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, 6-12/4/02 (2) FINGER POINTING AT IRAQ * U.S. delays briefing U.N. on Iraqi arms * Blair issues stern warning to Saddam [Account of Blair's speech in Texas. Wholly inadequate, like all the other accounts I've seen. The full text, posted on http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,1- 260742,00.html, was sent to the list in the Voices mailing for 8th April. It is essential reading as the statement of a militant and deeply felt ideology. Far from acting as a moderating influence on Bush the whole thrust of the speech is to push him, using the most appalling flattery, out of any last remaining tatters of isolationism into the fullest possible ‘engagement'. Instead of seeing Blair as Bush's ‘poodle', it might be more appropriate to see Bush as Blair's rottweiler. * Is this man leading us to war with Iraq? [Includes the extraordinary statement that Saddam ‘is now immeasurably better armed than he was in 1990' (see Pepe Escobar in the Inside Iraq section). Also indicates what is clearly the thinking of the US State Dept that Saddam has to be replaced by someone who resembles him. Takes the INC defectors at their face value. Doesn't probe too deeply into the problems faced by the INC in trying to find an alternative. Nor does it mention the existence of the INA.] * The anthrax hunter [on Hans Blix. The article admits, in passing, that Richard Butler's ‘inspectors had passed on secrets to the US and Israel', without pausing to consider how utterly damning the statement is.] * UK cites Iraq's support for MKO as proof of sponsoring terrorism London, April 11, IRNA [An interesting detail, noticed naturally enough by the Iranians, that the Foreign Office have branded the Mujaheedin al-Khalq, the major Iranian opponents of one third of the ‘axis of evil' as terrorists. We wonder if, when Iran comes into the cross hairs, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution will be branded as terrorist.] * Pentagon Responds to Iraqi Offer on US Pilot's Fate [Speicher affair. The US want ‘anyone, anytime, anywhere' access; the Iraqis want the press and S.Ritter present as a guarantee of propriety.] * U.S. military fuels up Mideast bases INSIDE IRAQ * Booming Baghdad in fear of US [Article suggesting that life in Baghdad isn't so bad these days. Though it hasn't much to say about life in Iraq outside Baghdad.] * Iraq Diary, Part 7: All guided up with nowhere to go BRITISH AND EUROPEAN OPINION * US-UK mutual admiration society set to oust Saddam * Iraq isn't our enemy [Comment by Richard Ingrams] * BBC under fire for airing Iraqi cancer claim 'propaganda' [Daily Telegraph complaining about the BBC reporting on possible effects of DU on cancer. Great play is made of the Royal Society investigation two years ago. But this was exploring the possible effects on soldiers handling DU in its solid state. The argument on Iraq turns on the effect of inhaling it in fine powder form after an explosion. The paper sneers that no respectable - ie western - scientists have examined the question, ‘forgetting' that the Iraqi government had called for a full UN inquiry and this was blocked by Britain and the US. So, on the whole, this article is a pretty disgusting piece of work.] * Protesters demand Saddam overthrow [recent demo in London. They also demanded an end to non- military sanctions] * Book casts doubt on SAS mission [Criticism of Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero]. * Head to head: Action on Iraq [MPs pro and anti war on Iraq. Peter Lilley, charged with expressing the pro view, is interestingly hesitant about it all] * German Pol[itician] Speaks on U.S. Relations [Edmund Stoiber, complaining that the German government is not sufficiently pro-American] FINGER POINTING AT IRAQ http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/2002/04/08/ne ws/world/3019349.htm * U.S. delays briefing U.N. on Iraqi arms by COLUM LYNCH Miami Herald (from Washington Post), 8th April UNITED NATIONS - Faced with a crisis in the Middle East, the Bush administration postponed plans here last week to launch a new campaign to expose Iraq's latest attempts to acquire prohibited chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, according to U.S. and other Western officials. U.S. diplomats were planning to provide Security Council members with an intelligence briefing alleging that Iraq is developing banned missile technology, but rising Arab criticism of U.S. support for Israel's military offensive resulted in a delay. Although U.S. officials say they still intend to present their findings, it remains unclear when the briefing will be scheduled. [.....] Administration officials declined to characterize the new information they intend to present to the council, but they said they have photographs and other information showing that Iraq is seeking to build new missiles capable of delivering chemical and biological payloads farther than 93 miles, the maximum distance allowed by the United Nations. The briefing would have marked the first time the United States had supplied the 15-member council with classified U.S. intelligence on advances in Iraq's secret weapons programs since U.N. inspectors left the country in December 1998. It was designed to bolster an American and British effort to prove that Iraq has reconstituted its deadliest weapons programs. [.......] Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat who heads the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which is responsible for conducting inspections in Iraq, said he has reviewed satellite imagery showing new construction on installations destroyed by U.S. warplanes during Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Blix said he has also received intriguing tips from friendly governments about Iraq's attempts to rebuild its weapons programs. But he said he can prove nothing until he has inspectors on the ground. ''We cannot exclude the possibility that they retained something from the past or that they have produced something new,'' Blix said in an interview. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer? pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article& cid=1018216907991&call_page=TS_World&call_pageid=9 68332188854&call_pagepath=News/World&col=968350060 724 * Blair issues stern warning to Saddam by William Walker Toronto Star, 8th April WASHINGTON — British Prime Minister Tony Blair has delivered his strongest message yet that he'll back a U.S.-led military effort to oust the "detestable" Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq's government. Saddam "has to let the weapons inspectors back in — anytime, anywhere, any place that the international community demands," or face the consequences, Blair said yesterday. Even as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell departed last night on a Middle East peace mission, Blair's strong words reflected the extent to which his host, President George W. Bush, is already focusing on the next target in the war on terrorism. Blair emerged from a two-day meeting at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, to deliver a speech in which he boldly ignored criticism in Britain — including from his own Labour party members — that he is foolishly and thoughtlessly being led by the Americans into a war with Iraq. Speaking at former president George Bush's library at Texas A&M University, Blair told his American audience that Britain "is not a half- hearted friend" of the United States and never will be. Blair urged other foreign leaders to join him in supporting an American-led wider war against terrorism, to continue outside Afghanistan's borders. He said the Sept. 11 attacks on America should be a lesson to the international community that terror can spring up at any time from dysfunctional regimes that support it, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. Warning that "instability is contagious," Blair argued the world is more interdependent than ever, so a "hard-headed pragmatism" is required to deal with regimes such as Iraq that still harbour terrorist groups or weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq since December, 1998. "The determination must be not just to pursue those responsible (for the Sept. 11 attacks) and bring them to justice, but to learn from what happened," the British PM said. International leaders must be prepared to confront countries that harbour terrorism, with force if necessary, Blair said. Some of those regimes considered terror threats can change on their own, but Iraq "is a regime without a qualm in sacrificing the lives of its own citizens to preserve itself," he said. Declaring "the regime of Saddam is detestable," Blair said when it comes to such intransigent governments, "if necessary, the action should be military and again, if justified, it should involve a regime change." Bush has also called for a regime change in Iraq and warned the international community repeatedly that inaction is not an option. It's believed the United States will wait, however, to determine whether the Israeli-Palestinian war can be calmed before moving against Iraq. "We will proceed, as we did after Sept. 11, in a calm, measured, sensible but firm way," said Blair, who was summoned by Bush to the ranch summit to discuss Iraq, although the two also spent much time on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. "But," added the British PM, "leaving Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction, refusing to allow weapons inspectors back to do their work properly, is not an option." In Baghdad, Saddam issued a strong message of defiance, saying his country would confront a U.S. military action with all possible means, state-run Iraqi TV said. "We will fight them with the reeds of the marshes, with stones, missiles and airplanes and with all that we have, and we will defeat them, God willing," Saddam said. Saddam also said Iraq would continue support for the Palestinian intifada, Reuters reported. "If Iraq had the chance, the ability, to provide Palestinians with all they need to enable them to defend their land, sanctuaries, themselves and properties, it would do it," Saddam added. Iraq said last month it had raised the amount offered to the relatives of each Palestinian killed fighting Israelis to $25,000 (U.S.) per family from $10,000. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,681589,0 0.html * Is this man leading us to war with Iraq? Guardian, 10th April Saddam Hussein will go. George Bush has decided, and Tony Blair, after commuting between positions of support and relative caution through the winter, has given his wholehearted backing. Regardless of what Labour MPs say, or what happens in Europe and the UN, it seems likely that by the end of the year the greatly enhanced missiles of America's arsenal will be raining down on strategic sites throughout Iraq. Whatever we think about the prospect of a war in the Middle East at this extremely fragile moment, the statements over the weekend from Crawford, Texas, represent a considerable victory for Dr Ahmad Chalabi, who is one of six members of the leadership council of the dissident Iraqi National Congress (INC), its chief strategist and head of intelligence. Chalabi goes unrecognised as he walks in the spring sunshine in London, which is probably a good thing because the last count put the number of attempts on his life at nine. There have probably been others he hasn't known about and it is certain that there is never a moment when Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, is not dreaming up a way of killing him. Under this threat, Chalabi is relaxed and purposeful. "I don't like to talk about attempts on my life. The details are sordid - thallium, rockets, car bombs, snipers. Many of our people have been killed by thallium [poison]. There have been many deaths in northern Iraq - that's what matters." He leads me through the foyer of an anonymous office block in central London, talking about the works of ancient Assyrian art looted by Saddam. We take the lift up to a floor where there are two security doors and more cameras than you would expect. At length we come to another door and are let into a study. There is a leather suite, contemporary Iraqi paintings and two walls of books which include the World of Parrots, Plato, Isaiah Berlin and many volumes of history. He spends a lot of his time in this room, plotting, but when he really needs to get away he vanishes into the stacks of the London Library and reads whatever his eye happens to fall upon. Chalabi, an MIT graduate with a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago, is a promiscuous and retentive reader. It shows in his conversation which typically darts between number theory, ancient cultures and current espionage techniques. As he talks his mouth forms a boomerang smile that reaches up to a pair of glittering eyes. In many ways he is like a character from 19th- century fiction, improbably lit with intelligence, charm and sensibility and at the same time blessed with the darker gifts of the spy and master of intrigue. Among the things he does very successfully from the room where we talk is to run a spy network across Iraq. More than anyone he is responsible for alerting the west to the build-up of weapons of mass destruction since the Unscom inspectors left Iraq four years ago. The information is not just rumour; it is high-grade intelligence, concerning plans, locations, expenditure and named personnel. INC information is by far the best coming out of Iraq, but the CIA under director George Tenet won't have anything to do with him. And when Chalabi saw Colin Powell in the distance at the state department the other day, the US secretary of state waved weakly and made off in the opposite direction. Even now, as Bush prepares for war with Saddam, the state department does everything in its power to hinder Chalabi and limit his influence. He has some friends in Washington DC, principally at the Pentagon and among the staff of the Defence Intelligence Agency. According to the former CIA officer Bob Baer, whose book See No Evil was published last month, Chalabi's influence is now stronger than it was because, as Baer puts it: "He talks their language. He knows how to make himself clear and knows what they want to hear. He doesn't go round in circles like every Arab you ever sat down with in the Middle East." Of much greater importance are the defectors the INC has smuggled out of Iraq and served up to the Americans. Recently the product of these debriefings has been hitting the desk in the oval office. But it has been around for a while. In 1995 the head of military intelligence, General Wafic Sammarai, defected with Dr Khidir Hamza, head of the nuclear programmes who worked on Saddam's bomb. Late last year a building contractor and engineer - still unidentified - came out with information that the DIA called "spectacular". Chalabi couldn't be more pleased by the outcome of the Crawford summit. He is unabashed by his part in engineering the current state of high alert because of one simple reason: he is a freedom fighter and wants nothing more than to introduce democracy to his country. "We want a government that respects human rights, based on a constitution, free elections and a federal structure. But it is an oddly revolutionary idea. It leads to a great deal of disquiet among US allies. That is reflected in the hordes of organisations that talk to the state department and CIA about repressive Arab regimes, chiefly Saudia Arabia." He refers to the lobbyists who are at pains to reinforce the orthodoxy that Arab states can only be run by strong men and platoons of psychopaths, armed with electrodes and scalpels. This is the third time I have met Chalabi. I am always struck by the clarity and reasonableness of his ambitions, but it is important to remind oneself that he is a skilled manipulator who spends his time thinking how to hasten a war against a man who a) is now immeasurably better armed than he was in 1990; b) will probably strike at Israel the moment he is attacked; and c) will use anything he can when the chips are down - including dirty nukes and biological warfare. As Chalabi admits, if Saddam can go out having killed 100,000 Israelis, his ambition to live on in Arab memory as a modern Saladin will be achieved. The stakes are high, which accounts for the pallor of British ministers and officials who have seen some of the recent estimates of Saddam's arsenal and his plans. Chalabi feels that the single greatest mistake of the western governments is that they haven't communicated their fears and knowledge to the public. Besides this, he also points out that the US is bound by an act of congress to seeing democracy introduced in Iraq. Little happened after the bill was passed by congress during the last Clinton administration because of what Chalabi believes to be deep- rooted prejudice. "It's an attitude which nearly borders on racism. There is an infernal circle working which says the Iraqi people must be savages because they allow Saddam to rule them. Ergo they cannot be democrats and Saddam has to be replaced by another strong man. "The myopia of the left when it thinks of Iraq is principally caused by residues of third-worldism. But they also think that because the US is targeting Saddam, Saddam must have redeeming features. Let me tell you, Saddam has no redeeming features." One of the defectors brought out by the INC last year, General Abu Zenab of the Mukhabarat, underlines this. With his stories of torture, random arrests and the killings of thousands of young men after the 1995 uprising, he evoked a landscape of unending darkness for the American team sent to debrief him. He spoke without the slightest whisper of conscience or any sense, for instance, that raping a woman in his custody was not a perk of the job enjoyed by security boys the world over. Another defector has recently told how children have been tortured to gain confessions from their parents. But between now and any realisation of Chalabi's dream almost certainly stands a war - and one which could sprawl through the Middle East - and then an arduous unification process involving two Islamic sects (the Sunni and Shi'a), three racial groups (Arab, Turkoman and Kurdish) and numerous clans. As the former CIA director Richard Helms advised: "Pay attention to the things that are hundreds of years old - the religious sects and the tribes." Three quarters of Iraqis are members of one the country's 150 tribal clans. Chalabi is a Shi'a but says he has no special brief for the Shi'as and anyway does not harbour ambitions of standing for office if and when Saddam is overthrown. "This is about creating a civil society, liberating Arab history from despotism. The thing about a civil society is that there are common ideas about how it should be run - what people think of taxation, health and education services. That is what binds them now." This is the vision of a cunning and humane optimist. It will be greeted with scepticism by many, but it is extremely difficult to argue with an Arab intellectual who wants nothing more than to give his people the freedoms enjoyed in the west. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,681588,0 0.html * The anthrax hunter by Julian Borger [interview with Hans Blix] The Guardian, 10th April Under one of the more likely scenarios for an Iraq crisis this year, Saddam Hussein would allow UN arms inspectors into his country and then play hide and seek with them, giving up a few secrets about his weapons programmes but concealing most. In such a situation the Bush administration, by current form, would be spoiling for a fight. Much of the rest of the world would meanwhile be pleading for patience. And in the middle would be a professorial 73-year-old Swedish diplomat called Hans Blix. Blix is the UN's chief weapons inspector, and it is not too much of a stretch to imagine a situation in which his judgment over whether Iraq really possesses weapons of mass destruction could mean the difference between war and peace. Sure enough, if Washington is determined to go to war, no mere UN functionary is going to get in its way. But if Blix insisted that Iraq was cooperating, then the international legality of military action would be highly questionable, and even staunch allies such as Britain would have queasy second thoughts. It might cause the Bush White House to pause. A key moment for Blix is looming next Thursday, when an Iraqi delegation is due in New York for a second round of talks on weapons inspections. If the Iraqis refuse, the problem is out of Blix's hands. Otherwise, Blix's seat at UN headquarters is likely to get significantly hotter. His predecessor, Richard Butler, a charismatic and sometimes abrasive Australian who led the UN Special Commission (Unscom) inspection team, was pilloried in the Arab world and beyond when it emerged that his inspectors had passed on secrets to the US and Israel. Blix has kept a lower profile but there are many hawks in Washington ready to denounce him at the slightest hint of appeasement towards Saddam. The critics point out that he was originally a compromise candidate suggested by two nations sympathetic to Baghdad (Russia and France) and that he had a history of being soft on Baghdad when he ran the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They say his organisation - the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) will be "Unscom-lite", a wishy-washy version of its predecessor, and point to the fact that his inspectors have been given "cultural sensitivity" training as evidence of their readiness to buckle under Iraqi pressure. Blix speaks with a caution honed by decades in the UN system, but insists he is ready to get tough. He says the "cultural sensitivity" training will not make them suckers for Saddam's tricks - it merely means they are less likely to be obnoxious (a charge often levelled at Unscom). "You have to behave yourself, but you have to be firm. You have to do your job. We certainly feel there is a right to undertake inspections on a Friday, or on a holiday or during the night, but we do not see any need to undertake any unnecessary provocations." Once the Iraqis agree to inspections he will respond decisively, deploying the first of 230 trained inspectors in Baghdad in a few days. "We would be there with an advance team very quickly. Perhaps within a week we would have some people going down there to establish contact with the Iraqis," he says. "We know where we can hire helicopters and where we can lease airplanes. We are trying to prepare as much in advance of the green light as we can." At full strength, there will be about 100 Unmovic inspectors in Iraq at any one time. With a headquarters in Baghdad and bases in Basra in the south and Mosul in the north, they could reach any point in the country within hours. The search for nuclear weapons will mainly be the IAEA's job, but that is the more straightforward task, as making atom bombs requires extensive facilities and leaves telltale signs of radiation. Unmovic will have the far harder job of looking for chemical and biological weapons, and missiles: anthrax or smallpox can be cultivated in a cellar, and transported in innocent-looking refrigerated trucks. Blix's inspectors will visit suspect sites from a list of 700 drawn up by Unmovic, on the basis of information inherited from Unscom and intelligence provided by national intelligence agencies and defectors. They will use state-of- the-art sensors to detect traces of chemical or biological weapons. Then, within 60 days of these preliminary inspections, Unmovic will present the Iraqi government with the list of evidence it needs to provide. "It's not just 'let the inspectors in'. They have to convince the inspectors that there is nothing left," says Blix. In the case of anthrax, for example, he adds: "Iraq states that it has produced 8,500 litres, but there are no production records to sustain that, so it's a unilateral statement. Then they say they destroyed it all in the summer of 1991, but there are no protocols, no records, of the destruction. It's an open issue. Maybe it is truthful, but until evidence has been produced then I would have to draw the conclusion that they could dry it - and if the anthrax were dried, it could still be viable." If, at next week's meeting, Baghdad relents and lets Blix in, his experience as head of the IAEA will not be forgotten. He concedes that while he was in charge, before 1991, the Iraqis concealed an advanced nuclear weapons programme. "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis, but the lesson was learned," he says. "Because not seeing something, not seeing an indication of something, does not lead automatically to the conclusion that there is nothing." http://www.irna.com/newshtm/eng/22150024.htm * UK cites Iraq's support for MKO as proof of sponsoring terrorism London, April 11, IRNA The British government for the first time has cited Iraq's support for the outlawed Mujahideen- e Khalq Organisation (MKO) as evidence of Saddam Hussein's sponsoring of terrorism. Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons repeated Wednesday that the government had "consistently made it clear that at present we have seen no definitive evidence of a link between Iraq and al- Qaeda" network in Afghanistan. But speaking during a debate on the Middle East crisis in the House of Lords, she insisted that "Iraq does, indeed have a long record of supporting terrorism." These included "support for Palestinian terrorist groups and the activities of the MKO against Iran, as well as the assassination of political opponents," the Foreign Office Minister said. Her comments come ahead of the UK government producing a dossier of evidence based upon assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is expected to try to justify the extension of the US-led war against terrorism to Iraq. In recent weeks, British ministers have repeatedly cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and on its own Kurdish population as well as its invasion of Iran and Kuwait to demonise Saddam's regime. Symons clarified that the objective of her government was to"address the threats posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" rather than specifically a regime change in Baghdad. But she added that "we are all agreed it would be best for the Iraqi people, for the security of the region and for the world as a whole, if Saddam Hussein went." http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200204/12/eng200 20412_93924.shtml * Pentagon Responds to Iraqi Offer on US Pilot's Fate People's Daily (China), 12th April The United States has formally responded to an Iraqi offer for sending a delegation to the country to investigate the fate of a U.S. pilot whose plane was shot down early in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a Pentagon official said on Thursday. The United States has formally responded to an Iraqi offer for sending a delegation to the country to investigate the fate of a U.S. pilot whose plane was shot down early in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a Pentagon official said on Thursday. Baghdad sent an offer earlier this week to the State Department, via the Red Cross, proposing that a U.S. team visit Iraq to determine what happened to Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher. The Iraqi offer had several conditions, including that the media cover any search team's activities and that American Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector who has been critical of some U.S. policies toward Iraq, be part of any U.S. delegation. The Pentagon official said that Washington had issued a tentative response to the Iraqi offer. the reply is thought to reject the conditions made by Baghdad, while demanding full U.S. access to any sites, materials or personnel it requests. The official said the United States would send a search team only if Iraq can offer new information. http://www2.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html? siteSect=143&eid=1104321 * U.S. military fuels up Mideast bases by Richard Valdmanis Swissinfo, 12th April NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Defence says it is seeking an extra 1.4 million barrels of marine diesel fuel for bases in the Middle East, continuing a rate of military fuel purchases for the region not seen since the Persian Gulf war. The supplemental tender for F76 grade marine diesel fuel calls for the barrels to be delivered to the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, Star Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates, and Guam in the Western Pacific between July 1 and Dec 31. The solicitation on Friday comes after the Pentagon already purchased 7.4 million barrels of fuel above and beyond normal contracts for its Mideast bases over the past four months, according to the Defence Energy Support Center, the DOD's fuel buying wing. This rate of fuel buying from the world's largest single purchaser of petroleum mimics emergency buys made after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and dwarfs supplemental purchases during the NATO air war against Serbia in 1999. The U.S. military's big appetite for oil, which has underpinned strong petroleum prices in recent weeks, has intensified speculation that the United States may broaden its fight against terrorism beyond Afghanistan, possibly to Iraq, as tensions continue to boil in the region. President Bush labelled Iraq as part of a three- member "axis of evil" which includes Iran and North Korea, and the White House and Baghdad have been at loggerheads on the issue of United Nations arms inspectors in Iraq to make sure the country is not developing weapons of mass destruction. The solicitation for marine diesel was issued April 11, with bids requested by April 25, said a DESC official. The solicitation is supplemental, meaning it falls outside of the DESC's routine contracts. The tender follows the DOD's supplemental purchase of 5.6 million barrels of fighter jet fuel in late February, and 1.8 million barrels of supplemental fuel buys before that, all for Middle East bases. The volume of the supplemental tenders combined adds up to 8.8 million barrels, or more than 9 percent of the DOD's worldwide bulk fuel purchases during the year 2000, and is 47 percent higher than worldwide supplemental purchases during 2001, according to data provided by the DOD. It matches supplemental tenders issued by the military in 1990 for sorties over Baghdad, which amounted to 8.1 million barrels, and dwarfs a series of supplemental buys made in 1999 during the U.S.-led NATO air war against Serbia -- the last time the U.S. was engaged in significant fighting -- which amounted to roughly 1.5 million barrels. INSIDE IRAQ http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_ow n_correspondent/newsid_1913000/1913315.stm * Booming Baghdad in fear of US by Rageh Omaar BBC, 6th April Our car nudged its way through the familiar, congested street. The old dilapidated vehicles around us were as I remember them from my last visit 18 months ago - billowing out diesel fumes - and shrouding the district in a grey, hazy film that catches you at the back of the throat. Shorja market - in the heart of Baghdad - its same heaving self. Mothers in their Islamic dress - their black abayas caught in the gentle breeze, negotiating their way around the different stalls. The women trying at the same time to keep their mischievous children under control. A comforting scene. But there was something that wasn't somehow right. I couldn't put my finger on it - but something was out of place. I got out and walked around the narrow alleyways of the covered market. Yes, I could still make out the huge murals and statues of Saddam Hussein on the main streets. And yes, the market's porters still almost tear your ankles without warning as they carry goods from one end of the market to the other. And then I looked a bit closer: chocolate of every description in bulk, crate upon crate of soft drinks; Fanta, Pepsi. And what is this? Diet Coke? Grooming products - hair gel for goodness sake. I asked about the prices. I was stunned - 10p for an imported can of cola. This was easily affordable for most middle class Iraqis. The city has boomed since the last time I was here 18 months ago. You can get just about everything now - if you have the money. It is a far cry from the Baghdad I knew at the height of international sanctions - where the government here was almost completely isolated from the rest of the world. Whilst the world looked elsewhere - concerned with other crises, Iraq has used the time out of the headlines to shed its image as THE regional pariah. There are trade fairs virtually every week at the major hotels. New agreements with its Arab neighbours who are now exporting huge amounts of goods to Iraq. The authorities here are hoping that their attempts to build alliances in the Arab world will pay real political dividends. And it is hoping the payoff will come now. The minute I arrived back in Baghdad, friends of mine wasted no time in seeking out my opinion. Since 11 September hardly any foreign correspondents have been allowed into the country, such is the desire of the government here to keep a low profile. And with good reason. The increasingly serious comments by senior officials in the American administration - warning of military action against Iraq if it does not allow UN Weapons Inspectors back into the country - have been on everyone's mind. But it is been the warnings of what Secretary of State Colin Powell has described as "regime change" that has led to the greatest fears here. I ran into one of my friends this week - I'll call him Bilal. "Bilal, how afraid of US military action are ordinary people?" I asked. "They are afraid," he replied. "Ordinary Iraqis can only carry on with their lives. There's nothing they can do about the situation. We just sit and wait for the future." This is not a city where any sense of fear or preparation on the part of the authorities is evident. You don't see troops and equipment moving through the city - or anti-aircraft units re-deploying. But there is something in the atmosphere, the mood of the place is different. And it is the reason why the official newspapers have their eyes on the turmoil between Israel and the Palestinians. Every day, numerous headlines and column inches are given to what is referred to here as the "massacre of Arab Palestinians". The state papers, with increasing shrillness, call on the Arab world to sever all ties to "the Zionist Entity" - the term used to refer to Israel. And the editorials constantly stress that Israel's actions against the Palestinians are not only wholeheartedly supported by the United States - but are co-ordinated by Washington. I have been to Baghdad during other crises - when this city and country faced the threat of British and American military action. And at such times, driving through this city that I have come to know, I have wondered what would remain of the familiar and often beautiful features of this low-built capital on the banks of the Tigris River. But 11 September changed the world. When one listens to what is being said in Washington, one can't help but feel that this year could be a decisive one for Iraq - and its emotionally exhausted people. http://atimes.com/front/DD13Aa03.html * Iraq Diary, Part 7: All guided up with nowhere to go by Pepe Escobar Asia Times, 12th April UR and BASRA - It's absolutely impossible to get close to the legendary ziggurat of Ur without a letter of authorization. Ur, the Biblical city of the Chaldeans, is the land of the prophet Abraham, father of the three great monotheist religions. What is presented as the ruins of his house from around 4000 BC can also be seen near the ziggurat. According to the Holy Koran, Abraham was not Jewish, but a true believer in Allah. Around 4000 BC, Abraham left Ur for what is now southern Turkey, and then went to Palestine. Later he went to Egypt, and then visited Arabia, where he helped his son Ishmael reconstruct the Kaaba in Mecca, built by Adam. According to theologian Hamidullah, a Koran translator, the personality and events in the life of Abraham even inspired the Ramayana, the great Sanskrit poem. The ziggurat of Ur (Entemen-ni-Gur) is a massive three-staged pyramid built by King Ur-Namu and his son Dungi, "kings of Sumer and Akkad, kings of the four corners of the Earth", around 2300 BC. The ziggurat was re-engineered by the famous Nebuchadnezzar (Nabochodonosor) II. A monumental staircase - rebuilt by order of Saddam Hussein - allows the visitor to ascend to the second stage. The facade of the ziggurat still bears traces of American bombing during the Gulf War - or "Mother of All Battles" as it's known in Iraq. Nowadays the ziggurat is protected by a checkpoint, with two sleepy guards battling giant mosquitoes and equipped with a single, rattled Kalashnikov. An isolated house occupies the middle of the plain, in ruins, they say, due to American bombing three months ago. The house is about 1.8 kilometers away from the ziggurat. There's an electricity plant 3km away. The strike against the house might be another example of American not-so-smart bombing. Or maybe someone in the Pentagon believes the ziggurat is a cover for a weapons of mass destruction site. There's no need of a letter of authorization from a "director" to visit the pyramids in Egypt, Palmyra in Syria or Petra in Jordan. But in Iraq, even historical monuments are a matter of national security. There's a lot of visible military activity around Ur. On the highway from Nassiriya to Basra, there's a military post every 20km, with a single soldier equipped with the same rattled Kalashnikov: not exactly a match for the F-16s. Basra - from where Sinbad sailed to Legend - is in the heart of oil country. Iraq literally floats over oil. One liter of gas costs only 20 Iraqi dinars (500 Iraqi dinars equals 40 US cents). Twenty-five liters of gas is the same price as a 1.5-liter bottle of Furat, a brand of mineral water from Baghdad. But Basra is not Dallas. Desperadoes and their kids roam the streets. The foul smell of rotten meat is pervasive. Trash is piled up everywhere. The odd foreigner, Ukrainian or Algerian, works in the spare parts business related to the oil industry, and drowns his malaise in "cabarets" straight out of a Fellini movie. At the level of the ordinary citizen, Iraq works through a logic of secrecy and fear. It's sometimes possible to learn from a bazaar merchant or from a teacher doubling as taxi driver that the regime fears the possibility of Israel exporting its "repression" to Iraq. It's very easy to get arrested in Iraq: one just has to go out in the street unaccompanied and film or photograph one of a plethora of Saddam Hussein portraits and murals: Koranic Saddam, Artistic Saddam, Bedouin Saddam, Saladin Saddam, Rifle- toting Saddam. Even trying to photograph a cinema lobby - full of posters of cheap American flicks - could be a one-way ticket to jail: one is immediately thrown out by a "security officer". The bazaar merchant or the taxi driver will then tell us that every foreigner is under suspicion of being a spy. To show the merits of Iraq - and they do exist - is even harder because of this pervasive paranoia. We try to find the representatives of a French non-governmental organization (NGO), Medecins du Monde (Doctors of the World), in Basra: there are only two nurses, one French, one Dutch. We learn they are "on vacation in Baghdad". In Baghdad we were told they were working in Basra, helping to rebuild and re-equip hospitals. At 16h30 practically every afternoon in Basra there's a siren. Then another at 17h30. The first day we are told a "Kuwaiti civilian helicopter" violated Iraqi airspace. It's a joke, of course: the reality may be an incursion by American F- 16s. The next day - after another siren - we learn from an official Basra guide that the last American bombing was actually five months ago: "Military installations," he remarks. In Baghdad, officials from the Ministry of Information swear the bombardments happen every day. A comprehensive tour of Basra reveals that the visible anti-aircraft artillery is not capable of even shooting pigeons - not to mention F-16s. So much for the myth - built by the Pentagon - of the "fourth strongest army in the world". One cannot even go to a restaurant in Iraq without an official guide from the Ministry of Information in Baghdad. But this official guide is little more than a tourist in Basra. One needs a specialized Basra guide. Depending on the occasion - a visit to a hospital, a visit to a mosque, a visit to the Kuwait border - another guide guides the Basra guide. One is soon in the surreal situation of being a single foreigner surrounded by a horde of minders, like a rapper or a mafia don. Basra guides are particularly effective in guiding one nowhere. Dr Jawad al-Ali is a consultant physician at the Saddam Hospital. He is responsible for statistics concerning patients with leukemia - caused, they say, by American bombing with depleted uranium. Dr Ali manages to give us the address of a family with four cases of leukemia, living in a heavily bombed area near Basra. But the guide says a visit to the family is a no-go: we don't have an authorization from the Ministry of Health. We go to a primary school, trying to check the state of the educational system in southern Iraq. The guide even knows the director of the school. But we cannot visit: we don't have authorization from the Ministry of Education. The justification for all this: "We are surrounded by enemy countries" (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and most of all Iran). Iraq officially ends about 20km south of Basra. There are only two guards on the Iraqi side of the border, a barrier, a small billboard in Arabic, and a "Stop" sign in Arabic and English. On the other side of an absolutely void 1km no man's land between Iraq and Kuwait is the point where America decided to end the Gulf War. To cross this no man's land one needs to address a message to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is then relayed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The reply might take weeks. On the outskirts of Basra, we find a former soldier who fought the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. He is weary. Most of his friends died in battle. He still carries a bullet in his left shoulder. Looking at the smoke and fire breathing from the oil and gas fields in the distance, he decides not to mince his words: "The Arab world is not good. This government is no good. Before the war, Iraq was good. Iran now is better." BRITISH AND EUROPEAN OPINION URL ONLY: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.h tml?in_review_id=545811&in_review_text_id=51177 5 * Blair needs to learn a lesson about trust by Peter Kellner London Evening Standard, 8th April {The article distinguishes between ‘the Galloway gang', who are always going to be opposed to the Crusade against Evil, and ordinary decent Labour MPs who just want to be sure that nothing will be done illegally, ie without the support of the UN. Mr Kellner assures the latter that that is also Tony's position so everything's OK. He forgets that we went to war against Serbia without UN permission. And that ‘UN permission' means permission of the UN Security Council, which means in this case, of Russia, China and France. Is that likely to be forthcoming? Is Mr Bush likely to care?] http://www.dailystar.com.lb/08_04_02/art4.asp * US-UK mutual admiration society set to oust Saddam by Rime Allaf Daily Star (Lebanon), 8th April LONDON: "Good job," said President George W. Bush to his weekend guest in Crawford, Texas, after the two had just finished addressing the media. As he shook hands with Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush looked satisfied, as indeed he should be, for in spite of the mass of advice he has received from his own people in the past few days, Blair heeded none other than Bush's. After weeks of vocal opposition to British participation in an attack on Iraq, many here were hoping that Blair would use the weekend summit to warn the American president against such an action, and to persuade him that it would risk inflaming the whole Arab world even more, especially in the absence of evidence against Saddam Hussein. With the Israeli incursions into Palestinian towns, critics found this not only gave Blair more reason to control America's urge to start another war in the region, but that it was also time to contain the double standards applied by the superpower. In pleading or downright blunt tones, the media cautioned the prime minister. A telling example of the ever more irate public opinion was a direct warning from the hugely popular tabloid, The Mirror, traditionally a pro- Labor daily. On Friday, with a gigantic front- page headline condemning Bush (and his "collaborator" Blair) of being a "hypocrite," journalist John Pilger accused Bush of only asking Israelis for restraint so that he could "lay his own war plans." Asking why Blair condemns Iraq as he remains silent on "Israel's current bloody and illegal rampage through Palestine," Pilger declares in a long and scathing attack: "It is time Tony Blair came clean with the British people on his part in the coming violence against a nation of innocent people. As the crisis in Israeli-occupied Palestine deepens, Tony Blair will meet George W. Bush today to plan an attack on another country, Iraq." The perceived subservience of Blair toward his American ally was hinted at repeatedly before the prime minister traveled to a summit about which many have misgivings. Pilger considers Blair will be "in admiring attendance" while other papers have described him, again, as Bush's "poodle." Sarcasm and anger have both been mounting in Britain. Blair's refusal to allow a discussion on the Middle East as Parliament convened last week to pay tribute to the Queen Mother is far from forgiven, and most of the media was sympathetic to the MPs who chose to stay away that day. In fact, having been denied a chance to speak in Westminster, some voiced their frustrations directly to the media or, rather, in the media. Veteran Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack simply wrote a letter to the editor of The Times on Thursday, expressing concern about the Middle East and blaming Ariel Sharon for both the intifada and the present carnage. "His response to terror, based on his Beirut excesses in 1982, has been that of the terrorist, not of the statesman." Cormack hopes that Blair and Bush will make it plain to Sharon that "the current Israeli regime deserves to stand condemned in the eyes of all who call themselves civilized." Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker explained in The Independent on the same day why he boycotted the tribute session while "meltdown is now in sight" in the Middle East. Not taking sides, Baker argued for British involvement "in helping to persuade President Bush to rein in the Israeli government and put pressure on the Palestinians to prevent further suicide bombings." But as has been the case for the past few weeks, the prime minister has chosen to ignore his people, his Parliament, his Cabinet, and his media. After standing alongside Bush in total agreement about the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iraq, he knows that he must still, somehow, sell the Bush policy to all of them. It is unlikely that much praise will be awaiting Blair in Britain, when he returns just in time to participate in the Queen Mother's funeral on Tuesday. As of this writing, reactions to the joint press conference held on Saturday have not yet emerged, and there will be many after Blair's speech on Sunday. Judging from local feelings in the past weeks, Blair is likely to encounter a storm of hostility when he faces his home crowd. Even setting aside the Iraq and Palestine issues, Britons have grown tired of their prime minister's constant support of America, and particularly for its president. There is now a sense of fatigue about the intensity of the "special and unique relationship," and many were probably alarmed to hear Bush's admission that he and Blair "have a common reading of history." Many Britons, who had hoped Blair would convince America to rein in Israel's Palestine incursion, partly credit him for Bush's sudden turn-about Thursday when he said "enough is enough." Although this would be ignoring the divisions within the American administration and the apparent momentary success of the State Department, the perception that Blair had some influence on Bush's sudden call on Israel to withdraw is in fact a double-edged sword. For if he does have influence on the American president, Blair obviously chose to use it selectively. With regard to Israel, and following Bush's claim that "we share a vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and in security," Blair was confident in his support, especially of Israel. "I think that most people in Israel will realize that they don't have two greater friends in the world than the United States of America or Britain." As for Iraq, if there were any doubts before the Crawford summit, there are none now: Blair gives his full backing to America's plan to remove Saddam Hussein. In praise of his support, Bush said: "The thing I admire about this prime minister is he didn't need a poll or a focus group to convince him of the difference between right and wrong." While these words were certainly meant as a compliment, Britons will surely interpret them as Blair's casual dismissal of their opposing stance. But for all the unity displayed by the two leaders, Blair did differ slightly in his approach to justifying and defining the removal of Saddam Hussein, seeming anxious to clarify that "how we approach this, this is a matter for discussion. This is a matter for considering all the options." Blair was clearly addressing his own home public, trying to imply that no decision had yet been taken on the actual logistics. Even more indicative of his concern over British resistance, in spite of the bravado he had tried to show so far, Blair made a point of mentioning the UN, which obviously did not concern Bush. "There is a reason why United Nations resolutions were passed, nine of them, calling upon him to stop developing weapons of mass destruction," insisted Blair just before the meeting ended. Blair will have many more opportunities to explain himself on Iraq, and on where he plans to take his country. While it seemed easy for him to agree to everything George W. Bush said in Crawford, he will be facing a much less pleasant mood when he returns to confront the wrath of a good number of Britons. When Bush said "history has called us into action," they will probably want to know who, exactly, is "us" and what, exactly, is this "action." http://observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,680182, 00.html * Iraq isn't our enemy by Richard Ingrams The Observer, 7th April According to a report in the Guardian last week, 'Mr Blair is genuinely puzzled that anyone should be opposed to an opportunity to topple what he regards as one of the world's worst regimes.' The reference is, of course, to Saddam Hussein. As one who has always believed that it is a mistake to underestimate the eccentricity, if not the insanity, of most leading politicians, I am not surprised by Mr Blair's genuine puzzlement. Others, less conscious of the physiological peculiarities of our leaders, may find it alarming that our Prime Minister appears to think it perfectly normal and, indeed, the right thing to do to go round the world toppling nasty dictators wherever you find them. Saddam one day, then Mugabe, Gadaffi, the chappie in North Korea, all of them ripe for toppling. In the old days, politicians tended to go in for this toppling only if it was considered that the person to be toppled posed some kind of threat to us. Even then you had to proceed with caution. But this is not the way the Reverend Blair thinks. Others, including many members of his party, point out that Saddam, for all his beastliness, poses no threat to the people of the British Isles. We go on with our daily business quite unconcerned about the Iraqi dictator. Blair, however, cannot understand this attitude. He is, as the Guardian reports, quite genuinely puzzled by our apparent reluctance to join him in a spot of toppling (along with our American cousins). If we are not alarmed about Saddam, perhaps we all ought to be more alarmed by Blair, possibly even concluding that if anyone is due to be toppled he himself should come top of the list. http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2002/04/07/nbbc07.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/ 04/ 07/ixhome.html * BBC under fire for airing Iraqi cancer claim 'propaganda' by Chris Hastings and Charlotte Edwardes Daily Telegraph, 7th April THE BBC has been accused of peddling propaganda on behalf of Saddam Hussein after it broadcast a report highlighting discredited claims that Allied shells used in the Gulf war caused cancer in Iraqi children. Leading scientists have condemned the news item by Rageh Omaar, a BBC correspondent, in which he reported claims that there was a direct link between depleted uranium ammunition used in the conflict and an increase in childhood cancer. Mr Omaar did not say that he was subject to any reporting restrictions, even though he was accompanied by Iraqi officials at all times. The nature of the report, which was aired on BBC1's 10 O'Clock News last week, has left the BBC open to speculation - strongly denied by the corporation - that it was trying to curry favour with the Iraqi regime in order to get access to the country in the event of war. Peter Hain, the Foreign Office minister, last night said: "Any British journalist, especially one working for the BBC reporting from Iraq, must surely be aware that they are doing so only because the Iraqi regime wants them to. Objective journalism in Iraq is well-nigh impossible." Mr Omaar, speaking from a hospital in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, stated that Iraqi doctors reported a 20-fold increase in all cancers since the end of the Gulf war. He quoted Iraqi claims that such cases were non-existent before the outbreak of the conflict in 1991. The news item carried harrowing footage of children suffering from eye and brain cancers, and focused on the case of a six-year-old girl who is suffering from cancer of the cervix. The report, however, was not based on any new scientific research by the BBC and did not interview any Western scientists. While Mr Omaar made a passing reference to the fact that the United States and Britain deny any link between depleted uranium and cancers in children, he did not state that this view is based on a body of independent scientific research. Last year the Royal Society concluded that any link between depleted uranium and cancer was so minimal that it was almost non-existent. The research was based on soldiers who were in direct contact with the material. Dr Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, said that it was far more likely that any childhood cancers were caused by Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his own people. "Scientists knew in 1986 that there was going to be a rise in childhood cancer cases in southern Iraq," he said. "The reason for that was because during the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi government used sulphur mustard gas in the southern area and that has a proven link to these types of cancer." Mr Omaar made no mention of this possibility. Dr Guthrie also questioned the BBC's motive for reporting on an issue that had been addressed by scientists two years ago. He said: "I find it hard to understand why the BBC should tackle what is essentially an old story." Prof Brian Spratt, who chaired the Royal Society inquiry into depleted uranium, said: "Claims that there is an increase in birth defects and childhood cancers in Iraq are impossible to measure as there is no comparable data from before the war. At the moment, therefore, this 'evidence' is anecdotal." Dr Michael Clark, a spokesman for the National Radiology Protection Board in London, said he thought the report was "not exactly objective". He added: "It is difficult to get proper information from Iraq, in particular in relation to depleted uranium. Therefore the BBC's claims are not helpful to understanding the real issues." Vin Ray, the deputy head of news-gathering at the BBC, denied that a deal had been done with Iraq to gain access to the country in case of war. He said: "I can categorically refute that. The BBC is the most regularly banned media organisation from Iraq because of what we report. While it is true to say they don't let us in often, we would not compromise our standards." http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_561355.html * Protesters demand Saddam overthrow Ananova, 7th April Some 1,200 people have marched through central London demanding the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But the protesters, drawn from mainly Iraqi communities across Britain stressed that any military action against the dictator must not harm the people of Iraq. The 1,200-strong demonstration, organised by the Iraqi Human Rights Division called for sanctions against Iraq to be lifted and members of Saddam's regime to be charged with committing crimes against humanity and arrested if they leave the country. Organiser Yasser Alaskary said the protesters wanted to send a clear message to Texas where US President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are meeting to discuss possible strikes against Iraq. He said: "Bush has made the world into black and white, saying you're either with Saddam Hussein or you're with us. "We're saying we are with the Iraqi people. Whatever is in their benefit we would support. "We want concerted effort against Saddam Hussein directed at him - only at him - and not at the Iraqi people. We won't give Bush a blank cheque." URL ONLY http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc? pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3XSYBVSZC&live=true& useoverrid etemplate=ZZZ99ZVV70C&tagid=ZZZPB7GUA0C&subheading =UK * Defiant Blair attacks critics of his Iraq stance by Brian Groom, Political Editor Financial Times, 9th April Worth retaining this statement of Mr Blair's philosophy on political debate: "People will make their judgments when we make our judgments." http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=381722002 * Book casts doubt on SAS mission by STUART REID Scotsman, 9th April A BOOK which challenges the foundations of one of Britain's most famous modern war stories was being published today. The Real Bravo Two Zero paints a different picture of many of the events on which the account of the legendary SAS mission behind Iraqi lines are based. Speaking to Iraqi witnesses about the doomed mission, author Michael Asher heard different versions of dramatic firefights described in the book and of the SAS patrol's attempted escape. Bravo Two Zero, which tells the story of a failed SAS mission during the Gulf War, was a best- selling title for patrol leader Andy McNab. Seven members of the troop were either captured or killed - only Chris Ryan managed to escape. Mr McNab, who was captured on the mission and released at the end of the conflict, was unavailable for comment. Mr Asher, a former SAS reservist, spent five weeks in Iraq investigating what happened during the Gulf War. He managed to find people who claimed to be witnesses and traced what he claims was the actual taxi hijacked as the soldiers fled. Mr Asher, an Arabic speaker, said: "I just wanted to find out the truth." Mr McNab wrote that the soldiers hijacked a yellow New York taxi with chrome bumpers and white-walled tyres whereas Mr Asher claims it was a white Toyota with neither of these features. Iraqi witnesses dispute Mr McNab's accounts of gunfights at the border crossing and then several miles further on, in which dozens of Iraqi soldiers were allegedly killed. According to local witnesses, there were no Iraqi fatalities. Although escorted by two Iraqi guides during his visit, Mr Asher said he made it clear that he would not be introduced to people by them to make sure a false story was not being set up. "I am absolutely certain that this wasn't set up by the Iraqi government," he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsi d_1916000/1916747.stm * Head to head: Action on Iraq BBC, 10th April As Tony Blair faces tough questions over his support for possible military action against Iraq, BBC News Online speaks to two MPs with very different views on the prospect of confronting Saddam Hussein. Former Conservative cabinet minister Peter Lilley: Essentially, if there is evidence that Iraq is behaving in a way that is a threat to the peace of the region, the stability of the world and the interests of the UK, then that justifies taking action. But we should not take action just because the United States tell us to do so. I suspect that if we see Saddam Hussein being intransigent about having weapons inspectors from the United Nations and failing to meet the UN resolutions, that is the evidence. Toppling Saddam Hussein could well be a consequence of action against Iraq but it probably should not be the final objective I am not an expert on the legal position on what authority is needed before the US and UK take any military action but ultimately one cannot be vetoed by Outer Mongolia or whatever. Toppling Saddam Hussein could well be a consequence of action against Iraq but it probably should not be the final objective. Instead, any plans should concentrate on dealing with weapons of mass destruction and on whether there is any involvement in terrorism. In any case, I do not think we should be precipitate about Iraq. The need for thorough preparation and proof of the need of action goes hand-in-hand, hopefully, with calming down the situation between Palestine and Israel. Resolving that conflict cannot be a condition of action against Iraq but it would be preferable. Labour MP Alice Mahon: First of all, why do we want to go to war against Iraq? That question has to be answered - we have Mr Blair, along with the US, sidelining the United Nations, suggesting that military action is inevitable. I do not believe it is and I think we are now seeing the majority of voters think the same. Two people cannot start yet another war in the Middle East on some shaky evidence, if they have it, from inside the CIA. Where is the evidence of Iraq building up weapons of mass destruction? Scott Ritter, one of the last weapons inspectors to come out of Iraq in 1998, said Iraq was a broken state. Iraq has not since the Gulf War attempted to attack another state and every one of Iraq's neighbours, except Israel, does not believe it is a threat. Mr Blair is the prime minister of the United Kingdom and Mr Bush is president of the United States. They are very important people. But they do not constitute the international community. We have got the United Nations which does that. Two people cannot start yet another war in the Middle East on some shaky evidence, if they have it, from inside the CIA. Anybody watching what is going in the Middle East must be appalled. This is not an equal struggle, the Palestinians' country has been occupied. I absolutely deplore the loss of life whether it be through the suicide bomber or the helicopter gunship. But Ariel Sharon has only been given a limp slap across the wrist and a lot of us would be a lot more convinced about US policy in the Middle East if it took a stronger stance against Israel. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w- eur/2002/apr/10/041001460.html * German Pol[itician] Speaks on U.S. Relations Las Vegas Sun, 10th April MUNICH, Germany (AP) - The German government has neglected its strong ties with Washington since Sept. 11 by focusing on internal debates over its role in the war on terrorism, the conservative challenger in national elections said in an interview ahead of a visit to the United States. Bavarian Premier Edmund Stoiber said Germany should move to unify Europe as a strong U.S. partner. Squandering energy on internal debates only highlights the absence of a cohesive European foreign policy, he said. "What I blame the government for is that it is doing nothing to make the Europeans speak with a strong unified voice on security and partnership issues," Stoiber told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Tuesday. "We have to make up our minds: Do we as Europeans want to be a strong partner? And here Germany must take a decisive role to make Europe a strong partner of the Americans." The diverging European views have both political and military consequences, especially as the growing gap in military technology places additional strains on the trans-Atlantic relationship, he said. "Basically, the Americans will only involve us in their decision-making if we are a strong partner," Stoiber said. Although he has been a fixture in German politics for 20 years, Stoiber's two-day visit to New York and Washington will be his first foray into the international arena since becoming a candidate for chancellor three months ago. On Friday, he will meet President Bush for the first time. At home, the 60-year-old Stoiber is campaigning on Bavaria's economic successes, despite the embarrassing bankruptcy of the Kirch media empire's core unit, which drew heavily on loans from the Bavarian state bank. Stoiber maintains that Germany, once Europe's economic engine, is now falling behind. But in the United States, Stoiber's focus will be on foreign policy. His message: Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government has undermined bilateral ties, in particular by debating what Germany's role would be if the United States expands its war on terrorism to Iraq. "I believe that Germany is making the mistake ... by holding a public debate on things that America is considering but has by no means made official policy, instead of trying to get the Europeans behind the idea that in the first place Baghdad must be pressed to comply with the U.N. resolutions," Stoiber said. "That is a point where trust is being squandered," he said. Stoiber's picture of Germany as a staunch American ally closely mirrors former Chancellor Helmut Kohl's cozy relationship with the United States - and with President Bush's father, who gave the nod to German reunification in 1990 on the strength of his trust in Kohl. Stoiber's criticism has angered Schroeder's administration, which has repeatedly expressed solidarity with the United States and faced a confidence vote last fall over sending German troops to participate in the war on terrorism. Matthias Machnig, a Schroeder campaign adviser, accused Stoiber of damaging Germany's reputation by talking the country down. "I believe that Gerhard Schroeder has made one thing clear after Sept. 11, that he stands in solidarity with the United States," Machnig said. "He has supported all American initiatives and measures." During the interview, Stoiber drew frequently on Kohl's legacy, underlining conservatives' belief that a campaign financing scandal that made the former chancellor a political liability has been neutralized. Suggesting a more modest German profile consistent with Kohl's model, Stoiber said the lead on resolving conflicts like the Israeli- Palestinian fighting belonged to the United States, due primarily to its military superiority. He cited the failed European Union mission to Israel last week, when a delegation led by Javier Solana returned home after being denied a meeting with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. "This makes Europe look smaller than it is - if not to say ridiculous," Stoiber said. "Without military strength, which naturally only the Americans can muster, there's no way to force peace in the Middle East. The Europeans are overextending themselves if they try to go it alone." ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through UK Online webmail _______________________________________________ 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 casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk