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 titles, 27/7-3/8/02 In the debate on the war against Iraq a danger for the anti-sanctions movement is to fall into arguments which justify the use of sanctions ('so long as Saddam is kept securely in his box he can't pose any danger to his neighbours'). The debate in the mainstream press is between 'containment' and war; but we are opposed to both options, which means arguing either: 1) that President Hussein unbound would not, all other things being equal, pose a threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq. This happens to be my own opinion. But of course I could be wrong ... or 2) that some means can be devised by which Iraq can remain bound militarily while its civilian economy is freed. An intrusive but clearly honest and independent inspections regime might just do the trick, and the Iraqi government has accepted it in principle. But its difficult to put in place under the malign eye of Washington. The hearings on the prospective war in Congress this week were not concerned with the moral rightness of the war, nor with the option of ending sanctions. They were simply concerned with the practical implications of a war whose rightness in principle was taken for granted. But even on the most benign reading of the war (the Iraqi army throws its guns down at the first shot and the population of Baghdad come out to cheer their liberators) these practical implications appear enormous - both in terms of money and of longterm commitment. There is a very real possibility that the Americans would at last have to turn themselves into a real Imperialist power and take direct, governmental responsibility for the mess they have created. Assuming that they want to maintain the unity of Iraq they would have to engage in the process of nation-building, continuing the so far not entirely successful efforts of the British, the Hashemite monarchy and the Ba'ath Socialist Party. Or, against ferocious opposition throughout the region, they would have to undertake a process of partition. Or of course they could just let the whole thing fall into civil war and mayhem with the prospects of rich pickings for Iran, Syria and Turkey. None of these implications are very pleasant and only the most naive of hippy idea;lists would be content, like Thomas Friedman ('War on Iraq II ') or the Daily Telegraph ('The world after Saddam'), to make peace signs with his fingers and mumble the magic words 'democracy, man'. The result was that, though the hearings were generally pro-war, the general effect was to put a dampener on the whole exercise. So that by the end of the week the prospect of war seemed to have receded a little. It was a good moment for the Iraqi government to invite Mr Blix to Baghdad (at the time of writing no formal reply has been given. While the US and Britain may express scepticism, its difficult to see any good reason why they should refuse. Especially since they are still a long way off an actual declaration of war and therefore can't complain that Iraq is stalling for time). But again, the public discussion over the return of inspectors is one-sided. It is assumed that the Iraqi government is simply putting off the evil day. But they have real and reasonable grounds for concern. Under Richard Butler, UNSCOM had indeed allowed itself to become a vehicle for US political brinkmanship and intelligence gathering. This charge was widely accepted in 1998 and it has recently been confirmed by Butler's predecessor, Rolf Ekeus ('Weapons inspections were 'manipulated'' below). It was in recognition of this that the constitution was remodelled to reduce the possibility of interference by national governments when UNMOVIC was formed. Given all that, the countries that were responsible for the subversion and failure of UNSCOM (the US and Britain) cannot simply repeat 'any time, any where' (it tends to become 'any time, any place, any where', because all good things come in threes). Especially in the context of imminent war, the Iraqi government have the right and duty to defend themselves against any possibility of espionage. The former deputy chairman of UNSCOM, Charles Duelfer, almost acknowledges this in his article 'Prospects remain dim for inspectors allowed in sites'. He argues that the weapons inspections are useless, not because of unreasonable conditions imposed by the Iraqi government but because of conditions that are in themselves entirely reasonable. If we go to war, it will be because of a hypothetical possibility that Mr Hussein might sponsor an act of devastating terrorism some time in the future (the argument can be found inter alia in the Economist's 'The case for war' below). Although under the circumstances his restraint over the past ten years has been remarkable, no-one could say for certain that such fears are unjustified. The trouble is that anyone might sponsor an act of devastating terrorism some time in the future. September 11 was managed by a handful of men armed with box cutters and some rudimentary knowledge of how to handle an aeroplane. The leadership of Al-Qaida may have known about it in advance, might even have facilitated some of the details, but they weren't necessary to it. And it didn't need the support of a state, not even the shelter provided by the Taliban in Afghanistan. All it required was a handful of spirited people with a sense of grievance. And that is exactly what the current direction of US policy is guaranteed to produce in abundance. BACK IN THE USA * Mideast US Congress Seeks Information on Possible Iraq Invasion * Profound Effect on U.S. Economy Seen in a War on Iraq * Bush stockpiles oil for multibillion-dollar war with Iraq * GOP will tie ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] to Iraq * War on Iraq II [Part One was a not very interesting piece by Graham T. Allison from the Washington Post. In this one, Thomas Friedman suggests that a successful outcome in Iraq could result in a huge increase in Iraqi oil production, a huge fall in oil prices and hence popular revolts in the other OPEC countries which, such is the bizarre mood that prevails in the US at the present time, it is assumed would bring to power governments favourable to the US and to Israel. The same result (increased oil production, lower prices, trouble for OPEC) could, however, probably be achieved more simply by lifting sanctions ...] * US Senate told of Iraq's deadly virus laboratory * Bush, Jordan King Disagree on Iraq [Extracts indicating that King Abdullah has been diplomatic in his dealings with president Bush. We learn too that Mr Shimon Peres, the well known man of peace, is in favour of war on Iraq.] * The Empire Strikes Back Again, Redux, Part 2 [A splendid piece of anti-war rhetoric, giving a catastrophic view of the possible consequences, but marred by the bizarre statement that a Turkish Kurdish group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), has split off from Iraqi Kurds as it launches guerrilla attacks within Turkeyı (the PKK is of course the body that was maintaining a guerrilla war in Turkey, took refuge in Iraq, called a ceasefire after the arrest of its leader, but is currently being pursued, in Iraq, with Iraqi Kurd complicity, by the Turks.)] * Ten questions to ask before we go to war [Doubts on the advisability of war from a point of view which assumes the basic decency of the US.] * Post-Saddam Iraq will cost you, US warned [Evidence before the Senate Commission from the Iraqi Foundation, anxious at the possibility of a messy collapse and unimpressed by what has happened in Afghanistan (but do we know what has happened in Afghanistan?). The Iraqi Foundation calls for a democraticı solution but that is surely not something that can be secured easily or painlessly either. Perhaps if the US was capable of acting like an intelligent and disinterested monarch? of playing a Juan Carlos role?] * White House says Sept. 11 skyjacker had met Iraqi agent [Difficult to entirely let go of the only card youıve got? The article certainly doesnıt bring forward any new evidence.] URLs ONLY: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/printArticle.pl?path=/articles/2002/07 /27/1027497418339.html * Foundations are in place for martial law in the US by Ritt Goldstein Sydney morning Herald, 27th July [Possibility of emergency legislation developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a body which had previously produced proposals for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes". Useful in the event of a Louis Farrakhan inspired million man march.] http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1028039809322&p=1012571727162 * Strikes on Iraq 'highly unlikely' this year by Richard Wolffe in Washington Financial Times, 31st July [says Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee ... the most influential foreign policy figure in Congress.ı AND, IN NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02 (2) BACK IN THE UK * The Reverend Blair has met his match [Possibility that Archbishop Williams might find a useful role for the Church of England in line with Coleridgeıs dictum that it is 'the compensating counterforce to the inherent and inevitable evils and defects of the state' (pity Dr Williams appears to be in favour of disestablishment).] * There should be no war in Iraq without more jaw-jaw [Mainly concerned with practical, not moral, difficulties. Menzies Campbell (Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, missing another opportunity to establish the Lib Dems as a real party of opposition) supports the immoral status quo.] * Rift over Saddam [Sunday Mirror thinks the unthinkable - that Mr Blair may yet express disagreement with Mr Bush.] * MP warns of Iraq attack backlash [Bruce George, who chairs the Commons Defence Select Committee. He wants a UN mandate.] * Blair warned: Iraq attack 'illegal' [in 'highly confidential' advice from unnamed government lawyers.] * The madness of war with Iraq [After arguing that a war would become a quagmire, General Sir Michael Rose concludes: 'A more successful strategy would be to strengthen economic sanctions, help create a viable political and military opposition to the regime within Iraq, obtain improved intelligence about his arsenal of weapons and whereabouts, and where necessary carry out limited airstrikes against associated targets.' Which is more or less the current policy. Which is coming apart at the seams.] * The world after Saddam [The Daily Telegraph decides that it needs to stiffen the resolve to take on Saddam. It does so by painting a ridiculously rosy view of the benefits that would ensue and presenting the war as a crusade for democracy. The problem is that democracy would mean (if it means anything. Perhaps it doesn't) rule by the people. And the Arab people are not enthusiastic supporters of the American world view. (But this comment doesn't do justice to the unimaginable depths of self satisfied, murderous pomposity the article manages to plumb, its contempt for the lesser peoples of the world and for the peculiarities of their own history and culture; and its conviction that all the problems of the world can be solved by the application of a sufficient degree of terror.)] * No mandate: no war [This article mentions in passing that the war on Kosovo was fought without a mandate from the UN Security Council. It says this mustn't be allowed to happen this time. But the precedent in Serbia, which the Guardian supported with great enthusiasm, was fatal. Once the pot is broken it cannot be put together again.] * If we must go to war, for God's sake tell us why [Somewhat rambling piece by Simon Jenkins.] * Army not equipped for Iraq war [It appears that the British army is not well equipped for fighting in the desert. Since it is very unlikely that a British army whose only role was to defend Britain would have to fight in the desert this should not matter very much. Should it?] * Blair's worries over Iraq invasion revealed [by King Abdullah of Jordan] * Only Bush, Blair want a war on Iraq [Hugo Young reminds us that in addition to the usual suspectsı there are people who supported the evil of the 1990 Gulf Massacre, the evil of the subsequent sanctions, the evil of the international intervention in the Balkans which prolonged the war and climaxed in the bombing of Serbia, and the evil of the war on Afghanistan - but who balk at the evil of the renewed war on Iraq. While of course tactically we may be grateful for this it looks rather like a case of straining at a gnat after youıve swallowed the camel. Mr Young says that in this case, unlike the others, Iraq hasnıt been engaged in any acts of aggression; but that is only because, for reasons of their own, Bushıs advisers have decided not to make an issue of the ethnic cleansing of Kurds from around Kirkuk; or of the Marsh Arabs - allegations that are every bit as serious as anything that could reasonably be alleged against Mr Milosevic. And of course, the Hugo Youngs, who donıt have the stomach for war, will do nothing to stop the policy of slow genocide that goes under the misleading name of sanctionsı. The machinery of US military power is now in place throughout the world, advancing into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union, cheered on by the opinion formers who excite Mr Youngıs admiration (as opposed to the despised usual subjectsı). It is of its nature that it cannot stop its advance. The only thing that could make a convincing obstacle is a world opinion acting on principle. Such a development could occur through the UN General Assembly or through the International Court at the Hague, but one of its principles would have to be a rejection of the authority of the UNSC. Any obstacles placed in the way of the Juggernaut by the UNSC itself can only be temporary. They will be flattened unless the US decides, for purely domestic considerations, to pretend to take account of them. That (using the UNSC as an excuse to do what the US government has already decided to do anyway) is the best option that the Hugo Youngs of this world are able to offer.] * Deaths of SAS men spur talk of Iraq attack * The case for war [The Economist almost seems to attain to something resembling genuine passion in the pitch of its moral indignation pitted against Saddam Hussein. But its difficult to see how those who defend the US' right to pre-emptive action against the very remote danger posed to it by Iraq can complain against the pre-emptive action Mr Hussein attempted against the very immediate danger posed to Iraq by Iran in 1979. Highly dishonest of course to mention the gassing of Kurds before the war on Iran as if it preceded it and was not a consequence of Iraq's near defeat at the hands of Iran (something I imagine the Economist would have regretted). Nor has a paper which supports the right of the US and Britain (countries whose geographical situation renders them eminently free from any danger of invasion) to possess weapons of mass destruction much to say against the right of a country like Iraq, threatened on every side, to have them. The Economist calls on the US not to ask for a UN security Council mandate on the grounds that it would be embarrassing (but not fatal to the project) if they didn't get it. I would respect that position if the Economist was calling for the disbandment of the UN Security Council. But it isn't. It is accepting the logic built into the Security Council system and calling for a principle of one law for the mighty, rich and racially superior nations of the world and another for the lesser breeds, who are expected to abide by the 'laws' created by their betters in the UNSC. The article is prefaced with the dictum: 'If you will the end, it is only honest to will the means'. It looks like a quote but no source is given. But isn't it the same thought - exactly the same thought - as underlines the famous phrase: 'the end justifies the means', associated with the Communists and usually, these days, thought to be discreditable? Finally, the Economist pulls out its biggest argument: 'if Mr Hussein had already had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait 11 years ago, he might still be there.' Perhaps and perhaps not. There isn't room here to argue the case but there is a case to be argued. But perhaps also some hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children, murdered by Mr Bush and his predecessors and by Mr Blair and his predecessors would still be alive today.] AND, IN NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02 (3) BACK IN THE UN * Dangers of going it alone against Saddam [If you're a 'UN correspondent' you presumably have an interest in attaching importance to the UN and its 'security council', but Carola Hoyos and the diplomat who is quoted as saying: "No matter how big you are, if you don't have moral authority, you get into trouble pretty quickly," said one diplomat. "You can't win just because you are big and tough. It is the force of argument rather than the argument of force that counts." '(!) seem to have forgotten the war on Serbia which was fought without a UN mandate to the general delight of the British media.] * Weapons inspections were 'manipulated' [The Financial Times takes up the story of Rolf Ekeus' interview in Sweden. To what we learned from Per Klevnas they add that in another interview Ekeus claimed that after his departure, ie under R.Butler, the US inserted two of their own agents into UNSCOM. All this was of course perfectly obvious to anyone following the events of the time but its good to have it on the record. And if Mr Ekeus is a little late in saying it, he nonetheless has chosen his moment rather well ...] * Iraq complains against US prevention of 2000 civilian contracts * Iraq Asks U.N. Inspector For Meeting * Blix underlines gulf separating UN and Iraq [Clarification of differences in discussions with Iraq. The UNSC insists that the UN inspectors should have two months investigating what might have happened after 1998 before they devise a definite programme of action. The Iraqis want a programme of action to be agreed before they are allowed to enter.] * Strikes on Iraq will be unwise: Annan * How the inspections broke down [Rather selective chronology which gives no idea of why the inspections broke down. Doesnıt mention the february 1998 negotiations with Kofi Annan. As I remember these, Iraq wanted the inspectors to be accompanied by a group of diplomats from other members of the UN Security Council. Annan agreed but somehow (and I never found out how) it didnıt happen. We are usually told that Annan was gulled by the Iraqis but my memory was that he was seriously wrongfooted by the US.] * Prospects remain dim for inspectors allowed in sites [Charles Duelfer says that it is impossible to ensure genuinely surprise inspections. He even argues this quite reasonably saying: is it reasonable to demand that Iraq turn off its entire air defence system so inspectors may fly into Iraq anytime, and anywhere? Baghdad will reasonably point out that it has a legitimate air defence system and some accommodation must be made to provide information on UN flights. From this, the Iraqi government can derive warning information on inspections. Similar accommodations will sprout in virtually all inspection activities.ı He concludes that the US should just go ahead and overthrow Mr Hussein anyway, for the sake of the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, regardless of inspections.] * Powell Rejects Iraqi Invitation to UN Arms Inspector [The article also gives the UN response (offer not in keeping with UNSC requirements) and the Russian response (positive. See next article)] * Russia hails Iraqi decision to invite chief UN weapons inspector to Baghdad [The Russians claim to have had a hand in securing the Iraqi initiative which may make them all the more anxious to defend it.] BACK IN IRAQ * Depleted Uranium held responsible for Down's Syndrome in Iraq: Study * Iraq stops visas for Asian groups [Mainly Indians and Pakistanis visiting Shi'i holy places.] * Iraq to sue French company over AIDS polluted blood * Pracsi gets seven Iraqi contracts worth $1.6m [Control systems for the oil and gas industry.] * Iraq: report on construction of a detection and prevention system against environmental contamination [Good to see that the Iraqi government has a conscience in ecological matters.] * Iraq Goes Quiet on Invasion Date [2nd August, invasion of Kuwait.] URL ONLY: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,767337,00.html * The writing on the wall by Jonathan Glancey The Guardian, 3rd August [or The Observer, 4th August?] [A very nice article by an enthusiast for the area's history passing through Iraq and meeting Syrian Orthodox and Yazidis as well as visiting the ancient city of Eridu. Too long for inclusion here but worth a visit.] BACK IN THE KURDISH AUTONOMOUS ZONE * Kurds, 'Al Qaida men' in tense stand-off [We learn that, in addition to the Ansar el-Islam in the east of the Kurdish autonomous zone there are also the more - but apparently not very - moderate Islamic League and the Islamic Movement. The (Kurdish) Islamic Movement is quoted as being strongly opposed to a US war against Iraq. At the risk of proving to be badly wrong, the Ansar el-Islam desecration of Sufi holy sites suggests to me that they are closer to the Wahhabi, militant Sunni (therefore possibly al-Qaida) position than to the Iranians.] * Narsai David, a Bay Area link to north Iraq [Somewhat chatty account of the role of Assyrian Christians in the Kurdish zone.] AND, IN NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02 (4) BACK IN TURKEY * Turkish non- governmental organizations stand against striking Iraq [The Turkish Dentists' Union has come out against the war. Well, every little helps ...] * Tough political choices lie ahead for Turkey on Iraq [A variety of positions being canvassed in Turkey, coming to the following rather problematic conclusion: 'In exchange for lending a hand to an attack on Iraq, the Turks will insist on the following conditions being met: No Kurdish state; autonomy for the Turcomans; and a major part in future investment in Iraq. To avoid the negative ramifications of its participation in Americaıs war on Iraq in its relations with the Arab world, Ankara wants Washington to ensure that Saudi Arabia will publicly and actively support this course of action.'] * Turkey determined not to be the loser in a possible regime change in Baghdad [Turkey proposes to occupy Southern Kurdistan until a government is established in Baghdad to their satisfaction.] * Iraqi Turcomen Democratic Party established in London [Interestingly this party, while wanting to do its bit to overthrow Saddam, says: 'the Turcomen have been the most affected group from the embargo enforced on Iraq ... every year thousands of Turcomen have died because of the lack of drugs and nutrition.'] * Iraq waives surcharge on new Turkey supply BACK IN THE REST OF THE WORLD * French Leader Warns on Iraq Attack [Chirac wants Iraq to accept inspectors and no war on Iraq without a UNSC mandate. So does Schroeder. No sign that either of them have any understanding of the legitimacy of Iraqıs anxieties over the inspections.] * Is it possible that Mr Blair will not back President Bush over Iraq? [Article in The Independent which suggests that if the US were to set about seriously getting European support they would probably succeed. If they haven't tried its because they don't care very much ...] * Australian involvement likely, says Howard [Commentators frequently refer to Britain (and sometimes Israel) as the USıs only potential ally in the war against Iraq, but they are forgetting Australia which has shown such gratuitous enthusiasm over the past few weeks that it risks losing an important wheat contract with Iraq.] * Irish neutrality warning over Iraq [The Workers Party (formerly Official Sinn Fein) points out that allowing US military boats and planes to use Irish port facilities is a violation of the principle of neutrality.] * German SPD to Campaign on Opposition to Iraq Attack MIDDLE EAST/ARAB WORLD * Saudis, Gulf Emirs Bitterly Divided over US Iraq War; Mubarak to Stay out [This is only indirectly about Iraq but a story about an attempt on King Fahd's life involving at least three known members of al-Qaida; of al-Qaida members providing personal security for Crown Prince Abdullah; and a statement made with great confidence that Jordan is in the pro-war camp - all these seem worthy of note. Debka.com, it should be said, is an Israeli news agency. And according to an article in Dawn ('Saudi prince found dead in desert', 31st July), Fahd has been in Switzerland since May (not July as stated here) and has only just left a hospital in Geneva where he underwent a successful eye operation.] * Lebanon: Iraqi readiness to fund development of system for oil refining in Lebanon * Any attack must be a knockout: Kuwait [If the Kuwaiti information minister talks like this in the press it suggests that Kuwaiti opposition to the war doesn't go very far.] * Souring Relations Between Qatar and Saudi Arabia Threaten U.S. Forces * Hardliners threaten Middle East peace, says Abdullah [Times interview with Prince Abdullah of Jordan. Most interesting comment is probably about Hassan's attendance at the Iraqi opposition conference: 'The King called his uncleıs last-minute decision to attend the meeting unfortunate. ³Prince Hassan blundered into something he did not realise he was getting into and weıre all picking up the pieces."' That's as may be, but Hassan is a very experienced politician ...] * Arabic Press Review [This interesting article is divided into several parts: first, on the possibility that the US are pressuring Jordan by imposing an embargo on the port of Aqaba; and then a couple of very dismissive comments (from Jordan and From Saudi Arabia) on the worth of the emigre opposition.] * Abdullah: Foreign Leaders Oppose Attack * Baghdad, Riyadh, Manama [Bahrain] talk free trade zones * Iraq 's Ibrahim gets a message from Qatar 's crown prince [Is this little item significant, in the light of the assumption that Qatar is the USıs most secure base in the region?] AND, IN NEWS, 27/7-3/8/02 (5) MILITARY MATTERS * Iraqi protest over [US and Australian] navy action * U.S. refurbishes Iraqi air bases in North * Intercepts of Iraqi Vessels Widened * Western Morning News: HMS Ocean will not go to Iraq, says MoD * US, UK planes raid 16 regions: Iraq * Iraqi buildup near border puts Kuwait on heightened alert * UN sees no Iraqi troop buildup near Kuwait * Whitehall dossier says Saddam plans biological weapons for Palestinians [If we judge uniquely from the text of this article then it is a disgraceful piece of work. It provides no indication that evidence of any sort has been found. It is, or appears to be, simply a speculation as to what sort of activities Saddam Hussein might get up to that wouldn't yield any evidence. An inattentive reader might think these are known facts, especially in the light of the following sentence: 'Analysis of US satellite imagery over the past four years has provided sufficient evidence to show what Saddam has been doing since the expulsion of the United Nations weapons inspectors in December 1998.' Really? But this is followed by the statement that Saddam has concentrated all his attention on biological weapons because they can't be picked up by satellites. Presumably US satellites have spotted some trailers and 'analysis' (by unbiased, objective, purely technically minded analysts like the UNSCOM weapons inspectors) have concluded that they may be laboratories for biological weapons. And then, one thinks, what might he do with the results? Well, he gives money to the families of dead Palestinians, so perhaps ...] STRATEGIES * US may go straight for Iraqi jugular [Another military strategy (the 'inside out' strategy) to chat about in the pub after a day's work if you've nothing better to do.] NO URL (sent through list) * U.S. Fears "Basra Breakout" by Tony Allen-Mills The Times, 28th July [Lurid speculations by A. Cordesman on what Mr Hussein might do to fight back. One feels that his intention in painting such a grim picture of Iraqıs military capacities is to turn the war from self indulgence that could be foregone into a grim duty that must be assumed ...] URLs ONLY: http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1258086 * The son of all battles? The Economist (Global Agenda internet service), 29th July [The Economist performs its usual trick of telling us what we already know about the 'debate' on intervention in Iraq as if it was revealing great hidden truths only accessible to the cognoscenti.] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-369183,00.html * Dangers in gamble of going for a city too far by Michael Evans, Defence Editor The Times, 30th July [The 'inside out', Baghdad first, option compared to the 'bridge too far' attack on Arnhem in 1944. The Times defence editor doesn't think its a good idea.] http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=319687 * Analysis: The 'inside-out' solution to the problem of Saddam by Rupert Cornwell in Washington Independent, 30th July [Yet another trudge round the well worn circuit of arguments about a possible war.] IRAQI OPPOSITION * The last thing the US wants is democracy in Iraq [The Guardian's Nick Cohen continuing his support for the INC against the option of another Sunni strongman] * Salvation council appeals Saddam Hussein to resign [The Iraqi army in exile seems to be going into overdrive at the present time. In addition to the longstanding Iraqi National Accord, we have the Iraqi National Council, formed at the recent meeting in London and allied, it seems to the Iraqi National Congress; then we have the Iraqi National Movement (see Iraqi National Movement calls for Provisional Government in Iraq in News, 20-27/7/02 (3)); and now we have the Higher Council for National Salvation. The reference to Denmark gives us a clue as to who is behind that. This body makes the original observation that "there are Arab countries which expressed readiness to receive Saddam Hussein and give him political asylum, if that will avert Iraq [sic] an American strike.", which would be interesting if true, but all the signs are that that would be impossible given the present idiotic fashion for war crimes trials which leaves blood soaked tyrants with no option but to fight to the finish.] NEW WORLD ORDER * Studies Find No Link between Depleted Uranium And Balkans Health Problems: Pentagon [So that's ok] URLs ONLY: http://www.iht.com/articles/66024.html * Iran reactor may test first-strike doctrine by Dana Priest The Washington Post, 29th July [Slightly off focus on Iraq but the possibility that the US or Israel might do to Busheir what Israel did to the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981 should be kept in mind. Interesting to note that Iraq bombed the Busheir site twice during the 1980-8 war.] http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/07/30/204.html * Evil Axis Ramifications by Dilip Hiro Moscow Times (from Washington Post), 30th July [Reflections on the possibility that Bush might succeed in creating an Iran-Iraq-Syria axis. The article is interesting on Iran's reasons for feeling aggrieved over Afghanistan.] _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk