The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

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

[casi] News titles, 28/9-4/10/02

News titles, 28/9-4/10/02

This brings the news mailings more or less up to date. The week saw the
Prime Minister sailing painlessly through the Labour Party conference, which
also gave a standing ovation to ex-president Clinton. This represents a
considerable failure for us. It means that we have failed to place the issue
of sanctions at the centre of the public debate. The immense suffering,
disease and death for which Messrs Blair and Clinton are responsible is not
a major political issue. The mainstream anti-war argument sees the Iraqi
government's 'weapons of mass destruction' as a real problem and is merely
concerned about the modalities for dealing with it. Similarly we have not
succeeded in establishing the argument that in 1998 UNSCOM fell through its
own abuses. The aim of uncovering weapons of mass destruction was mixed up
with the aim of inflicting ritual humiliation on the Iraqi government and
prolonging sanctions indefinitely. This was widely recognised at the time
and UNMOVIC was established on a different basis, more independent of the
interests of individual member states. One of the main aims of the new
proposed US/UK resolution is to undermine that different basis, to restore
and amplify the worst excesses of UNSCOM. So far this has gone virtually
unnoticed in the public debate, which has concentrated instead on the 'hair
trigger' mechanism for war. The French, Russian and perhaps British anxiety
seems to be to prolong a status quo that is intolerable. The war so clearly
desired by President Bush at least has the merit that it would bring about
radical change.

In the introduction to the 20-27/9/02 mailing I mentioned 'Maurice Deat'. I
was of course referring to the French Socialist politician and advocate of a
policy of principled collaboration with the German victors, Marcel Deat,
whose extensive and powerfully argued autobography may be seen as a useful
guide to living under the conditions that the President of the United States
wishes to impose upon the rest of the world.

NEWS, 28/9-4/10/02 (1)


*  Celebrities take sides over war on Saddam [Spielberg (perhaps) and Cruise
for; Streisand against.]
*  Spielberg Did Not Support A War With Iraq
*  Monthly cost to fight Iraq: $9 billion ['"Relative to the Gulf War, it
seems surprisingly affordable," said G. William Hoagland, the GOP staff
director of the Senate Budget Committee.' Though theGulf War was eventually
paid for by other parties.]
*  Records Show U.S. Sent Germs to Iraq ['"I don't think it would be
accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed
stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a
former U.N. biological weapons inspector.']
*  'Just war' and preemption: the case for attacking Iraq [George Weigel,
senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., in
reflections 'based on a quarter century of thinking and writing about the
just-war tradition' demonstrates the absolute uselessness of that tradition
as a means of reflecting intelligently on concrete political situations. It
is an abstract scheme that can be made to justify the most monstrous abuses
so long as the correct sentiments are mouthed by their perpretators. As Noam
Chomsky would observe, it fails (at least in Mr Weigels'version of it) the
most elementary test of morality: 'if an action is right (or wrong) for
others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal
moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others 
more stringent ones, in fact  plainly cannot be taken seriously when they
speak of  appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and
evil.' Mr Weigel accords to USUK a right to interpret the idea of of defense
in a way that he would not allow to any other nation.]
*  It only takes a joystick to get rid of Saddam [New video game, "Conflict:
Desert Storm"  "No diplomats. No negotiation. No surrender". Very
*  Visits to Iraq not offending voters [On Democratic Party reps, Jim
McDermott of Seattle, David Bonior of Michigan, Mike Thompson of California
and Nick Rahall of West Virginia]
*  Bush, House reach Iraq deal ['As part of the deal, Bush bent to
Democratic wishes and pledged to certify to Congress-- before any military
strike, if feasible, or within 48 hours of a U.S. attack-- that diplomatic
and other peaceful means alone are inadequate to protect Americans from
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.' One can see some tough bargaining
must have gone on. The text of the resoution follows in the next article.]
*  House draft resolution on US force in Iraq
*  Gore calls on Bush to heal economy [Gore is almost beginning to sound
like the leader of an opposition.]
*  Peace visit to Iraq had outside help [This refers to the Baghdad visit of
Reps Jim McDermott, David E. Bonior, and Mike Thompson. The 'outside help'
referred to was from 'the Interfaith Network of Concern for the People of
Iraq, a project of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and a charity in
Southfield, Mich., called Life for Relief and Development (LIFE), which
provides humanitarian aid to Iraq'; so this was the sort of 'faith based'
initiative George Bush is normally supposed to approve of ...]

News and Observer (from Newsweek), 29th September
[Long article on US/Saddam Hussein relations, mainly useful for its
recognition that it was D.Rumsfeld who restored US/Iraqi relations in
December 1983 (Dec 20, to be precise) and that the US supplied Iraq
liberally with the material needed to make biological weapons. Not much
indication that these means were useful for any purpose other than to make
biological weapons but, nonetheless, so we're told: 'No single policy-maker
or administration deserves blame; many of their decisions seemed reasonable
at the time.']
*  CIA withholding Iraq information, senators say
Associated Press, 3rd October
[Complaint that the CIA hasn't suppled the Senate Intelligence Committee
with a requested assessment of 'key questions, including what the effect of
a military campaign would be for Iraq's neighbors'.]


*  U.S.: Top al-Qaida Aide Visited Iraq [Account of Jordanian Abu Musab
Zarqawi and Iraqi Ahmad Hikmat Shakir]
*  Arafat Lashes Out at U.S. over Jerusalem Law [Extract on arrest of 'Rakad
Salem, a local leader of the Baghdad-based Arab Liberation Front'.]
*  U.S. Steps Up Ukraine-Iraq Probe


*  Hussein has many body doubles, scientist says
*  The bull's-eye in American bombsights [Not very revealing account of
*  Iraqi Group Say Gov. Executed 15 [according to a report by 'the Center
for Human Rights, which is linked to the Iraqi Communist Party'.]
*  Al-Muharrir news: Saddam is ready to resign [If only ... The story has
since been officially denied.]
*  Iraq: British Dossier Full of Lies [Account quite clearly written by
someone who hasn't bothered to read very much of the Iraqi document. The
full text can be found at e.g. Dirk Adriaensen's website,]
*  Destroying Hope [A depressing reminder of the hopes raised by the opening
of the airports that are now being bombed.]

AND, IN NEWS, 28/9-4/10/02 (2)


*  Labour Backs Blair on Iraq [So long as he acts within the framework of
the United Nations, which, of course, remains suitably ill-defined.]
*  The Lessons of Empire [Michael Elliott remembers (with more humour than
shame; the tone of voice would hardly be thought acceptable if it was the
son-in-law of an SS man remembering his father-in-law's exploits in Poland)
Britain's role in Iraq at the time of the mandate, when: 'the R.A.F.
routinely bombed women and children in Kurdish villages'. He gives the
impression there was a British opposition to this that was eventually strong
enough to stop it. Was there? He reckons that, like the British, the
Americans mean well but that their good intentions might not be sufficiently
appreciated by the people they are trying to help.]
*  Time for Labour's delegates to stand up and be counted [Mark Seddon hopes
- in the event forlornly - that something of substance will come out of the
Labour Party conference. One wonders if he realises how sinister is his
remark about 'the Islamic fundamentalist genie ... a genie that Nasser and
the secular nationalists knew had to be contained at all costs.' At all
costs? Assad's massacre of 20,000 people in Syria for example? The war in
Algeria? This 'at all costs' threatens to put him fairly far to the right of
George Bush.]
*  Narrow victory for official Iraq line [The Guardian's account of the
Labour Party conference 'debate' on Iraq. The government won by stressing
its fidelity to the 'United Nations' (meaning the United Nations Security
Council, the body that brought you the Gulf Massacre and the subsequent mass
murder of thousands of people by starvation and disease; and that failed to
prevent the assaults on Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Chechnya and
*  Straw heads off rebellion on Iraq stance
*  Short issues Iraq warning [Clare Short, indicating how faith in the UN
can turn one's mind to porridge.]
*  UN-Iraq Deal is Defective, Says Britain [Jack Straw categorically says
that "Within these so-called presidential palaces, much of the manufacture
of weapons of mass destruction has taken place." Is he making it all up as
he goes along?]
*  Clinton's coded jibes at Bush give conference what it wants to hear [The
two versions given here of Clinton's speech, British and American, show how
successful he is at being all things to all men (which is why it is
appropriate to place it in the UK Opinion section). He is the perfect  and
most revolting representative of modern politics. It was a stroke of genius
on the part of Mr Blair to bring him on, thus putting a final end to any
possibility of a coherent thought process accurring during the course of the
Labour Party conference.]
*  Clinton supports Bush on UN's Iraq resolution ["It's fun to be in a place
where our crowd's still in office," he said, beaming.]
*  Rifkind attacks Tories on Iraq [without apparently actually expressing an
opinion of his own]


*  U.S. Pacifists Volunteer to Risk Own Lives in Baghdad [The article is
mainly about the volunteers, including Tom Nagy and Bert Sacks, but in the
course of it, retired U.S. Air Force Col. John A. Warden III makes the
interesting remark that 'Following the gulf war, the United States would
have helped repair Iraq's damaged infrastructure if Saddam Hussein had
allowed it'. Was this offer ever made?]
*  UK Gujaratis join anti-Iraq war protest [They include Dilip Hiro, who has
written on the history of Iraq under sanctions.]
*  Britons March Against War With Iraq
*  Anti-Iraq March [in Washington] Echoes Vietnam Tone
*  Thousands march against US policies on Iraq[Demonstration on Washington's
"embassy row" on Sunday.]


*  Timeline: Iraq: A chronology of key events [From the British mandate. It
seems nothing of any great note occurred between 1921 and 1932 (only the
usual old state of continuous war with Kurds and Marsh Arabs). Nor did
anything much happen between 1932 and 1958 (no British invasion in 1941, for
example). History in Iraq begins with the arrival of the Ba'ath Party in
1963. Interestingly this account seems to suggest that the Iran/Iraq war was
started by Iran, when an Iranian backed terrorist group tried to assassinate
Tariq Aziz. George Bush would certainly see that as adequate grounds for
launching a war. Perhaps Saddam Hussein's major fault was that in matters of
just war theory he was a bit ahead of his time ...]

AND, IN NEWS, 28/9-4/10/02 (3)


*  Germany and Pakistan to join Security Council [Brief account of
composition and method of election of the UNSC. It appears that Germany and
Pakistan are joining right away and so will have a chance to vote for or
against The Resolution.]
*  Presidential sites - a 'deal-breaker' [The article includes a summary of
the Feb 98 agreement between the Iraqi government and Kofi Annan.]
*  Years have been lost, and it isn't all Saddam's fault [Barbara Crossette
gives what appears to be a total fantasy version of the later history of the
weapons inspections, arguing that poor Richard Butler 'was stiffed [there's
that strange word again], insulted and humiliated by the Iraqis' because of
lack of support from slippery Bill Clinton ...]
 *  Iraq Suggests Inspection 'Companion Team'-Indonesia [Rather a good idea.
A team to oversee the inspectors and ensure their good behaviour.]
*  US Wants Iraqi Scientists to Bring Families Out
*  U.N. [or rather Iraq] to pay Kuwait $700M for land mine cleanup [Is this
the first time I've seen it suggested that the UN Compensation Committee's
sources of income include 'Iraqi assets seized abroad'?]
*  The UN resolution on Iraq [This purports to be the text. The most
poisonous elements I have noticed are the licence for spying in clauses 4
('any permanent member of the security council can recommend to Unmovic and
IAEA sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, the conditions of
such interviews, and data to be be collected, and receive a report on the
results.') and 5 ('any permanent member of the security council may request
to be represented, with the same rights and protections accorded other
members of the team'). There is no time limit on the account Iraq is
supposed to give., within 30 days, of its 'programmes to develop chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial
vehicles' so it presumably dates back to the 1980s or even earlier and any
error or omission would provide an occasion for immediate war by 'member
states' (unpecified. Iran, for example?)]
*  Russia rejects automatic force against Iraq [Various reactions to the
proposed UN resolution. The emphasis is on the automatic recourse to war,
not on the unlimited scope the document offers to the US for 'playing
games', as the expression is. The aim is to restore in spades the old
tactics of espionage and provocation which discredited UNSCOM and
conditioned the formation of UNMOVIC. If anything remotely resembling it
goes through Hans Blix and his team are not honourable people if they do
not, all of them, immediately resign.]
*  Iraq Arms Experts Probably Spied - Swede Inspector
*  Britain and US secure UN arms victory [meaning that they have succeeded
in preventing the resumption of inspections.]


*  Anti-Iraq war protests in Italy
*  France waves the stick and carrot [Account of French policy in a
front-page article in Le Monde by the foreign minister, Dominique de
*  India may not oppose action against Saddam [so long as it is authorised
by the UN, whatever that may mean.]
*  [Hungarian] Government backs US, Britain on Iraq [and doesn't insist on
'United Nations' consent.]
*  Butler accuses US of nuclear hypocrisy ["What America totally fails to
understand is that their weapons of mass destruction are just as much a
problem as are those of Iraq." And he voices another immensely important
truth when he says: 'The UN Security Council's decision in 1991 to destroy,
remove or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was unique and
far-reaching, far tougher than past attempts to disarm defeated countries
like Germany and Japan.']
*  Bulgaria offers air base for strikes on Iraq
*  Envoy: Canada Not for Iraq Change [ie the Canadian government doesn't
support 'regime change' as a reason for going to war.]
*  Nato challenged to back action on Iraq [NATO hasn't been consulted but is
expected to fall into line.]


*  Profile: Iraqi defector Wafiq Samarra'I

AND, IN NEWS, 28/9-4/10/02 (4)


*  Changing rules [Remarakable Arab paean of praise for Prime Minister
Blair, who is credited with having averted war and saved the UN.]
*  Payback time as Saddam's 'friends' desert him [Paul McGeough reckons that
the Arab autocrats will let the US go ahead and won't have any problems
keeping 'the street' in order. All in the name of 'democracy'.]
*  Saudi Arabia Recalls Qatar Envoy
*  Al-Rai al-Aam: Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh says it is forbidden to assist
attacks on Iraq
*  Iraq Provoked U.S. Adventurism in Region: Kuwaiti Defense Minister
[Interesting argument that Kuwait and Iran have common interests in
opposition both to Saddam Hussein and the US.]
*  Has Damascus struck a deal with Washington over Baghdad?
*  Iran and Kuwait Sign MOU for Military Cooperation


*  Iraqi sites targeted in air raids [Friday, 27th September]
*  U.S. Forces Building Up Around Iraq
*  Coalition Forces Hit Iraqi Radar [Sunday, 29th September]
*  U.S.-British airstrike hits Iraq military facility in no-fly zone
[Tuesday, 1st October.]
*  Four U.S. carriers closing in on Iraq [Includes a suggestion that the
earliest possible date for full deployment and therefore for war is the end
of December.]
*  Allies Drop Leaflets Warning Iraqis [Thursday, 3rd October]


*  Rival factions seek common ground [in new/old Kurdish parliament]
*  The dilemma of the Anti-War side: Lacking clear objectives [Passionately
expressed Kurdish argument that a US war on Iraq, and indeed on every other
Arab regime in the world, would facilitate the onward march of freedom and

*  The new KDP-PUK agreement and the Kurdistan Parliament
by Dr Kamal Mirawdeli, 1st October
[A well written, but long, polemic against the KDP/PUK concept of what is
meant by the words 'democracy' or 'parliament'.]

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

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]