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]
News, 2-9/3/02 (2) US OPINION contd * A Kristol-clear perspective [Jerusalem Post account of William Kristol, one of the leading US advocates of war against Iraq. Extracts.] * Powell Says Bush Has Seen No Plans to Attack Iraq [Powell trashing the newspaper reports that suggested that Mr Blair was going to the US to discuss such plans with Mr Bush.] * Thoughts about America [Interesting article by Edward Said, torn between affection and despair over America. Pity if it only appeared in the Arab world. Extracts.] URLs ONLY: http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/03/wirq03.xm l&sSheet=/news/2002/03/03/ixworld.html * US PUTS THE FINISHING TOUCHES TO SADDAM WAR PLAN by Sean Rayment and David Wastell in Washington Sunday Telegraph, 3rd March Charles Heyman, the editor of Jane's World Armiesı, an enthusiast for this sort of thing, says: "Once Saddam has gone and America has the government in place to do its bidding, I believe it will need to keep at least 100,000 troops in the country to provide security for the new regime - and they could be in Iraq for years."ı http://www.sfgate.com/cgi bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/07/DD130368.DTL * IDEA: LET'S NOT INVADE IRAQ RIGHT NOW by Jon Carroll San Francisco Chronicle, 7th March [Spirited argument against the war written in the US equivalent of the literary style of The Sun. Difficult to know what to make of a remark such as this: Besides, the Iraqi people are really suffering already. We can take solace in that.ı] BRITISH OPINION * MPs 'will oppose' attack on Iraq [Radio 4 interview with Tam Dalyell] * War with Saddam is inevitable [This article manages to find a couple of occasions in which Iraq engaged in terrorismı one in 1978, the other in 1982 but it goes on to say that: the real reason for seeking Saddam's removal is his insistence on acquiring vast arsenals of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons which cannot be justified purely in terms of Iraq's own self-defence.ı What, we wonder, does a country threatened by attack from the US need for its own self defenceı, according to the Telegraph (which, we may be sure, believes that Britain needsı a nuclear weapons capability as a deterrentı. Given the effectiveness of the weapons inspectors in the early days when they really were weapons inspectors, some sort of biological capacity is surely the only option available to Iraq. As a deterrent. The US are sure they have it because they think theyıd be crazy not to have it.] * Blair to publish Iraq dossier [Though in our leak-prone culture it seems strange weıre not getting any leaks to suggest it contains anything we havenıt seen before.] * Hold fire on Iraq [Evening Standard editorial comment] * British MP Castigates Blair's 'Double Standards' on Iraq [Alice Mahon] * MP wants Iraq 'threat' published [Whoıs Jim Murphy? Obviously someone deserving of front bench status.] * Mr Bush's 'first friend' should warn him against going to war with Iraq [from The Independent] * Why is Blair banging the drum for an attack on Iraq? [Hugo Young opposes the warmongering. But weakly. He takes Joschka Fischer as an example of an admirable response. But we all know which way Joschka Fischer will fall if finally he gets pushed.] * Saddam must allow weapons inspectors into Iraq or suffer the consequences [by Jack Straw] * Blair would follow Bush to Baghdad, but then what? [Slightly dissenting voice in The Times. But she still wants the weapons inspectors in.] * If itıs war on Saddam, can Blair sell it to his party? [Summary of present state of opinion. Where there is an opinion. ie not in the Conservative Party. mentions Scott Ritterıs views on whether or not Iraq has a significant chemical or biological capacity.] http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/05/Features/Features.44589.html * A KRISTOL-CLEAR PERSPECTIVE by Janine Zacharia Jerusalem Post, 7th March, 23 Adar 5762 (March 5) - With the White House adopting his tough line against Iraq in the wake of September 11, conservative American-Jewish commentator and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol is now 'the hottest pundit' in Washington. On the eve of a visit here, he talks with Janine Zacharia William Kristol, editor of the feisty, conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard, acknowledges he doesn't have much personal access to the Bush White House. No matter, he is still the most listened to Republican commentator in the halls of power - Washingtonian magazine anointed him "the hottest pundit in town" - and therefore the administration has no choice but to heed what he says and writes. "I am personally a little bit persona non grata in certain parts of the White House," acknowledges Kristol. "But I do also feel that we've had an influence. "We've not put a great premium on access," he says. "I just always thought you've got to say what you believe, and you can't be pulling punches because you're scared someone's not going to return your call. The Bush White House is not very open to criticism. They listen to criticism but they'll never actually call and say 'that is useful criticism,' even if four months later they've adopted some of what you've urged." Son of two prominent New York-Jewish intellectuals, Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, Kristol has over the past decade carved out a special niche for himself as Republican gadfly, a far different kind of conservative than William Buckley Jr. or Pat Buchanan. Unlike the predominantly Christian, old-school "paleo-conservatives" who advocate a form of American isolationism and preach a Bible-inspired morality, Kristol, an expansionist hawk who grew up not especially religious (these days he acknowledges taking a deeper interest in his faith, particularly reading more Jewish philosophy and history), is at the heart of the largely Jewish "neo-conservative" movement. Asked if he ever minds being at odds with other prominent conservatives, he replies with a chuckle: "It's fine. You get more glory." On Sunday, Kristol arrives in Israel to lecture on the links between the United States, Israel and Taiwan at a conference titled "East Asia and the Middle East" hosted by Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He will also visit Jerusalem's Shalem Center think-tank, whose board he sits on, and meet with his close friend and ideological comrade, Housing Minister Natan Sharansky. "I keep thinking Sharansky can pull it off [a run for prime minister], but no one else ever thinks he really could," he muses, speaking this week at the office of the Weekly Standard. Kristol's prescriptions for American foreign policy post-September 11 have become a practical playbook for President George W. Bush's war on terrorism - despite the fact that he once endorsed Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination, and was quoted last August as calling the president a "jackass" (he now says he was referring to Bush in his younger years). [.....] KRISTOL shot to prominence in 1988 as the brilliant, 36-year old chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle. [.....] BUT KRISTOL'S main target nowadays is Iraq; fighting and ultimately ousting Saddam has become Kristol's cause celebre. With his oft-writing-partner, author Robert Kagan, Kristol penned a stern warning in January on the consequences of inaction in Iraq. "The Iraqi threat is enormous. It gets bigger every day that passesÉ the clock is ticking in Iraq. If too many months go by without a decision to move against Saddam, the risks to the United States may increase exponentially," he wrote. In this piece, he acknowledged arguments put forth by those opposed to a strike on Iraq - a fractured Iraq could remain, problems with the Kurds - and swung away at others. "These may be problems, but they are far preferable to leaving Saddam in power with nukes, VX (a chemical weapon), and anthrax." In a chilling line, he warned: "It is a tough decision to send American soldiers to fight and possibly die in Iraq. But it is more horrible to watch men and women leap to their deaths from flaming skyscrapers." Asked if he meant to suggest, as some in his circle do, that Iraq may have had a role in the attack on the World Trade Center, Kristol explains that "choosing not to do something is as much a choice morally as choosing to do something. You really have to ask can we tolerate a world in which Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction and can use them himself or get them to a terrorist group to use and cause another World Trade Center kind of situation." Not everyone agrees. Critics like Chris Matthews, the fast-talking host of MSNBC's Hardball talk show, wrote last week in a column that Kristol and Wolfowitz and their "coterie of neo conservative thinkers" have hijacked the war against al-Qaida and driven the US to the brink of a foolhardy war with Baghdad. "Out of the ashes of September 11, they and their rightist associates found what they've long yearned for: an American government heading toward war in the Middle East. They have diverted the hunt for [Osama] bin Laden much as the Crusades of a millennium ago were diverted from saving the Holy Land to idiotic conquests of Belgrade, Constantinople and any number of targets along the way," Matthews wrote. While there is still no battle plan, Kristol believes the administration has already taken a decision to strike Iraq, and predicts it will occur sometime later this year. Iraq will launch retaliatory strikes on Israel and this is why, he says, the US must be deliberate in its execution of a regime-change plan. Removing Saddam will also help us with Iran, where the US, he cautions, should not put too much faith in the moderates. "I think the example of removing an anti-American regime will be very useful in the whole region." Some of Kristol's critics suggest that his Iraq policy is influenced more by Israeli interests than US ones, a charge frequently thrown against the neo-conservative camp. In response, he points out that Israel is in fact more concerned with Iran than Iraq, and that he is not in agreement with the Israeli government on every issue. "My Iraq stuff is not Israel-driven," he says - and in fact Kristol has been less vocal on Israel related issues through the years than other right-wing Jewish pundits such as Norman Podhoretz and William Safire. On whether the Oslo Accords are dead are alive, he suggests the question is more or less irrelevant since the PA controls chunks of land "and that would be very hard to reverse." But when it comes to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Kristol, as with the ineffectual American leaders who fall prey to his pen, isn't shy. Sharon seems to have lost his way, failing at the very least to appear to have a strategy for calming tensions. "My sense of politics is people like to sense that their leader knows generally where they are going," says Kristol. "And to the degree that Sharon, especially in the last week or two, has not given that sense, I think it's a bit of a problem." http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=675418 * POWELL SAYS BUSH HAS SEEN NO PLANS TO ATTACK IRAQ Reuters, 7th March WASHINGTON: President Bush will not have received any plans to attack Iraq when British Prime Minister Tony Blair visits Washington in the next few weeks, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday. Powell, speaking in the House of Representatives Budget Committee, was responding to British press reports that the aim of Blair's visit, from April 5 to 7, would be to agree on a common plan for attacking Iraq. "It certainly isn't my understanding of the purpose of their meeting," Powell said. "I am sure they will discuss many things but there are no plans to finalize because the president has no plans on his desk and I don't know of any plans that would be on his desk at the time that Prime Minister Blair visits," he added. In January Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil" and U.S. officials have said they are considering options for "regime change" in Iraq -- the euphemism for overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by force. Powell repeated the U.S. position that it does not intend to attack Iran or North Korea, and that calling them evil was just an objective description of their governments. "There is no war which is about to break out with any one of these three countries," he said. In the case of Iraq, he noted that U.N. resolutions require the Baghdad government to let in weapons inspectors to check the country for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan met Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri in New York on Thursday to discuss the U.N. demand that the inspectors go back. The United Nations pulled the inspectors out in 1998 in advance of a bombing campaign by the United States. Iraq then refused to let them back, on the grounds that some of them were spies picking targets for the U.S. military. Powell said: "We're not going to trust them (the Iraqis). They agreed to have inspectors come and verify this. They agreed to this 10 years ago... Let the inspectors in." "As a separate matter, the United States believes Iraq would be better off with a different regime and we're examining options as to whether or not this can be accomplished through the use of opposition elements, and the president has other options available to him," he added. The United Nations described the start of the talks with the Iraqis as "positive and constructive" but gave no details as to whether weapons inspectors would be allowed to return. On Iran, Powell said Bush had "stirred up" the internal debate between hard-liners and reformers by including the country in his "axis of evil." Analysts say Bush's remarks in January enraged Iranians of all political hues and undercut those seeking detente with the United States. Powell said: "The president is following very closely this debate that is taking place within Iran between the moderate elements that tend to support President (Mohammad) Khatami and the radical elements which tend to support the supreme leader, Mr. (Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei." "The president stirred it up a bit by saying 'It's time for you to make a choice. Which world do you want to be in?"' http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/575/op2.htm * THOUGHTS ABOUT AMERICA by Edward Said Al-Ahram (Egypt), 6th March I don't know a single Arab or Muslim American who does not now feel that he or she belongs to the enemy camp, and that being in the United States at this moment provides us with an especially unpleasant experience of alienation and widespread, quite specifically targeted hostility. For despite the occasional official statements saying that Islam and Muslims and Arabs are not enemies of the United States, everything else about the current situation argues the exact opposite. Hundreds of young Arab and Muslim men have been picked up for questioning and, in far too many cases, detained by the police or the FBI. [.....] Moreover, as Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) said in a magnificent speech given on 17 February, the president and his men were not authorised to declare war (Operation Enduring Freedom) against the world without limit or reason, were not authorised to increase military spending to over $400 billion per year, were not authorised to repeal the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, he added -- the first such statement by a prominent, publicly elected official -- "we did not ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan. " I strongly recommend that Rep. Kucinich's speech, which was made with the best of American principles and values in mind, be published in full in Arabic so that people in our part of the world can understand that America is not a monolith for the use of George Bush and Dick Cheney, but in fact contains many voices and currents of opinion which this government is trying to silence or make irrelevant. The problem for the world today is how to deal with the unparalleled and unprecedented power of the United States, which in effect has made no secret of the fact that it does not need coordination with or approval of others in the pursuit of what a small circle of men and women around Bush believe are its interests. So far as the Middle East is concerned, it does seem that since 11 September there has been almost an Israelisation of US policy: and in effect Ariel Sharon and his associates have cynically exploited the single-minded attention to "terrorism" by George Bush and have used that as a cover for their continued failed policy against the Palestinians. [.....] A week ago I was stunned when a European friend asked me what I thought of a declaration by 60 American intellectuals that was published in all the major French, German, Italian and other continental papers but which did not appear in the US at all, except on the Internet where few people took notice of it. This declaration took the form of a pompous sermon about the American war against evil and terrorism being "just" and in keeping with American values, as defined by these self appointed interpreters of our country. Paid for and sponsored by something called the Institute for American Values, whose main (and financially well- endowed) aim is to propagate ideas in favour of families, "fathering" and "mothering," and God, the declaration was signed by Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, Daniel Patrick Moynihan among many others, but basically written by a conservative feminist academic, Jean Bethke Elshtain. Its main arguments about a "just" war were inspired by Professor Michael Walzer, a supposed socialist who is allied with the pro-Israel lobby in this country, and whose role is to justify everything Israel does by recourse to vaguely leftist principles. In signing this declaration, Walzer has given up all pretension to leftism and, like Sharon, allies himself with an interpretation (and a questionable one at that) of America as a righteous warrior against terror and evil, the more to make it appear that Israel and the US are similar countries with similar aims. Nothing could be further from the truth, since Israel is not the state of its citizens but of all the Jewish people, while the US is most assuredly only the state of its citizens. Moreover, Walzer never has the courage to state boldly that in supporting Israel he is supporting a state structured by ethno-religious principles, which (with typical hypocrisy) he would oppose in the United States if this country were declared to be white and Christian. Walzer's inconsistencies and hypocrisies aside, the document is really addressed to "our Muslim brethren" who are supposed to understand that America's war is not against Islam but against those who oppose all sorts of principles, which it would be hard to disagree with. Who could oppose the principle that all human beings are equal, that killing in the name of God is a bad thing, that freedom of conscience is excellent, and that "the basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing"? In what follows, however, America turns out to be the aggrieved party and, even though some of its mistakes in policy are acknowledged very briefly (and without mentioning anything specific in detail), it is depicted as hewing to principles unique to the United States, such as that all people possess inherent moral dignity and status, that universal moral truths exist and are available to everyone, or that civility is important where there is disagreement, and that freedom of conscience and religion are a reflection of basic human dignity and are universally recognised. Fine. For although the authors of this sermon say it is often the case that such great principles are contravened, no sustained attempt is made to say where and when those contraventions actually occur (as they do all the time), or whether they have been more contravened than followed, or anything as concrete as that. Yet in a long footnote, Walzer and his colleagues set forth a list of how many American "murders" have occurred at Muslim and Arab hands, including those of the Marines in Beirut in 1983, as well as other military combatants. Somehow making a list of that kind is worth making for these militant defenders of America, whereas the murder of Arabs and Muslims - including the hundreds of thousands killed with American weapons by Israel with US support, or the hundreds of thousands killed by US- maintained sanctions against the innocent civilian population of Iraq -- need be neither mentioned nor tabulated. What sort of dignity is there in humiliating Palestinians by Israel, with American complicity and even cooperation, and where is the nobility and moral conscience of saying nothing as Palestinian children are killed, millions besieged, and millions more kept as stateless refugees? Or for that matter, the millions killed in Vietnam, Columbia, Turkey, and Indonesia with American support and acquiescence? [.....] BRITISH OPINION http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1850000/1850435.stm * MPS 'WILL OPPOSE' ATTACK ON IRAQ BBC, 2nd March Any moves to endorse military action against Iraq will encounter opposition from Labour MPs, the father of the House of Commons has warned. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said that Britain would back US action against Saddam Hussein's regime "if conditions were right". But Tam Dalyell told the BBC on Saturday that such a move would be extremely dangerous, and MPs must be allowed to vote on any action. His comments comes amid mounting speculation that America is preparing to target Saddam Hussein's regime as phase two of the war on terror. Mr Dalyell dismissed as "make believe" suggestions that Saddam Hussein's enemies could be armed in the same way as the Northern Alliance that fought against the Taleban. "The situation is entirely different," the Labour MP for Linlithgow told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Other backbenchers will be voicing their concerns next week at a debate about the current policy toward Iraq, Mr Dalyell said. "Many of my friends in the Parliamentary Labour Party who are not the usual suspects are deeply, deeply uneasy," he said. "Before Britain endorses any military action there really should be a substantive, precise vote in the House of Commons. "Parliament surely is entitled to make a judgment on what is called, on your programme the Fourth World War," he told Today. Mr Hoon stressed on Friday that "absolutely no decisions have been taken about any prospect of an attack" but said the lesson of 11 September was that threats to stability could not be ignored. [.....] http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/03/03/do0 302.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/03/ixworld.html * WAR WITH SADDAM IS INEVITABLE Sunday Telegraph, 3rd March [.....] Tony Blair, who was initially reticent about taking on Saddam, now appears to be the chief cheerleader in favour of deposing the Iraqi dictator. Last week Mr Blair asked his intelligence chiefs for a dossier of Iraq's involvement in international terrorism that he can present to Mr Bush in Washington next month - as if the Americans needed any persuading. Geoff Hoon, the Blairite Defence Minister, dutifully echoed his master's sentiments on Thursday's Today programme when he said that Britain would back a US-led military strike against Iraq "in the right conditions". As Operation Enduring Freedom enters its sixth month, I am surprised that there are still those who have reason to doubt that Iraq is a legitimate target. While there is no hard evidence of direct Iraqi involvement in the events of September 11 (Saddam's nomination of Osama bin Laden as Iraq's man of the year is merely a juvenile provocation), there is more than enough evidence to link Saddam with a galaxy of infamous terrorists from Abu Nidal to Carlos the Jackal. Indeed, Saddam's involvement in terrorism extends to London. For example, in 1978 Abdul Razzak al-Nayif, a former Iraqi prime minister and fellow conspirator of Saddam's in the 1968 coup that brought the Baathists to power in Baghdad, was shot dead outside his home by Saddam's killers, and Shlomo Argov, the former Israeli ambassador to London, suffered severe brain damage during an assassination attempt by Saddam's hitmen in 1982. However, the real reason for seeking Saddam's removal is his insistence on acquiring vast arsenals of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons which cannot be justified purely in terms of Iraq's own self-defence. During the Gulf War, which was due to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq fired Scud ballistic missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia; the only reason they did not contain chemical or nuclear warheads is that the Iraqis did not have the means to fit them. At the end of the Gulf War the Iraqis signed a ceasefire agreement in which they promised to dismantling their weapons of mass destruction. More than 10 years later they still have not complied with the terms. So rather than worrying about the start of a Third World War, as some Labour back benchers were doing last week, the struggle to remove Saddam should be seen as a resumption of hostilities in the Gulf War. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=512833&in _review_text_id=476481 * BLAIR TO PUBLISH IRAQ DOSSIER by Patrick Hennessy in Coolum, Queensland Evening Standard, 4th March The Prime Minister is determined to provide clear evidence of the enormous threat he and President George Bush believe Saddam's regime represents. It is expected that the dossier, built up by the intelligence services, will be published ahead of Mr Blair's trip to Washington next month to discuss the next phase of the war on terror with Mr Bush. The document is thought to reveal Saddam's attempts to amass a rudimentary nuclear capability, including the power to make "dirty" nuclear bombs - basic devices capable of wreaking havoc. Intelligence sources believe Saddam is also developing biological and chemical weapons capable of killing thousands. Mr Blair warned that the West had to be ready to act against Iraq - and possibly other regimes belonging to what Mr Bush calls an "axis of evil" - before it was "too late". Citing the example of Afghanistan, he said nothing had been done to prevent the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda for the 10 years prior to last year's 11 September atrocities. It was important not to make the same mistake again, the Prime Minister told Australian television during his trip to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. His comments represent a deliberate attempt to raise the stakes ahead of his talks with President Bush. The US and Britain aim to use stronger rhetoric to try to force Saddam to let banned United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. However, both Washington and London are clear that they must be ready to back up their words with military force if that proves necessary. Military advisers are understood to have told Mr Blair the best time for a full-scale attack would be the autumn, after the fierce summer heat has abated. Publication of the dossier will represent a major step in the Prime Minister's drive to persuade doubters in his own party that Saddam must be defeated. Many Labour backbenchers, including former defence minister Doug Henderson, are highly sceptical about the need for military action and warn that it could easily go wrong, strengthening Saddam's position. There are also fears that taking on Saddam could mean the end of the international coalition ag ainst ter rorism painstakingly built up after weeks of jet-setting diplomacy by Mr Blair and senior US politicians following the 11 September attacks. Action against Afghanistan was strengthened by support from Islamic nations including Pakistan and Iran - which could fall away rapidly if Iraq comes under direct threat. But Mr Blair told Australian television: "If chemical, biological or nuclear capability falls into the wrong hands, we know what some of these people are capable of. These are not people like us. "They are not people who are democratically elected, they are not people who abide by the normal rules of human behaviour. If these weapons fall into their hands, and we know they have the capability and the intention to use them, then I think we have got to act on it. If we don't act, we will find out too late the potential for destruction." http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=512845&in _review_text_id=476495 * HOLD FIRE ON IRAQ London Evening Standard (editorial), 4th March The Prime Minister has given his strongest indication yet that Britain would support an American military strike against Iraq, which most observers in Washington now regard as a certainty at some point later this year. Mr Blair's comments in Australia last night fell short of giving President Bush a blank cheque in support of America's unfinished business with Saddam Hussein. Yet it would be fraught with danger for Britain to be almost alone in joining the US in a risky undertaking, which is far from justified at this time. While we have always believed that the danger from Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is real - as the report Mr Blair has promised to publish soon on Saddam's arsenal of weapons is designed to establish - it is not an imminent strategic threat on a Cold War scale. Evidence for America's previous casus belli, the claim of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, has failed to materialise. Saddam Hussein is a hideous dictator; but those who, like us, are cautious over military action against him are not appeasers, but realists. As we have always argued, the aims of the so-called war on terrorism must be clear. For centuries theorists have recognised that however legitimate the aims of a war, there must be a good chance of their being realised if military action is to count as just. In Iraq, the aim cannot be simply the removal of Saddam Hussein; it must be the establishment of a stable alternative government. As we are learning in Afghanistan, such nation-building is harder than it looks. Already, British troops may have to remain there if Turkey fails to take over their peacekeeping mission. For Britain simultaneously to play any part in pacifying a defeated Iraq would amount to impossible overstretch. Iraq is yet more likely than Afghanistan to break up into unstable statelets, at a time when the Gulf region is threatened by fundamentalist pressures in Saudi Arabia and extreme tension in Israel and the West Bank. Military action would be doubly unwise now that the United Nations is about to renew pressure on Saddam to allow weapons inspections. Washington's hawks may find this slow process lacks electoral impact, but it has a better chance than air strikes of recreating the international coalition of support which America sought after 11 September. And as in Afghanistan, air raids alone will not be enough; and before long the heat of Iraqi desert summer will rule out the use of special forces for months to come. Mr Blair has proved over the last four months that Britain is America's best ally - but good friends should be able to tell each other when they are in the wrong. The time is not right for a showdown with Iraq. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200203/04/eng20020304_91327.shtml * BRITISH MP CASTIGATES BLAIR'S 'DOUBLE STANDARDS' ON IRAQ People's Daily (China), 4th March A British parliamentary member criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair Sunday for his implicit support for a United States unilateral military action against Iraq, saying he was implementing "double standards" on the sanction issue. Alice Mahon, who returned from a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Association-Russian Federal Assembly Joint Monitoring Group which discussed in depth the question of Iraq in Australia, said Tony Blair is prepared to turn a blind eye to Israel's violations of the United Nations resolutions on Palestine. "But he is prepared to contemplate unilateral action by the U.S. when it comes to Iraq," she said adding that "this is double standards." Blair said in a statement in Australia last Friday that Britain had to act on the assumption that Iraq had "both the capability and intention to use" weapons of mass destruction She said Britain has influence with Iraq that the U.S. and the west generally do not have and Blair should use this for a favorable resolution to the monitoring issue. There are strong sentiment against military action on Iraq among the governing Labor's backbenches, she said. [.....] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1854000/1854764.stm * MP WANTS IRAQ 'THREAT' PUBLISHED BBC, 4th March A backbench Labour MP is calling on the government to publish evidence of the renewed threat to world security allegedly posed by Iraq. Jim Murphy will tell MPs that Iraq remains a major threat to regional peace and international security. "There are real concerns that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme has been escalated. "The UK should publish evidence of this renewed threat posed by Saddam. "If the evidence is as compelling as many of us fear then Iraq must act," Mr Murphy said. [.....] MPs are due to debate Mr Murphy's call for Iraq to act on weapons of mass destruction in an adjournment debate later on Monday. The Eastwood MP said: "Iraq must fulfil its responsibilities to the world. "Either it acts or the time is fast approaching when the international community will have no alternative but to act. "Iraq must end its support for terrorism and cease production of, and put beyond use, their weapons of mass destruction." He added: "Almost six months on from 11 September, we know what happens when the international community ignores states which harbour terror. "We know that we cannot afford to wait for another atrocity before taking action. "Saddam remains a threat to his own people and his neighbours. "He has already used chemical weapons on his own people with devastating effects." Mr Murphy will also demand that Syria and Iran act on terror groups which are causing so much violence in the Middle East. NO URL (sent to list): * MR BUSH'S 'FIRST FRIEND' SHOULD WARN HIM AGAINST GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ Independent, 4th March Attributed to Edmund Burke, although he never wrote it, one of the most-quoted and wrong headed sayings is: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." It all depends on whether evil is poised to triumph, and on what it is proposed that good men should do instead. The Prime Minister set the tone yesterday for his meeting with George Bush next month by warning that the world must not, in Iraq, repeat the mistake it made in Afghanistan, which was that it "did nothing" about the threat of terrorism for too long. It is true that the US and other countries did not do enough about the al-Qa'ida organisation until last September. But what was it that they failed to do? Bill Clinton launched a cruise missile strike on the mountains of Afghanistan at the time he admitted to a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In retrospect, US intelligence on the threat from Osama bin Laden was no mere excuse to distract from presidential peccadilloes. What was needed, however, was not a single, pointless military strike, but a sustained intelligence operation to understand al-Qa'ida better and to anticipate its actions. Conversely, it is not true that the world has "done nothing" about Saddam Hussein. Since his forces were expelled from Kuwait, sanctions have been imposed; much of the Kurdish north has effectively been administered as a United Nations protectorate; the rest of the country has been subject to intermittent inspections by UN officials; no-fly zones have been established to north and south, enforced by bombing. While this campaign of sustained harassment has inhibited Saddam's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction, it has done nothing to loosen his grip on the country, and nothing to ease Arab and Muslim suspicions of US policy in the region. Given that the policy towards Iraq of the past 12 years has been a qualified failure, the question is not: Having done nothing, should we now do something? The implication of that, when juxtaposed with the spurious "lesson" of Afghanistan, is that the US and its allies should use military force to topple Saddam's regime. As Tam Dalyell, the free-thinking Labour MP, points out, the idea that the West might support an uprising by the Baath party's internal opponents in the same way as it did the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is "make believe". The question ought to be: What policy is more likely than the present one to restrain and undermine Saddam? The use of military force can be justified in principle, to enforce the no fly zones, or against sites to which Saddam will not allow UN weapons inspectors access. But it is essential that this is not seen as a purely US action, with the UK of no independent account as the 51st state. The coalition against Saddam must be renewed first, and a lifting of non-military trade sanctions would help to persuade other members of the UN, and especially Arab and Muslim countries, that the US and its allies have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Openness and trade is also, in the long run, the best way to weaken totalitarian regimes. The rhetoric of "not doing nothing" is useful to a politician such as Tony Blair. It simplifies policy options in favour of the most active, implying that to do anything less is to acquiesce in the present terrible state of affairs. It takes no account of how another bombing campaign might make things worse, by being seen as an act of aggression by the US against Arabs or Muslims. Mr Blair has spoken eloquently in the past of how Arab and Muslim resentment of US power as the "Great Satan" has inspired al-Qa'ida terrorism. He should do so again when he meets President Bush in Washington. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,661984,00.html * WHY IS BLAIR BANGING THE DRUM FOR AN ATTACK ON IRAQ? by Hugo Young The Guardian, 5th March Listening to the right in Washington and the left in London, you might think an American invasion of Iraq this year is certain to happen. It is not. The question remains moot, for the compelling reason, sensed in Washington as keenly as anywhere, that an invasion would be very risky. The Foreign Office hopes it will not happen. So does the Ministry of Defence. So, according to all available intelligence, does Tony Blair. So another question presents itself. Why is Mr Blair going round the world softening up opinion for a war that may not happen, and which he would prefer not to see? An Iraqi war would be difficult, first of all, militarily. Iraq is not Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is hard enough. American troops have been bogged down there, not just destroying the Taliban but trying to stop factions disintegrating into civil war, much longer than the Pentagon wanted. Battle scenarios in Iraq contemplate at least 200,000 US troops on the ground, whatever the result of an air assault. This is very big stuff, involving armies that may not be easily extricated from what they're doing, let alone smoothly assembled. The generals may not want to do it. The rationale is as troubling as the battle plan. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq will lack the pretext that fitted it for urgent coalition-building and attack. The most ferocious Washington warriors have failed to find an al-Qaida connection. The continuity between Afghanistan and Iraq is one of timing alone. This could be the convenient moment to move on from global terrorism to the recalcitrant enemy. That may make sense to Pentagon hardliners, but would mean an Iraqi war conducted in much more fragmented political conditions than the war against Osama bin Laden. Quite forbidding. Most of the Arab world would like to see Saddam Hussein destroyed. But how many regional leaders will talk and act accordingly? On past evidence, they'll wait to see who's winning. Vice-President Cheney's coming tour is designed to shore up the coalition for all eventualities. It will not be easy. In Afghanistan, the neighbour whose support was crucial, and fiercely fought for, was Pakistan. In Iraq, an entire region will be in play as the US military seeks a swift success that must include the visible departure from this life of Mr Saddam. Hard to plot with certainty. Another pragmatic flaw in the brutalist world-view of Richard Perle. So, compared with the instant response to September 11, the slow build-up to an Iraqi war has problems on every front. I have touched on only a handful. Even if the UN procedures are gone through, with weapons inspectors once again proposed and rejected, the world's will for American action will be deeply splintered. Louring over everything is the gamble on success. The domestic politics of war might play well in the autumn, during mid-term elections the Republicans are in danger of losing. But the politics of mili tary failure would play catastrophically in 2004 when Mr Bush is up for re election. Outsiders might be seized of another thing. Added to these reasons that might yet make Bush hesitate is the prospect of international chaos, as one nation unilaterally decides to exert its powerful will to revolutionise another. All in all, a shocking price to pay, justifiable, a sceptic might think, only in the event of clear and present global danger, together with the certainty that such action could eliminate it. But Tony Blair is doing everything he can to sound unsceptical. He seems to have launched himself on another of his missions. His words are as calculated as they are gratuitous. He makes the Bush argument about weapons of mass destruction if not the axis of evil, and offers no doubt about the need to go after them. He is making himself part of the propaganda build-up to normalise the necessity of invasion. Into a scepticism that extends even to parts of Washington, let alone his other friend Vladimir Putin, he drops statements that solidify the case the hawks are making, and incidentally assure Bush that anything he does will not be unilateralist: he will always have a friend in Downing Street. Yet here, too, Iraq is not quite like Afghanistan. Whereas the war against al-Qaida drew little dissent that mattered, war in Iraq is another matter. The cabinet might at last have something to say. Mr Blair talks as if his is the only British voice that counts. But foreign policy here is not, as in France, a presidential fief. Decisions like this one surely need proper collective endorsement. As we will see when the Commons debates it tomorrow, the Labour backbenches are seriously divided. They're the open face, I believe, of covert anxieties about the Iraqi option that are starting to grow across the cabinet. It's possible, I'm prepared to concede, that the objective doubts anyone ought to have about an invasion may begin to fall away. Saddam Hussein is an international criminal, brutal to his own people and an unrepentant enemy of any world order the UN attempts to invigilate. Maybe the indigenous forces vital to his overthrow can be fashioned by the US into a credible replacement. Maybe a military plan can be shaped in Washington and Tampa that makes watertight sense. Maybe the neighbours can be persuaded, by whatever furtive means, not to oppose America outright. Maybe - perhaps it's more than maybe - other major nations of the EU will not, if it comes to the point of war, publicly oppose the US. Britain, we know, would fall into that unresisting camp. But does this have to happen so brazenly before the question is even asked? Does our leader need to go round not only talking up the weapons of mass destruction, but implying that just about any action will be legitimate to attack them? When strategy and tactics are, for the best of reasons, disputed, why does he choose to put his weight behind the hawks and not the doves, especially when the entire British and EU political establishment, except the Duncan Smith fraction, is more conscious of the hazards than the necessity of an Iraqi war? Pushed on this, Mr Blair would say his influence lies behind closed doors. He talks an American game in public to play a European one in private. If that was ever true, it's now plainly a fantasy. His stance is American in private as well as public: reassuring, cosy, intimate, trusted, enlisted, carved-up. There is another way. Last month, the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, was asked about an Iraqi invasion. He said calmly, "There is a debate that is getting more intense and that we view with concern." Such quiet scepticism probably reflects British public opinion. Consider it in Blair's mouth, and you reach the heart of the British predicament. It would sound like mutiny. Yet that is the barrier Britain needs to cross. If the mere expression of concern is a price loyalty declines to pay to independence, then the relationship really has become a curse. NO URL (sent to list): * SADDAM MUST ALLOW WEAPONS INSPECTORS INTO IRAQ OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES by Jack Straw The Times, 5th March The stalemate between the United Nations and Iraq cannot go on for ever. For more than a decade, Britain and the United States have led the UN's efforts to protect Iraqıs neighbours from aggression and protect the world from Iraq s weapons of mass destruction. Iraq persistently flouts the authority of the UN Security Council and international law. But the people who have suffered most of all from President Saddam Hussein's brutality are the Iraqis themselves. The threat from Iraq is not receding. Unique among the worldıs tyrants, Saddam has both the ruthlessness and capability to employ weapons of mass destruction. He used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers in the 1980s and against citizens of his own country at Halabja, in the Kurdish region, in 1988. In 1991 it took concerted international action to oust Saddam from Kuwait, and to establish UN procedures for inspecting and destroying Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But UN inspectors, consistently prevented from doing their job, left Iraq in 1998. Since then, evidence has been building up that the threat from Iraq's weapons programmes is growing once more. Many of the facilities damaged in 1998 by the American and British strikes in Operation Desert Fox have been repaired. Iraq has persisted with its chemical and biological weapons programmes, and is developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons to targets beyond the 150km limit imposed by the UN. This would allow Iraq to hit countries as far away as the United Arab Emirates and Israel. There is evidence of increased efforts to procure nuclear-related material and technology, and that nuclear research and development work has begun again: indeed, without the controls which we have imposed, Saddam would have had a nuclear bomb by now. The regime has admitted hiding weapons of mass destruction in the desert, in caves and in tunnels. It has admitted manufacturing chemical weapons like sarin and mustard gas, and biological agents like anthrax. The destructive potential of these weapons beggars the imagination. Nerve agents can cause death within minutes. Tiny doses of sarin or anthrax are deadly. UN weapons inspectors, denied access to Iraq, cannot account for large quantities of materials used to make these deadly substances. Because we have contained the threat for so long, many have assumed it has gone away. This is patently not true. But meanwhile the Iraqi propaganda machine has tried to pin the blame on the UN policy of containment for the suffering which Saddam inflicts on the Iraqi people. It angers me when well-meaning people are taken in by these lies. The UN allows the regime access to more than enough money for all the humanitarian goods the Iraqis need. It is the regime which refuses to use these funds to order food and medicine. It suits Saddam to make Iraqis suffer and starve, because this distracts attention from the threat he poses to global security. It is time to stop him hiding behind the human shield of his people's suffering. British and US diplomats have devised an improved policy, which tightens controls on military goods, while lightening controls on civilian goods. There would be a ³Goods Review List², focused on military and weapons-related goods, which would be subject to review before they could be exported to Iraq. There would be no prohibitions against exporting to Iraq any civilian goods not on the list. The United Nations Security Council has decided in principle to implement these revised measures. But Saddam opposes the idea because helping the Iraqi people is not his priority. He prefers to spend money on weapons, not food; on statues and monuments to himself, not medicines. The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to allow UN officials to inspect his weapons programmes. Saddam broke his word and has been in breach of his international obligations since he effectively threw out the UN inspectors three years ago. If he has nothing to hide, why doesnt he let them return and do so without preconditions? As long as he refuses, we can only suspect the worst and this obliges us to look at other ways of limiting his capability. We cannot allow Saddam to hold a gun to the heads of his own people, his neighbours and the world for ever. Intense diplomatic efforts will continue, and I hope they will achieve our aim of removing the threat which Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to humanity. But if he refuses to open his weapons programmes to proper international inspection, he will have to live with the consequences. No decisions have been taken, but let no one especially Saddam doubt our resolve. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,482-227368,00.html March 06, 2002 * BLAIR WOULD FOLLOW BUSH TO BAGHDAD, BUT THEN WHAT? by Alice Miles The Times, 6th March [.....] The euro isnıt the only interesting omission from No 10ıs newly reissued narrative. War with Iraq doesnıt get a look-in either. I donıt get the impression that attacking President Saddam Hussein has been pencilled into the Governmentıs agenda. This hasnıt, of course, stopped the usual suspects getting up in arms about the issue. Tam Dalyell has called a debate in Westminster Hall today to give opponents a chance to air their objections. A defence debate three weeks ago gave a flavour of Labour MPsı protests. Harry Cohen said that a large-scale attack on Iraq ³would be an awful mistake and make the region less stable. It would also create grievance to an extent that could foster future terrorism². Alice Mahon warned MPs of the potential for ³many deaths² as a result of ³such blatant warmongering² by the US. ³No evidence has ever been produced that Iraq wants to attack this country . . . the escalation of military action will simply bring about another arms race, which will be devastating for the rest of the world.² Another MP, Malcolm Savidge, warned ministers against becoming ³patsies for the present US Administration . . . the United Kingdom must not permit mission creep from patrolling no-fly zones to involving ourselves in war in Iraq simply to ingratiate the Republican Right rather than to defend British interests². The trouble for the Government is that opposition to an attack on Iraq goes far beyond the left-wing ³normal suspects². It is hard to find anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party who supports it. There are bound to be doubts in the Cabinet, too. The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Donald Anderson, summed up moderate opponentsı views in a debate in December, saying that ³we must be very cautious² about attacking Iraq: it is a functioning state possessing weapons of mass destruction and without an opposition which could be trusted as a successful replacement for Saddamıs administration. He also warned the House of the ³major political implications for the region², as set out by the Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, namely instability in the Arab world, the collapse of the international coalition against terrorism, and the danger that Saddam would target an Israeli state governed by a man who would not be expected to show restraint in return. Wow. One hopes Mr Blair knows what he is doing. He can and will dismiss the wishes of his MPs, but he would be a fool to dismiss their concerns. Washington itself has no answer to the question of who or what it would like to see replace Saddam. Nor, contrary to what has been suggested, does it seem likely that the US is prepared to commit hundreds of thousands of ground troops to an effort to take Baghdad, in a campaign where they would be likely to get killed in vast numbers. At the moment the US doesnıt even have an exit strategy for Afghanistan. They havenıt caught bin Laden, they havenıt caught Mullah Omar, their soldiers are being killed and they donıt know how to get out. An air war didnıt rid Iraq of Saddam last time, and presumably wonıt again, just as it failed to rid Afghanistan of Osama bin Laden. And a Prime Minister who so painstakingly built up the international coalition last autumn will be more aware than most of the part that assurances that the war aims would not be extended to Iraq played in that process. To all of which, the pugilists are entitled to ask: well, what would you do? Baghdad is developing weapons of mass destruction. It has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to develop a nuclear bomb. There have been no UN weapons inspections since 1998. Hawks and doves can broadly agree that ideally, an improved sanctions regime would be introduced and in return Saddam would allow weapons inspections to restart. Beyond that, the consensus crumbles. It is difficult to imagine Mr Blair disagreeing, however, with the notion that the US should re-engage with the Middle East and use its weight to steer Ariel Sharon back to the negotiating table. For the most worrying element of the American aggression is that there seems to be no wider strategy beyond picking off, country by country, those whom Bush views as a threat. No strategy. No clarity. No friends. All of which makes it even more worrying that the Prime Minister has apparently decided that if the US does decide to go ahead, he will, in the end, go along with it. http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=249752002 * IF ITıS WAR ON SADDAM, CAN BLAIR SELL IT TO HIS PARTY? by Kirsty Milne The Scotsman, 6th March THEREıS only one Donald Rumsfeld. The US Defence Secretary, a veteran of the White House under Nixon and Ford, has attained iconic status for his right-wing candour and pungent turn of phrase. The Radio 4 programme Broadcasting House celebrates his brutal aperçus in a regular feature, "The Donald Rumsfeld soundbite of the week". So when, in a recent interview, Mr Rumsfeld declined to discuss a possible US attack on Iraq - claiming that such decisions were "above my pay grade" - it was a sure sign of plans being laid in the Pentagon. Things must be far advanced for the Defence Secretary to practise self censorship. Then came the shift of tone from Downing Street. Tony Blair, who lent support to the bombing of Afghanistan on the basis of limited war aims - the capture of Osama bin Laden and destruction of al-Qaeda - is changing his tune. After months of insisting that Iraq did not figure on the Prime Ministerıs war agenda, on Monday Number 10 described it as "a live issue". War with Iraq has suddenly moved from a possibility to a probability. In a classic Blairite bid to win over public opinion, the government is to publish a dossier on Saddam Husseinıs chemical and biological weapons. "This is not just something the Americans are talking about," Mr Blair said at the weekend, "This is something we have got to deal with." But his backbenchers got in first. An early day motion expressing "deep unease" has been signed by 39 Labour MPs, attracting names beyond the usual anti-war brigade. They include Glenda Jackson and Peter Kilfoyle, both former ministers, and Oona King, regarded as a rising star. A debate in the Commons today is likely to flush out further opposition, judging by a poll for the BBCıs On the Record programme, taken just after President Bushıs "axis of evil" speech. Asked if there was sufficient evidence to justify a military attack on Iraq, only eight out of 101 Labour MP said yes, with 86 saying no and seven undecided. The Prime Minister has a party problem on his hands. Why should the Left be so coy? Mr Blairıs approach to the attack on Afghanistan, combining tough talk with visionary idealism, won wide support. Fears were allayed by his careful coalition-building, suspicion was disarmed by his evocation of a new world order. Most Labour MPs swallowed their reservations and stayed loyal, silenced by the horror of 11 September and the instinct to obtain some sort of justice for the dead. Their leader had, in his ambitious way, started to sketch out what Professor David Marquand, writing in this monthıs Prospect magazine, calls "a rhetoric of liberal patriotism". But Mr Blairıs bold words about collective action and global justice are undermined by military and diplomatic reality. The present US administration is not interested in global institutions such as the UN. President Bush is not interested in collective action against climate change or arms reduction. Or in an international criminal court to try the likes of bin Laden. Mr Bush did not even bother to wage war on the Taleban in conjunction with NATO. In a world where US hegemony is so nakedly exposed, "liberal patriotism" comes to mean little more than the Prime Ministerıs hotline to the White House. And it does not say much for Mr Blairıs influence that the military focus should be switching so fast from Kabul to Baghdad, an escalation he argued against. Labour MPs with large numbers of Muslim constituents were hoping that the end of the Taleban would mean an end to tense encounters in their local mosques. The prospect of having to justify a British-backed assault on Iraq, to be followed perhaps by Somalia, the Yemen or Sudan, makes their blood run cold. Since the UK has consistently said there is no evidence to link Saddam Hussein with the events of 11 September, the Prime Minister can hardly present an attack on Iraq as second stage revenge for the World Trade Centre. Instead, Mr Blair is focusing on the threat from Iraqıs weapons of mass destruction, unmonitored since UN inspectors withdrew in 1998. Even before they left, the inspectors had evidence of research into viruses, animal diseases resembling smallpox, and the poisoning of lakes and aqueducts. But Scott Ritter, a former UN chief weapons inspector, claims that Iraqıs deadly arsenal was "largely dismantled" by the time the inspectors left. He argues that Saddam Hussein is more interested in seeing sanctions lifted than in terrorist strikes against the US. "While it is impossible to know what, if anything, has transpired inside Iraq since 1998," wrote Mr Ritter last month, "the lack of knowledge does not constitute a justification for war." Mr Ritter urges dialogue with Iraq, aimed at getting UN inspectors back into the country. Worried Labour MPs will focus on tomorrowıs talks between Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, and Iraqi officials. But US hawks see this meeting as a mere ploy. William Safire, the right-wing New York Times columnist, predicts that Saddam Hussein will demand that any inspectors should be British, playing for time by embarrassing Mr Blair. It looks as if the White House is gearing up to dismiss attempts at a peaceful solution, even one that carries the fast-diminishing authority of the UN. An attack on Iraq would illustrate how far that collective authority has broken down, and how little the Bush administration cares. Would the General Assembly sanction a strike against Saddam Hussein? Would Middle Eastern countries back it? What would be the consequences for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, now in a frighteningly toxic phase? Could the Iraqi National Congress, an exiled opposition group recently returned to the US payroll, reconcile and run a ravaged country? Americans are asking these questions. There is a debate going on, mostly inaudible from across the Atlantic. But the emphasis on security and self-defence is overwhelming. That was clear in Afghanistan, as it will be in Iraq. Tony Blair sugars the pill of war with pledges of help, insurance premiums against terrorism. Yet President Bush has already stymied Gordon Brownıs plan to double aid for developing countries, to be discussed at a UN summit in Mexico later this month. The Bush administration sees its role as world policeman, not global social worker. As Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, "The best, and in some cases, the only defence is a good offence." War in Afghanistan has already caused strains on the British left. (The London Review of Books declined to publish David Marquandıs praise for the Prime Ministerıs "impeccable" statesmanship.) War with Iraq would cause schisms. The challenge is to imagine a future beyond the Scylla of sullen acquiescence and the Charybdis of mean isolationism. Those who puzzle hardest about the post-11 September world coalesce around two broad positions: a stronger European Union, as a counterweight to the US; or a stronger system of global governance. What no-one has worked out is how to recruit the worldıs policeman to a neighbourhood watch scheme. _______________________________________________ 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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk