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] News titles, 20-27/7/02



News titles, 20-27/7/02

This brings us back up to date again, but the sheer quantity of material
that's around at the present time is difficult to handle. Nothing much
appears to be happening but a great deal is being said. The anti-Saddam Iraq
Press (http://www.ip-iraqpress.com/ - which I haven't been using as a source
so far) reports intensified repression and paranoia within Iraq, which would
hardly be surprising; but the public record in the mainstream press (my main
source) suggests an impressive calm in the fact of great provocation. There
is an understandable frantic jockeying among the 'opposition' to see who is
best placed in the event of an invasion of Iraq. And, unpleasant as the
spectacle may be, it should be said that all Iraqis must be deeply concerned
at the present time about how to salvage the best possible result out of the
catastrophe if it occurs. Given the difficulty of developing a varied
political life within Iraq itself, the Iraqis in exile are in a difficult
position; and the question to what extent they should co-operate with the
forces that have inflicted such terrible suffering on their country is
agonising ­ rather like the questions faced by the French in 1940. Is some
form of collaboration the only possible way to preserve some form of
sovereignty? With the question further complicated by the contradictory
interests of the different peoples involved (and, in addition to Kurds and
Shi'i, the Turkomans are beginning to come into view, especially since it
appears they are particularly numerous around the much disputed city of
Kirkuk). Most of these peoples living in Iraq have a long tradition of
governments that are brutal, arrogant and alien to them so the Americans
probably won't appear to be that much different from what they've had to
deal with in the past Š

WILL WE, WON'T WE? (Britain)

*  Tough standing shoulder to shoulder [Likely political and economic
consequences to UK of participation in US war.]
*  Defence chief replaced for being 'off-message' over Iraq invasion
*  Opposition grows to new war on Iraq
*  Commons to have no say on Iraq [The article reminds us of the following:
'No member of the United Nations can declare war formally, or attack another
nation. Under the UN Charter, only its Security Council can authorise the
use of force.' Which, readers will remember, is why war was never declared
on Serbia.]
*  Parliament and Iraq: Blair must be accountable not evasive

URL ONLY:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=316850
*  IRAQ? LET'S NOT GO THERE
by Joan Smith
Sunday Independent, 21st July
[Superficial argument against the war. The article presents all sorts of
reasons why Mr Hussein should be overthrown but says there's no particular
reason for wanting to do it right now. Except that the Americans want to.
But if it ought to be done, the fact that the only power capable of doing it
quickly has decided to do it would seem to be as good a reason as any ...]

WILL WE, WON'T WE? (Europe)

*  EU pessimism over impasse on Iraqi weapons
*  Europe can overrule US on Iraq, Mideast [American columnist William Pfaff
suggests what Europe would do if it was serious about its opposition to war
on Iraq: 'The Europeans could refuse US use of NATO's European assets in an
attack on Iraq on the grounds that such an attack does not fall under the
agreements on countering terrorism that produced NATO's antiterrorism
resolution of last September.' He argues that the Europeans could get away
with it because actually the US needs NATO more than Europe does (it
legitimises the US presence in Europe). But he concludes realistically: 'do
the Europeans really want this? Or is it all talk?']

WILL WE, WON'T WE? (US)

*  Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq [The Observer continues its work of
preparing us mentally to accept the inevitability of war. The article ends:
'Iraq began to end a decade of diplomatic isolation in March at the Arab
summit' As has been pointed out before, Iraq had been working to end its
diplomatic isolation, especially but not exclusively in the Arab world, long
before Sept 11 (see these News Mailings throughout 2001). Its success in
doing this, and the awareness that sanctions were cracking under the strain
of it, is probably the main reason for the present US determination to go to
war.]
*  Farrakhan warns U.S. on Arafat, Saddam
*  The clash of battling war plans [Amusing account of how things could go
horribly wrong Š]
*  Gore Questions Iraq Invasion Timing [Curious remark that "I certainly
question why we would be publicly blustering and announcing an invasion a
year or two years in advance," indicates that Gore, who surely wouldn't want
to appear not to be in the know, doesn't take the predictions for October or
even next Spring too seriously.]
*  Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq [The debate between a
slow policy of keeping Iraq in a state of destitution and a speedy policy of
massacre continues. I would have thought myself that the policy of slow
torture was best from an Imperialist standpoint. With regard to the speedy
massacre, this is one of the rare articles in which the following little
genie is allowed to pop his head up above the rim of the bottle: 'a defense
official said, "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a
campaign against the Kurds and Shiites."']

URL ONLY:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,764173,00.html
*  Bush and Blair agree terms for Iraq attack
by Simon Tisdall and Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, 27th July
[This strikes me as a non-article. Unnamed US officials say Mr Bush reckons
he can count on Mr Blair (don't we all?), and the usual speculation about
strategy (massive invasion or 'Bay of Goats'?). The only piece of original
news, if its true, appears to be this: 'The US officials say Mr Bush has
also obtained agreement in principle for support from France in
conversations with President Jacques Chirac.']


IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (Australia, Russia, Japan)

*  [Australian] Farmers keep faith on Iraq wheat trade [We learn here that
Australia is the main supplier of wheat to Iraq. Presumably pre-1990 it was
the US. Numerous articles in previous mailings have looked at the
problematic efforts to import wheat from India and Pakistan.]
*  Australians puzzled over government's support to war on Iraq
*  Baghdad May Turn to Moscow for Grain
*  Japan's ambivalence on war with Iraq [The US anxious to restore Japan as
a major military power. Japan apparently contemplating a new 'anti-terror'
law allowing it expressly to do anything necessary to support the US in any
way it wants. It must be true love.]
*  Russian envoy voices support for lifting sanctions on Iraq [It can't be
completely without significance that the Russian deputy Foreign Minister
should go to Iraq at the present time and that Putin should send a message
of congratulations on the July 17 revolution.]
*  [Australian] Wheat board may send delegation to Iraq


AND, IN NEWS, 20-27/7/02 (2)

IRAQI/MIDDLE EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS

*  Iraq foreign minister visits Algeria
*  Iraq, Iran swap remains of 1,736 soldiers
*  Kuwait warns US over Iraq action
*  Iraq: Men linked to Iran planned sabotage
*  An Iraqi press delegation in Damascus
*  Iraq for an extraordinary session for the AL [If the Arab league was
worth anything this meeting would already have been held.]
*  Iran pays tribute to 570 dead soldiers repatriated by Iraq
*  Al-Jazeera TV News Returns to Iraq [Apparently they were banned for not
showing sufficient respect to President Hussein.]
*  Iraq arrests two 'terrorists' linked to Iran
*  Jordan Set to Ink Free Trade Deal With Iraq
*  Morocco- Iraq to boost scientific co-operation
*  Kuwaiti new camp for UN forces: We will not oppose a unanimity to attack
Iraq [Rather ambiguous signals coming from Kuwait]
*  Iran denies interference in Iraq's affairs
*  Kuwait to get its archives back, rejects striking Iraq
*  MKO [Iranian anti-government guerrilla - hey, that's a word we haven't
heard much of lately! - group] says "terrorist" agents shelled Iraq camp
*  Improving of Iraqi ties with Syria worries west
*  Damascus makes common cause with 'axis of evil'
*  Iraq's Minister Due in Tehran
*  Al-Rai: Iraq ends boycot of Jordanian companies suspected to deal with
Israel

URL ONLY:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/25_07_02_b.htm
*  Mideast governments' duality: No to toppling Saddam, but yes to
inheriting from him
Daily Star (Lebanon), 25th July
[A cynical article arguing that all Iraq's neighbours who publicly oppose
war are already preparing to tumble in when the time comes. And let it be
said that the opposition of all parties to the war has not risen to the
pitch of moral indignation that the situation would merit if they meant to
be taken seriously (eg they're still treating the US as if it is a
respectable member of the family of nations).]

NO FLY ZONES

*  Five Iraqis killed in an American attack [Thursday/Friday, 18th-19th
July]
*  U.S. Planes Attack Iraqi Site [Monday/Tuesday]
*  One Iraqi killed, 22 wounded in a raid against southern Iraq [Tuesday]
*  Pentagon Confirms U.S.-British Air Raid in Southern Iraq [Tuesday]
*  IRAQ: IRAQI MILITARY SPOKESMAN SAYS U.S., BRITISH WARPLANES "VIOLATE IRAQ
AIRSPACE" [Wednesday]

URL ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2674-2002Jul25.html
*  'No-Fly' Patrols Praised
by Vernon Loeb
Washington Post, 26th July
[Gone are the days, not so very long ago, when it was thought to be an
expensive waste of time.]


NEW WORLD ORDER

*  Bush missteps make the world more perilous [Intelligent critique of
Bush's foreign policy from a more old-fashioned US foreign policy
standpoint, one that imagines that the only superpower in the world needs to
make friends ...]

URL ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60192-2002Jul24.html
*  U.S., Russia and Global Entente
by Jim Hoagland
Washington Post, 25th July
[Jim Hoagland on the possibility that Europe can be completely sidelined in
international affairs through a US/Russian alliance. The possibility and
advantages of this are shown through Putin's abandonment of opposition to
the Strategic defense Initiative.]


AND IN NEWS, 20-27/7/02 (3)

IRAQI OPPOSITIONS

*  Jury out on anti-Saddam move by Prince Hassan [Interesting and apparently
well-informed article which only deepens the mystery of Hassan's appearance
at the conference in London. It appears that he arrived 'arm in arm with Dr.
Ahmed Chalabi', not a popular man in Jordan. And yet, we are reminded,
'Prince Hassan has a long history of opposing American aggression against
Iraq since 1991'. In passing, we learn that Hassan is chairman of the Club
of Rome.]
*  Iraq opposition aims for territorial base [Includes reference to 'a new
opposition group, the Iraqi National Movement' as well as to a 'Free Iraqi
Council.' Note incidentally the unselfconsciously racist way in which the
disagreements among the Iraqi opposition, in what is an extremely difficult
situation, are routinely referred to as 'squabbling.']
*  Iraqi Opposition Delays Announcement of "Provisional Govt."
*  Iraq Rebels, U.S. to Discuss Saddam
*  Iraqi National Movement calls for Provisional Government in Iraq [Best
account I've seen of the 'Iraqi National Movement' formed, also on the basis
of remnants of the Iraqi army, in opposition to the 'Iraqi National
Coalition' recently formed with much publicity in London in alliance with
the Iraqi National Congress, not to be confused with the Iraqi National
Accord. This one includes Major General Hasan al-Naqib and Brigadier General
Ahmad al-Samarra'i. Lt-Gen Nizar al Khazraji, in Denmark, who is supposed to
be forming a military council (Iraqi opposition to form military council to
fill post-Saddam  vacuum -report in News, 6-13/7/02 (3)), isn't mentioned,
nor is Maj-Gen Wafiq al-Samarra'i, unless he is the same person as Brigadier
General Ahmad al-Samarra'i. Confused?]

REMNANTS OF DECENCY

*  Go on, call Bush's bluff [A very powerful summary of the present
situation by Hans von Sponeck stressing Iraq's improved relations with its
neighbours and their reluctance to go to war. As the title suggests,
however, he concludes that 'The Iraqis would be well advised to seize this
opportunity and open their doors without delay to time-limited arms
inspectors, thereby confirming that they indeed have nothing to hide.' The
problem is that the US, which controls Mr Annan, would not allow
'time-limited' inspections. Under the present circumstances of imminent war,
and given the previous record of UNSCOM (as revealed in Per Klevsnas' recent
very important message) Iraqi concerns about spies are 100% justified, yet
they have been dismissed out of hand in the negotiations with Annan. If they
got under way, the US would certainly insist on inspections which would blow
open such things as Mr Hussein's personal security arrangements. Which the
Iraqis would have to refuse. So we would be back to square one. And then
again, the inspectors would obviously have access to all information on
Iraqi defense arrangements which is not a very pleasant prospect for a
country threatened with imminent, devastating war.]

TURKS 'N' KURDS

*  Turkey asks US to pay for losses from Iraq strike
*  Turkey Warns of Lengthy Iraq War
*  Kurdish State without Kirkuk is fine by Turkey [Extracts from an article
which, in a rather imperfect English translation, argues that the real
dispute between Iraq, Turkey and the Kurds is not over an autonomous or even
an independent Iraqi Kurdistan but more specifically over (oil rich) Kirkuk.
For example he says: 'If Iraqi Kurds seeking separation and [sic. had?]
accepted the existing crumbs without Kirkuk, most probably Saddam Hussein
would have been the first one in history who recognised an independent
Kurdish State.' Which, if it is true (and the author is strongly
anti-Saddam) means the Kurds aren't getting anything from the 'International
Community' that they couldn't have got from President Hussein. The article
also suggests that war against the Kurds is the main reason for the
militarisation of Turkey which is in turn the main reason for its
impoverishment and dependence on the West. I have cut out a long historical
reflection on the formation of the Turkish psyche.]
*   'Al Qaeda' influence grows in Iraq [A fuller account than usual of the
Ansar el-Islam in the Kurdish zone, with evidence for a link to the Iraqi
government, via a captured Iraqi intelligence officer. Though links with
militant Islamic groups is hardly something the Americans are in a position
to complain about ...]
*  Wolfowitz's visit to Turkey sparks debate on Iraq strike, relations with
the West
[A short lesson in the philosophy of history from P.Wolfowitz: '"Turkey's
aspiration to join the European Union is a development that should be
welcomed by all people who share the values of freedom and democracy that
grew out of the European civilization," adding that "these are not only
Western values, but Muslim, Asian and universal values as well."' So Muslim,
Asian and even Universal values 'grew out of the European civilization'. The
article details the sort of money for which Turkey is willing to sell itself
($36 billion, to be precise. Oh, and access to the European civilisation,
source of Muslim, Asian and universal values).]

IRAQI/UN RELATIONS

*  U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq
*  U.S. denies it received Iraqi visa request [Referring to the complaint
reported last week (17-20/7/02): 'Iraq lodges protest against US for
refusing to grant visas']
*  Annan rejects new talks with Iraq without progress [This article provides
a few more vague indications of what actually happened during the talks but
no journalist seems yet to have really applied him/herself to finding out.]
*  Iraqi health minister, WHO regional official discuss cooperation

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

*  Iraq seeks steel for nukes [Without suggesting that Iraq isn't seeking
material for making nuclear weapons, its difficult to believe that this is
the only purpose that is served by stainless steel tubes.]

URL ONLY:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/07/21/MN97915.
DTL
*  Mass destruction's foil could be foam
by John Hendren,
San Francisco Chronicle (from Los Angeles Times), 21st July
[This is an interesting idea. Clearly a foam that could seep in everywhere
could, if delivered in sufficient quantities, suffocate every living thing
that might be found underneath the earth. Families hiding in cellars, for
example, that sort of thing ... And of course it would leave the buildings
and other property more or less intact - though that might not be a good
thing since it would do away with much of the business opportunities offered
by a rebuilding programme.]


_______________________________________________
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


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]