[casi] News, 31/8-6/9/02 (4)

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

News, 31/8-6/9/02 (4)

IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

*  Russian-Iraqi Oil Ties Worry U.S.
*  Costs of US unilateral attack on Iraq incalculable: Butler
*  U.S. faces bigger issues than hitting Iraq
*  Mandela Opposes Iraq Attack Threats
*  The facts on Iraq that Mandela overlooks
*  US troops not needed to hunt Al Qaeda men: Musharraf opposes attack on
Iraq
*  China mum on UN veto over strikes on Iraq
*  77% against attack on Iraq, poll shows [in Japan]
*  Ukrainian Deputy Claims Proof of Iraq Arms Deals
*  China wrestles with dependence on foreign oil
*  Japan in a fix on US war plans
*  US counts us in on Iraq

EURO OPINION

*  Germany withholds Moussaoui evidence
*  US reminds Germany ' you're a hate target too'
*  Iraqi Diplomat Expands European Offensive Against US Attack
*  Attack on Iraq illegal without UN accord: German minister
*  Germany Arrests Iraqi-Born American
*  Schröder's cynical campaign
*  Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties: US warning to Germany
*  Schroeder cautions Bush on 'big mistake' over Iraq
*  Iraq Strike Would Hit World Economy: Germany's [finance minister and
Central Bank governor] Eichel


IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2002Aug31.html

*  RUSSIAN-IRAQI OIL TIES WORRY U.S.
by Peter Baker
Washington Post, 31st August

MOSCOW -- A convoy carrying Russian oil-drilling equipment arrived at the al
Waheed border crossing recently and passed from Syria into Iraq en route to
the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. About 50 Russian specialists will arrive
soon to begin setting up to drill 45 wells.

For the Russian company Zarubezhneft, it's a small project, worth $8
million, and hardly the reason why its chief executive visits Baghdad every
three months. The big payoff would be Iraq's decision to grant Zarubezhneft
the rights to develop the massive Bin Umar oil field, a multibillion-dollar
deal if the United Nations ever lifts sanctions.

Every day, Russian companies drill or ship as much Iraqi oil as they can
under U.N. auspices and dream of the day they can do more. Almost everyone
here seems to have a hand in the Iraqi pot, from engineering firms to
machinery manufacturers to politicians. Even the Ministry of Emergency
Situations, which is usually responding to floods and forest fires, has
gotten into the game, setting up a subsidiary to trade Iraqi crude.

The depth of Russia's economic ties to Iraq, both actual and potential,
poses a serious challenge to President Bush as he contemplates a military
attack to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government. Russia supported the U.S.
war in Afghanistan, but it has warned against any invasion of Iraq, its
longtime ally.

"If there were a strike, it would put us in a very hard position," said Yuri
Shafranik, a former Russian fuel and energy minister who heads a committee
promoting Russian-Iraqi economic cooperation. "It would mean Russia's
position was ignored and no one cared about Russia. For us, now as never
before, these projects are very important."

The message from the Kremlin so far has been ambiguous. President Vladimir
Putin has made much of his newfound friendship with Bush and has reined in
the sort of bellicose, anti-American rhetoric that erupted in 1999 with the
war against Serbs in Kosovo. But Putin tends carefully to Russian economic
interests, and his government has confirmed that it will soon sign a
long-term, $40 billion economic cooperation agreement with Iraq covering
such areas as energy and transportation.

The Kremlin's haziness may signal an interest in striking a deal. Key
political and corporate figures in both Washington and Moscow have floated
ideas on how to guarantee Russia's economic interests in Iraq in a
post-Hussein era. In exchange, Russia would mute its opposition to U.S.
military action, if not support it outright.

"Some hard political decisions need to be made rather soon by the United
States if the United States wants Russia to look at the whole situation with
Iraq more favorably than it does now," said Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of
Yukos, Russia's second-largest oil company. "If America wants Russia to be a
participant in solving the problem -- and I think Russia can play a big role
here -- then the best way to go about doing this is to get Russia interested
from an economic view. If we don't have any interests there, why bother
getting mired there?"

Yet the rumblings of compromise have not led to any concrete agreements, at
least not publicly.

"I can't imagine why this isn't a win-win situation if we were smart about
this," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, said at a hearing in July. "But I don't get any sense that
there's any movement on this by anybody in the administration."

Russia's interest in Iraq goes back to the Cold War era, when the Soviet
Union cultivated client states in the Arab world. Over the years, thousands
of Soviet specialists worked in Iraq, and Moscow sold Baghdad considerable
weaponry. A large debt remains. Abbas Khalaf, Iraq's ambassador to Russia,
put it at $7 billion and said that "Iraq is ready to pay these debts after
the lifting of sanctions." In a recent conversation, Biden said, Putin said
the debt totaled $11 billion.

Russia has also emerged in the past year or two as Iraq's largest trading
partner under the U.N. oil-for-food program. In the six-month period ending
in May, Russia purchased 90 million barrels of oil out of 226 million sold
by Iraq, a deal worth roughly $1.8 billion, according to oil executives
here. As of July 31, U.N. figures show that Russia had sold Iraq $4.18
billion in food, medicine and oil-industry equipment since the program began
in late 1996, surpassing all other countries. "Almost all Russian companies
work with us," Khalaf said.

The oil-for-food program allows Iraq to export some crude to companies such
as the 10 or so Russian firms that then resell it in the United States,
Europe and Asia. Most of the proceeds are reserved for humanitarian needs or
infrastructure work in Iraq.

However, Iraqi crude sales have plunged lately, not even counting Hussein's
brief suspension of exports last spring to pressure Israel and the United
States. Russia blames the falling sales on a U.S.-imposed pricing system in
which the final cost of oil purchased from Iraq is not set until after the
sale, discouraging companies that want to know how much they are paying at
the time of purchase.

U.N. officials maintain that Iraq has been charging a premium of 20 cents to
50 cents per barrel, most of which they deem an illegal kickback to
Hussein's government. Russian companies, they believe, have been going along
with the scheme.

One firm that has been singled out lately is Emercom, founded by the
Ministry of Emergency Situations under close Putin ally Sergei Shoigu.
Emercom has become a recent Iraqi favorite; last year Baghdad awarded it two
contracts to trade 20 million and 15 million barrels of oil. On July 11,
Emercom signed two contracts for a total of 12 million barrels, according to
a confidential U.N. document obtained last month.

According to U.N. officials, Iraq was charging a premium of 20 cents per
barrel at the time of the Emercom deal. Western diplomats consider a 5-cent
premium legitimate and anything else an illegal surcharge for Hussein. By
that reasoning, the recent Emercom contracts were worth $1.8 million in
illegal surcharges.

An Emercom spokeswoman said the firm's contracts with Iraq "comply with U.N.
rules and regulations." She said the firm acts only as an agent of oil
companies and denied that the company paid any bribes.

As important as the everyday trade is, the real money for Russia in Iraq is
still in the ground. Iraq has the world's second-richest oil deposits,
waiting for experienced prospectors to tap them.

"That's why everyone is dreaming of projects there," said Shafranik, the
former energy minister, who heads the government-controlled Soyuzneftegaz
energy company. "Everyone wants to make money. But there are underwater
currents and these currents are trying to take us to a certain destination."

The largest long-term development deal involves Lukoil, Russia's biggest oil
company. Lukoil signed a 23-year contract in 1997 entitling it to lead a
consortium that would develop part of the West Qurna field in southern Iraq.
Lukoil would be entitled to extract 667 million metric tons of oil and put
the value of the deal at close to $20 billion. "This is a gigantic project,"
said Leonid Fedun, a vice president and part owner of Lukoil.

But the project has remained frozen under U.N. sanctions, and relations
between Iraq and Lukoil have soured. Iraqi officials have pressured Lukoil
to begin work at West Qurna despite the sanctions, but the Russians have
refused. In retaliation, Iraq cut Lukoil out of the oil-for-food sales.

"We're very much frustrated and any oil man would be frustrated if he could
not work in developing oil fields," said Fedun. "But we're not politicians
and we can't make decisions on this kind of thing."

For long-term development, Iraq lately has turned to Zarubezhneft, a
state-owned oil company that has worked in the Arab country for more than
three decades. Frustrated with France for continuing to support U.N.
sanctions, Khalaf said Hussein's government recently decided to strip the
development rights to the Bin Umar oil field held by France's TotalFinaElf
and give them instead to Zarubezhneft. The company could extract 3.3 billion
barrels of oil from Bin Umar.

Nikolai Tokarev, general director of Zarubezhneft, said he is still
considering what to do. "They made an offer, and of course we became very
interested because it's a unique oil field," Tokarev said. "But we
understand very well that full-scale work at the oil field will depend on
lots of political factors."

Other companies have sealed smaller deals. Slavneft, another
state-controlled firm, signed a contract last year to develop the Luhais
field in southern Iraq with 490 million barrels of oil. In June, Sibur, a
subsidiary of the natural gas monopoly Gazprom, agreed to develop a gas
field in southern Iraq. And a partnership of three oil companies, Tatneft,
Rosneft and Zarubezhneft, has an agreement to develop another field at West
Qurna after sanctions are lifted.

For Russia, the big question is what happens to such deals if the United
States goes to war to topple Hussein. Some executives maintain their
contracts should remain valid, but many are hedging their bets, cultivating
alternative, lower-ranking figures in Iraq in hopes that they will remain
even if the top echelon is replaced.

Ariel Cohen, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, proposed in
an April article that the Bush administration support the contractual rights
of Russian companies to Iraqi oil fields to win Moscow's acquiescence to a
U.S. war. He also suggested the United States support repayment of Soviet
debt by a post-Hussein government or broker a debt swap that would reduce
Russia's own obligations to the Paris Club of creditor nations by a like
amount.

The idea resonates in some quarters of Capitol Hill. "This is an economic
imperative for Russia, and we have to do more than just protest" ties to
Iraq, Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International
Relations Committee, said in an interview after a recent meeting with
Russian officials here. "We have to make it worth their while or at least
come close to that."

Russian companies such as Lukoil, Yukos and Gazprom have put out feelers for
an alternative in which U.S. and Russian energy companies would form
consortia for joint post Hussein development.

"We understand perfectly well that America cannot give any guarantees," said
Khodorkovsky, the Yukos magnate. "At the same time, if there were sufficient
political will, then if there were consortia formed between Russian and
American companies before all of this happened . . . it would provide a
sufficient level of guarantees for Russian companies and Russia as a whole."

Correspondent Susan B. Glasser in Moscow and special correspondent Colum
Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/2/02&Cat=2&Num=19

*  LEADING ASIANS AGAINST U.S. MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ
Tehran Times, 2nd September

SINGAPORE -- A poll among lawmakers, Middle East watchers and chief
executives in 10 Asian cities showed most were against U.S. military action
against Iraq, the Singapore Sunday Times said.

The newspaper poll of 97 people showed more than two thirds did not support
military action to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"The reasons and aim for attacking are not clear," said Tokyo-based Middle
East watcher Keiko Sakai.

"The problem is that America is quick to depend on military means, despite
the fact that it has not yet fully exhausted all diplomatic means, AFP
reported.

If evidence showed Baghdad was developing weapons of mass destruction and
providing support to terrorists, 37.1 percent of those polled said they
would back a military strike.

Half of those questioned said anti-U.S. sentiments were rising because of
Washington's unilateral approach.

"I do not support the U.S. move," said Filipino congressman Apolinario
Lozada. "Any action to remove Saddam Hussein by miltary action will be based
primarily on American national interests," he said. "It does not appear the
U.S. has been openly consulting allies or countries in the region ... nor
does it appear they will heed contrary opinions."

Most of those polled said they feared the fallout from a possible US strike.

"Many Muslims all over the world will be up in arms," said Andrew Tan from
Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.

"Local allies everywhere, particularly those with Muslim populations, will
be hard pressed to contain anti-American sentiments," he said.

Should an attack be mounted against Baghdad, 73.2 percent believed the
action would have a negative impact on Asian economies.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-09/02/content_546444.htm

*  COSTS OF US UNILATERAL ATTACK ON IRAQ INCALCULABLE: BUTLER

CANBERRA, Sept. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- Former UN Iraqi weapons inspector Richard
Butler warned the costs of a unilateral attack upon Iraq would be
incalculable.

In his article titled "Iraq proof may win world to U.S.," published by The
Australian Financial Review Monday, Butler said, "In my view, there is an
action Australia could take at this crucial stage, as a loyal ally. That is
to urge the United States to ensure that any action to stop Iraq's weapons
programs is undertaken in accordance with international law, through the
Security Council."

"This is crucial because the costs and consequences of a unilateral attack
upon Iraq are incalculable," he warned, adding "The Bush doctrine is no
international law."

Butler was executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission
charged with the disarmament of Iraq during 1997-1999. He was hated by
Baghdad for his stiff approach during the mission.

Senior officials in the Australian government have advocated a pre-emptive
attack against Iraq. During his visit to Washington inJuly, Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is in the same
breath with Hitler and that only a fool would appease Iraq.

Butler said that by providing facts that proved Iraq has used the past four
years, free of inspections, to significantly increase its illegal weapons,
the United States will be able to insist that the Security Council make a
new and unqualified demandupon Iraq to permit immediate inspection of any
relevant facilities in Iraq, or face the consequences.

"For the (US) administration not to take these steps or agree to have
inspections restored would be extreme folly," Butler said.


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20020901a1.htm

*  U.S. FACES BIGGER ISSUES THAN HITTING IRAQ
by Masamichi Hanabusa
The Japan Times, 1st September

In America, a military attack against Iraq to remove President Saddam
Hussein from power seems to be a foregone conclusion. U.S. newspaper reports
have been rife with various battle plans proposed by the generals.

However, U.S. President George W. Bush's single-minded pursuit of victory
against the "terrorists" who perpetrated the infamous Sept. 11 attacks has
its dangers. It would be particularly risky if top priority is given to
attacking Iraq while more urgent problems, such as the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, the recovery of U.S. economic vigor and the precarious state of
Latin American economies, are put aside. Bush would be better advised to
spend the rest of this year attending to these more urgent issues.

The world is more interdependent than Americans are prepared to accept. Any
immediate attack would undermine innumerable delicate balances that exist
among divergent forces and interests in the world. It is good, therefore,
that the decision to go ahead seems to have temporarily been postponed until
some time next year. Taking advantage of this respite, it would be
worthwhile to tell our American friends how the average Japanese views a
prospective U.S. military strike against Hussein.

First, most Japanese are not convinced that Iraq is providing direct support
to the al-Qaeda terrorist group. So far, the Japanese government seems to be
giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. But when the attack comes and begins
to directly affect Japan -- for example, in the form of a U.S. request for
Japanese financial or military support -- crucial differences in opinion
between Japan and America will come to the fore. In Japan, war on Iraq will
not be considered in the same light as the Persian Gulf War. The Japanese
government will find itself unable to persuade the nation to support
unilateral American action against Iraq.

Second, even if Hussein is removed one way or another, the postwar
rebuilding of a peaceful Iraq will not be easy. Many Japanese are reminded
of what the Americans did to Japan during the Occupation after Japan's
defeat in 1945. 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.

Nonetheless, systemic reform of Japan succeeded because much of what the
Americans brought to Japan after the war was progressive in nature and not
incongruous with Japan's own history of wholesale Westernization following
the Meiji Restoration. More importantly, Japan had the Emperor, a figure of
authority who commanded the respect of his people.

In the case of Iraq, however, it would require a superhuman effort on the
part of the occupying force to establish a credible regime there. The
creation of an acceptable government in Iraq must start from scratch amid a
hostile indigenous population where no alternative authority exists. Iraq is
many times more intractable than Afghanistan, where the local populace did
not object to seeing foreign al-Qaeda elements ousted.

Third, if the Americans unfortunately chose to use nuclear weapons in their
pre-emptive military strike against Iraq, the vehemence of Japanese anger
would be far greater than any American could imagine, as it would touch a
raw nerve of Japanese sensitivity. I would hate to see all the postwar good
will the Japanese had shown America -- despite the nuclear bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- evaporate overnight and be replaced by a deep
rooted distrust and even hatred of the Americans.

Lastly, the Japanese are seriously concerned about the probable consequences
the attack would have on the Middle East. If the attack takes place and the
U.S. fails to allay Arab suspicion that the destruction of Iraq is aimed at
supporting Israel against the Palestinians, it is much feared that the
delicate balance that currently exists in the Middle East -- both regionally
and nationally -- will be irrevocably lost.

Although there would be no love lost between most Arab nations and Iraq, a
"Western" attack on Iraq would be considered a war waged by the
Jewish-Christian world against the Islamic world. The war would inevitably
force even moderate Arabs and regimes friendly to the West to close ranks
with radical Islamic forces in a division of civilizations. And should
moderate Arabs resist doing so, they will be washed away from power by a
powerful anti Western tidal wave that will arise in the Islamic world. For
the Japanese, too, a Middle East composed of regimes hostile to the West
would not be in their interest.

If the U.S. expects Japan to overcome these qualms and go along with the
attack, it must provide conclusive and overwhelming evidence that Iraq has
been supporting terrorists in such a way that only a systemic change in its
regime can stop it. Otherwise, a U.S. war on Iraq will be seen in this part
of the world as a pursuit of its own national interests, perhaps based on
some hidden agenda.

Masamichi Hanabusa, a former diplomat, is chairman of the English-Speaking
Union of Japan.


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15470496&template=baghdad/indexsea
rch.txt&index=recent

*  MANDELA OPPOSES IRAQ ATTACK THREATS
The Associated Press, 3rd September

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) ‹ Nelson Mandela said Monday that he is
"appalled" by U.S. threats to attack Iraq and warned that Washington is
"introducing chaos in international affairs." He said he had spoken with
President Bush's father and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

As several world leaders at a summit here urged restraint by the United
States, South Africa's revered former president issued a stinging rebuke to
the Bush administration.

"We are really appalled by any country, whether a superpower or a small
country, that goes outside the U.N. and attacks independent countries,"
Mandela said before going into a meeting with French President Jacques
Chirac. "No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands."

The United States has made toppling Saddam Hussein a priority, accusing the
Iraqi leader of developing weapons of mass destruction despite U.N.
resolutions that prohibit him from doing so. Vice President Cheney has
argued in favor of pre-emptive military action to remove Saddam from power.

"What they are saying is introducing chaos in international affairs, and we
condemn that in the strongest terms," Mandela said.

The 1993 Nobel Peace Prize winner said he tried to call Bush to discuss the
matter but that the president was not available. Mandela said he instead
spoke with Powell and former President George Bush. He also planned to speak
by telephone with Condoleezza Rice, Bush's assistant for national security.

A number of top figures from the previous Bush administration have spoken
out recently against unilateral military action ‹ raising speculation that
the elder Bush shares some of their doubts. The former president, however,
has kept silent on his son's Iraq policy.

Chirac, who is in South Africa to attend the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, said he shared "a common position on the assessment and
approach of these issues" with Mandela.

South Africa's current president, Thabo Mbeki, and German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder also urged America to exercise restraint.

The two leaders met on the fringes of the summit and "agreed they were not
comfortable with any military action being taken against Iraq," said Essop
Pahad, a Cabinet minister in Mbeki's office.

In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister said the return of international
weapons inspectors was key to resolving the crisis over Iraq and warned that
military action by the United States could touch off further troubles in the
volatile Middle East.

"Any forceful solution regarding Iraq would not only complicate regulation
of (the crisis surrounding) Iraq still further, but would also undermine the
situation in the Persian Gulf and Middle East," Igor Ivanov said after talks
with his Iraqi counterpart, Naji Sabri.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 cannot be
lifted until U.N. inspectors certify the country's nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons programs have been dismantled, along with the long-range
missiles to deliver them.

Inspectors left Baghdad ahead of American and British airstrikes in December
1998 to punish Iraq for not cooperating with inspections. Iraq has barred
them from returning.

Saddam said Monday that the United States insists on overthrowing him
because it seeks to control all the oil in the Middle East.

"America thinks if it controls the oil of the Middle East then it will
control the world," the Iraqi leader told an envoy from Belarus, according
to the official Iraqi News Agency.

"By destroying Iraq, America thinks it could control the oil of the Middle
East and force the prices it wants on clients like France, China, Japan and
other countries of the world," Saddam said.

Saddam said the U.N. sanctions on Iraq were aimed in part to "prevent former
Soviet Union countries from cooperating economically with Iraq."

In a speech at the Johannesburg summit, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq
Aziz railed against U.S. threats and demanded a lifting of the U.N. embargo
that has crippled Iraq's economy.

"The U.S. is threatening to launch another large-scale aggression against
Iraq that would bring about more devastation and subsequently lead to
further catastrophes on the environment," he said.

In Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi officials took journalists on a tour of a site
suspected to have been part of Iraq's nuclear program, but which the
government says produced agriculture fertilizers.

Meanwhile, Iraq's longtime rival Iran warned that it would not stand by if
its neighbor is attacked. Only the Iraqi people ‹ not a world power ‹ should
determine the country's future, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
said in Teheran.

"Iran will not stand idle before such instability, because if a country
decides to overthrow another country's government, this will create a norm,"
he said.

And a group of 37 Protestant and other church leaders from North America and
Britain sent letters to their respective governments Friday expressing
concern about "the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly for
civilians," the World Council of Churches said Monday. They warned an attack
would strengthen those promoting extremism and terrorism.


http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=977702002

*  THE FACTS ON IRAQ THAT MANDELA OVERLOOKS
The Scotsman, 3rd September

THE latest voice to weigh in against a US-imposed regime change in Iraq is
the former South African president, Nelson Mandela. Yesterday, Mr Mandela
said he was "appalled by any country whether it is a superpower or a poor
country that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent
countries".

Mr Mandela's words usually carry weight in the world, particularly in what
used to be called the non-aligned movement of developing nations outside the
divisions of the old Cold War. He has brought a sense of morality and
principle to politics that is admirable. But no longer in government, not
everything Mr Mandela says is well thought out and is sometimes
over-personalised. For instance, his intervention in the Lockerbie case,
where he seemed to suggest that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was being
held in inhuman conditions and should be transferred to a jail in a Muslim
country, was hardly helpful. Till then, everyone - including Libya - had
seen the Lockerbie trial as a good example of how fair international
criminal justice can be made to work.

In this new intervention, Mr Mandela overlooks several important facts.
First, there is a reasonable case that existing UN Security Council
resolutions do provide a basis in international law to depose Saddam Hussein
and install a democratic government in Iraq. In particular, Baghdad's
flagrant violations of the UN resolution that ended the Gulf War which
enjoined the Iraqi regime to disarm. Second, 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. Is Mr Mandela happy
for that to continue indefinitely?

Finally, Mr Mandela's undoubted moral vision in politics sometimes leads him
to attach noble motives to others who are moved more by self-interest than
principle. For instance, another erstwhile friend of America has been urging
caution over any US moves to depose Saddam - none other than President
Putin. But Russia is owed large amounts of money by Iraq, with interest paid
in hard petro dollars. Moscow is also negotiating a ten-year, $40 billion
trade agreement with Baghdad, one of the few countries that will take large
amounts of Russian goods. Cash-strapped Russia is also providing $800
million to fund a nuclear reactor project in neighbouring Iran, which is
also daily denouncing an invasion of Iraq. But why does oil-rich Iran need a
nuclear reactor? Perhaps Mr Mandela can tell us.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair, is flying back from Johannesburg to the north-east of
England, where today he will host the third of his televised press
conferences, during which he has promised to answer detailed questions about
Iraq. Not before time. Unlike Mr Mandela, in recent weeks Mr Blair has been
remarkably silent on the issue of Iraq, despite his earlier vocal support
for removing Saddam Hussein. Now is undoubtedly the time for Mr Blair to
provide some moral leadership on behalf of security and democracy in the
Middle East. But that requires telling the world that the Iraqi regime has
to be replaced - just as the apartheid one had to be deposed - and soon.
Once that is accepted as the global agenda there will be time to debate how
to do it.


http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/03/top6.htm

*  US TROOPS NOT NEEDED TO HUNT AL QAEDA MEN: MUSHARRAF OPPOSES ATTACK ON
IRAQ
Dawn, 3rd September

ISLAMABAD, Sept 2: President Pervez Musharraf said on Monday that deployment
of more US troops in Pakistan to hunt for Al Qaeda fugitives would be unwise
and was unnecessary.

Asked in an interview with CNN how he would respond if the United States
asked to put more troops in Pakistan, Gen Musharraf replied: "US troops? No,
I don't think that would be wise at all. We are looking after any foreign
elements in Pakistan. We have deployed a part of our army and the frontier
force for this purpose and the United States knows what we are doing.

"We are fully involved in this act. We don't need assistance. We will ask
for assistance if we require it. I think our forces are capable of meeting
whatever is required in Pakistan."

When asked about the failure of efforts to find Osama bin Laden, President
Musharraf suggested Al Qaeda had been significantly weakened.

"Well, Osama bin Laden has not been found - I would say he may even be dead,
but the leadership and the entire organization is in total disarray at the
moment."

Asked if he expected some kind of attack on a Western target on the
anniversary of Sept 11, the president said: "One can't rule out the
possibility. But again, one would not like to put the entire onus on the
door of Al Qaeda again, because I don't think they are organized.

"But so much of whatever is happening in the Middle East has its own
repercussions and therefore a possibility does exist."

Pakistan is not "at all" interested in joining efforts to topple Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein, President Musharraf said.

"I wouldn't like Pakistan to get involved at all," he said. "We have too
much on our hands here internally and regionally and we wouldn't like to get
involved anywhere outside."

Gen Musharraf warned that a US military strike against Iraq would not only
raise ire among the Muslim world, but would also upset other Western
interests.

"I don't think there is full support even in the European Union and in many
other big powers, in Russia, China... so I think it's going to disturb,
cause a lot of imbalance."

He warned that too many Muslim countries were being targeted in military
operationsand equated efforts to remove Saddam Hussein with yet another
attack on a Muslim country.

"At the moment all the political disputes, all the military action, all the
casualties, the suffering, are by the Muslims around the world, because all
the political disputes involve Muslims unfortunately," he said.

"And more unfortunately Muslims happen to be at the receiving end every
year. Therefore another ... action against a Muslim country will certainly
have its impact."

The army chief also said there was "no point" in Islamabad providing any
kind of support to a military strike on Iraq, as it did with the US-led
bombardment of Afghanistan. "We have no geographical affinity with Iraq, and
therefore there's no point in our getting involved."

[.....]


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_58106,00050004.htm

*  CHINA MUM ON UN VETO OVER STRIKES ON IRAQ
Hindustani Times, from Press Trust of India, 3rd September

China refused to say on Tuesday whether it would use its veto in the United
Nations Security Council to block motions concerning US-led military action
against Iraq.

The question of wielding a Chinese veto in the council was hypothetical at
the moment, the foreign ministry said, while urging a diplomatic solution to
the Iraq issue.

"It's only an assumption," spokesman Kong Quan said when asked if a US
attempt to seek UN backing for an attack on Iraq would be blocked by a veto
from Beijing.

Kong's remark came one day after Russia -- another of the five permanent
Security Council members with veto power -- said it would say no if the
United States decided to appeal to the UN.

"I hope that this question is not raised in the Security Council, that
Russia's veto will not be necessary. We think that the Iraqi situation can
only be resolved through diplomatic means," Russian Foreign Minister Igor
Ivanov said on Monday.

Kong said Iraq should abide by UN resolutions to allow weapons inspectors
in, but that the use of force was not the way to go about the problem.

"On the one hand, Iraq should ... Allow the inspectors to return to Iraq,"
he said. "On the other hand, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
other countries should be fully respected.


http://japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=228908

*  77% AGAINST ATTACK ON IRAQ, POLL SHOWS
Japan Today, 4th September

TOKYO ‹ Seventy-seven percent of Japanese oppose a possible U.S. military
attack on Iraq and only 14% are in favor, according to an Asahi Shimbun poll
published Wednesday.

The daily's telephone poll surveyed Japanese on Saturday and Sunday as well
Americans, through a U.S. pollster, from Aug 22 to 25. It found that 57% of
Americans support a military attack against Iraq, which Washington claims
poses a threat to global stability, but 32% of Americans are against it.
(Kyodo News)


http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/09/04/015.html

*  UKRAINIAN DEPUTY CLAIMS PROOF OF IRAQ ARMS DEALS
by Tim Vickery
Moscow Times, from The Associated Press, 4th September

KIEV -- An opposition Ukrainian legislator and former security service
operative claimed Tuesday to have evidence that President Leonid Kuchma and
other high-ranking officials were involved in military deals with Iraq in
violation of UN sanctions.

Hrihoriy Omelchenko, the head of a parliamentary commission investigating
news reports implying that Kuchma, former security chief Leonid Derkach and
other officials participated in arms sales to Iraq, said that "the names,
the weapons and the bank accounts into which the money was deposited will be
revealed when the committee completes its investigation."

He gave no details about the weapons allegedly involved but said there are
four Ukrainian made Kolchuha radar installations in Iraq.

"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.

He made his comments at a news conference announcing his commission's
request to Ukraine's prosecutor general to indict Kuchma, the speaker of
parliament and others on criminal charges related to the death of journalist
Georgy Gongadze. He said he met last month with U.S. Justice Department
officials investigating allegations of arms deals between Ukraine and Iraq.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Vadim Kovalyuk would not comment on Omelchenko's
claims Tuesday.

Omelchenko's allegations relied heavily on evidence provided by former
Kuchma bodyguard Mykola Melnichenko, who released audiotapes in 2000 that he
said documented Kuchma's approval of an arms deal with Iraq and his
involvement in Gongadze's death.

Gongadze disappeared in September 2000. After more than a year of stalled
investigations, Ukraine's chief prosecutor Svyatoslav Piskun announced
Tuesday that a panel of forensic experts had confirmed beyond doubt that a
headless body found in the woods outside Kiev later that year was that of
Gongadze.


http://www.iht.com/articles/69609.html

*  CHINA WRESTLES WITH DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL
by Keith Bradsher
International Herald Tribune, from The New York Times, 4th September

BEIJING: Alarmed by violence and political volatility in the Middle East,
China's leaders are aggressively developing alternatives to oil from the
region. But a booming economy and rising sales of cars may propel China,
however reluctantly, into the same sticky embrace with oil producers in the
Middle East that the United States, Japan and many other countries have
accepted.

China's transformation from a net exporter of oil as recently as 1993 to a
big oil importer has made it more attuned to events in the Middle East. Even
as the Bush administration steps up threats to attack Iraq, Baghdad has been
wooing the Chinese. Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, met in Beijing with
Deputy Prime Minister Qian Qichen and other high ranking officials, and the
Chinese reiterated their opposition to the use or threat of force against
Iraq.

A report in July by the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, a group
created by Congress, warned that China's increasing needs for imported
energy had given it an incentive to become closer to countries like Iran,
Iraq and Sudan that are accused by the State Department of supporting
terrorism.

A "key driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is
its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development," the report
said. "This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade." The
Chinese are trying to increase production of oil and natural gas at home and
buy more energy from elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, with projects
from Australia to Siberia, and from China's continental shelf to the deserts
of Xinjiang Province in the west, Chinese energy company executives and
diplomats said in Beijing. But many Western experts say that China's energy
needs will grow far beyond the supply capacity of those reserves and that
recent efforts, including greater use of natural gas, can slow but not
reverse the country's dependence on the Middle East, which now supplies
three-fifths of China's oil imports.

"They are going to be short such a significant amount of crude that there
isn't any choice except to rely more on the Middle East," said David Pietz,
a specialist in Chinese energy at Washington State University.

China accounted for a quarter of the world's growth in oil use over the last
decade, becoming the fastest-growing consumer of oil in the last several
years. By 2030, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris, it
will import as much oil as the United States does now, an eightfold increase
over its imports now.

"This makes China's energy development critical not only for China, but for
the world at large," said Robert Priddle, the agency's executive director.

Energy security is a sensitive subject in China, where self-sufficiency in
energy was a mantra during Mao Zedong's rule. But officials acknowledge that
this is no longer realistic and are publicly worrying about the
implications.

Rising dependence on imports "will dramatically increase the supply-side
risks of petroleum resources," China's minister for state land and
resources, Tian Fengshan, said in a rare statement on the subject in July,
"and that will damage the country's capacity to ensure its oil resources, as
well as economic and political security."

China's rising energy consumption, resulting in the burning of more fossil
fuels, also threatens to make it a huge contributor to global warming. In
the late 1990s, China had actually reduced its emissions of the gases blamed
for global-warming gases even as its economy grew, mainly by switching
factories and homes from coal to cleaner-burning oil and natural gas, and by
moving to less energy-intensive industries like the production of consumer
electronics and clothing instead of steel. But emissions appear to be rising
again, with coal consumption jumping 5.4 percent last year while the use of
oil and natural gas also rose.

Growth in oil consumption has accelerated mainly because of a large-scale
transition, still in its early stages, away from bicycles and mass transit
and toward private automobiles. Car sales jumped 40 percent in the first
seven months of this year compared to the same period a year ago, although
part of the gain reflected the increased affordability of cars as China's
entry into the World Trade Organization led it to reduce tariffs and
increase import quotas.

In the mid-1990s, state-owned Chinese companies purchased oil fields in Iraq
and Sudan, although international sanctions on Iraq have limited the
development of the fields there and the Sudanese civil war has periodically
slowed production.

Deals are taking place in the context of a radically changed industry. In
the name of deregulation, China has swung from a heavily bureaucratic,
centrally planned economy to having remarkably little energy policy planning
at all. China abolished its Energy Ministry in 1993, after years of
bureaucratic struggles that pitted it against the coal, electricity and oil
refining industries that had their own ministries, as well. But with the
conversion of many of these industries into state-owned, for-profit
companies in late 1998, the result has been a near absence of coordination.

Another result has been an emphasis on energy production instead of
conservation. China's gasoline prices now rank with American prices as being
among the lowest in the world for oil-importing countries, and are a third
of gasoline prices in Europe, where steep taxes push to more than a E1 a
liter, or $4 a gallon or more, or to discourage gasoline use. The National
People's Congress has been discussing the imposition of steep gasoline taxes
for two years, but has taken no action.


http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/05/int11.htm

*  JAPAN IN A FIX ON US WAR PLANS
by Suvendrini Kakuchi
Dawn, 5th September, 26 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423

TOKYO: Japan, a long-time American ally, is trying to make its cautious way
across the political minefield that is its hesitance in backing a US
invasion on Iraq, Washington's next target in its expanding 'war on
terrorism'.

In a supposed show of solidarity, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
is scheduled to visit Washington next week to spend time with President
George W Bush, during memorial services the US government is holding for the
anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks.

But the signs are that this is about the most Japan is willing to do at this
time.

"Japan is walking a terribly tight tightrope when it comes to taking a
decision on lending its support to the US strike against Iraq," explains
Professor Takeshi Inoguchi, an international relations expert at the
University of Tokyo.

While Japan was criticized for what some called its less than full support
for the US-led coalition in the 1991 Gulf War - despite its giving $11
billion to the war effort - this time the Japanese do not seem to be too
worried about getting negative feedback.

Koizumi has not pronounced Tokyo's position thus far. But opinion polls and
statements from politicians show that the Japanese are not entirely sold on
a planned US attack on Iraq to unseat President Saddam Hussein.

Many politicians share the apprehension about unilateral US action by
governments like Germany and France - and on Tuesday, South African
statesman Nelson Mandela said that such an attack on an independent nation,
without UN involvement, would be "appalling".

On Wednesday, the 'Asahi Shimbun' newspaper reported that 77 per cent of
Japanese it polled in a telephone survey opposed a US military attack
against Iraq, and 14 per cent said they favoured it.

This marks a shift in attitudes toward the United States and its 'war on
terrorism' in the last year, and reflects views different from Japanese
support of the military action against Afghanistan last year and in the 1991
Gulf War.

"Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has not taken a clear stand on what Japan
would do should the United States take on Iraq, but the poll seems to
indicate the Japanese public has already made up its mind," the newspaper
said on Wednesday.

Asked if Japan should cooperate with the United States should it begin an
assault on Baghdad, 69 per cent of those polled in the 'Asahi' survey said
Tokyo should not do so, while 20 per cent said it should.

Inoguchi says that Japan's hesitance to give all-out support for US plans
for Iraq reflect a change in Japanese perceptions of the country's place in
international relations and its ties with countries like the United States,
for instance.

On Iraq, he says, Japan is caught between two factors: the attraction of
supporting the United States as a counterweight to rival China's rising
power, and the pulse of an increasingly sceptical public that does not want
Japan to slavishly follow Washington as it has usually done for the last
five decades.

One of the clearest signs of Japan's reluctance is a statement by the ruling
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), soon after a visit by US Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage in late August to urge Tokyo to support the Bush
administration in the event it decides to attack Iraq.

But in the statement, LDP spokesman Takuji Yamazaki asks for 'proof from the
international community the existence of the Hussein administration is evil
and goes into the negative effects of supporting unilateral military action
against Iraq, apart from its potential for stoking anti-US feelings.

Yamazaki concludes by saying that Japan has no choice but to side with other
governments that have expressed its misgivings against a US attack on Iraq.

He also says that Japan's support for Washington can only be within the
range of its anti terrorist law, passed after Sept 11 by the Koizumi
administration.

Any escalation of military support to this level would need a new law, some
politicians say, but one that will be difficult to achieve in a country that
has a strong pacifist base after World War II.

In short, how Japan pronounces itself on US action against Iraq will be a
crucial test of ties between the countries that call themselves each other's
closest ally in the Asia-Pacific.

Apart from questions about the strength of the US case against Iraq and
about evidence linking Iraq to the Sept 11 attacks, Professor Masayuki
Yamauchi of the University of Tokyo adds that there is no proof that an
invasion can establish democracy in the Middle East as easily as the
'neo-imperialists' seem to think.

Instead of military action, Yamauchi, an advisor to the government, calls
for "soft power" that the professor believes can bring about change in
Middle Eastern countries where there are little democratic institutions and
processes in place.


http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5043032%255E4
01,00.html

*  US COUNTS US IN ON IRAQ
by Greg Sheridan
Daily Telegraph (Australia), 6th September

THE Bush administration intends to involve Australia intimately in war
planning for any Iraq campaign, US Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul
Wolfowitz has revealed.

Mr Wolfowitz, one of the White House's most influential military officials,
told The Australian yesterday that President George W.Bush had not yet
decided what course of action to take on Iraq, but "there may be more risks
in inaction" than in any course of action against Baghdad.

During the decision-making process ahead, the Bush administration would be
"consulting our closest allies", Mr Wolfowitz said. "Australia has a special
status among those."

Praising the Howard Government's performance in the war on terror, Mr
Wolfowitz said from his Pentagon office: "Australia is a country that truly
shares our values and has been forthcoming when there are problems and hard
things need to be done.

"I want to say thanks for what Australia has done. It's been a real stand-up
performance right down to the ground level, where your troops perform
outstandingly.

"I want to assure you it's much appreciated here in the Defence Department."

Mr Wolfowitz's remarks indicate the US would be virtually certain to ask for
an Australian contribution to an Iraq military campaign, and informed
Canberra sources regard it as overwhelmingly likely Australia would respond
positively.

High-level consultations between the two governments continue next week when
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer goes to New York to attend Mr Bush's
speech to the UN General Assembly.

During the visit, Mr Downer will also meet British Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw to discuss Iraq, and have talks with senior US officials.

Tomorrow in The Weekend Australian - Greg Sheridan's interview with Paul
Wolfowitz.


EURO OPINION

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2229231.stm

*  GERMANY WITHHOLDS MOUSSAOUI EVIDENCE
BBC, 1st September

Germany has told the United States it will withhold evidence against 11
September suspect Zacarias Moussaoui unless it receives assurances the
information will not be used to secure a death penalty against him.

In an interview with the Der Spiegel news magazine, Justice Minister Herta
Daeubler-Gmelin said: "Our documents cannot be used for the death penalty or
for an execution."

US officials say Mr Moussaoui, who was detained on immigration charges
before 11 September, was meant to be the 20th hijacker in the attacks in New
York and Washington.

Four of the six conspiracy charges he faces carry a possible death sentence,
a punishment banned in European Union states, including Germany.

Ms Daeubler-Gmelin insisted the issue would not put more pressure on
relations between Germany and the US - relations which are already strained
by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's criticism of US threats to attack Iraq.

On Thursday, German prosecutors announced they had charged another suspect,
Mounir El Motassadeq, with belonging to a terrorist group and being an
accessory to murder.

Germany has played a central role in the investigation into the 11 September
attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people.

Three of the hijackers, including suspected ringleader Mohammed Atta, lived
in the northern German port city of Hamburg.

German investigators reportedly have evidence linking Mr Moussaoui to Atta,
who piloted the first plane into the World Trade Center.

 Mr Moussaoui is said to have had links with Mohammed Atta

But the government insists it can not bend laws forbidding the supply of
evidence that could incriminate someone facing execution.

A letter explaining the long-standing German position had been sent to US
authorities in reply to a request for information about Moussaoui, Herta
Daeubler-Gmelin said.

"At the moment, the US is examining our answer and will then get back to
us," she said.

A spokesman for the US Justice Department said he had no immediate comment.

Cooperation between justice authorities in the two countries is "good and
trustful," Ms Daeubler-Gmelin said. "After 11 September, one shouldn't try
to soften that."

Zacarias Moussaoui, 34, was arrested last summer after arousing suspicion at
a flight school in Minnesota.

He became the first person to be charged directly in connection with the
attacks.

He is being held in custody in pending the opening of his trial in January.

US law enforcement officials have said Mr Moussaoui received two money
transfers from a man who shared a flat with Atta in Hamburg.

Mr Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, has denied involvement
in the attacks but has admitted to being a member of al Qaeda.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-401618,00.html

*  US REMINDS GERMANY ' YOU'RE A HATE TARGET TOO'
by Roger Boyes
The Times, 2nd September

THE United States Government stepped up the pressure on Germany yesterday to
show more solidarity in the campaign against Iraq.

Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's National Security Advisor, reminded
Germans that "terrorists hate Berlin, London and Paris just as much as they
hate New York and Washington. Because these cities are symbols of a free and
open society."

In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine, Dr Rice praised European nations
for standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States after the September
11 attacks. But she emphasised that the US Administration saw a campaign
against Iraq as an extension of the war against terror.

"Do we really still have to prove that Saddam Hussein is a threat for
international stability and peace?" she said.

Saddam had twice attacked his neighbours, had used chemical weapons against
his own people, had twice been caught been trying to acquire nuclear weapons
and was in possession of huge quantities of biological weapons, she said.
"Today he behaves as if he won the war. That is the reason why the United
States is talking about a regime change," she said.

The German Government, however, is drawing a line between the war on terror
and a possible strike on Iraq. It was confirmed in Berlin at the weekend
that Germany's nuclear, chemical and biological warfare unit would be
withdrawn from Kuwait if the US attacked Iraq.

The unit consists of six armoured cars that are, in effect, mobile
laboratories testing for contamination in the air and the soil. They were
sent as part of Germany's contribution to the war against terror and their
implicit function was to take part in a military action against Iraq should
Saddam be indentified as the mastermind of September 11.

Peter Struck, the German Defence Minister, has now said that the unit would
be removed "if the danger exists that our soldiers could be involved in a
conflict situation in Iraq". US diplomats are privately expressing
irritation with Berlin. After September 11 Gerhard Schröder, the German
Chancellor, expressed "unconditional solidarity" with the United States.
According to a German newspaper report, he described the unit six months ago
as a litmus for US German relations. Now he has performed a U-turn.

The reason is that the planning of the Iraq campaign coincides with
Germany's general election. Ordinary Germans do not want their country to
take part in a war against Iraq, fearing that it will lead to a broader
Middle East conflagration involving Israel.

The Chancellor, who until recently assumed that anti-war sentiment was
largely confined to the Far Left, now sees it across the whole political
spectrum. With only three weeks before the election, he is willing to risk a
showdown with Washington.

The shift by the Chancellor has wrong-footed his conservative challenger,
Edmund Stoiber. A week ago Herr Stoiber was telling the Chancellor that it
was essential to threaten military force against Iraq in order to secure
concessions from Saddam. At the weekend, however, Herr Stoiber grudgingly
agreed with the Chancellor that the armoured cars would have to be
withdrawn. His attempts to set out a more pro-Bush line seemed to be lacking
in credibility.

During a television duel Herr Stoiber said that he was against any form of
military adventure. In a Spiegel interview published today he tried to blur
these comments and said that they were not directed at the President. "I
just want to make clear that no German Chancellor, no European leader and
for sure not President Bush is ready for an adventure."

Herr Stoiber cannot square the circle, trying to present himself as
Germany's most enthusiastic supporter of the US President while staying in
step with the anti-war mood of German voters. This credibility gap is
helping the Chancellor and the leader of the Greens, Joschka Fischer, who is
urging voters to keep him as Foreign Minister.


http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=21F58AC9-23E1-4053
84DAC01593BD20CB&title=Iraqi%20Diplomat%20Expands%20European%20Offensive%20A
gainst%20US%20Attack&catOID=45C9C78C-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C&categoryname
=Europe

*  IRAQI DIPLOMAT EXPANDS EUROPEAN OFFENSIVE AGAINST US ATTACK
by Michael Drudge
Voice of America, 2nd September

Iraq is planning to expand its diplomatic offensive across Europe to try to
forestall a U.S. led military attack against the Saddam Hussein government.

The Iraqi representative in London, Mudafa Amin, says he will visit European
capitals to rally support against possible American military action to
topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The announcement comes as Iraqi Foreign
Minister Naji Sabri visited Moscow Monday, on a similar mission.

Iraq says it wants to present its case to several European Union countries,
including France and Germany, whose governments have spoken out against the
potential attacks.

Ahead of the tour, Mr. Amin told British radio Monday Iraq is prepared to
allow United Nations weapons inspections to resume. He said inspections
could prove to Washington that Baghdad is not acquiring weapons of mass
destruction. "We are ready to welcome the inspectors," he said. "We are
ready to talk to the United Nations. We are already in the process of
talking. If they are sincere in not waging a war, let them give us a chance
to prove ourselves."

[.....]


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_57836,0005.htm

*  ATTACK ON IRAQ ILLEGAL WITHOUT UN ACCORD: GERMAN MINISTER
Hindustani Times, from Press Trust of India, 3rd September

An attack on Iraq without a United Nations mandate would be "a measure that
contravenes international law," according to German Defence Minister Peter
Struck.

In an interview on news channel N-TV late on Monday, Struck said Germany did
not have enough evidence to justify any military operation to remove Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein.

Germany "does not have proof that Saddam intends to threaten any other
country, no more than it has proof that he has weapons of mass destruction,"
he said.

Struck also criticised the United States for failing to communicate with its
NATO allies.

"Unfortunately, we know nothing more than is written in the newspapers," he
said.

Last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called on the administration of US
President George W. Bush to consult its allies about military intervention
in Iraq, not just talk about consulting them.

"If the United States acts without consulting the international community or
its allies, it should also assume the responsibility alone, Schroeder said.

Bush wants to remove Saddam from power and get UN weapons inspectors back
into Iraq  - which has been subject to international sanctions for more than
a decade -- to verify its biological and chemical arsenal.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2002/sep/05/090508253.html

*  GERMANY ARRESTS IRAQI-BORN AMERICAN
Las Vegas Sun, 5th September

BERLIN (AP): German police said Thursday they have arrested an Iraqi-born
American being sought by the United States on charges of fraud and
falsifying documents.

The 37-year-old man, arrested two weeks ago in Hamburg on a U.S. warrant, is
not suspected of any terrorist links, Hamburg police spokeswoman Ulrike
Sweden said.

She refused to identify the suspect, who was taken into custody Aug. 23
pending extradition to the United States. U.S. officials had tipped off
their German colleagues about the man's arrival and asked for him to be
apprehended, Sweden said.

The man was arrested in the Harburg district of the north German city, the
same part of town where members of the terror cell that carried out the
Sept. 11 attacks on the United States lived and studied.

Neither he nor another Iraqi he was staying with in the city previously were
known to police, Sweden said.

Police declined to comment on a report in Die Welt newspaper that the man
had contact in the United States to radical supporters of Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein, and that he may have been part of efforts to raise foreign
currency and sidestep U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

It was unclear when he might be handed over to U.S. authorities.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1031119095191&p=1012571727102

*  SCHRÖDER'S CYNICAL CAMPAIGN
by Thomas Klau
Financial Times, 5th September

A spectacular role reversal has occurred in European diplomacy. The debate
over how to deal with Iraq has seen France yield its long-held position as
the most vocal European critic of the US to Germany, a country whose
establishment used to value friendly transatlantic relations as one of the
hallmarks of a responsible foreign policy.

Yet since Germany's parliamentary election campaign started to gather steam
early last month, hardly a day has gone by without a government figure
lashing out at US policy over Iraq. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has
lambasted the White House for its alleged readiness to indulge in a foreign
policy "adventure".

Unsurprisingly, such behaviour from a country once dubbed "partner in
leadership" by President George Bush Snr did not go unnoticed on the other
side of the Atlantic. In mid August the US instructed its ambassador to
register irritation with the Berlin Chancellery. Washington chose to ignore
the fact that Mr Schröder, whose Social Democrats were trailing badly in the
polls, was - and still is - fighting for political survival in an
unexpectedly difficult re-election bid. When Berlin tried to play down the
incident as a mere exchange of views, US officials swiftly leaked the true
purpose of the démarche to the German media.

Strikingly, even this rare display of American displeasure did nothing to
muffle Mr Schröder's rhetoric. The government chose to discard five decades
of diplomatic caution towards the US and harden its confrontational stance.

Last week, it stunned its own diplomats by announcing that in the event of a
US attack on Iraq, Germany would withdraw the small nuclear, chemical and
biological warfare unit stationed in Kuwait as part of the anti-terror
operation Enduring Freedom.

Last weekend's European Union foreign ministers' meeting in Elsinore brought
confirmation that 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. This stance potentially
isolates Berlin from its EU partners, flies in the face of Germany's
traditional advocacy of joint UN action and would almost certainly be
politically unsustainable should the Security Council endorse a new war.
Germany could hardly afford to stand aside from a military campaign
involving its most important partners.

Opinion polls suggest that Mr Schröder's cynical strategy is indeed helping
his re-election prospects. Refocusing his campaign on Iraq has made it
easier for the chancellor to divert attention away from his dismal economic
record. The devastating floods that hit Germany's impoverished east allowed
him to show off his undoubted talent as a crisis manager. And his
grandstanding against Washington's war preparations goes down well in a
country viscerally attached to peace since the horrors of the second world
war and still extremely reluctant to see its troops go into battle.

Adding to the government's resolve, its iconoclastic attacks on the US have
wrong-footed the conservative opposition. Germany's Christian Democrats have
traditionally placed a high premium on the country's relationship with
Washington. Their natural instinct would have been to denounce Mr Schröder's
provocations as a disloyal breach of transatlantic solidarity, jeopardising
Germany's long-term interests. Senior party figures, such as Wolfgang
Schäuble, while wary of any intervention in Iraq, have warned that the
government's rhetoric would not help its case in Washington.

Yet the obvious popularity of Mr Schröder's stance on Iraq suggests such
criticism now yields little electoral reward. In an obvious attempt to
reposition his campaign, Edmund Stoiber, the chancellor's challenger, has
hardened his own anti-war stance. Mr Stoiber has sought considerably more
distance from the White House's position than his own party would normally
feel comfortable with.

A large majority in Germany's foreign policy establishment does share the
government's analysis that, at the present juncture, waging war against Iraq
would be a huge and unnecessary risk. But senior German officials are
privately appalled by what they see as their government's reckless
electioneering.

There is now widespread concern in Berlin that Mr Schröder's personal
relationship with George W. Bush, US president, is in tatters. Worse, the
chancellor, by ruling out any military action against Iraq, has put himself
in a situation where, should he win re-election, he might have to choose
between turning his back on Germany's most important partners and breaking a
key promise to his electorate.

The stark choice, then, would be between a crisis in Germany's foreign
relations or an equally devastating loss of public confidence in the
government. It is a choice no chancellor would want to make.

The writer is Brussels bureau chief of Financial Times Deutschland


http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/05/int1.htm

*  OPPOSITION TO IRAQ ATTACK HARMING TIES: US WARNING TO GERMANY
Dawn, 5th September, 26 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423

BERLIN, Sept 4 (AFP): The US ambassador in Berlin, Daniel Coats, warned on
Wednesday that Germany's opposition to plans for an attack on Iraq was
undermining relations between their two countries.

In blunt language, he said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's "absolute
opposition" to a possible attack on Iraq was "isolating Germany from
mainstream opinion, and even within the European Union".

[.....]

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned that military intervention
would pose "the greatest risk since the Vietnam War."

"If one wants to remove Saddam Hussein from the country, one would have to
occupy it for a long period," he told the Mittelbayerische Zeitung daily.

In an interview with the German news agency DPA, ambassador Coats said the
United States had been hoping for more support from its key ally.

While Germany's position would not ruin bilateral ties, it had put "doubt"
over their closeness, he added, according to the DPA translation.

The envoy said it was not enough to argue against attacking Iraq. "What we
have not heard are constructive solutions."

Nor, given the threat from Iraqi weapons, was it "clever politics simply to
say, we've tried but Saddam has won."

To which Schroeder replied that friendship "does not mean always doing what
the other person says. That would be subjugation, and I think it is wrong."


http://www.iht.com/articles/69761.html

*  SCHROEDER CAUTIONS BUSH ON 'BIG MISTAKE' OVER IRAQ
by Steven Erlanger
International Herald Tribune, from The New York Times, 5th September

HANNOVER, GermanyHANNOVER, Germany:Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany
believes that the Bush administration is making a terrible mistake in
planning a war against Iraq, and he's not afraid to say so.

A new war in the Middle East, he says bluntly, would put at risk all that
has been gained so far in the unfinished battle against Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The arguments against a war on Iraq are so strong, he said in an interview
at his home here, that he would oppose one even "if, for whatever reasons
and in whatever form, the Security Council of the United Nations were to
say, 'Yes,' which I cannot imagine happening in the present situation."

After the attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, Germany offered
"unconditional solidarity" and support to the United States against Al Qaeda
as "a self evident duty, as a friend," Schroeder said.

He praised President George W. Bush and his secretary of state, Colin
Powell, for their skill in building unity at the UN, quickly rallying an
international coalition against terror.

Suddenly everyone understood that the world faced a new form of threat,
Schroeder said, "a privatized form of war, waged by terrorist organizations,
and that we have to defend ourselves against this using appropriate means,
including military means."

Given the new threats from terrorist organizations and the new unity created
in the international coalition, Schroeder continued, "it is important to
keep the awareness of both alive."

A war against Iraq, which he regards as a separate issue from the war
against Al Qaeda, could shatter that sense of solidarity, he said. "In the
light of the current discussion, I think it would be a big mistake if this
feeling of needing one another should be destroyed by excessively unilateral
actions," he said.

It is the duty of good friends and allies to speak clearly to Washington, as
Americans speak clearly to others, Schroeder insisted. "But consultation
cannot mean that I get a phone call two hours in advance only to be told:
'We're going in,'" he said. "Consultation among grown up nations has to mean
not just consultation about the how and the when, but also about the
whether."

Schroeder, who is in the midst of a fierce election campaign, made time in
the garden of his Hannover home to reflect on the events of Sept. 11, their
impact on America's relations with Germany and its European allies and the
growing talk of war against Iraq.

The chancellor emphasized Germany's close ties to the United States and its
people.

Because he has his eyes set first on re-election on Sept. 22, some say he is
emphasizing his opposition to an American attack on Iraq to appeal to the
large numbers of Germans who are, given their history, allergic to war, and
who are skeptical of the assertions by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
that the Iraqi regime represents such a clear and present danger that it
must be overthrown, not simply contained.

The chancellor has opened up a serious dispute with Washington, where
officials are angry at his presumption that the U.S. debate over Iraq is
finished and at what they perceive as his failure to give his closest ally
the benefit of the doubt. They believe he is damaging the German-American
alliance for electoral advantage.

Schroeder rejected any such suggestion. "I would never treat this issue as a
matter of tactics, because the consequences would catch up with me later,"
he said. "We will win in Germany, and then I will have to stick by this
decision, and I know what that means."

Real friendship, even with a wounded friend, is about honesty on issues that
matter, Schroeder said. And he believes the goal of the international
community must be to pressure President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to allow
unconditional access to United Nations weapons inspectors - not to go to war
to overthrow Saddam.

Schroeder threw up his hands. "How can you exert pressure on someone by
saying to them: 'Even if you accede to our demands, we will destroy you'? I
think that was a change of strategy in the United States - whatever the
explanation may be - a change that made things difficult for others,
including ourselves." European countries generally agreed with the previous
U.S. goal of unconditional weapons inspections.

The chancellor put forward a set of arguments about why the Bush
administration is making a mistake about Iraq. First, he says he has seen no
new evidence indicating that the military danger from Iraq has increased, so
questions the urgency.

He says he believes "no one has a really clear idea of the political order
that would follow in the Middle East" or of the effects of a war on the
stability of moderate Arab states or the cohesion of the anti-terror
coalition.


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/5/02&Cat=9&Num=16

*  IRAQ STRIKE WOULD HIT WORLD ECONOMY: GERMANY'S [finance minister and
Central Bank governor] EICHEL
Tehran Times, 5th September

FRANKFURT -- Germany's finance minister and Central Bank governor said on
Tuesday that a military strike on Iraq would hurt the world economy and even
talk of such action was already having a negative impact.

Finance Minister Hans Eichel said the possible economic fall-out was one of
the reasons why Germany opposed using force to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein.

"This would weigh on the global economy and one should be concerned about it
and it is one of the reasons why the German government had a very clear
position on this issue," Eichel told Reuters after a speech at the Frankfurt
Stock Exchange.

Ernst Welteke, head of the German Bundesbank and a member of the European
Central Bank Council, who was with Eichel, said even the talk of a possible
strike against Iraq was having a negative impact.

"Discussions over a war with Iraq have greatly contributed to uncertainty,
and you can tell this from rising oil prices," he said.

[.....]




_______________________________________________
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