[casi] News titles, 31/8-6/9/02

[Peter Brooke <pbrooke@DELETETHISukonline.co.uk>]

News titles, 31/8-6/9/02

The forces of evil have come back from their holidays and are setting about
putting their house in order. Which isn't as difficult as it might appear
because, although a lot of opposition has been voiced to the prospect of a
US invasion of Iraq it has tended to accept the terms in which the problem
has been posed: Saddam Hussein is an unimaginably wicked tyrant who cannot
be allowed to possess the means of defending his country. The opponents of
war have therefore petitioned our rulers in Washington asking them to try to
get the weapons inspectors back in and allow the United Nations some sort of
say in the process. But Mr Rumsfeld and his associates know perfectly well
that a government faced with imminent devastating war cannot allow all its
defense facilities to be overrun by enemy spies; and they also know that
going to the UN is for them only a matter of noblesse oblige (and noblesse
is not a quality that is greatly appreciated in democratic America). They
didn't go to the UN for Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama,
Serbia or even Afghanistan (where, if I'm not mistaken, some sort of
resolution was passed but the US made it very clear that this was not the
necessary perequisite for its action). On Sept 12th, George Bush will speak
to the UN as a King speaks to his unruly subjects. He will inform them of
what he intends to do and will listen more or less politely to any frivolous
criticisms they might have to make. The worst he might fear is a Russian or
Chinese veto; but the Russians and the Chinese treasure the illusion of
power and influence their permanent membership of the UN Security Council
give them and are unlikely to put it in jeopardy by wielding a veto which
will almost certainly be disregarded. They will abstain and, as the recent
list discussion between Hassan Zeini and Glen Rangwala seems to have
established, abstentions do not constitute an obstacle to action - at least
not to any action by the US which is the only active will in operation in
the UNSC (on which subject see Dennis Halliday quoted by Jon Pilger in the
Inside Iraq section below).

Underneath all the idle chatter about the threat Mr Hussein poses to the
rest of the world another more realistic picture is beginning to emerge. It
was best expressed this week by - I am the first to be surprised - Mo
Mowlam. She has gone straight to the point: the Americans wish to establish
a massive land-based military presence in the heart of the Middle East. The
need to occupy Iraq, to be present for, say, thirty years, has been
presented as an argument against the war. It is in fact the reason for it.
The Saudi refusal to allow use of its territory has been presented as an
obstacle to war. It is an incentive to it. And here let us put in a word of
admiration for Donald Rumsfeld. The Saudis denied the use of their territory
for the war against Afghanistan. This was really a huge slap in the face, in
the immediate aftermath of September 11th in which Saudi politics was so
heavily implicated. But Rumsfeld, Bush and co took it on the chin. They
didn't even blink, they didn't waste their time with fruitless expressions
of indignation. They just set about preparing for a much better prize - a
secure landbase fully under their own control where they won't have to ask
anyone's permission to do exactly what they want.

Behind the immature and sentimental image they like to project in public
there is at work a cool, quietly determined intelligence.

A huge prize is within their grasp. With a secure base in Iraq they will be
well placed to subdue the entire turbulent region - Iran, Syria and Saudi
Arabia - without difficulty. Events ('history' as Mr Bush likes to call it)
have given them this and nothing will persuade them to forego it. How
pathetic must appear the objections that they should first of all solve the
Middle East question (! With a massive US military presence east of Jordan
they will be able to impose any settlement they like. And I for one don't
take it for granted that the settlement they impose will be exactly whatever
the Israelis might want); or that they should go chasing after the remnants
of al-Qaida, upsetting a whole load of haystacks in order to find a handful
of needles (they may by now have decided anyway that al-Qaida's involvement
in Sept 11th was fairly marginal); or that it will prompt Islamic
resolutions throughout the whole region. What can the Islamists do with the
US military machine camped in their own backyard?

The US are doing to the world what the Normans did to England, Wales and
Ireland; or what their own forebears did to the American Indians. They are
establishing a string of fortresses - strongholds, keeps - throughout the
territory they wish to subdue. The purpose of these fortresses is to be able
at will to threaten and if necessary punish those in the immediate vicinity
should they get out of line - to do in other words exactly what they have
always accused Mr Hussein of wanting to do. It is not a strategy of
international law; the US has shown not the slightest interest in developing
and strengthening the UN as a system of international law. It is a strategy
of arbitrary (in the strict sense of the word - depending uniquely on the
will of the Monarch) terror. That is what the War on Terrorism is about. And
the nations of the Gulf who collaborated so cravenly with the war on Iraq
and the subsequent embargo are only now beginning to wake up to the real and
predictable consequences of their folly.


News, 31/8-6/9/02 (1)

US OPINION

*  Antiwar protesters picket [US Senator, John] Kerry's office [in Boston]
*  Americans turn their backs on Iraq attack [and George Bush's popularity
is in decline. But it isn't enough.]
*  US in disarray over Iraq as Powell backs call for weapons inspectors
[wishful thinking from the independent]
*  Remaking Iraq looks like a tall order [Thomas Friedman, showing some
awareness that S.Hussein may have been the result of certain objective
conditions which aren't going to disappear merely because the US has decided
to lend a helping hand. He makes some interesting points (coming close to
blaming the British for everything) but proves unable to resist jesting that
'Iraq's last leader committed to the rule of law may have been Hammurabi -
the King of Babylon in the 18th century B.C.' But of course the territory
now called Iraq has been ruled by Muslims for the past fifteen hundred years
and Islam is nothing if not a system of law.]
*  Cheney: What Was Behind His Outbursts on Iraq? [according to the article,
G. Bush.]
*  No Conflict on Iraq Policy, Fleischer Says
*  Poll shows most Americans support a U.S. attack on Iraq [It also includes
this: '66 percent believe that if a war occurs, it will increase the
likelihood of terrorism against Americans.' Some protection ...]
*  Bush's Reverse Psychology? [Nice little satire by William Raspberry
advancing possible sensible hiddden reasons for the current behaviour of the
US government on the grounds that what appears on the surface is too crazy
to be true. I know nothing about Raspberry but he wrote another nice article
last June - 'We've too much at stake to risk it'
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49510-2002Jun2.html - in
your very own News, 1-8/6/02 (3)), one of the first articles to break with
the gung ho consensus.]
*  Case for invading Iraq is full of holes [Steve Chapman of the Baltimore
Sun contemplates the prospect of S.Hussein possessing nuclear weapons with
equanimity. An unusual manifestation of common sense: 'So why does Mr.
Hussein want weapons of mass destruction? For their only real function -
deterring other countries from attacking him. If he had nuclear weapons, the
United States would have to drop the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow its
government. But if the only value of an Iraqi bomb is Mr. Hussein's self
preservation, it's hardly worth going to war over.']
*  Attack on Iraq makes little sense [Anti-war argument in the normally
pro-war Bangkok Post from a 'a senior fellow at the Cato Institute' and
'former special assistant to President Reagan'. Like Steve Chapman in the
Washington Post he accepts the possibility that President Hussein might
acquire 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and is not too worried about it:
'Potentially most dangerous is Pakistan's arsenal. The government of General
Pervez Musharraf is none too steady; Islamabad long backed the Taliban, and
its military and intelligence forces almost certainly contain al-Qaeda
sympathisers. It is easy to imagine Pakistan's nuclear technology falling
into terrorist hands. In contrast, Mr Saddam would not use such weapons
against America, since to do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel
possesses a similarly overbearing deterrent.' (nice to see Israel's
possession of nuclear weapons increasingly being used as an argument against
war with Iraq ...)]
*  History isn't repeating-- U.S. must oust Saddam [Subtler than usual
analogy between the 'appeasement' of Saddam Hussein today and the
'appeasement' of Adolf Hitler by Neville Chamberlain in 1938. John
O'Sullivan suggests that Neville Chamberlain had a better case than his
modern equivalents. The only thing missing from Mr O'Sullivan's argument is
any indication that even a rearmed President Hussein poses a credible threat
either to us or to his neighbours. But then, although Hitler certainly posed
a threat to his neighbours to the East, he wouldn't, left to his own
devices, have posed any threat to anything to his West, as anyone who has
taken the trouble to read Mein Kampf (and I can't believe that Mr O'Sullivan
hasn't read it) will know ...]
*  Lawsuit: Iraq Knew of 9/11 Attacks [The main new item mentioned in this
is that an Iraqi journalist praised by Saddam Hussein had, prior to Sept 11,
published an article saying that OBL was planning an attack on the US.
Otherwise it seems to be mainly the currently dormant Laurie Mylroie Ramzi
Yousef thesis.]
*  Clinton: Get Bin Laden Before Saddam [Jimmy Carter, see below, has proved
that it is possible to be a great ex-President. William Clinton, so far,
hasn't ...]
*  Bush to Seek Congress' O.K. on Iraq
*  Who wants to occupy Iraq for 30 years? [Another intelligent attack on the
prospect of war from an old Reaganite, this time arguing that the real issue
is not invasion but occupation, and that the attempt to restructure Iraq
would greatly and unnecessarily weaken the US, especially with regard to
China. An interesting comparison is made with the restructuring of Japan.]
*  Saddam is stiffing the world, says Bush [I am not familiar with the term
'stiffing', but I get the impression we are going back to the sort of
language George ('He's gotta get his ass out of Kuwait') Bush Sr used to
affect at the time of the 1991 massacre.]
*  The troubling new face of America [Powerful attack by ex-Preident Carter
on the present direction of American foreign policy, including this blunt
statement of the obvious: 'As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign
allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent
officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from
Baghdad.']
*  The world has drifted apart from U.S. [Thoughtful essay warning the US
that the rise of anti-Americanism has a real basis to it in perceptions of
US behaviour and needs to be taken seriously, even if 'Few maybe have yet
stopped watching the violent and sexually loaded films or the pornographic
Spam that America pours out to the word.']
*  Rumsfeld ordered strikes on Iraq after 11/9: TV ['"Go massive," the notes
quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up - things related and not."']

URL ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21639-2002Aug31.html
*  Officers: Iraq Could Drain Terror War
by Bradley Graham
Washington Post, 31st August
[On US military resources and whether they might be stretched if unilateral
war was declared all at once on everyone everywhere.]


AND, IN NEWS, 31/8-6/9/02 (2)

UK OPINION

*  Kirk [Church of Scotland] warns against Iraq war
*  Osama wants US to attack Iraq: Rushdie [Sensible comments from S.Rusdie -
rather a newsworthy event in itself.]
*  Tories Urge Blair to Lead Iraq Debate [Mr Duncan Smith, hoping to split
the Labour Party, is supporting Mr Blair as a rope supports a hanging man,
to coin a phrase.]
*  Rest of the world might have uses: Signs of awareness in US [The article
suggests that at his meeting on George Bush's farm the Saudi ambassador
refused flyover rights and that 'administration hawks are seriously
suggesting using bases in the Gulf without consulting their host
countries.']
*  71% against war in Iraq without UN backing [in Britain]
*  Scots Opposition to War in Iraq Soars [According to an opinion poll in
The Herald newspaper]
*  Hawkish PM demands public's trust [When I heard extracts from Mr Blair's
press conference on the radio I had the distinct impression he said that the
UN would be allowed to play a part so long as it did what he and Mr Bush
want it to do, but otherwise they would ignore it - i.e. no question of
seeking a UN mandate to go to war as he is, we are led to believe, obliged
to do by 'international law.' The reports don't seem to have picked this up
so clearly but this one hints at it. He finishes by saying that Iraq's '
illicit oil revenues have recently greatly increased', which seems unlikely
when what used to be the major source - smuggling into Turkey - has slowed
to a trickle owing to the Turkish quarrel with the KDP.]
*  Blair has to talk up war in order to make it less likely
*  Brown 'is fully behind Blair on Iraq' [but hasn't yet said so himself.]
*  Cook urges Blair to seek UN backing on Iraq
*  Archbishop warns over war with Iraq [Not Rowan Williams this time, but
the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac
Murphy-O'Connor.]
*  The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil [This is one of the toughest
anti-war arguments yet to appear in the mainstream press. It brushes aside
the threat from Saddam with the contempt it deserves ('Hitler thought he
could win; Saddam knows he cannot.'). No nonsense about UN reslutions or
weapons inspectors. She recognises that the 'problem' is entirely an
invention of the US. Since she doesn't think the US advisers are stupid she
reckons they can't believe their own propaganda so they must have another
motive. She suggests a massive military presence next to Saudi Arabia. Not
to sieze Saudi oil, at least not straightaway, but just in case something
untoward might happen (as of course it might). She could add that this
massive military presence will also be next to Syria and Iraq, and not far
from Israel/Palestine.]
*  Iraq: war is not the way [Moving appeal by group of Iraqi exiles opposed
both to the Ba'ath dictatorship and to the massive bombardment of their
country. But is their demand for an end to sanctions AND a legal process of
'punishing offenders' feasible?]

URLs ONLY:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1028186244257&p=1012571727159
*  Blair paints picture of menace posed by Iraq
by James Blitz, Political Editor
Financial Times, 3rd September
[This account of Mr Blair's press conference does leave us in no doubt as to
his opinion of Mr Hussein's regime in Iraq. It is 'appalling, brutal,
dictatoral, vicious' as well as 'absolutely despicable and loathesome'. So
now  we know.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,785667,00.html
*  BLAIR HAS TO TALK UP WAR IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LESS LIKELY
by Polly Toynbee
The Guardian, 4th September
[Polly Toynbee offers with a straight face what William Raspberry (in US
Opinion above) offers as a satire. She tells us that the only way to avoid
war is for Saddam Hussein to admit weapons inspectors. The only way
President Hussein will be induced to do this is if he thinks he has no
choice. Consequently Mr Blair's talking tough is the only way to avoid war
(while all the wimps such as ourselves are only making war more likely).
But, she admits, Mr Blair might get caught out. Mr Hussein might not back
down. Then Mr Blair will be obliged to go to war. Which is of course the
very last thing he wants to do. Ms Toynbee asks what else he should do?
Well, he should get together with other world leaders to try to persuade the
US government that nobody thinks Saddam Hussein poses any sort of credible
threat to the US, and that mass murder is not a business that should be
engaged in lightly or that can fail to have serious consequences ... Oh, she
also says that Mr Blair has to go along with the warmongering in order to be
in a position to council moderation. Will she be the last person to hold on
to this most absurd of delusions?]


IRAQI/UN RELATIONS

*  Iraq says return of weapons inspectors must be linked to broader issues
[Tariq Aziz at Johannesburg]
*  Bush to lay out case against Iraq in UN address


IRAQI OPPOSITION

*  Al-Majallah: Al-Sharif Ali: America's aim is to topple Saddam, not occupy
Iraq [Al-Sharif Ali, Ahmad Chalabi's colleague in the INC, gives a
straightforwardly Monarchist view of the history and prospects of Iraq.]
*  Talabani: Kirkuk is not a Solely Kurdish city [but ....]

URL ONLY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21678-2002Aug31.html
*  Dissent Stalls Plan for Iraqi Government-in-Exile
by Daniel Williams
Washington Post, 31st August
[Yet another account of the difficulties of the opposition groups as we
already know them.]


AND, IN NEWS, 31/8-6/9/02 (3)

IRAQI/MIDDLE EAST-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS

*  Muslims Told to Withdraw U.S. Assets [Sound financial advice from the
Lebanese Shi'i cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.]
*  Kuwait to Buy 16 Attack Helicoptors ['Kuwait will receive the first
delivery of helicopters in early 2005, Sheik Jaber said.' But will Kuwait
last that long?]
*  Persians are no better than Zionists: Iraqi vice president [Seems an odd
time for the Iraqi government to pick a quarrel with Iran. It turns on the
Iranian refusal to return the planes sent over during the 1991 war. Also on
the following interesting contention: 'Ramadan also accused Iran of
encouraging an uprising by Shiites in southern Iraq at the end of the Gulf
war. "The damage sustained by Iraqi towns because of their behaviour was
more severe than that inflicted by the missiles and bombs the American
planes dropped during the attack," he said.']
*  Ramadan's Remarks Damaging to Muslim World: [Iranian Deputy Foreign
Minister Mohammad] Sadr
*   Iraq Served Zionist Interests by Attacking Iran, Kuwait : Asefi [a
spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry.]
*  Iran makes formal protest to Iraq over Zionist jibe
*  Saddam's Envoy to Appeal to Yemen
*  Bahrain urges Arabs to oppose war [and 'Bahrain's Islamic and liberal
groups and trade unions have joined forces to set up a "people's committee"
to support Iraq.' During the 1991 war George I maintained that he had the
support of a majority of Arab countries. He was able to do this by counting
miniscule entities such as Bahrain , Qatar and the UAE as equal to countries
such as Algeria and Libya. It will be interesting to see what sort of
respect George II accords to their national dignity now that they seem to be
set on defying him.']
*  Turkey joins Iran against attack: Resolution of Iraq crisis [Visit of
Turkish foreign minister to Iran.]
*  Libya Says a War on Iraq to Wreak Havoc in Persian Gulf
*  Iraq's Cross-Border Oil Trade Down to a Trickle: MEES [owing to Turkey
closing it down to punish the Kurds.]
*  Iraq prepares to host first Saudi visit since 1991
*  Iran, Syria discuss 'threats' to Arabs
*  Iraq calls for defence volunteers
*  Syria rediscovers its Kurdish problem [Bashar Assad visits North East
Syria, near Iraq and Turkey, where there is a large Kurdish population
which, the Syrians say, mainly consists of Kurds who have fled oppression in
Turkey or Iraq.]
*  Prince Zeid Bin Shaker [Obituary for Jordanian statesman which gives a
useful little account of the history of Jordan]
*  Khatami Sends Messages to Syrian President, Saudi Prince
[Friendship, peace, love and brotherhood are whistling all around the Arab
world.]
 *  Oman blasts West over Iraq attack plan ["The world cannot accept or
tolerate the weakening of the United Nations' role...Those who think that
they can forge a new (international) law for their interests and impose it
on humanity are pushing the world to chaos and instability." This is tough
talking. It doesn't sound like a country that intends to allow itself to be
strung along at the last moment.]
*  Turkey unaware of concrete US plans against Iraq [Turkish Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sukru Sina Gurel, on a visit to
Iran suggests that Turkish intervention in Northern Iraq/Southern Kurdistan
was largely the consequence of its desire to help the people living in the
region who were deprived of the benefits of firm government.]
*  AIPU [Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union] hold special session over US war
threat against Iraq [Nearly all Arab parliaments were represented except
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Why, in the present climate of opinion, Saudi
Arabia?]
*  US plotting to balkanize ME: Arab League [It seems that the US has
recently helped to broker a peace in the Sudan between North and South which
gives the South a possibility of having a referendum on independence in six
years time - an arrangement rather reminiscent of the arrangement Russia, in
a rare and all too shortlived moment of lucidity, made with the Chechens. If
this development in the Sudan is what it appears to be and if the US really
is responsible, it is an astonishing and perhaps, dare I say it, admirable
achievement. But many Arabs see the possible partition of the Sudan and the
possible partitioning of Iraq - Kirkuk, Baghdad, Basra - as a policy of
'Balkanization'. But then again, since the Arabs had a part to play in the
Balkanization of the Balkans (by encouraging the Bosnian Muslims in an
irresponsible demand for independence) there may be an element of justice in
it ...]
*  Al-Youm: Riyadh denies sending official delegation to Iraq [Difficult to
know why they should be boasting about it.]
*  Hurriyet: A second Turkish gate in northern Iraq [Turks co-operate with
Syrians in a move that could have very serious consequences for the Kurds
and helps explain why they've been able to temporarily close down the diesel
smuggling business.]
*  Maximalist positions will make hostilities inevitable [Article in the
Lebanon Daily Star defending Arab efforts to persuade Saddam Hussein to
allow weapons inspectors. The argument is based on treating the UN Security
Council as if it is in some way representative of 'the world'. In refusing
to comply with its will, therefore, Mr Hussein is pitting himself against
'the world'. Surely the Arabs of all people should be the first to be able
to free themselves of this absurd delusion ...]
*  Al-Majd: Certain Iraqi opposition papers banned in Syria [And certain
other opposition groups look on approvingly but the Arabic News isn't going
to explain this interesting situation any further.]
*  Arab ministers tell Baghdad to admit inspectors [Arab League conference
in Cairo. The quotations given do not quite justify the headline and the
return of the inspectors was not included among the final resolutions]
*  Arab leaders attack losing strategy [This article may be just wishful
thinking on the part of the Daily Telegraph. It argues that the Arab
opposition to war on Iraq is just a front. Privately they will give the US
all the help it wants. The Qatari Foreign Minister's visit to Iraq last week
is explained thus: 'officials said the emirate's Foreign Minister, Sheikh
Hamad bin Jassim bin abr al-Thani, travelled to Baghdad last month to tell
Saddam that Arab rulers would not defend him ... "We cannot stop them using
the base. Do something to save yourself, or at least to make it more
difficult for the Americans. Let the inspectors in".']
*  Lebanese desk will be among biggest at Baghdad trade fair
*  Iran-PGCC [Persian Gulf Cooperation Council] Consolidate Ties to Ward Off
Foreign Threats [Celebration of increasing Arab/Iranian links since
September 11. But mainly notable for more of the tough speech by the Omani
Foreign Minister: '"The hopes that the embargo on Iraq will be lifted have
gone with the wind. Now it is clear that the power which dominates the
United Nations is not looking to help the Iraqis or the Arabs," he said.']
*  Attack on Iraq would 'open the gates of hell' in Middle East [Brief but
to the point ...]
*  Arab League vows support for Iraq in military confrontation with U.S. [A
more verbose version of the preceding, but it does confirm in so many words
that the Arab League did not issue a call to Iraq to allow the return of
weapons inspectors.]


AND, IN NEWS, 31/8-6/9/02 (4)

IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

*  Russian-Iraqi Oil Ties Worry U.S. [Account of oil deals with Russian
companies and Russia's desire that they should be honoured in the event of
regime change.]
*  Leading Asians Against U.S. Military Action Against Iraq
*  Costs of US unilateral attack on Iraq incalculable: Butler [Is it
possible that Richard Butler is a genuine idealist who genuinely believes in
international control to prevent the proliferation of unconventional weapons
and even that the UN is the body that should be responsible for doing it?
And that his eyes are beginning slowly to open to the real implications of
the policy he has been so sedulously supporting over the past six years?]
*  U.S. faces bigger issues than hitting Iraq [A view from Japan which,
interestingly, places the problem of rebuilding Iraq (where 'The creation of
an acceptable government in Iraq must start from scratch amid a hostile
indigenous population where no alternative authority exists.') in the
context of the post war rebuilding of Japan (where 'A considerable number of
Japanese, both young and old, still resent the systematic demolition of old
Japanese values and the planting of American systems under the
Occupation.')]
*  Mandela Opposes Iraq Attack Threats
*  The facts on Iraq that Mandela overlooks [The Scotsman, sounding like the
Skibbereen Eagle, ticks Nelson Mandela off for his ignorance of world
affairs. For example, until Mr Mandela intervened in the al-Megrahi case:
'everyone - including Libya (! ­ PB) - had seen the Lockerbie trial as a
good example of how fair international criminal justice can be made to
work.'; and now, the Scotsman tells us, 'Iraq is hardly "an independent
country", to use Mr Mandela's terminology. Large tracts of it - the Kurdish
lands - are liberated and protected by weekly bombing of the Iraqi military
by the RAF and US Air Force - all sanctioned by the UN.' The bombing. need
we say, has nothing to do with protecting the Kurds (most of it occurs in
the South where the population it was supposed to protect - the Marsh Arabs
- was, so we are told, successfully eliminated long ago); nor is it
sanctioned by the UN. The Scotsman goes on to say that Russia's
interventions are less than perfectly disinterested, which may of course be
true but has nothing to do with the point Mr Mandela is trying to make. And
does the Scotsman believe that the US is acting from motives of
unaldulterated altruism (though I can't help feeling Mr Blair's motives may
be pretty disinterested. I don't find the thought reassuring.)]
*  US troops not needed to hunt Al Qaeda men: Musharraf opposes attack on
Iraq [Is this Musharraf making the beginnings of a Declaration of
Independence?]
*  China mum on UN veto over strikes on Iraq [An example of the delicacy of
the translator's art. In this article Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov
is quoted as saying: "I hope that this question is not raised in the
Security Council, that Russia's veto will not be necessary." In another
version (excised by me from 'Iraq says return of weapons inspectors must be
linked to broader issues') it appears as the rather more radical: "We hope
... that this question will not be placed to the Security Council, thereby
necessitating the veto of Russia ..."]
*  77% against attack on Iraq, poll shows [in Japan]
*  Ukrainian Deputy Claims Proof of Iraq Arms Deals ['"I say to you
officially that there are four Ukrainian Kolchuha installations on Iraqi
territory and the U.S. carried out a bombing mission on them last week,"
Omelchenko said.']
*  China wrestles with dependence on foreign oil [This article, which
justifies Mao Tse Tung's policy of self sufficiencly, has a particular
interest given China's possession of a veto in the UN Security Council.]
*  Japan in a fix on US war plans
*  US counts us in on Iraq [Paul Wolfowitz is briefly put in mind of the
existence of his loyal friend, Australia.]


EURO OPINION

*  Germany withholds Moussaoui evidence ['unless it receives assurances the
information will not be used to secure a death penalty against him.']
*  US reminds Germany ' you're a hate target too' [The Times presents
Schroeder, under pressure from the elections, as performing a 'u turn' from
his earlier unconditional support for the 'war against terror'. But a more
interesting possibility is that Germany has been stringing the
'international community' along in order to establish its right to have its
own foreign policy and military capacity and that now, hopefully, it is
making a declaration of independence ...]
*  Iraqi Diplomat Expands European Offensive Against US Attack
*  Attack on Iraq illegal without UN accord: German minister [The Defence
Minister, Peter Struck]
*  Germany Arrests Iraqi-Born American [The article is undecided as to
whether or not this is an event of significance.]
*  Schröder's cynical campaign [As this FT article points out, 'Germany now
stands alone among the EU's big powers in ruling out any participation in an
attack against Baghdad, even if the UN Security Council were to authorise
such a step' and this position is so popular among the electorate that the
CSU is obliged, perhaps against its instincts, to follow suit. It remains to
be seen if Schroeder is able to raise it to the level of a principle but if
he can he may (though I find it difficult to imagine on past performance) be
on the verge of approaching world-historical stature.]
*  Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties: US warning to Germany [Remarks by
the US ambassador in Berlin, Daniel Coats, and by Joschka Fischer. The
article also had comments by Schroeder but a fuller version is given in the
article that follows.]
*  Schroeder cautions Bush on 'big mistake' over Iraq [Disappointing to see
Schroeder demanding the return of weapons inspectors.]
*  Iraq Strike Would Hit World Economy: Germany's [finance minister and
Central Bank governor] Eichel


AND, IN NEWS, 31/8-6/9/02 (5)

MILITARY MATTERS

*  Iraq: Blair hawkish as dissent mounts [Extract saying the Institute for
Strategic Studies is about to produce a report which 'will show that claims
surrounding Saddam's military capability have been overstated.']
*  Why did US ignore Saddam's assault?: Use of chemical weapons [This
article, by Dilip Hiro, usefully reminds us of some aspects of the US/Iraqi
relationship during the Iran/Iraq war. Including the fact that Iran had
refused to negotiate a truce until the Security Council had formally named
Iraq as the aggressor. Something which the Security Council (ie the US and
the USSR) refused to do, thus prolonging the war. And now we're never done
hearing about how Saddam 'started' two wars ...]
*  Enlargement Could Just Make NATO's Problems Worse [Expression of US
contempt for its miserable, impoverished, unaggressive European allies who
are 'struggling in the mud, still pointlessly focused on defense of national
territory'. Only Britain has some elements of the necessary capacity to
operate in faraway parts of the world. But what is it, though, that the
relevant government department is called? Isn't it the Ministry of
Defence???]
*  Iraq reports firing missiles at allies warplanes [Sunday, 1st September]
*  Blair dossier may tell us what little we already know [Short extract
giving Anthony Cordesman's views on Iraq's Scud missile capacity. The rest
of the article does little more than develope the theme of how little we can
possibly know know about its capacity in unconventional weapons.]
*  Hussein's secret world of biowarfare was exposed by a British missile
[May serve as a useful account of the present state of knowledge/speculation
on Iraq's unconventional weapons capacity.]
*  100 jets join attack on Iraq [Friday, 6th September]
*  Attacks nothing new, says Iraq

URL ONLY:
http://www.iraqdaily.com/p/62/4d7ad170bc90.html?id=ed05af
*  Iraq Says Airstrike Hit Civilians
The Associated Press, 6th September
[Actually they're only quoted as saying they hit civilian facilities but
this article specifies the precise location of the attacks 'the al-Rutbah
area ... Al-Rutbah is the last large town in western Iraq before the
Jordanian border.']


INSIDE IRAQ

*  Slide from the impossible to the apocalyptic [Powerful piece by Felicity
Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald.]
*  Inside Iraq [Powerful piece by Jon Pilger in the Sunday Herald. Which
quotes Dennis Halliday saying exactly what needs to be said: ''This is where
democracy applies: one state: one vote. By contrast, the Security Council
has five permanent members which have veto rights. There is no democracy
there; it does not in any way represent the real world. Had the issue of
sanctions on Iraq gone to the General Assembly, it would have been
overturned by a very large majority. We have to change the UN, to reclaim
what is ours.' Pilger also reminds us that "In 1999, 70 members of the US
Congress signed an unusually blunt letter to President Clinton, appealing to
him to lift the embargo and end what they called 'infanticide masquerading
as policy'." What happened to them?]
 *  Report: Iraq OKs communications satellite plan
*  The nuke-free guided tour of Iraq [The Sydney Morning Herald's readable
correspondent Paul McGeough visits Akashat, phosphate extraction site that
used to be the centre of Iraq's efforts to produce its very own uranium.]


CULTURAL MATTERS

*  Iraqi Musician Makes Statements with His Lute [Account of Cairo-based
Oud-player, Naseer Shamma.]




_______________________________________________
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