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]

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

[casi] (new) News, 1-8/6/02 (2)

News, 1-8/6/02 (2)


*  3 reportedly injured in US-British air attack
*  Radar system bombed in Southern Iraq
*  Coalition Forces on Alert as They Patrol Northern No-Fly Zone in Iraq
[Last week (ŒWisdom of Aerial ŒGameı With Hussein Comes Into Questionı,
News, 25/5-1/6/02 (2)), we were told that the Turkish government wouldnıt
allow bombing raids out of Incirlik. But here, in an article on pilots
operating out of Incirlik, weıre told that Œthe F-16 pilot's main objective
is to hunt down active Iraqi launch sites for surface-to-air missiles, known
as SAMs, and to destroy these sites if possible.ı The Kurds are almost
reproached for their reluctance to act as a proxy force in the event of a US
invasion despite being willing to shelter behind the Œprotectionı offered by
their kindly Œbig brotherı - the phrase is used by the commanding general of
Operation Northern Watch. The article begins with a reference to ŒThe U.S.,
British, and Turkish coalition enforcing the no-fly zone over northern
Iraqı. Does this mean that the Turkish military effort to bomb the Kurds is
now fully incorporated into the US/British pretense at protecting them?]
*  Iraq reportedly steps up bid to down U.S., British warplanes [Geoff Hoon,
justifying an earlier statement that Iraq is more of a threat than it used
to be.]


*  BAGHDAD: Exports on hold
*  Pracsi set to commission $7m project in Iraq [Long overdue refurbishment
of the oil infrastructure. How long before it all gets blown up again? Not
that Pracsi will mind, so long as they get the contract to build it up
*  Iraq oil flows again
*  Interfax: Gazprom, SIBUR win tender to develop Iraqi gas field
*  Factors Pushing Iraq on Surcharges


*  Iraqi Exile Groups Wary of U.S., Each Other [Usual conflicts as to who
best represents the Iraqi opposition. Usual failure to make sense of the
divisions. Includes reference to Œ1996, when the Clinton administration
abandoned a CIA plan to support an invasion of central Iraq by Kurds in the
north. Hussein's forces then invaded Kurdish areas with impunity.ı We really
need a coherent account of the events of 1995/6 in the Kudish autonomous
zone, but it has to be constantly stressed that Husseinıs forces entered at
the invitation of the KDP because the whole area was about to be overrun by
the PUK in alliance with Iran. And that the US was perfectly happy to see
the Iranian invasion stopped by the only means possible - Iraqi
counter-attack - despite the small detail of the number of US sympathisers
who got killed as a result.]
*  US drifts into chaos in Iraq [Nick Cohen defends the INC but one wonders
why the INC, unlike nearly every other substantial opposition group
throughout the world (the IRA for example) is so hopelessly reliant on US
financial support and so utterly unable to find its own sources of income.]
*  US plans meetings with anti-Hussein Iraqi group [The group in question is
the so-called Group of Four. No-one is yet explaining to us why the KDP, PUK
and SCIRI - 3 out of the 4 - are no longer connected to the INC. Or what is
left of the INC without them. Or what the Iraqi National Accord is. Or why
the KDP and PUK are publicly identified with this group which seems to want
war on Iraq when their public position is still that they donıt want war on
Iraq ...]
*  U.S. plans for Iraq after Saddam [Money for the ŒIraqi Jurists
Associationı and for the ŒIraqi National Movementı, or is the INM another
name for the Iraqi National Accord? One wonders what kind of creatures these
can be who are prepared to accept money from the government that has
destroyed the industrial infrastructure of their country and reduced
millions of their fellow citizens to penury ...]


*  Ethnic Kurd is not a refugee [Rather confusing and intriguing account of
recent Court of Appeal decision on refugee status of Kurd from the
Autonomous Zone. He is not deemed to be at risk, even though the US is
planning to use his homeland as a base to launch a new war against Iraq, and
even though the KAZıs legally recognised government is still in Baghdad, and
the Kurds cannot defend themselves against an Iraqi invasion and are being
given no guarantee of any defense from anyone else (the patrolling of the No
Fly Zones offers nothing as can be seen from the case of the Marsh Arabs in
the No Fly Zone in the South). Nonetheless, the only available route of
return to the KAZ is via Baghdad, and it is conceded that that that might be
dangerous. But the British government has given him a guarantee that he
wonıt be returned by that route (the only route available). So heıs in no
danger. So he isnıt a refugee. Got it?]
*  Immigrant plan assailed [US policy for fingerprinting and keeping tabs on
immigrants from the ever expanding axis of evil.]


*  UW student groups plan Albright protest [Interesting anti-Allbright
alliance between Muslims and Latinos in the University of Washington.]
*  MP berates Blair's leadership [Tam Dalyell reminds us that: "Harold
Wilson, alright he weaved and ducked, but he kept Britain out of the Vietnam


*  UN appoints humanitarian official in Iraq
*  Iraq 'has no terror weapons' [Denis Halliday praises Boutros Boutros
Ghali above Kofi Annan. And at last someone says what I believe is most
important thing to say at the present time: "We have to reform the Security
Council. At present it's an old boys' club of the world's major arms
traders.² But when he adds ³"It needs a permanent voice from the developing
world, and probably only one European Union member. So either France or the
UK should go.", he seems to imply that the permanent member system should
remain. It should be abolished. But if it remains and if one European power
has to go then it should obviously be the UK, which isnıt in any meaningful
sense a European power.]


Boston Globe, 2nd June

BAGHDAD - Iraq said yesterday that three people were wounded when US and
British planes struck targets in the south of the country, while Washington
said it had launched a raid after Western jets were threatened. US officials
said attack aircraft had bombed a radar system in southern Iraq on Thursday
in the latest incident involving warplanes patrolling a no-fly zone. The US
Central Command in Tampa said aircraft from the force of US and British
planes used precision-guided weapons to hit ''components of an offensive
radar system.'' (Reuters)

Hoover's (source unclear, perehaps, 2nd June

United States or British warplanes bombed a radar system in the southern
area of Iraq early Friday after three surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were
fired at coalition aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone, the US military said.

"SAMs were fired at them and they responded immediately," said Lieutenant
Commander Frank Merriman, a spokesman in Tampa, Florida with the United
States Central Command.

Merriman conveyed the air strike targeted a radar system near An Nasiriyah
southeast of Baghdad, that was on an approved target list.

The radar was bombed with precision guided weapons, the command added,
according to AFP.

It was the latest in a series of strikes against Iraqi air defenses in both
southern and northern Iraq.

The strikes are usually carried out by US warplanes based on aircraft
carriers in the Gulf or land bases in the region.

However, US military spokesmen have adopted a policy of not saying whether
the attacking aircraft were US or British, which also patrol the no-fly

Baghdad has actively challenged the no-fly zones since December 1998, but
the pace of activity has picked up in recent weeks from a lull that followed
the September 11 attacks.

by Alisha Ryu
Voice of America, 3rd June

The U.S., British, and Turkish coalition enforcing the no-fly zone over
northern Iraq says it has so far not been given any orders to prepare for a
larger campaign against Saddam Hussein. For weeks, the international media
has been speculating that the Bush Administration is planning some type of
military action to remove the Iraqi leader from power. VOA's Alisha Ryu
recently visited the coalition's air base in Incirlik, Turkey, to assess the
mood and the obstacles ahead if the United States did decide to attack.

As part of the Operation Northern Watch, enforcing a no-fly zone above the
36th parallel, the F-16 pilot's main objective is to hunt down active Iraqi
launch sites for surface-to-air missiles, known as SAMs, and to destroy
these sites if possible. The pilot's second objective is to come back alive.

The Pentagon says Baghdad in recent months has been quietly moving a
significant number of SAMs into no-fly zone areas in northern and southern
Iraq to harass patrolling fighters. Some U.S. officials speculate that
Saddam Hussein is now fixated on shooting down an allied jet to bolster his
popularity among anti-Western Arabs and to generate opposition in the United
States against putting U.S. troops and pilots in harm's way. The commander
of the operation's center at Incirlik, U.S. Air Force Colonel Buck Burgess,
will not say how many SAMs Baghdad may have moved but he confirms the
missiles pose an enormous threat. "They are not always up north. But most of
these are mobile systems and he moves them around and places them at
different places at different times to complicate our ability to find them,
not because we're going to bomb them, but because he wants to shoot one of
us down," he says. "That's his whole goal."

 The northern no-fly zone was created in 1991 to protect ethnic Kurds
against Saddam Hussein, who brutally crushed them at the end of the Gulf War
for rising up against Baghdad. A year later, the southern no-fly zone was
set up to keep the Iraqi leader from launching operations against the Muslim
Shi'ite population there. The two no-fly zones cover about 60 percent of the

More than a decade later, Operation Northern Watch commanders say the
mission still performs a vital role. While fighter jets keep the Iraqi
military out of allied-patrolled air space, communication and surveillance
planes constantly search for clues showing Saddam Hussein trying to build
weapons of mass destruction.

Since international weapons inspectors were forced to leave Baghdad four
years ago, the West has been unable to effectively monitor Iraq's attempts
to revive its nuclear and biological weapons development.

Baghdad says it will readmit the inspectors only if their return is linked
to an end to the 12 year-old international economic sanctions and a halt to
U.S. military patrols over northern and southern Iraq. The United States has
rejected the idea.

Under allied protection, the Kurds in the northeastern corner of Iraq have
flourished - enjoying relative prosperity and autonomy. According to Kurdish
officials, 70 percent of the villages now have a clean water supply and
infant mortality rates are half those in the rest of Iraq.

The commanding general of Operation Northern Watch, Edward Ellis, says those
statistics show the allied operation has been able to achieve its primary
goal. "Are we a Kurdish bodyguard? Nah. But does someone know that they've
got a big brother if they needed it? Yea," he says.

Ironically, that very success is now hampering efforts for the Bush
Administration to rally popular support in the region for its next possible
move in the war against terrorism: removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Senior U.S. officials in recent weeks have reportedly stepped up talks with
Kurdish opposition leaders to discuss how the Kurds could help oust the
Iraqi president. Opposition members contacted by VOA in Turkey declined to
be interviewed about the talks. But they hinted at some major obstacles

While the Kurds, whose forces number about 85,000. could act as a proxy army
in northern Iraq, most are reluctant to hand over their new-found autonomy
in exchange for a vague promise of a better future or even the creation of
their own country.

They fear that a U.S. attack could end the oil-for-food program the United
Nations adopted in 1995 to ease the effects of the international embargo on
Iraq. The U.N. program buys oil from Iraq so that the government can buy
food and other humanitarian goods.

Right now, the Kurds receive 13 percent of that oil money from Iraq, which
accounts for 60 percent of their economy. They worry that a war could
severely disrupt that cash flow. They also note the possibility that the
next Iraqi leader could end the oil-revenue sharing arrangement altogether.

Still, if Washington is planning some kind of military action against Iraq,
the men and women conducting Operation Northern Watch say they are ready to
shift into high gear. Colonel Marc Felman is the man responsible for combat
readiness of U.S. forces at Incirlik. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure out that this is a strategic location. In some ways, we are the last
bastion before you get to the anti-Western forces that we're most worried
about," he says. "Our job is to be ready and to listen to what our civilian
bosses tell us to do."

But those orders may be difficult to execute out of Incirlik if the United
States' Operation Northern Watch partner, Turkey, decides to reject allied
requests to use its base as a staging area for the war.

While the government in Ankara strongly supports the air patrols, it has
deep concerns about the creation of an independent Kurdish state in northern
Iraq. Turkey has had a long-standing conflict with insurgents among its own
Kurdish minorities, who often took refuge in northern Iraq.

The Turkish government also fears that a war just across the border could
badly damage the country's lucrative tourism industry and plunge the nation
into economic chaos.

Earlier this month, President Bush denied that his administration has a war
plan for Iraq. But calling Iraq a part of an "axis of evil," he has also
made it clear that he will not allow Saddam Hussein to build weapons of mass

The United States is turning its sights on Iraq partly because it fears the
Iraqi leader already has stocks of nuclear and biological weapons and partly
because he might supply them to followers of terrorist leaders such as Osama
bin Laden.

Houston Chronicle, 5th June

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- After a significant lull in Iraq's efforts to shoot
down U.S. and British warplanes patrolling two no-flight zones over its
territory after Sept. 11, those efforts have increased again to worrisome
levels in recent weeks, the British defense secretary, Geoff Hoon, said

"Immediately after September the 11th, there was quite a falloff in the
incidents over the no-fly zones," said Hoon, who spoke to reporters aboard
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plane on the way to a NATO defense
ministers' meeting here.

"Indeed, we judged that the regime in Iraq seemed to have got the message,
that military action would follow if they were not very, very careful," Hoon

But he added that recently "there has been an increase in the number of
attacks on aircraft" flown by British and U.S. pilots over the northern and
southern no-fly zones set up a decade ago by the United Nations.

Hoon declined to say whether the attempts to shoot down allied warplanes
were being matched by any other kind of war footing in Iraq, in particular
in its program to acquire and field weapons of mass destruction.

"But clearly, they are feeling a little more confident than they have in the
recent past, and that's obviously a concern for our people, for the very
important job that they're doing," he said, referring to the British and
U.S. pilots.

After a day of talks in London, Rumsfeld and Hoon emphasized that no
decisions had been made on military action to topple President Saddam
Hussein. But Hoon said, "We both believe that Iraq would be a much better
place" if Saddam were no longer ruling.

Hoon emphasized the importance of allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back into
Iraq with the freedom to roam the nation.

"Unless and until we have U.N.-mandated inspectors on the ground, freely
going where they want to in Iraq, we can only be deeply suspicious as to
what is happening there," he said. "We obviously have to take appropriate
action to deal with that threat."

Rumsfeld was in London and then Brussels on Wednesday, opening a 10-day tour
that will also take him to Estonia, for a meeting with Nordic and Baltic
defense ministers, and to three Persian Gulf states before visits to India
and Pakistan.


World Oil, 3rd June

Iraq has reportedly halted its oil exports due to consternation over new UN
pricing proposals.

The last cargo of oil left the port of Ceyhan on Sunday.

According to a report from Reuters, a senior Iraqi official revealed that
nothing at all would be loaded on Monday, due to what he termed 'the UN's
retroactive pricing'. He stressed that customers could not load oil without
knowledge of the price.

It is hoped that exports will resume on Tuesday.

by Saifur Rahman
Gulf News, 6th June

Dubai-based Process Automation Consultants and Systems Integrators (Pracsi),
is going to install and commission a $7 million control system project in
northern Iraq's three oil refineries under the UN Food for Oil Programme,
next month.

Officials of Pracsi, a leader in providing control system to oil and gas
industry with a $20 million annual turnover, said this is the single largest
technology transfer to the sanction-hit country under the programme, which
will make the three refineries in Iraq's northern Baiji more efficient,
improve the quality of production and integrate and manage the process in a
state-of-the-art computerised control system.

"It has been an extremely challenging project in all aspects. Implementing
technology projects in Iraq requires focus, dedication and exceptional
technical skills. When Pracsi won the project, we committed to work closely
with the UN for approval," said Nikolas Petrakos, managing director of

"We have already shipped two consignments to Iraq and the balance shipment
of equipment and logistics will be transferred in two weeks time. We hope to
install and commission the control system by early next month."

The system was fully designed, integrated and executed in Dubai at Pracsi's
manufacturing facilities and is one of the largest DCS systems to be fully
integrated in the Middle East. It was completed in 420 days.

As Pracsi's technology partner, Yamatake of Japan provided the
infrastructure technology while the engineering, construction and testing
was executed by Pracsi. In terms of size, this is the largest of its kind
project to be installed in the Middle East and built locally in the UAE,
Petrakos claimed.

"Pracsi has completed in excess of 40 projects under the UN Oil for Food
programme all focused on providing the Iraqi oil industry with an approved
technology solutions for the operational and production needs. This project
is a major proof and milestone in confirming that the UAE can provide
complete solutions to complex industrial problems of the Iraqi industry,"
Petrakos said.

Pracsi has set up an office in Iraq to service the installed systems and tap
opportunities in the market.

Pracsi is currently working on to receive orders for the remaining
refineries. "Under the sanctions, Iraq could not upgrade its system for a
long time. Iraqi oil industry, one of the largest in the Arab world, is
running on a numatic control system, which is old and outdated. Our project
will make it much more efficient and modern.

"With our current project, only 20 per cent will be covered. The remaining
80 per cent is yet to be done. So there are a huge scope of work for us in

"We are closely working with the region's oil and gas industry and have
joint projects with Saudi Aramco. Currently we are making forays in the
Irani oil fields."

Gulf News (from Reuters), 7th June

Iraqi crude oil was flowing again yesterday at the Medit-erranean port of
Ceyhan after a three-day stoppage, but the Gulf port of Mina Al-Bakr
remained idle since the weekend, a Western industry source said.

But supplies may begin to trickle out again as Iraq has cut the illegal
surcharge on its UN-monitored exports to 15 cents from 25-30 cents, industry
sources said earlier yesterday. Some viewed this as a step toward an
elimination of the fee.

At Ceyhan, where the very large crude carrier (VLCC) Olympic Breeze arrived
on Wednesday, the vessel was due to complete loading two million barrels of
Kirkuk bound for North America by the late evening, industry sources said.

But no further liftings were scheduled for the following several days,
meaning another halt was likely amid an ongoing dispute over pricing. The
next lifting may be around June 18 when one million barrels could sail for

The Gulf port of Mina Al-Bakr, Iraq's only other UN-authorised export point,
was still idle with no liftings expected until around June 10, when a vessel
should load a contract left over from the previous phase.

Iraq said its oil exports ground to a halt on Monday - just days into a new
six-month phase of the UN oil-for-food deal, which permits Iraq to sell oil
in exchange for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods.

Unlike in April, when Baghdad halted oil exports in April to protest against
Israel's military offensive into Palestinian areas, this stoppage appears to
be a kind of boycott by oil traders who are fed up with retroactive pricing
and the surcharge that Iraq has been charging for the last 18 months.

Hoover's, 7th June 7

MOSCOW. June 6 (Interfax) - Gazprom and Siberian-Ural Oil and Gas Chemical
Company (SIBUR) have won a tender to develop a gas field in Iraq at a cost
of EUR 60 million, SIBUR Chairman and Gazprom Deputy CEO Alexander Ryazanov
said at a Thursday press conference in Moscow.

"The contract to develop this field is supported by the United Nations and
is promising," he said. However, he was unable to state the exact level of
gas reserves at the field.

Ryazanov noted that Gazprom plants would supply the equipment to develop the

The Associated Press, 8th June

LONDON (AP) ‹ Iraq is reducing the surcharges it makes customers pay for its
oil as the United Nations intensifies pressure on Baghdad to forego this
illegal source of cash, energy analysts said Friday.

Hurt by plummeting sales of crude, Iraq also is believed to have halved the
surcharges in an effort to lure back wary traders and avoid further pain for
its long-battered economy.

Since its defeat in the Gulf War, Iraq has sold the bulk of its crude under
close U.N. supervision. The U.N. oil-for-food program is designed to keep
Iraq, one of the biggest OPEC producer countries, from using its oil
revenues to pay for imports that it could put to military use.

The Iraqi government introduced surcharges as a way of partially
circumventing U.N. control over its only source of hard currency. The
country has illegally earned at least $2.3 billion in illegal surcharges on
oil and commissions from commodities contracts, according to a report
released last month by the U.S. General Accounting Office.

The United Nations, which seemed earlier to have turned ``a blind eye'' to
the practice, has recently cracked down in an effort to stem the flow of
what it considers illegal funds into Iraqi government coffers, said Michael
Rothman, a senior analyst at Merrill Lynch in New York.

As a result, oil trading companies that buy Iraqi crude and then sell it to
refineries in the United States and other third parties have started making
themselves scarce. Some traders have expressed fear that the United Nations
might penalize them for paying the surcharges, Rothman said.

Iraq exported 2.1 million barrels of oil a day as recently as two weeks ago.
Last week, its daily sales plunged to 370,000 barrels as buyers looked for
crude elsewhere.

``Traders do not like to be seen in the light of day as paying the
surcharges,'' said Peter Gignoux, head of the petroleum desk at Salomon
Smith Barney in London.

Iraq initially sold its oil at a discount to the prevailing market price and
then levied a surcharge that was roughly equal to the amount of the
discount. Analysts estimate that the surcharges ranged from 25 cents to 35
cents per barrel of oil, although precise details are hard to come by.

As business has dried up in recent days, anecdotal evidence suggests that
Iraq has slashed the surcharge to 15 cents a barrel or even less as a sales
incentive. Contracts of light, sweet crude for July delivery were trading
Friday at $24.75 a barrel, down 4 cents, on the New York Mercantile

The United Nations began last year to try to quash Iraq's surcharges by
imposing a system of retroactive pricing on Iraqi oil. Under this system,
buyers of Iraqi crude don't know until the end of each month what price they
will end up paying.

The U.N.-imposed price leaves Iraq less room to levy a surcharge, and it
makes Iraqi oil less attractive because buyers can't be certain of locking
in a profit when they take possession of the crude.

Iraq's reputation as an unreliable supplier hasn't helped its standing with
customers. Iraq has abruptly interrupted crude shipments in the past, most
recently on April 8, when it announced a 30-day boycott on oil exports to
countries that support Israel.

Raad Alkadiri of The Petroleum Finance Co., a Washington consultancy,
suggested that by reducing or even eliminating its surcharges, Iraq might be
able to secure political support from key trading partners in exchange for
granting hassle-free access to its crude. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is
eager to keep oil flowing to its Arab neighbors and to the Russian trading
firms that have typically bought more than a third of the nation's crude.

``It makes perfect sense, with Iraqi strategy right now,'' Alkadiri said.

In addition to its official, U.N.-monitored exports, Iraq is widely believed
to smuggle a large share of its oil across its land borders and by ship
through the Gulf.

Iraq smuggled out as much as 480,000 barrels of oil a day in March,
according to the GAO report, which estimates Iraq has earned $4.3 billion
from oil smuggling since 1997. Most of this oil went across the long borders
Iraq shares with Syria, Jordan and Turkey, the GAO said.


by Daniel Williams
Washington Post, 2nd June

LONDON -- Ahmed Chalabi, the perennially beleaguered Iraqi exile leader, put
down the phone after a recent call from Washington, happily informed that
State Department money would flow again to Liberty TV, the station he runs
to beam propaganda to his homeland.

"Another episode in the Battle of Washington," he said, sighing. "That
battle has to finish before the battle against Saddam Hussein begins."

Chalabi runs the Iraqi National Congress (INC), nominally the umbrella
organization of Iraqi groups opposed to Hussein's rule and long expected to
play a prominent role in toppling the Baghdad government. But recent
disputes suggest that the issue of his organization's role is far from

That's not Chalabi's only problem. A trip through London, the base for many
Iraqi dissidents, suggests that the INC is an umbrella that covers hardly
anyone. Groups that have operated under its shelter come and go with the
changeable winds of U.S. and Iraqi exile politics.

The disarray is testimony to the decade-long failure of the United States to
forge a united front against Hussein. That failure is now more urgent as the
Bush administration turns up its rhetoric about the need for "regime change"
in Iraq -- although it has reportedly put off any invasion until at least
next year.

What role will dissident groups and their followers in Iraq play in any
battle? Who will replace Hussein if there is a war? Among Iraqi exile
leaders, neither question has been resolved.

The exiles' experience with the United States makes them wary of signing on
to a new project.

They believe they have been betrayed twice by the United States since 1991:
first, when President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi people to rise
up after the Persian Gulf War but withheld military support; and in 1996,
when the Clinton administration abandoned a CIA plan to support an invasion
of central Iraq by Kurds in the north. Hussein's forces then invaded Kurdish
areas with impunity.

Chalabi, who has been an opposition figure for three decades, concurs with
reports from Washington that the Bush administration is divided on what to
do. The State Department and the CIA are trying to marginalize him, he and
others said, against the wishes of the Pentagon and allies in Congress. The
latest example, in Chalabi's view, is the flap over television money.

In January, the State Department suspended many of its grants to the INC,
alleging widespread accounting problems, including lack of documentation for
almost $578,800 in cash payments. The INC acknowledged a need to strengthen
internal financial controls but denied that any U.S. government funds were
improperly used.

For several months, Liberty TV had been operating under monthly grants of
$1.3 million while the INC negotiated new, longer-term funding with the
State Department. Chalabi attributes the cutoff to "personal animus" and old
disagreements on how to topple Hussein. Chalabi has spoken out against
proposals to back a coup led by Hussein's own military. "The roots are
decades of American foreign policy," he asserted.

A State Department official in Washington said that talks are underway with
the INC over funding. "We're almost there on negotiating a grant," the
official said.

Chalabi aides perceive a further move to sideline the INC in a recent
meeting between administration officials and top representatives of two
Kurdish components of the INC, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and
the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). The Americans approached the two
Kurdish groups about setting up CIA offices in northern Iraq, where they
command separate territories under the threatening barrels of Hussein's

Although both groups are ostensibly aligned with the INC, the Kurdistan
Democratic Party openly expresses discontent. "We still belong to the INC,
but we are not active in it. I'm not sure the INC is an effective tool for
change," said Hoshyar Zebari, the Kurdish group's international relations

Yet another exile grouping, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq (SCIRI), has dropped out of the INC altogether. The council
represents elements of the restive Shiite population located throughout
southern Iraq and parts of central Iraq.

Hamid Bayati, a member of the council's central committee, complained that
the INC was overly dependent on U.S. money. "It's not an Iraqi opposition
force, it's an employee of the Americans," Bayati said. The council is
headquartered in Iran and takes a dim view of an U.S.-dominated liberation
of Iraq. Officially, it wants the Americans to operate under the aegis of
the United Nations. Nonetheless, it has been in contact with U.S. officials.

Now a contest over who collectively represents the anti-Hussein opposition
seems to be shaping up, a continuation of a long game of musical chairs. The
KDP, PUK, SCIRI and a Shiite-based organization with strong CIA connections,
the Iraqi National Accord, have created yet another alliance, called the
Group of Four. (In Chalabi's office, the arrangement is called the Gang of

Bayati said the Group of Four represents the "core" resistance against
Hussein. The INC, he added, is just "one of many groups."

"No one accepts being represented by the INC," he added.

Missing from the lineup is any significant representation from Iraq's third
ethnic group, the Sunni Muslims. The Sunnis, who make up about 20 percent of
the population, are the traditional governmental elite in Iraq. Many Sunnis
fear being overwhelmed if Hussein, himself a Sunni, is ousted. At least half
of Iraqi citizens are Shiites.

Despite the divisions, the Iraqi exiles concur on several deep concerns. One
is that even the smallest sign of new cooperation between the Kurds and
Washington might provoke Hussein into military action. In the past 10 years,
northern Iraq has achieved a level of stability through creation of a
quasi-independent Kurdish state. The PUK and KDP, while wary of each other,
permit movement between their enclaves and cooperate on the delivery of
humanitarian goods.

"We fear losing what we have achieved. This worry is always at the back of
our minds," said Zibari. "If we sign up with the Americans, it would be the
point of no return."

The Iraqis share suspicions that the United States eventually would be
content to impose a new dictatorship, rather than a democratic alternative
to Hussein. "A new dictatorship can't be installed," Chalabi advised.

Bayati, the Shiite representative, warned that his community opposed a
continuation of Sunni domination in Iraqi life. "A new Sunni dictatorship is
not what we want," he said.

Bayati and others are especially worried that the United States might opt to
replace Hussein with an officer from the Iraqi military. "No more generals!"
said Chalabi. "We need a new slate, not a repeat Saddam."

by Nick Cohen
Dawn (from The Observer), 3rd June, 21 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1423

LONDON: The Middle East, as several former spooks have stated since
September 11, is hostile ground for Western intelligence agencies. For
obvious reasons, Iraq is the most hostile territory of all.

Which makes it very strange is that the US government, in the shape of the
State Department, is currently doing all it can to shut down the only
reliable pro-Western source of intelligence on Saddam's dictatorship; the
clandestine "information collection programme" run by the Iraqi National
Congress (INC). Whatever Bush may say about the 'axis of evil', the INC is
anathema in much of Washington because it wants to replace Saddam not with
another military strongman (the State Department's preferred option) but a
pluralist democracy.

I have seen the INC information network in action in several countries
bordering Iraq and it is pretty impressive. Equipped with digital cameras,
satellite phones and laptop encryption software, its agents run regular
missions inside the country. Some of the resulting intelligence is shared
with journalists, some with Western authorities - usually not the CIA, but
the Defence Intelligence Agency, run by the INC's main US allies in the

This work is done on not much more than a shoestring budget. Since
September, the State Department has repeatedly cut the INC's grant, approved
by Congress in 1998. Last week, after yet another inspection at the INC
London headquarters, US officials said further funds would be paid only if
the INC stopped all intelligence-gathering immediately. They could carry on
with their TV station, but spying was out.

That, says INC leader Ahmad Chalabi, is totally unacceptable. It would
"disembowel" his organization, turning it into precisely the posturing,
irrelevant body its US government critics frequently claim that it is.

That, supposedly, is the point. Some war on terror. Drifting and divided,
the US Administration is wilfully seeking to make sure it continues to grope
in the dark.

by Anthony Shadid
Boston Globe, 6th June

WASHINGTON - A coalition of Iraqi groups that some US officials have touted
as an alternative to Saddam Hussein's government will meet for the first
time in Washington with Bush administration officials, US officials and
opposition leaders said yesterday.

Word of the meetings, which are planned for tomorrow and Monday, comes amid
growing concerns among some Iraqi dissidents that US policy toward the
country has become mired in bureaucratic infighting and that Washington may
be wavering in its initial commitment to overthrow Hussein.

The meetings are being arranged in Washington to coincide with a conference
on Iraqi Kurds that will bring together leaders of the so-called Group of
Four, a coalition of Iraq's sometimes antagonistic ethnic and religious
groups. Leaders of the coalition will meet with officials from the State
Department, National Security Council, Congress, and possibly the Pentagon,
US officials and Iraqi dissidents in London said yesterday.

The meetings mark a significant step forward in Washington's strategies to
remove Hussein from power, but the administration remains divided over the
best way to accomplish that.

''This is a new dimension,'' said one of the group's representatives in
London, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ''The Americans and the
Europeans are interested in having more contact with the Group of Four. It
is encouraging. Realistically they feel these are the people on the ground
who can do something in Iraq in the near future.''

Among those scheduled to meet the coalition is Marc Grossman, the US
undersecretary for political affairs, US officials and dissident leaders

The coalition has particularly appealed to the State Department, which is
openly disdainful of the Iraqi National Congress. US officials helped set up
that group after the 1991 Gulf War, and it still has supporters in Congress
and the Pentagon. But the State Department and many in the opposition
consider its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, a divisive figure and complain that it
lacks real influence inside Iraq and, more importantly, within the Iraqi

The Group of Four answers some of those concerns, but creates others. The
group's representatives include the main Kurdish groups - the Kurdistan
Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - which hold sway in
the Kurdish-dominated north and represent the most formidable political and
military force among the opposition.

The group promises inroads, as well, to two other key constituencies: The
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution represents Shiite Muslims, who
make up the religious majority in Iraq and are supported by Iran; and the
Iraqi National Accord, longtime CIA favorite believed to have connections
with the military elite, which is dominated by Sunni Muslims.

''Is it an alternative? I don't know what we have out there to have an
alternative to,'' said one US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
''This is what the INC was designed to do and it didn't seem to work.''

While the broad meetings suggest growing US acceptance of the coalition,
some officials and coalition representatives seem hestitant about developing
too close a relationship.

One US official said the Group of Four's emergence was more a sign of State
Department maneuvering than a viable strategy for overthrowing Hussein. No
strategy would work without a clearer signal from the US administration on
its plans for Iraq, the official added.

''This is the State Department effort to sidetrack Chalabi and create a new
vehicle that is basically the INC minus Chalabi,'' he said on condition of
anonymity. ''I don't think this is a project that would have gotten very far
without the positive signals from the State Department.''

US officials acknowledge that the opposition is worried about what they see
as mixed signals from the administration. Earlier this year, many opposition
leaders said they believed military action against Iraq was imminent. They
are less sure now and US officials recently have said there are no immediate
plans to attack.

''It's cooled off completely,'' said a senior administration official,
adding that top Pentagon officials have expressed their opposition to an
invasion at this time. ''There were so many other considerations around the
world that the military couldn't even begin to think about it. You could say
cooler heads prevailed.''

Another official said those divisions were more important than the politics
of the long-fractured opposition.

''It's every government agency for itself. Every agency has its own policy
and they're not working in tandem,'' he said. ''You're not going to expose
yourself to risks without reason to believe the United States is really

In the end, the more influential role of the coalition may be in deciding
what follows Hussein.

One step in that direction may be a conference the coalition wants to
organize in Europe, possibly in September. While the State Department has
endorsed a similar idea, officials from the Group of Four have said they
want to avoid US funding and overt US support. That way, they can bring in
groups like the Shiite opposition whose patrons in Iran might balk at
participation in a US-organized meeting.

Al Hayat, a leading Arabic newspaper, reported yesterday that Germany,
France, and the Netherlands have expressed willingness to host the meeting.

John Donnelly of the Globe Staff contributed to this report.

Chicago Sun-Times, 6th June

WASHINGTON--The United States is drawing up extensive and detailed plans for
a post-Saddam Hussein government in Iraq, intending to fund Iraqi exile
organizations to draft legislation for a transitional regime and establish
formal relationships with Arab governments.

Documents obtained by United Press International reveal the State Department
plans to allocate $410,000 over the next year to the Iraqi Jurists
Association. One aim of the group, according to a State Department summary
of its activities, is to "focus on the drafting of key legislation and legal
decrees, to be readily available to a post-Saddam administration."

Dr. Tariq Ali Saleh, the chairman of the organization who is a former
civilian and military judge in Iraq, said Wednesday, "Our organization has
done a lot of work regarding many investigations into the many crimes of the
Iraqi regime; for the next phase we will do transitional justice."

A State Department budget justification for an organization called the Iraqi
National Movement--formed this year--says the group of primarily Sunni
exiles intends to "liaison with governments in the region." Indeed, that
document reveals that U.S. funding "will specifically support an INM
representative in Syria, travel to the Middle East for meetings with the
Iraqi expatriates and regional governments, and media outreach, focusing on
Arabic language TV, radio and printed media outlets."

Thair al-Nakib, a Washington representative of the organization, said
Wednesday, "In the last few years, Arab governments in the region not have
not had good relations with the Iraqi opposition. Our plan is to show these
countries that working to remove Saddam from power will lead to stability in
the region."

While the $315,000 the State Department has asked Congress to approve this
year for the Iraqi National Movement pales in comparison to the $8 million
the department intends to provide to the Iraqi National Congress for the
next eight months, Nakib's organization appears to pose a direct challenge
to the Iraqi National Congress--the umbrella opposition group publicly
funded by the United States since 1999.

But these budget figures may be deceptive, and the Iraqi National Congress
says it may never get much of the money. To get the money, group officials
said, they must abandon information collection programs inside Iraq and end
political contacts with Arab governments.

"The $8 million is a 45 percent slash on our current budget," an official
said. "The State Department is attempting to make the INC into an armchair
organization that sits in London running a newspaper and TV station. That is
not acceptable."

But a State Department official familiar with the negotiations over the
funding said Wednesday this characterization is wrong.

Whitley Bruner, a former CIA operations officer in the Middle East and
informal adviser to the Iraqi National Movement, said: "We know the State
Department has been looking at ways to expand the scope of the opposition
with which the U.S. government is dealing. This is a case where they are
providing a modest amount of money for one of those groups to allow it to
continue organizing itself."

The principal vehicle for organizing the planning for a new Iraqi government
will be a series of meetings in the coming months and a conference this
summer in Europe of about 50 to 60 Iraqis and 10 to 20 international experts
on Iraq. According to a State Department summary of the plans for this
conference titled "Future of Iraq Project," the U.S. government will sponsor
smaller meetings in either London or Washington for five working groups on:
public health and humanitarian needs; water, agriculture and the
environment; public finance and accounts; transitional justice, and public

"Each working group will initially have 10 to 20 members, to be determined
by the Department," the summary says. "Groups would hold an ongoing dialogue
among members and with the U.S. government and other supportive governments
and institutions."

IRAQIS OUTSIDE IRAQ,,2021-315062,00.html

The Times, 3rd June

[Gardi v Secretary of State for Home Department. Before Lord Justice Ward,
Lord Justice Keene and Sir Martin Nourse. Judgment May 24, 2002]

Refugee status was not established by ethnic Kurds in need of protection
from the government in Iraq but who had a safe and autonomous part of their
country to return to and an undertaking from the Home Secretary that they
would not be removed from the United Kingdom until a supervised and safe
method of travel could be made available.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment upholding the decision by
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Mr Justice Collins, Mr C. M. G. Ockleton
and Mr G. M. Warr) that the claimant, Azad Gardi, was not a refugee for the
purposes of article 1 of the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status
of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9197) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906).

However the court ordered the case be remitted to the tribunal for rehearing
on factual issues because of a significant procedural error that had
deprived the claimant of presenting his case in full.

Mr Nicholas Blake, QC and Mr Raza Husain for Mr Gardi; Mr Robin Tam for the
Home Secretary.

LORD JUSTICE KEENE said that the claimant was a national of Iraq and an
ethnic Kurd who had lived in the Kurdish Autonomous Region.

In August 2000, together with others, he illegally entered the UK and
claimed asylum. His claim was refused and he was given notice of removal by
scheduled airline to Iraq via the only Iraqi airport at Baghdad.

An appeal against that refusal was allowed by a special adjudicator who
concluded that although the claimant had no fear of persecution in his
Kurdish home area he would, because of the continuing conflict between the
Iraqi government and the Kurds, be at risk of harm if returned by air,
Baghdad being under government control.

The Home Secretaryıs appeal was allowed by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
who, having cited the House of Lordıs decision in Adan v Secretary of State
for the Home Department (The Times April 6, 1998; (1999) AC 293) and having
referred to the Home Secretaryıs undertaking given in March 2001 entitled
"Enforced returns to Iraq" and which provided that the claimant would not at
the present time be returned to his home area via Baghdad, held that he had
failed to establish any real risk of persecution and thus was not a refugee.

To be a refugee the claimant had to satisfy article 1A(2) of the Convention
and Protocal on the Status of Refugees by showing (i) that owing to a well
founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason he was outside the
country of his nationality and (ii) unable or, because of that fear
unwilling, to avail himself of the protection of that country.

The claimantıs case was that the court had to look at the whole of Iraq to
determine the issue and not just his home area. He accepted that mere
inability to get back safely to a safe home area was not sufficient to
satisfy (i).

But that under (ii) he argued he would be a refugee until he could obtain
access to effective protection by a stable state-like authority for which
the Kurdish Autonomous Region did not qualify, but even if it did, he could
not currently gain access to it.

However, his Lordship said, a person was not a refugee if there was a safe
part of his country to which he could reasonably be expected to relocate. So
long as the claimant was not put at risk in the process of getting to his
safe home area he was not a refugee.

The removal directions had specified Iraq but had given no date. They had to
be read in the light of the Home Secretaryıs March 2001 undertaking making
it clear that it was not proposed to remove the claimant to his home area
via Baghdad or to any other part of Iraq that was controlled by its
government unless a Convention-compliant method of so doing could be

Thus the claimant could not have a fear that he would be returned to a part
of Iraq where he would be persecuted.

However, the claimant had shown that there had been a significant procedural
error that had deprived him of the opportunity to present his case in full.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed so far as it related to the
meaning of "refugee" under the 1951 Convention but the case should be
remitted for rehearing to the tribunal on factual issues as to whether the
claimant had a well founded fear of persecution in the Kurdish Autonomous

by Oralandar Brand-Williams
The Detroit News, 6th June

DEARBORN -- Muslim and Arab-American activists Wednesday decried a Justice
Department proposal to fingerprint immigrants, most of whom would be from
Middle East nations, as another form of racial and ethnic profiling.

Under the proposal, new immigrants will be fingerprinted at airports and
other points of entry into the United States. The plan also would require
them to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service after a
month in the country, justice department officials said.

The proposal is part of the war on terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks
on the World Trade Center and Pentagon by Middle Eastern hijackers.

Imad Hamad, the regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee in Dearborn, condemned the plan saying his organization is against
"any selected approach making racial profiling a way of life."

"We ... support any advancement of the capabilities of law enforcement but
any selected approach is wrong," Hamad said.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the proposal Wednesday in

"On September 11, the American definition of national security changed and
changed forever," Ashcroft said. "A band of men entered our country under
false pretenses," Ashcroft said, saying their intentions were "murderous
acts of war."

Ashcroft said the heightened security checks would apply to those from
countries that the United States believes harbors or encourages terrorists,
but "no country is totally exempt." The countries affected would include
Libya, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba.

The proposal does not require congressional approval, but U.S. Rep. John
Conyers, Jr., D-Detroit, a member of the House Judiciary Committee,
condemned it.

"It is shocking that the freest nation on Earth could engage in a system of
racial and ethnic profiling," Conyers said. "It is as though the equal
protection clause had no meaning or context whatsoever to the authors of
this Orwellian proposal."

Conyers called the new immigration guidelines a "feel good" policy designed
by the Bush administration to distract from its failure to prevent the
terrorist attacks.

Huntington Woods attorney Shereef Akeel added that Ashcroft is setting a
"dangerous precedent."

"Secret profiling is now being legitimized," said Akeel, who is Muslim and
who represents other Muslims and Arab Americans who have complained about
being singled out at airports and jobs because of their religion or

Haaris Ahmad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, charged the United States is "moving closer and closer to a
police state."


by Tan Vinh
Seattle Times, 6th June

Several student groups plan to protest during the University of Washington's
June 15 commencement ceremony over the selection of Madeleine Albright as
graduation speaker and honorary-degree recipient.

Student leaders from Middle Eastern and Latino groups and the International
Socialist Organization are among those campaigning for graduates to turn
their backs on the former U.S. secretary of state when she delivers her
speech at Husky Stadium.

Protesters are offended over Albright's actions, including what they
described as support of bombings and sanctions against Iraq, said members of
La Raza Commission, a group of leaders from several campus Latino groups.

"That is not a person I want my university honoring with a degree and
speaking at my graduation," said La Raza spokeswoman Sandra Herrera.

Administrators said there will be increased security at the ceremony,
although that is due more to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks than to the

"If students wish to express themselves, that is their right. My hope is
they would do it in a courteous and civil way," said Norm Arkans, associate
vice president of university relations.

Organizers also plan to picket in front of Husky Stadium before the
ceremony. The number of protesters is still unclear to UW administrators,
though some student leaders and administrators fear it could be large enough
to be a distraction.

"These student groups are adamantly opposed to Albright. They are going to
make an impact at the ceremony," said Danica You, UW student-body president.

"These are a group of students who are very vocal and strong." Other groups
involved include the Filipino American Student Association, Arab Student
Union and Muslim Student Association.

Protesters say the threat of a disruption could have been avoided if the UW
had sought more student input before selecting Albright.

UW administrators had known since last fall that Albright would be the
commencement speaker but only recently released the name. The school
traditionally announces the speaker close to the graduation date, university
officials said.

Two students were on the committee that selected Albright but were told not
to disclose that Albright had accepted.

University administrators said that was out of concern over terrorism rather
than concern that she would be considered controversial.

BBC, 6th June

Scottish MP Tam Dalyell has labelled Tony Blair the worst leader and prime
minister he has ever worked under.

The member for Linlithgow, who celebrates 40 years in the House of Commons
next week, claimed Mr Blair had adopted a "presidential style" that ignored
parliamentary democracy.

He criticised the prime minister over his decision to commit British troops
in Afghanistan and his apparent support for a military strike on Iraq.

Mr Dalyell, who is Father of the House of Commons, made the comments during
an interview for Grampian Television's political programme Crossfire.

During the course of the interview he was asked where he would place Mr
Blair in terms of the seven Labour leaders he had served under.

Mr Dalyell replied: "Number seven".

When asked to expand the MP said: "Because of his attitude to parliament.

"I would be much happier if he realised that that we live in a parliamentary
democracy and not a presidential system."

Mr Dalyell also said he would place Mr Blair "at the bottom" of the list of
eight prime ministers during his time in the House of Commons.

He added that while he believed the prime minister had not "got it wrong in
every respect" he fundamentally disagreed with Mr Blair's military

"I think he's deeply wrong on Iraq, on the bombing of Afghanistan and on the
bombing of Belgrade," he went on.

"I'm not anti-military at all, in fact I'm an honorary member of the mess of
the Scots Dragoon Guards.

"But I passionately disagree with him and it's all very well to say that we
have to go along with the Americans.

"Harold Wilson, alright he weaved and ducked, but he kept Britain out of the
Vietnam War."

Mr Dalyell said he was an admirer of Wilson's leadership and that of former
prime minister Jim Callaghan.


Gulf News (Reuters), 2nd June

A UN official in Baghdad said yesterday the United Nations had appointed a
new humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, a sensitive post responsible for
supervising the UN "oil-for-food" programme.

"(U.N.) Secretary-General Kofi Annan has decided to appoint Ramiro Armando
de Oliveira Lopes da Silva of Portugal as the new United Nations
humanitarian coordinator in Iraq," Adnan Jarrar, UN information officer in
Iraq, said.

Under the "oil-for-food" deal, Iraq is allowed to sell oil to buy supplies
meant to offset the impact of UN sanctions imposed in August 1990 after Iraq
invaded Kuwait.

Last month, the UN Security Council unanimously approved the biggest
overhaul of the sanctions regime in years in an effort to speed up delivery
of civilian goods for ordinary Iraqis suffering under the embargoes.

Da Silva will replace Tun Myat who was recently appointed UN security
coordinator, Jarrar said.

Myat, 60, of Myanmar and a 22-year veteran of the Rome-based World Food
Programme (WFP) was appointed in March 2000 after his two predecessors
resigned in protest over the punishing impact of the sanctions.

Hans von Sponeck of Germany quit the post in February 2000 under strong U.S.
pressure over his outspoken criticism of the effects of the sanctions. His
predecessor, Denis Halliday of Ireland, left in 1998 for similar reasons.

by Alex Kirby
BBC, 6th June

A former United Nations official who worked in Iraq says he does not believe
it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

The official, Denis Halliday, was the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq
in 1997-98.

Mr Halliday said he thought a US attack on Iraq was likely later this year,
and people there were deeply concerned.

Any attack could mean appalling losses of Iraqi civilians and US troops.

Mr Halliday worked for the UN for 34 years, and was an assistant
secretary-general when he was sent to Baghdad.

But he resigned from the UN to have the freedom to criticise the
international sanctions policy directed at Iraq.

In an interview with BBC News Online, Mr Halliday said: "I don't think
Saddam Hussein possesses any weapons of mass destruction.

"There'd be no doomsday option for him in the event of a US attack. But it
could mean horrific casualties among Iraqis, who I think would fight, and
for the Americans.

"I think we'll probably see the Americans bombing Iraq before their November
elections. An invasion could come early next year."

Mr Halliday was scathing about the present UN, which he said many people in
Europe and the Middle East now regarded as effectively part of the US State

"The removal of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the last secretary-general, was an
outrageous undermining of the UN," he said.

"He had courage and guts - he was independent. But Kofi Annan was handpicked
as his successor because he was seen as friendly to the US.

"Mr Annan has squandered his opportunities to stand up and be counted.

"He hasn't used his moral authority, for example by using Article 99 of the
UN Charter to draw matters of concern to the Security Council's attention.
He could have got them to discuss the Rwandan genocide, or Chechnya, but he

Mr Halliday, an Irish citizen, lives in the US, and says he is not

"There are some good people in Washington who realise that rejecting
international law is not in the US' own long-term interests," he said.

"But rejection is what the administration is about - the Kyoto Protocol on
climate change, the land mines convention, the international criminal court,
and so on.

"The only way to change the US is through its friends, not its enemies.

"It's Blair, Schroeder and Chirac who'll change George Bush's mind, not
Osama bin Laden.

"I'd like to see Tony Blair nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize if he could
influence US foreign policy towards non-aggressive goals.

But he's silent, he has this habit of disappearing. What's the point of
having access and influence if you don't use them?"

Mr Halliday argues that "a sole hyper-power is dangerous", but does not want
to return to a world where two great blocs confronted each other.

"A balance of power is very important", he said. "But that won't come from

"We have to reform the Security Council. At present it's an old boys' club
of the world's major arms traders.

"It needs a permanent voice from the developing world, and probably only one
European Union member. So either France or the UK should go."

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]