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]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]
This is an automated compilation of submissions to newsclippings@casi.org.uk
Articles for inclusion in this daily news mailing should be sent to newsclippings@casi.org.uk.
Please include a full reference to the source of the article.
Today's Topics:
1. Iraq: Now for the base truth (Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar)
2. Shia fume over Bremer sharia threat (Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar)
3. Scholars condemn US sharia threat (Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar)
4. DU study re Iraq suppressed? (k hanly)
5. Mourning sickness feeds the feel-good factor (Muhamed Ali)
6.
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?WHO_=91suppressed=92_scientific_study_into_depleted_uranium_cancer_fears_in_Iraq?=
(Mark Parkinson)
7. Israeli Company to Supply Fuel to US Army in Iraq (Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar)
--__--__--
Message: 1
From: "Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar" <ghazwan_almukhtar@DELETETHIShotmail.com>
To: <newsclippings@casi.org.uk>
Subject: Iraq: Now for the base truth
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:50:07 +0300
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
http://www.atimes.com
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FB24Ak01.html
Middle East
Iraq: Now for the base truth
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - For those still puzzling over the whys and wherefores of=
Washington's invasion of Iraq 11 months ago, major new, but curiously unno=
ticed, clues were offered last week by two central players in the events le=
ading up to the war.
Both clues tend to confirm growing suspicions that the Bush administr=
ation's drive to war in Iraq had very little, if anything, to do with the d=
angers posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) =
or his alleged ties to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda - the two main rea=
sons the US Congress and public were given for the invasion.
Separate statements by Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National =
Congress (INC), and retired US General Jay Garner, who was in charge of pla=
nning and administering postwar reconstruction from January through May 200=
2, suggest that other, less public motives were behind the war, none of whi=
ch concerned self-defense, preemptive or otherwise.
The statement by Chalabi, on whom the neo-conservative and right-wing=
hawks in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office are still re=
sting their hopes for a transition that will protect Washington's many inte=
rests in Iraq, will certainly interest congressional committees investigati=
ng why the intelligence on WMD before the war was so far off the mark.
In a remarkably frank interview with the London Daily Telegraph, Chal=
abi said he was willing to take full responsibility for the INC's role in p=
roviding misleading intelligence and defectors to President George W Bush, =
Congress and the US public to persuade them that Saddam posed a serious thr=
eat to the United States that had to be dealt with urgently.
The Telegraph reported that Chalabi merely shrugged off accusations h=
is group had deliberately misled the administration. "We are heroes in erro=
r," he said. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful," h=
e told the newspaper. "That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in =
Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is =
looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."
It was an amazing admission, and certain to fuel growing suspicions o=
n Capitol Hill that Chalabi, whose INC received millions of dollars in taxp=
ayer money over the past decade, in effect conspired with his supporters in=
and around the administration to take the US to war on pretenses they knew=
, or had reason to know, were false.
Indeed, it now appears increasingly that defectors handled by the INC=
were sources for the most spectacular and detailed - if completely unfound=
ed - information about Saddam's alleged WMD programs, not only to US intell=
igence agencies, but also to US mainstream media, especially the New York T=
imes, according to a recent report in the New York Review of Books.
Within the administration, Chalabi worked most closely with those who=
had championed his cause for a decade, particularly neo-conservatives arou=
nd Cheney and Rumsfeld - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Sec=
retary of Defense Douglas Feith and Cheney's chief of staff, I Lewis Libby.
Feith's office was home to the Office of Special Plans (OSP) , whose =
two staff members and dozens of consultants were tasked with reviewing raw =
intelligence to develop the strongest possible case that Saddam represented=
a compelling threat to the US. The OSP also worked with the Defense Policy=
Board (DPB), a hand-picked group of mostly neo-conservative hawks chaired =
until just before the war by Richard Perle, a longtime Chalabi friend.
DPB members, particularly Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency d=
irector James Woolsey and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, played promin=
ent roles in publicizing through the media reports by INC defectors and oth=
er alleged evidence developed by OSP that made Saddam appear as scary as po=
ssible.
Chalabi even participated in a secret DPB meeting just a few days aft=
er the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon in which th=
e main topic of discussion, according to the Wall Street Journal, was how t=
he disaster could be used as a pretext for attacking Iraq.
The OSP and a parallel group under Feith, the Counter Terrorism Evalu=
ation Group, have become central targets of congressional investigators, ac=
cording to aides on Capitol Hill, while unconfirmed rumors circulated last =
week that members of the DPB are also under investigation.
The question, of course, is whether the individuals involved were the=
mselves taken in by what Chalabi and the INC told them, or whether they wer=
e willing collaborators in distorting the intelligence in order to move the=
country to war for their own reasons.
It appears that Chalabi, whose family, it was reported last week, has=
extensive interests in a company that has already been awarded more than U=
S$400 million in reconstruction contracts, is signaling his willingness to =
take all of the blame, or credit, for the faulty intelligence.
But one of the reasons for going to war was suggested quite directly =
by Garner - who also worked closely with Chalabi and the same cohort of US =
hawks in the run-up to the war and during the first few weeks of occupation=
- in an interview with the National Journal. Asked how long US troops migh=
t remain in Iraq, Garner replied: "I hope they're there a long time," and t=
hen compared US goals in Iraq to US military bases in the Philippines betwe=
en 1898 and 1992.
"One of the most important things we can do right now is start gettin=
g basing rights with [the Iraqi authorities]," he said. "And I think we'll =
have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south ... we'd wan=
t to keep at least a brigade. Look back on the Philippines around the turn =
of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that all=
owed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for th=
e next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the=
Middle East," Garner said.
While US military strategists have hinted for some time that a major =
goal of the war was to establish several bases in Iraq, particularly given =
the ongoing military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, Garner is the first to s=
tate it so baldly.
Until now, US military chiefs have suggested they need to retain a mi=
litary presence just to ensure stability for several years, during which th=
ey expect to draw down their forces. If indeed Garner's understanding repre=
sents the thinking of his former bosses, then the ongoing struggle between =
Cheney and the Pentagon on the one hand and the State Department on the oth=
er over how much control Washington is willing to give the United Nations o=
ver the transition to Iraqi rule becomes more comprehensible.
Ceding too much control, particularly before a base agreement can be =
reached with whatever Iraqi authority will take over June 30, will make per=
manent US bases much less likely.
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: "Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar" <ghazwan_almukhtar@DELETETHIShotmail.com>
To: <newsclippings@casi.org.uk>
Subject: Shia fume over Bremer sharia threat
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:50:49 +0300
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6DEA891F-CADC-437E-8A14-415D86263E3B.htm
Shia fume over Bremer sharia threat
Tuesday 17 February 2004, 19:15 Makka Time, 16:15 GMT
Shia clerics in Iraq are furious over a threat by top US
administrator Paul Bremer to use his veto should the interim
Governing Council choose Islam as the main basis for legislation.
"Today the power is in the hands of the people and this means that
we are not obliged to adopt principles imported from outside,
thousands of miles from here," said Sheikh Sadr al-din al-Kubbanji,
the Najaf head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq.
"I think that if one seeks to impose a solution other what the Iraqi
population wants, it would spark a crisis and none of the parties
want this to happen," he added.
US position
The Governing Council has been charged with writing the temporary
constitution or fundamental law that will govern Iraq until national
elections are held.
Many observers believe that some council members are pushing to
implement Islamist rule in the post-occupation era.
Bremer vowed the new law would protect civil liberties in line with
the agreement he reached with the Governing Council last November
that set 30 June as the final day of the US-led occupation.
"Our position is clear, and the text that is in there now is as I
say. It can not become law until I sign it," Bremer said.
--__--__--
Message: 3
From: "Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar" <ghazwan_almukhtar@DELETETHIShotmail.com>
To: <newsclippings@casi.org.uk>
Subject: Scholars condemn US sharia threat
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:57:12 +0300
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9CBB1903-FF67-482A-B756-78970EDD1173.htm
Scholars condemn US sharia threat
Saturday 21 February 2004, 20:05 Makka Time, 17:05 GMT
The Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) has condemned Iraq's US
administrator's remark that Islam will not be the main legislative
reference in Iraq's temporary law.
The AMS issued a statement on Friday accusing the Americans of
imposing unacceptable authority on the Iraqis, just as the former
Iraqi regime did.
Paul Bremer threatened last week to use his veto should the interim
Governing Council choose Islam as the main basis for legislation.
"Our position is clear, and the text that is in there now is as I
say. It can not become law until I sign it," Bremer said.
Guaranteeing rights
Speaking to Aljazeera, spokesman of the Association of Muslim
Scholars (AMS) Shaikh Muhammad Bashar al-Faidi said the new Iraqi
constitution should be based on the main Islamic rules.
Al-Faidi has assured that Islam, as the main legislative reference,
will guarantee the full rights of all Iraqi groups including the
minorities.
"The majority of Iraqi groups are absolutely with us, and that is
why US administrator Paul Bremer threatened to veto," al-Faidi said.
"Bremer would not have threatened to veto if he was sure all Iraqi
groups would be with him," he added.
"The United States has invaded Iraq claiming it would liberate it
and achieve democracy," al-Faidi said. "Why would it then exercise
intellectual oppression against Iraqis, just like what the former
Iraqi regime did?" he added.
The Governing Council has been charged with writing the temporary
constitution or fundamental law that will govern Iraq until national
elections are held.
Many observers believe some council members are pushing to implement
Islamist rule in the post-occupation era.
Bremer vowed the new law would protect civil liberties in line with
the agreement he reached with the Governing Council last November
that set 30 June as the final day of the US-led occupation.
Aljazeera + Agencies
--__--__--
Message: 4
From: "k hanly" <khanly@DELETETHISmb.sympatico.ca>
To: "newsclippings" <newsclippings@casi.org.uk>
Subject: DU study re Iraq suppressed?
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:18:51 -0600
http://www.sundayherald.com/40096
Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies
in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq's civilian
population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU)
weapons has been kept secret.
The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and
adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is
radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the
World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith
Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was
deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.
Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was
completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to
limit their use of DU weapons in last year's war, and to clean up
afterwards.
Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes
during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination.
Experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have so far not
been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.
"Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in
Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population,"
Baverstock told the Sunday Herald.
"There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical
toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed."
Baverstock was the WHO's top expert on radiation and health for 11 years
until he retired in May last year. He now works with the Department of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in Finland, and was
recently appointed to the UK government's newly formed Committee on Radio
active Waste Management.
While he was a member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to
publish the study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from
McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant .
Baverstock suspects that WHO was leaned on by a more powerful pro-nuclear UN
body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they
didn't like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials
were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear
power," he said. "That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study
would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons
in Iraq."
These allegations, however, are dismissed as "totally unfounded" by WHO.
"The IAEA role was very minor," said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator
of radiation and environmental health in Geneva. "The article was not
approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what
a WHO-convened group of inter national experts considered the best science
in the area of depleted uranium," he added.
Baverstock's study, which has now been passed to the Sunday Herald, pointed
out that Iraq's arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU were likely to
be blown around and inhaled by civilians for years to come. It warned that,
when inside the body, their radiation and toxicity could trigger the growth
of malignant tumours.
The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells
adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as "the
bystander effect". This undermines the stability of the body's genetic
system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and
possibly other illnesses.
In addition, the DU in Iraq, like that used in the Balkan conflict, could
turn out to be contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste .
That would make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock
argued.
"The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act together to
create a 'cocktail effect' that further increases the risk of cancer. These
are all worrying possibilities that urgently require more investigation," he
said.
Baverstock's anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by
Pekka Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programme's Post-Conflict
Assessment Unit in Geneva. "It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no
doubt about that," he said.
UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is
keen to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has
been told by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired
from tanks around Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are
bound to have used a lot more.
Haavisto's greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been
repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up.
Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the
ministry of planning building in Baghdad.
He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and
recycled as scrap in Iraq. "It could end up in a fork or a knife," he
warned.
"It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up
where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care
of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely
wrong."
22 February 2004
--__--__--
Message: 5
Subject: Mourning sickness feeds the feel-good factor
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:07:46 -0000
From: "Muhamed Ali" <Muhamed.Ali@DELETETHISHackney.gov.uk>
To: <newsclippings@casi.org.uk>
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
Matthew Taylor
Monday February 23, 2004
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
The report by thinktank Civitas...Author Patrick West..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1153813,00.html
It may sound controversial, but does look interesting human psychology.
Regards,
Muhamad
--__--__--
Message: 6
From: "Mark Parkinson" <mark44@DELETETHISmyrealbox.com>
To: newsclippings@casi.org.uk
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:45:33 -0000
Subject:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?WHO_=91suppressed=92_scientific_study_into_depleted_uranium_cancer_fears_in_Iraq?=
DU seems to be a complete non issue as far as the BBC & other TV
media are concerned.
Since the occupation, Iraqi medical concerns about this have stopped
being aired.
An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq=92s civilian
population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium
(DU) weapons has been kept secret. The study by three leading
radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could
contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is
radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication
by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main
author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He
alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by
WHO. Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published
when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on
the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year=92s war,
and to clean up afterwards.
Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and
planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive
decontamination. Experts from the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) have so far not been allowed into Iraq to assess the
pollution. =93Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted
uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the
civilian population,=94 Baverstock told the Sunday Herald. =93There is
increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical
toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is
assumed.=94
Baverstock was the WHO=92s top expert on radiation and health for 11
years until he retired in May last year. He now works with the
Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in
Finland, and was recently appointed to the UK government=92s newly
formed Committee on Radio active Waste Management. While he was a
member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to publish the
study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from
McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation
consultant . Baverstock suspects that WHO was leaned on by a more
powerful pro-nuclear UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).
=93I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because
they didn=92t like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that
WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is
to promote nuclear power,=94 he said. =93That is more than unfortunate,
as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of
the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq.=94
These allegations, however, are dismissed as =93totally unfounded=94 by
WHO. =93The IAEA role was very minor,=94 said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO
coordinator of radiation and environmental health in Geneva. =93The
article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not
reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of inter national
experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium,=94
he added.
Baverstock=92s study, which has now been passed to the Sunday Herald,
pointed out that Iraq=92s arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU
were likely to be blown around and inhaled by civilians for years to
come. It warned that, when inside the body, their radiation and
toxicity could trigger the growth of malignant tumours. The study
suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells
adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as
=93the bystander effect=94. This undermines the stability of the body=92s
genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to
cancers and possibly other illnesses. In addition, the DU in Iraq,
like that used in the Balkan conflict, could turn out to be
contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste . That would
make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock argued.
=93The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act
together to create a =91cocktail effect=92 that further increases the
risk of cancer. These are all worrying possibilities that urgently
require more investigation,=94 he said. Baverstock=92s anxiety about the
health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka Haavisto, the
chairman of the UN Environment Programme=92s Post-Conflict Assessment
Unit in Geneva. =93It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt
about that,=94 he said. UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia
and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen to get into Iraq to monitor the
situation as soon as possible. It has been told by the British
government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around
Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have
used a lot more.
Haavisto=92s greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have
been repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up.
Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened
to the ministry of planning building in Baghdad. He also highlighted
evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled as
scrap in Iraq. =93It could end up in a fork or a knife,=94 he warned. =93It
is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it
up where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not
taken care of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it.
It is absolutely wrong.=94 Sunday Herald, Feb 22
Mark Parkinson
Bodmin
Cornwall
--__--__--
Message: 7
From: "Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar" <ghazwan_almukhtar@DELETETHIShotmail.com>
To: <newsclippings@casi.org.uk>
Subject: Israeli Company to Supply Fuel to US Army in Iraq
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:13:09 +0300
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=news&id=58458
Israeli Company to Supply Fuel to US Army in Iraq
Israel's Sonol gasoline company, along with its foreign partner Morgantown
International, have won a tender valued at $70-80 million to supply fuel to
US troops in Iraq. Sonol is expected to supply the US forces with some 25
million liters of fuel each month.
The tender was issued by the US-based KDR Company, a subsidiary of
Halliburton, who has been entrusted with the majority of contracts for the
US troops in Iraq. Among Sonol's competitors was Delek, another Israeli
company. Until now, the US forces have received most of their fuel from
Kuwait. However, following Halliburton's admission that it overcharged the
US military by passing on the Kuwaitis' inflated price the US Army decided
to approach other suppliers, among them Israel.
Sonol is one of Israel's three largest oil product marketing firms with a
network of around 205 branded service stations.
Fuel, imported to Israel, will pass through the fuel terminal operated by
the TASHAN (Oil and Energy Infrastructure Company) north of Beer Sheva and
will then be shipped to Iraq by land through Jordan.
End of casi-news Digest
_______________________________________
Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis
All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk