The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
A. Envoy's role linked to Arab backing on Iraq, Guardian, 9 March B. Allied dossier links Saddam to al-Qa'eda, Daily Telegraph, 9 March C. Inspecting Iraq, Telegraph, 9 March [leading article] D. UN to question use of Iraqi no-fly zones, The Times, 9 March E. Foreign Editor's briefing: March 9, 2002, The Times F. Letter from the Times, March 9 G. Letter from the Financial Times, March 9 H. Cheney to shore support for war on terror, FT, March 9 Guardian: firstname.lastname@example.org Telegraph: email@example.com Times: firstname.lastname@example.org Financial Times: email@example.com The Telegraph has the most coverage today with a piece on the 'intelligence' dossier alleging links between al-Qa'eda and the Iraqi Government and a leading article. Anti-war / anti-sanctions letters in today's Times and Financial Times. Because it's a Saturday, letter writers have a little bit more time to get their responses in (I'd use 12 noon tomorrow as a deadline). The latest Seymour Hersh article is now available in the shops.Hersh writes that the support of Tony Blair 'is considered essential' for an attack, which is good news for folks here in Britain since we're able to do something about this. Best wishes, Gabriel ********************************************** A. Envoy's role linked to Arab backing on Iraq About-turn as Bush tries to keep consensus Julian Borger in Washington Saturday March 9, 2002 The Guardian The decision to dispatch the US special envoy General Anthony Zinni to the Middle East was the price Washington was forced to pay for the tacit compliance of its Arab allies with an eventual offensive on Iraq, diplomats and analysts said yesterday. President George Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney resisted calls from the Arab world and from US secretary of state, Colin Powell, for direct intervention in the Middle East conflict until an unheralded about-turn on Thursday. The White House believed that sending the retired marine general to the Middle East for the third time when there was little hope of brokering a ceasefire would undermine US credibility in the region. But the messages delivered by President Mubarak of Egypt, who met Mr Bush on Tuesday, and by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who is sponsoring a personal land-for-peace initiative, was that Mr Cheney's Middle East tour next week to pave the way for action against Saddam Hussein, would be met by a wall of resistance if there was no progress in curbing Israeli-Palestinian violence. "It was made clear that it would be much more helpful for the Cheney trip to have this issue dealt with," an Arab diplomat in Washington said. The vice-president is due to leave Washington tomorrow on a 10-day 12-nation tour that will take him to London and much of the Middle East. Mr Cheney's original mission was to convince US allies in the region - like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Jordan - that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose a serious threat and that the US is serious about ousting the Baghdad regime, as well as tracking down terrorist threats elsewhere in the Arab world. Any large-scale US military operation against Iraq would depend on access to bases in the region, such as the Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia, Incirlik in Turkey, and Camp Doha in Kuwait, and all three countries remain anxious over the impact of an Iraqi campaign on their security and internal stability. Judith Kipper, a Middle East analyst on the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Bush administration "was finally convinced that to send the vice-president to talk about Iraq, the war, etc, while the fires were burning in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, wasn't going to work". However, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, yesterday insisted that a war with Iraq would not be made a hostage of Middle East peace. Mr Rumsfeld said yesterday: "My whole adult lifetime there have been problems between Israel and the Arabs and Palestinians in that region. It is something that has gone on decade after decade after decade. In the intervening period we've had a number of wars , and I don't know that that is the determinant. " Since being appointed special envoy, General Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, has travelled to the region twice and both times was obliged to leave open-handed in the face of escalating violence. Critics in the Arab world and in Europe have suggested that part of the reason for his failure lay in the White House's reluctance to put as much pressure on the Israeli government to exercise restraint as it had on the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. This week Mr Powell made unusually critical remarks about the Israeli prime minister, Mr Sharon, calling him to rethink his policies and warning that his declaration of war on the Palestinians would not work. President Bush refused to be drawn on Thursday into explicitly echoing Mr Powell's criticism, but Ms Kipper pointed out that it did not necessarily imply a disagreement. Instead, the presence of both Mr Powell and Mr Cheney at the president's side as he announced General Zinni's new mission, was intended to portray consensus. However, neither observers nor diplomats in Washington yesterday knew what sticks and carrots General Zinni would carry in his briefcase when he leaves late next week. "If he has a strong mandate from the president he can do a lot," Ms Kipper said. "The question is are we ready to say who's doing what, and to name names, and to say there will be consequences." ******************************************** B. Allied dossier links Saddam to al-Qa'eda By David Graves and Neil Tweedie Daily Telegraph (Filed: 09/03/2002) BRITAIN and America have compiled an intelligence-based dossier alleging that Saddam Hussein has developed increasingly close links with the al-Qa'eda terrorist group, it was disclosed yesterday. The move marked part of an accelerating campaign on both sides of the Atlantic to prepare public opinion for a campaign to overthrow the Iraqi dictator. The two governments will claim that Saddam has given shelter to hundreds of al-Qa'eda and Taliban fighters in northern Iraq and helped others to find refuge in Lebanon. Firm evidence linking Saddam to Osama bin Laden's network has proved elusive since the September 11 suicide attacks. Britain has indicated that it would be willing to join an American-led campaign to topple Saddam if a September 11 link is established. The dossier will also point to Saddam's increasing involvement in the turmoil in the Middle East, where Iraqi military intelligence officers are said to be assisting extreme Palestinian groups in terrorist attacks on Israel. The document could be used to overcome public scepticism in Europe and the Middle East about the need for war with Saddam. It is not yet clear when the information might be released. America has continued its military build-up in the region by moving 24 Apache attack helicopters to Kuwait. The deployment is the latest signal that Washington feels that it may need to defend Middle Eastern allies from a pre-emptive Iraqi strike. A plan to overthrow Saddam has not yet been agreed, but President Bush is reported to have decided that the Iraqi leader must be removed. The New Yorker magazine suggested that he had set a deadline to planning staff of April 15, about a week after Tony Blair meets him in Texas. In the meantime, in addition to continuing the military build-up, some senior British and American diplomats will begin a campaign to link Iraq with al-Qa'eda. The development will dismay several Cabinet ministers, who warned Mr Blair on Thursday that America could drag Britain into a new Gulf war and urged the Prime Minister to quieten talk of military action and press for a diplomatic solution through the United Nations. It also appears to conflict with statements by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has consistently argued that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda before the September 11 attacks, although he did maintain this week that the Iraqi regime was rebuilding its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programme. The dossier against Saddam is being compiled from US spy satellites and intelligence sources, including Israeli material. These claim that large numbers of al-Qa'eda and Taliban fighters were seen in northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. It contains some surprising allegations, including the suggestion that Saddam's former arch-rival, Iran, is now helping him to re-arm. Saddam is also said to have connived with Iran, another state described by President Bush as a member of the "axis of evil", to allow al-Qa'eda fighters to use Iraqi airspace to fly from Iran to Lebanon after the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. As preparations continue for an attack on Iraq, Washington has been unable to discover Saddam's whereabouts. It is suspected that, fearing a US assassination attempt at the start of the campaign, he is hiding in one of four underground bunkers built to withstand nuclear attack. *********************************************** C. Inspecting Iraq Daily Telegraph (Filed: 09/03/2002) MORE than three years after United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq, the two sides have reopened negotiations on their return. This week's meeting in New York between Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, and Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, was inconclusive. However, there is no doubt that pressure on Iraq to let the inspectors back will grow. In his State of the Union address in January, George W Bush accused Baghdad of having developed anthrax, nerve gas and nuclear arms for more than a decade, and said that indifference towards the spread of such weapons would be catastrophic. Refusal to re-admit the inspectors, or to permit them unfettered access when they were there, would present the United States with its clearest casus belli against Saddam Hussein. We should therefore expect the dictator to accede to Mr Annan's demand, and then, exploiting divisions within the Security Council, play for time over the inspectors' modus operandi. Baghdad and the outside world would be engaged in a diplomatic minuet familiar from the 1990s. The UN Special Commission (Unscom), set up after the Gulf war in 1991, was initially effective in eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But differences of opinion among permanent members of the Security Council, with America and Britain taking a harder line than France, Russia and China, allowed Saddam to become ever more obstructive. In 1998, Scott Ritter, an experienced Unscom member, concluded that the council no longer had the will to implement its own resolutions. Later that year, the inspectors left. A successor team, under the Swede Hans Blix, is ready to resume the work. But Saddam has had plenty of time to cover his traces, and Mr Blix is unlikely to be a match for his wiles. What is more, Security Council divisions have been exacerbated by Mr Bush's designation of Iraq as part of an "axis of evil" and his determination to topple its president. Even Tony Blair, Washington's staunchest military ally, is facing a Cabinet revolt. In such circumstances, a new inspection regime will be hard put to complete Unscom's unfinished business. Washington will rightly insist that there should be no procrastination by Baghdad; in the meantime, it is compiling, with the British, a dossier on Saddam's alleged links with the al-Qa'eda terrorist network, thus advancing another casus belli. It is equally certain that France and Russia will accuse the Americans of acting like cowboys and not giving peace a chance. But the state in which Bill Clinton left the containment of Iraq was a disgrace; as his second term wore on, he simply did not want the issue to impinge on his domestic agenda. Mr Clinton's successor has now boldly stigmatised Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as beyond the pale. The second President Bush is determined to complete what his father left unfinished in 1991. Whether that will be done by engineering a coup d'etat, or through proxy ground forces backed by air power, as in Afghanistan, or through a large-scale American invasion is not yet clear. Whatever the methods used, the stakes are very high. The toppling of Saddam in favour of a leader ready to comply with UN demands would greatly boost the standing of America and its allies, and open the way to a long-term settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbours. A botched operation would have the opposite effect, leaving the Israelis more besieged and transatlantic divisions wider than ever. Washington is fully aware that nothing succeeds like success. *********************************** D. UN to question use of Iraqi no-fly zones by James Bone The Times March 09, 2002 New York: Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, is to question Britain and the United States about the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, which are enforced by British and US aircraft, before his next meeting with Iraqi officials next month. British and US officials had urged Mr Annan to limit his discussions with Iraqi officials to the implementation of UN resolutions demanding free access for inspectors checking for proscribed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. But Naji Sabri, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, presented a list of 20 questions on concerns ranging from US threats of “changing the regime” in Baghdad to the risk that future UN inspections would again by used to spy on the country. Mr Annan said he would try to provide the answers. ********************************************** E. Foreign Editor's briefing: March 9, 2002 by Bronwen Maddox Bush cannot afford to ignore Middle East quagmire any longer The Times WHY has the US suddenly decided to engage in the Israeli quagmire? Three reasons loom above the rest: the bloodshed is worse; interest within the US for the Saudi peace initiative is growing; and Vice-President Dick Cheney is about to tour the region to drum up a coalition for a strike on Iraq. The Administration’s about-turn, after two months in which it kept the Middle East at arm’s length, was set out by President Bush himself on Thursday. Announcing that he was sending his special envoy Anthony Zinni back to the region, he said: “I’m deeply concerned about the tragic loss of life and escalating violence in the Middle East”, adding “this is a matter of great importance to the United States.” Since January both of those statements have seemed in doubt. Zinni’s last mission on January 7 was overshadowed and undermined by Israel’s seizure of a shipment of arms it said was intended for Palestinians. His mission later that month was then scrapped. Some argue that in the ebb and flow of US-Middle East relations, the latest initiative is not a radical change. Anthony Cordesman, a former State Department official and Middle East expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, says that a “major peace initiative” was planned in August, but September 11 got in the way. However, since the attacks, the Administration has gone to some lengths to keep the Middle East from the top of its agenda. It has not wanted to be thought even to countenance the Arab world’s argument that the conflict must be addressed if any solution is to be found to Islamic terrorism. When Tony Blair in early November urged Bush to do more in the Middle East, he received a very cool response. The Administration hasn’t changed its position on “linkage”. But its priority now is getting support for action on Iraq. For all the accusations of unilateralism hurled at it from abroad, it does recognise it needs support for this action, and that it cannot avoid the Middle East question. Hence Cheney’s trip, a 10-day tour beginning in London on Sunday night, moving to Israel on Tuesday (where Zinni is likely to join him), and said to include stops in Kuwait, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, Oman and Jordan. It is “a big deal”, say those familiar with the plans. Bush sees the Vice-President as a heavyweight specialist in the region, with experience from the oil industry, from the Gulf War and from his stint as Defence Secretary. Cheney will be taking a “huge team”, including many specialists who have been working behind the scenes with the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. The nominal theme of the trip is “Six Months On” from September 11, but the core is Iraq. For all the talk of Phase Two, Cheney’s trip marks its real start, in the Administration’s eyes. He will lay out the US’s roadmap for Arab governments. First, the US will see whether Iraq will accept United Nations weapons inspectors; despite the apparent civility of this week’s UN-Iraq talks in New York, the US is still planning on the basis that Saddam Hussein will refuse. If he does, it will strike. As part of the change of tone, the Administration will take a distinctly tough line with Sharon, particularly after yesterday’s death toll. Powell has deliberately been cool to the Israeli Prime Minister in public, and critical about him in congressional testimony this week. Britain is expected to back that line on Monday. Blair, after meeting Cheney on Monday (Sharon was due to be in town, too, but cancelled), is expected to issue a statement which, while balanced in structure, is expected to be tough towards Sharon. The Bush team hopes that these noises, together with Zinni’s mission, will help to prevent Cheney being harangued throughout the Arab portion of his tour by Arab leaders calling for US engagement in the Middle East. But in turn, the Cheney roadshow is set to be tough on Arab leaders, and to tell them to get their own house in order. This means two things. Unsurprisingly, the US will tell them again to get a grip on Islamic militants. But more pointedly, it will tell them to make something useful of the Saudi peace initiative by the time of the Arab League summit at the end of the month. The Administration is “fed up”, observers say, with Arab leaders turning up in Washington, as President Mubarak of Egypt did last week, and as it sees it, complaining about the Middle East without offering a practical contribution. The Saudi initiative emerged three weeks ago in a dinner between Crown Prince Abdullah and Thomas Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times. It repeats the old “land-for-peace” formula, under which Israel would withdraw to its pre-1967 borders in return for security and Arab recognition. It leaves many obstacles unaddressed, including the status of Jerusalem and the return of refugees. But the novelty of its authorship and the worsening bloodshed have fuelled interest in the plan in the US. This Administration is not particularly sensitive to newspaper editorials, but it is unlikely to have been entirely deaf to the many calls to try again. The US hopes that the violence may have opened a new opportunity, by bringing many Israelis and Palestinians to the view that violence will not bring peace, even though Sharon is not of that persuasion, as yesterday’s events made clear. The traditional position of American diplomacy on the Middle East is that “we cannot want peace more than the two sides do”. But the message Cheney is carrying, in unsparing tough language to both sides, is that it is past time that they did. ********************************************* F. Letters to the Editor The Times March 09, 2002 Intervention in Iraq >From E. T. Finn Sir, It is not Saddam Hussein who will suffer the consequences of refusing international inspection of his weapons programme (letters, March 7), whatever those consequences might be, it is the unfortunate Iraqi peoples who will be further targeted by the West. The Prime Minister was emphatic in stating that no evidence connected Iraq with September 11 (report, October 11, 2001); however, in support of the unfortunate rhetoric employed by President Bush in respect of that country the Government is now resurrecting Iraq’s flouting of United Nations resolutions and international law as justification for intervention, thus avoiding the necessity of seeking UN approval for further action. The Israeli flouting of UN resolutions is, presumably, acceptable behaviour. Jack Straw (Comment, March 5) might like to consider the causes which foster such hatred against the West, particularly America, instead of seemingly trying to broaden the gap between Islam and this country. We need to distance ourselves from aspects of American foreign policy which fuel rather than extinguish. Yours faithfully, E. T. FINN, ******************************************************* Letters to the editor FT, 9 March 2002 It is difficult to believe that the current military threats against Iraq are rooted in a genuine concern about Iraq's WMD capabilities (Iraq faces Hobson's choice over UN arms inspections, 7th March). Indeed, according to the former head of UNSCOM's concealment unit Scott Ritter, 'it was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a strictly qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed' of WMD and that 'as long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one.' If the US and Britain had any serious interest in dealing with these issues - as opposed to exploiting them for their own purposes - economic sanctions would have been lifted at this stage, whilst maintaining monitoring to ensure that Iraq did not rearm. Instead the US chose first to undermine UNSCOM, by infiltrating it with members of its intelligence services, and then (with Britain) to destroy it by launching an illegal military assault against Iraq, knowing full well that this would bring an end to inspections and monitoring. For over a decade now ordinary Iraqis have been forced to pay a horrific price on the grounds that Iraq 'had to be disarmed.' Such a cynical and wicked policy cannot be allowed to continue. Milan Rai voices in the wilderness uk *********************************************************** H. Cheney to shore support for war on terror MIDDLE EAST US VICE-PRESIDENT TO ALLAY ALLIES' CONCERNS OVER ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT AND MOVES AGAINST IRAQ Financial Times; Mar 9, 2002 By EDWARD ALDEN and CAROLA HOYOS Dick Cheney, US vice-president, leaves tomorrow on a 10-day trip to the UK and the Middle East during which he will "look into the eyes of our coalition partners so they will see our resolve," according to a senior US official. The trip, aimed at shoring up support for the US war on terrorism, will take Mr Cheney to most of the key US allies in the region, among them Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The US is hoping that the trip will help stiffen the resolve of the allies amid mounting concern over the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the widening US war on terrorism. Mr Cheney had been expected to focus heavily on building support for US plans to increase pressure on Iraq. But US officials played down that prospect yesterday, saying that while the administration supports "regime change" in Iraq, it had made no decisions about how it might try to remove Saddam Hussein. Instead, the trip is likely to be dominated by the revived US effort to mediate a ceasefire amid rising violence between Israel and the Palestinians. President George W. Bush announced on Thursday that the US would send mediator Anthony Zinni back to the region in an effort to re-start peace negotiations. Mr Cheney said yesterday that the Israel-Palestinian issue "has taken on a little bit of added significance" with the decision to send General Zinni back. A senior official said that Mr Cheney, who will visit Israel, is also hoping to meet officials from the Palestinian Authority but would likely not meet with its leader, Yassir Arafat. Iraq, meanwhile, appeared yesterday to have avoided a US bombing campaign at least until mid-April, when talks backed by the UN Security Council are scheduled to resume. The US yesterday said it supported the UN's efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the three-year impasse over weapons inspections and backed a further meeting between Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, and Naji Sabri al-Hadithi, Iraqi foreign minister. Washington has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iraq if it did not allow UN inspectors back into the country. Washington observers have said it is unlikely the US would be able to launch such a campaign before summer. In a briefing yesterday, Mr Annan told security council members that Iraq had not set preconditions for the return of inspectors, but had raised concerns about the bombing of no-fly zones and 1000 missing Iraqi persons from the Gulf War. In spite of the positive reaction to this week's discussions, the US and UK warned Iraq they would not allow the diplomatic process to be strung out indefinitely. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk