
> policy."
> But a spokesman said that "several British soldiers" were
assisting the
> special investigation branch of the military police who
were undertaking
> criminal inquiries.
> An investigation into Mr Mousa's death was continuing, he
> The compensation claims were revealed in a written
parliamentary answer to
> the Plaid Cymru MP, Adam Price.
> The MoD said 23 Iraqi families had made compensation
claims following the
> deaths of civilians.
> Seven of the claims have been rejected while another 13
are under
> investigation. A further 73 claims have been made by Iraqi
> claiming to have been injured by British forces since May
1 last year.
> Mr Price will today call on the government to hold an
independent inquiry
> into the fatalities during a Commons debate on "postwar
civilian deaths and
> military operations in Iraq".
> He said yesterday: "In the majority of these cases we do
not know the
> circumstances or even the names of the victims as proper
public scrutiny has
> not been possible either in Iraq or in the UK."
> He added: "It is simply not acceptable for the military to
be investigating
> themselves and deciding on an ad hoc basis whether or not
to award ex gratia
> payments to the families of the deceased.
> "We need an independent and fully impartial investigation
into all of these
> allegations of civilian deaths involving coalition forces
so that justice is
> done and seen to be done by the long suffering people of
> He said Carl Conetta, director of Washington-based
thinktank Project on
> Defence Alternatives, estimated there had been 200
civilian Iraqi deaths as
> a result of action by occupying forces between May and
November last year.
> Guardian Unlimited =A9 Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004


Message: 3
From: "cafe-uni" <>
To: "casi news" <>
Subject: Full Text - Statement Issued By The Hutton Inquiry
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:20:05 -0000

Use  WWW.CAFE-UNI.CO.UK  for news  on Iraq
and other Middle East News

> Full text of the statement issued by the Hutton Inquiry
> PA
> 07 January 2004
> There have been a number of reports in the press today
about written
> submissions made to the Hutton Inquiry by the Government.
Therefore Lord
> Hutton has issued the following statement to clarify the
position in
> relation to those submissions:
> It has always been public knowledge that after the closing
oral statements
> by their counsel all the parties at the Inquiry were given
the opportunity
> to submit further written submissions. In his closing
statement to the
> Inquiry on 25th September 2003 Mr Dingemans QC, counsel to
the Inquiry,
> said:
> "The parties are being given the opportunity to put in any
further written
> submissions and given the opportunity to correct any
factual errors they say
> have been made in any written submissions."
> The parties were given this opportunity in the interests
of fairness in case
> any party considered that it had not fully developed all
the points it
> wished to make in the course of its oral submissions.
> The BBC, Mr Andrew Gilligan, the Kelly family, as well as
the Government,
> availed themselves of the opportunity to submit further
written submissions,
> and the further written submissions of each party were
sent to all the other
> parties. Therefore, contrary to the suggestions in some of
the press reports
> today, there was nothing surprising or unexpected or of
special significance
> in the making of these written submissions.
> The Inquiry received requests for the parties' written
submissions to be
> posted on its website and on 13th October 2003 the
Inquiry's solicitor, Mr
> Martin Smith, wrote to the solicitors for all the parties
> "As you will be aware through your counsel, the Inquiry
has received
> requests for the parties' written submissions to be posted
on its website.
> Lord Hutton is currently minded to accede to this request
in relation to the
> parties' final (but not interim) submissions.
> "Please let me know whether you have any objections to
this course of
> action."
> The parties who had made oral submissions replied stating
that they were
> opposed to the publication of the written submissions
pending the
> publication of the report and, in slightly different
terms, they all made
> the point that publication would encourage a trial of
various individuals
> (against whom no criticism might be made in the report) by
the media and
> that this would be unfair.
> After considering this objection, and balancing the need
to protect
> individuals against the benefits of publishing the written
> before the delivery of his report, Lord Hutton concluded
that he should not
> publish the submissions pending his report, and that he
would give further
> consideration to the publication of the written
submissions after the report
> had been published. Therefore on 22nd October 2003 the
Inquiry's solicitor
> wrote to the respective solicitors for the parties as
> "Thank you for your letter containing representations
about whether Lord
> Hutton should confirm his provisional view that it was
appropriate for the
> parties' final (but not interim) written submissions to be
published on the
> Inquiry's website.
> "Having reviewed your letter, and those received from the
other parties on
> this issue, Lord Hutton has decided that these documents
should not be made
> available to the public at this stage. Accordingly, the
written submissions
> will not be posted on the website prior to Lord Hutton's
report being
> published.
> "Lord Hutton will give further consideration to whether
the parties' written
> submissions should be made public, after his report is
> =A9 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd


Message: 4
From: "cafe-uni" <>
To: "casi news" <>
Subject: Carnegie Group Says Bush Made Wrong Claims on WMD
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:20:59 -0000

Use  WWW.CAFE-UNI.CO.UK  for news  on Iraq
and other Middle East News

> Carnegie group says Bush made wrong claims on WMD
> Julian Borger in Washington
> Thursday January 8, 2004
> The Guardian
> The Bush administration will today be accused of
> misrepresenting" the threat posed by "Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction" in
> a comprehensive report on post-war findings.
> The report, by four experts on weapons proliferation at
the respected
> Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is likely to
reignite calls for
> acommission to look into the government's pre-war
intelligence claims.
> According to the report, the absence of any imminent
threat from Saddam
> Hussein's chemical or nuclear programmes was "knowable"
before the war.
> There was greater uncertainty over biological weapons but
no evidence strong
> enough to justify war.
> The authors say the intelligence reports of Iraq's
capabilities grew more
> shrill in October 2002 with the publication of a National
> Estimate (NIE), which included an unusual number of
dissenting views by
> intelligence officials.
> The intelligence community, the report says, began to be
unduly influenced
> by policymakers' views "sometime in 2002". Repeated visits
to the CIA by the
> US vice president, Dick Cheney, and demands by top
officials to see
> unsubstantiated reports, created an atmosphere in which
> analysts were pressed to come to "more threatening"
judgments of Iraq.
> The report concludes that "administration officials
> misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic
missile programmes".
> Last night aWhite House official responded by pointing to
Mr Bush's comment
> on December 15 when he was pressed on the absence of Iraqi
WMD. He claimed
> evidence had been found that contravened UN resolution
1441 calling for
> Saddam to disarm, a possible reference to signs that Iraq
had been trying to
> extend the range of its missiles beyond UN limits.
> Stuart Cohen, the vice chairman of the National
Intelligence Council, which
> oversees intelligence assessments, also defended the 2002
NIE. "We did not,
> in any area, hype our judgments. We made our calls based
on the evidence we
> had. We never used the word 'imminent' in the ...
> But Joseph Cirincione, lead author of the Carnegie report,
said: "This is
> the first thorough review of the intelligence threat
> administration statements, findings of UN inspectors and
nine months of US
> searches in Iraq. It shows the threat assessment process
is broken. The NIE
> was wildly off the mark."
> Guardian Unlimited =A9 Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

End of casi-news Digest

Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit
All postings are archived on CASI's website at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]