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, 11-18/10/02 (1)

News, 11-18/10/02 (1)


*  Turkish doctors stage strike in protest of US war on Iraq
*  Dozens Arrested in San Francisco Anti-War Protest
*  Thousands in Paris Protest Iraq War
*  30,000 rally against war with Iraq
*  Opposition over Iraq takes rise via the Net
*  Actor Sean Penn Lashes Bush Over Iraq War Drums


*  Rumsfeld's makes military guidelines for Iraq
*  Bush's Road to War on Iraq Leads to Rome's Empire, and Its Downfall
*  Wolfowitz Rebuts Concerns About War Against Saddam


*  Cook Gives Pledge on Iraq Vote


*  Action Against Iraq Must Be Based On Evidence - Najib
*  Mahathir warns attack on Iraq could lead to N-terrorism
*  'Paying price' for Iraq policy
*  Malaysia calls for urgent OIC meeting on Iraq
*  Iraq keen to buy 0.5m tons more wheat
*  Church head blames bombing on Australia's stance on Iraq



ANKARA, Oct. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Dozens of Turkish doctors staged a strike in
Istanbul on Saturday in protest against a possible US military operation on
Iraq, reported the Anatolian News Agency.

The demonstrators from the Istanbul Doctors Union shouted anti-US slogans
and carried banners saying "war is harmful to health," and "we don't have
doctors sent to war."

Speaking on behalf of the group, Gencay Gursoy, chairman of the union,
defended the view that the United States ignored universal human rights, the
international law and UN resolutions.

He noted that doctors attribute greatly to human life and they reject a
possible operation against Iraq.

The strike has ended peacefully with no police intervention.

Yahoo, 12th October

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - More than 40 people were arrested on Friday after
protesters blocked entrances to the federal building in San Francisco in a
noisy demonstration against a possible U.S. war against Iraq.

About 500 protesters gathered at the federal building Thursday evening,
shortly after Congress approved a measure giving President Bush authority to
use military force against Iraq.

After a night-long vigil, the protesters organized a sit-in to block
entrances to the building, chanting "No War in Iraq," beating drums, handing
out fliers and blocking federal workers from reaching their jobs.

Scuffles erupted as federal workers sought to clamber over the protesters to
get into the building. Federal police arrested 46 people, most of whom were
subsequently cited and released. However two protesters were later charged
with felony assault after allegedly kicking an assistant U.S. attorney and a
court security officer, according to Esther Timberlake, a spokeswoman for
Federal Protective Services.

The protest, the latest in a series of anti-war actions to take place in
traditionally liberal San Francisco, then moved to the local office of Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, who broke ranks with many other California Democrats in
Congress and supported the measure backing possible action against Iraq.

"The only reason we're going to war with Iraq is because of their oil," Ruth
Coffey, a protester sporting an elaborate mohawk hair-do, told a television

"We're going to kill millions and millions of innocent kids. Lots of people
are going to die because of his (Bush') oil lust," Coffey said.

San Francisco police said that one protester was detained outside
Feinstein's office in downtown San Francisco.

Associated Press, 13th October

PARIS: Several thousand anti-war activists chanted "no blood for oil" as
they marched through Paris on Saturday to protest possible military action
against Iraq.

Amid a heavy police presence, demonstrators carried a large banner that read
"No to war in Iraq, justice and peace in the Middle East," as they made
their way from Place de la Republique to Place de la Nation, in eastern

Police said 6,000 people took part in the protest, organized by human rights
groups, trade unions and leftist political parties.

Smaller demonstrations were staged in some 30 other cities across France.
Some 300 people took the streets of Lyon, while 200 turned out in Marseille,
police said.

Though the protests were the biggest in France so far, turnout was low
compared to the 150,000 people who marched through central London two weeks
ago urging the United States and Britain not to invade Iraq.

Green Party lawmaker Noel Mamere told reporters he hoped Saturday's
demonstration would "help those in the United States who are criticizing the
policies of (President) Bush."

"We know this is an oil war and that the main aim of this war is to control
the bulk of this planet's petroleum resources, which America needs to
maintain its economic development," added Mamere, a former French
presidential candidate.

Some protesters also carried Palestinian flags and denounced Israel's
policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In a joint statement issued Thursday, the organizers warned "this war will
be synonymous with a veritable disaster for the Iraqi and Kurdish people and
for all the populations in the Middle East."

They urged participants to pressure France to use its veto at the U.N.
Security Council to help thwart U.S.-led efforts to wage war on Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein's regime.

The protests came after the U.S. Congress passed a resolution authorizing
President Bush to use military force if necessary to compel Iraq to get rid
of its biological and chemical weapons and disband its nuclear weapons

France has been a strident opponent of unilateral U.S. action against Iraq,
and has fought against a U.S. proposal for a single U.N. Security Council
resolution threatening war unless Iraq cooperates with weapons inspectors.

Instead, France says war should be the last option. Paris favors a
two-resolution approach: one resolution would demand the return of weapons
inspectors, and a second addressing the use of force would be considered
only if Iraq fails to comply.

On Friday, Defense Minister Michelle Alliot-Marie said evidence of terrorism
in an explosion on a French oil tanker in Yemen would not change France's
more cautious stance.,5936,5279855%255E4

Daily Telegraph (Australia), 13th October

MORE than 30,000 people packed the streets of inner Melbourne to protest
against Australia's involvement in any war with Iraq.

Speakers expressed sympathy for victims of the Bali terrorist attacks,
saying the tragedy reinforced the need for a different approach to conflict
resolution rather than further violence and war.

Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Leigh Hubbard said the need for
peace was never more evident than today, and rejected plans by United States
President George W Bush to launch an attack on Iraq.

"This attack will be a slaughter and a war crime regardless of whether or
not it has United Nations backing," Mr Hubbard told the rally.

"It's not about weapons of mass destruction, it's not about human rights.

"It's about strategic interests, it's about oil."

Victorian Council of Churches spokeswoman Maureen Postma (Postma) said all
faith communities were opposed to war.

"We want justice and peace for all," Ms Postma said.

"This war is immoral and people of all faith are opposed."

Organisers said another rally would take place in about six weeks time as
part of a national day of action.

by Farah Stockman
Boston Globe, 14th October

As Congress prepared to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force
against Iraq last week, college campuses were quiet and just a few dozen
peace demonstrators stood with signs outside Senator John Kerry's Boston

Yet on Amy Hendrickson's computer, a movement was brewing. "I get 600
e-mails a day," said Hendrickson, a Brookline software consultant who works
from home. "These days, I spend 10 to 12 hours a day on the computer."

When tens of thousands of people came out on Oct. 6 to protest US policy on
Iraq, the seeds of action had been sown not on college campuses, which had
their own, much smaller protests last Monday, but on the computer desktops
of people like Hendrickson, 58. From her living room, she helped organize
simultaneous protests in 14 countries, including Japan, Bangladesh, Germany,
Austria, Australia, India, and Nepal.

This year, for the first time since the advent of the Internet, Americans
are engaging in public debate about whether to go to war, and a great deal
of the opposition has coalesced online. The ease of electronic communication
allows like-minded people to sign petitions and coordinate protests far more
easily than they could in the 1960s, or even a decade ago during the Gulf
War. But it also raises a question: Can a movement with no physical center
and no pen-and-ink signatures really have a political impact?

"The Internet makes the potential for protest much more vast, but at the
same time much more elusive," said Timothy McCarthy, a faculty activist at
Harvard University who teaches in the history and literature department.
"You can sign an e-mail protest, but you can't engage in civil disobedience
on the Internet."

Hendrickson's sons were young when the Vietnam War broke out in the 1960s,
so she watched the peace protests from afar and did not become an activist
herself. But earlier this year, she became part of an e-mail group
discussing newspaper articles about the war on terrorism. The articles she
read made her increasingly alarmed with the Bush administration's policies,
so she signed her name on Internet petitions and wrote peace groups offering
her help.

She got a message back from Not In Our Name, a New York-based peace group
that asked her to get the word out in Boston about the Oct. 6 protest.

Not In Our Name is, in many ways, typical of the groups protesting the White
House stance on Iraq. Formed eight months ago by veteran peace activists
worried about the direction the war on terror was taking, it gained sudden
momentum when the Bush administration turned its attention to Saddam
Hussein. The group picked up celebrity endorsements from actress Susan
Sarandon, radio emcee Casey Kasem, hip-hop musician Mos Def, playwright Tony
Kushner, and authors Alice Walker and Kurt Vonnegut, among others, who
signed a call to resist the government's policy of "military coercion" and
published it in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times.

Hendrickson joined the movement alone, in a living room cluttered with
Mexican tapestries, wind chimes, origami peace cranes, and foot-high stacks
of books on computer programs.

On her own, she decided to send more than 1,000 e-mails to peace groups she
found on the Internet around the world, inviting them to demonstrate
alongside protesters in the United States by holding protests outside US
embassies at noon. People at Not In Our Name discouraged her, Hendrickson
said, saying the group wanted to focus on Americans.

But she pressed on anyway, with e-mails that suggested slogans and possible
demands on the US government, as well as a copy of Not In Our Name's
resistance pledge, which is translated into 12 languages on the group's Web
site. "Help launch the first World Wide Peace Demonstration!" she wrote,
calling on them to "protest current US policies."

A few days later, the first message came back, from Dhaka, Bangladesh.

"They said, 'We'll be demonstrating with you,"' she said. "That first
[e-mail response] was a hell of a kick."

Next came a missive from Nepal. "Dear Peacefriends," it read. Then Manila
("Dear comrades") and Berlin ("Hi peace-loving Americans!") and "Hello from
Helsinki, Finland."

In all, people in more than 14 cities wrote back that, in groups large and
small, they had demonstrated. Some sent e-mail pictures to prove it.

"Part of the promise of the Net is that people can communicate unmediated,"
Hendrickson said. "It's people to people, not from one government to the

Boston did not host a protest of its own. Hendrickson handed out thousands
of flyers inviting Bostonians to the rally in New York and she helped gather
a group of about 40 people to travel to New York, where an estimated 10,000
people crowded Central Park in what is believed to be the largest-yet
protest against military action in Iraq. At least 20,000 more demonstrated
in Los Angles, San Francisco, and Seattle, according to Not In Our Name and
newspaper estimates. And thousands of others gathered in smaller cities
across the country, using kits downloaded from Not In Our Name's Web site.

Several petitions opposing the war are also circulating, including an open
letter on, signed by more than 19,000 faculty and
students around the United States, and a peace pledge by American Friends
Service Committee that has gathered 50,000 signatures.

In the last week, Kerry's office says, it has received more than 20,000
e-mails about Iraq - most of them against US military action, said Kyle
Sullivan, a spokesman for the senator. Kerry went the other way - deciding
to vote in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of force.

For Hendrickson, who rarely travels but makes her living sending tech
support e-mails to strangers worldwide, there is nothing strange about
engineering a peace movement from her Hotmail account with people who will
never meet each other.

"I don't think it's different from any political movement," she said.
"You're trying to reach out to people who share the same point of view."

Apart from Hendrickson's efforts, bizarre, unconfirmable e-mails are still
rolling in: Scientists at the McMurdo Station in Antarctica said they took
the pledge, and even 100 people in Phnom Penh in Cambodia took it.

"We think they are Americans living there," said Mary Lou Greenberg, a
volunteer at Not In Our Name's New York headquarters who was trying to tally
the total number of participants. "We don't know for sure."

Yahoo, 18th October

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Actor Sean Penn on Friday weighed in on the
international debate over a possible war with Iraq, paying for a $56,000
advertisement in the Washington Post accusing U.S. President George W. Bush
of stifling debate and threatening civil liberties.

In an open letter to Bush taking up most of a page in the main section of
the daily newspaper, the Oscar-nominated star of "I Am Sam" and "Dead Man
Walking," urged the president to stop a cycle where "bombing is answered by
bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing."

"I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror,"
Penn wrote, echoing voices of caution from around the world that have called
for a measured response to allegations Iraq is developing weapons of mass

The letter was signed "Sincerely, Sean Penn, San Francisco, California." A
spokesman for the Washington Post confirmed that it was placed by the
Hollywood celebrity who has starred in more than 40 movies.

Quoting Bush's declaration that the world was either "with us or against us"
in the war on terrorism launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Penn,
42, said Bush was marginalizing critics, manipulating the media and
promoting fear.

Those actions and "your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties
all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim," wrote Penn, who
is married to actress Robin Wright Penn, and was formerly married to pop
star Madonna.

"Sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented
preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation may well prove itself a
most temporary medicine," he said.


Houston Chronicle, from New York Times, 13th October

WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in a personal set of
guidelines for committing forces to combat, wrote that America's leaders
must quickly judge when diplomacy has failed, then "act forcefully, early,
during the pre-crisis period" to foil an adversary's plans and prevent war.

If those actions fall short, America must be "willing and prepared to act
decisively to use the force necessary to prevail, plus some," he wrote.

Rumsfeld's memorandum, written in March 2001 but updated as recently as this
weekend, said the nation's leaders must never "dumb down" a mission to gain
support from the public, Congress, the United Nations or allies.

In particular, he wrote, leaders must avoid "promising not to do things
(i.e., not to use ground forces, not to bomb below 20,000 feet, not to risk
U.S. lives, not to permit collateral damage, not to bomb during Ramadan,

Such pledges simplify planning for a foe, he wrote, just as artificial
deadlines for American withdrawal allow an enemy to "simply wait us out."

The Rumsfeld guidelines both echo and refine military thinking set down in
past years by Caspar Weinberger, President Reagan's defense secretary, and
by Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the first
President Bush and secretary of state for the second.

For example, Rumsfeld wrote that American lives should be risked only when a
clear national interest is at stake, when the mission is achievable, when
all required resources are committed for the duration of combat -- and only
after the nation's leadership has marshaled public support.

But the Rumsfeld guidelines can be read as diverging from eight years of
Clinton administration policy. During those years, the armed forces were
assigned a number of missions -- from Haiti to Somalia to Bosnia to Kosovo
-- that critics, often Republicans, said risked American lives for
humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and democracy-building efforts that
had less clear benefit for American national security.

An early draft of the memo was obtained over the summer, but under strict
ground rules set by the person who provided the memo; it was meant for
informational purposes only and could not be published. Repeated requests
for Rumsfeld to discuss his thinking were made in the intervening months,
and he agreed this weekend to provide the current version of his guidelines.

Shortly after being sworn in as defense secretary for President Bush, "I sat
down and I said, 'You better have a damn good reason if you're going to put
somebody's life at risk. What ought we be thinking about?'"

by Ira Chern
Salt Lake Tribune, 13th October

For the Bush administration, the road of public policy leads to Rome. That's
nothing new in U.S. history. Americans of the 19th century often pointed to
the Roman republic as the model for our own rights and freedoms.

But President Bush would have us emulate the Roman empire, creating world
order by giving orders around the world.

The fall of the twin towers in New York gave a tremendous boost to the
advocates of empire within the administration. They sealed their victory in
the president's recent report on "The National Security Strategy of the
United States." Now, like Romans sending warriors to distant provinces, they
want to take us to war against Iraq. But a policy of war and empire will
only bring us the fate the Romans suffered: more enemies and more attacks
upon our own soil.

When the president declared war on terrorism a year ago, he spoke in the
language of the Roman republic. He praised "our freedom to vote and assemble
and disagree with each other." He urged us to wage "civilization's fight"
against the "enemies of freedom," leaving no doubt that those enemies are
barbarians. Cicero, the eloquent Latin champion of the republic's virtues,
could hardly have said it better.

But the "National Security Strategy" turns these words into an excuse for
empire. It insists that our nation's "values of freedom are right and true
for every person, in every society . . .the birthright of every person -- in
every civilization." Since any other way of life is apparently uncivilized
barbarism, we have the right and the duty, "to bring democracy . . . to
every corner of the world." It sounds like everyone will have to embrace our
kind of freedom, like it or not.

That is the way of empire.

In the administration's policy, our kind of freedom includes not only human
rights and voting rights, but private property rights. "Free markets and
free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy." So we must
also bring "development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the

Why? Because, in the document's words, "Democracy and economic openness . .
. are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order."
Like the Romans and all empire-builders, the Bush team dreams of uniting all
lands in one predictable, orderly, controllable political and economic

The problem of every empire is, and always has been, how to spread order and
maintain control. "The National Security Strategy" relies on the Roman
approach: overwhelming military force.

It is now official U.S. policy "to dissuade potential adversaries from
pursuing a military
   build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United
States." As Iraq already knows and may soon learn even more bitterly, we
dissuade our enemies much the same way the Romans did, when they turned
Carthage back into a desert.

"To forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States
will, if necessary, act preemptively," the Bush document announces. Our
enemies need not attack us. They need only arouse our suspicion that some
day they might get too strong. Then they can be targets of a preemptive
strike -- as the example of Iraq clearly shows. That's the stern mettle of
which empires are made.

And unmade. The Roman empire faced constant rebellions on its borders.
Rebellions were inevitable. Like most imperialists, the Romans believed they
were forging a "uniquely benign imperium" (as columnist Charles Krauthammer
now describes the United States). But out in Rome's provinces, where
everyone had to dance to the ruler's tune, the empire's efforts at order and
control bred resentment. Even in tiny Judea, it took the Romans four long
years to stamp out the revolt.

In the end, the so-called barbarians destroyed Rome. That, too, was
inevitable. Empires gain and keep power by spreading their advanced
technology wherever they go. Eventually, their subjects always learn to use
that technology against them. The barbarians had no trouble reaching Rome.
They just used the excellent roads the Romans had paved for their own armies
to travel.

If war comes, Iraq will be using the computers and cell phones and radar it
got from the United States to defend itself against attack from the United
States. If the worst comes, it may also use the chemical and biological
weapons it got from the United States. Some day, other nations may be
tempted to turn against us the nuclear technology they imported from us.
Resentment plus advanced technology is the eternal recipe for the end of

The Romans did themselves no favor in trading a republic for an empire. They
hoped to preserve the republic's freedoms by imposing them violently on
others. They learned that things just don't work that way.

A war against Iraq would take us a fateful step down the same dangerous

(Ira Chernus is a professor of religious studies at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and a writer for the History News Service.)

by Carol Giacomo
Yahoo, 16th October

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a leading
U.S. hawk, on Wednesday rebutted critics of military action against Iraq,
asserting it is better for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s demise to
occur "on the world's terms, not Saddam's."

While stressing that President Bush (news - web sites) had made no decision
about going to war, Wolfowitz made a vigorous case for U.S. action and
insisted Washington "would not be hamstrung by the waverings of the weak or
those (countries) who still hope to seek favors from the Baghdad regime."

He spoke out in a lengthy speech to a conference organized by Tufts
University's Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in conjunction with the
U.S. Marine Corps.

It occurred as debates raged -- within the Bush administration and within
the U.N. Security Council -- over a new resolution aimed at forcing Iraq to

Washington wants the United Nations (news - web sites) to authorize the use
of force if Iraq fails to comply. France and Russia are resisting this, at
least until after U.N. weapons inspectors have a chance to return to Baghdad
after a four-year hiatus.

Support for the French-Russian position appeared to be growing, as manifest
by a U.N. debate on Wednesday in which countries warned the U.S. against
military action before U.N. monitors resume their inspections.

In his speech, Wolfowitz argued that "the fundamental question is how to
weigh the risks of actions versus the risks of inaction." He acknowledged
there are many risks associated with the use of force against Iraq but said
the suggestion that removing Saddam's regime would cause regional
instability seems "exaggerated."

Wolfowitz said that sooner or later the world will have to cope with
Saddam's demise.

"In the interests of minimizing whatever risks there are to larger regional
stability, it would be far better for this enormous change to take place
when the eyes of the world are upon Iraq and when the United States and a
strong coalition are committed to seeing it through to a successful
conclusion," he said.

"In short, to take place on the world's terms, not on Saddam's or on some
fateful roll of the dice," he added.

Wolfowitz dismissed skeptics who say an attack on Iraq would disrupt the
U.S. war on terror. "It is hard to see how we can expect to be successful in
the long run (in the anti-terror war) if we leave Iraq as a sanctuary for
terrorists and its murderous dictator in defiant safety," he said.

To those who argue the United States should wait until the threat from
Saddam is imminent, Wolfowitz countered that "the notion that we can wait
until the threat is imminent assumes that we will know when it is imminent."

Noting that no one knew the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were imminent before
they happened, he said the world "cannot afford to wait until Saddam or a
terrorist supplied by him attacks us with a chemical, biological or ...
nuclear weapons to recognize the danger that we face."

Reacting to concerns that the U.S. might act alone against Saddam, Wolfowitz
insisted "we do not plan to act unilaterally" and said some countries have
indicated they will be part of a U.S.-led coalition with or without a U.N.

Other countries directly threatened by Iraq will not openly back the U.S.
until they are certain Washington will act and "that is why American resolve
and determination to act -- not to be hamstrung by the waverings of the weak
or those who still hope to seek favors from the Baghdad regime -- is
important to embolden others to join us," he said.

Waiting for another time, when other crises have been resolved, is not an
acceptable option, Wolfowitz said.

"There will always be problems with acting at any time. But one thing we can
say with certainty: the danger of acting grows with time because if military
action against Saddam Hussein becomes necessary, the greatest danger will be
his weapons of mass destruction."


The Scotsman, 13th October

Commons leader Robin Cook today confirmed that MPs would be able to vote on
a substantive motion on policy towards Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Mr Cook said: "I've always argued that Parliament should have a vote or
available to it a vote on a substantive motion and ... Jack Straw (Foreign
Secretary) has now confirmed there would be such a substantive motion on
which members can vote if they divide the House on it.

"That's right, it's what has happened already in Congress (in the US).

"I think the right timing for that is first to see what is decided in the
Security Council and then to consider that resolution and how Parliament
responds to it.

"I think that it's very important that Parliament should be involved in
discussions all the way through."


Bernama (Malaysian National News Agency), 12th October

KUALA PILAH: Any military action against Iraq, which the United States (US)
claims of possessing nuclear arms, must be based on strong evidence, said
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

"Currently, there is no evidence to convince Malaysia that military action
should be taken against Iraq," he told reporters after officiating the
Juasseh Family Day celebrations at Sekolah Menengah Sains Tuanku Ja'afar
here Saturday.

He was asked to comment on the US Congress' decision yesterday which
approved a resolution granting President George W. Bush the mandate for a
military action against Iraq, in its bid to carry out a United Nations (UN)
order. The order calls for President Saddam Hussein to abandon his
programmes for biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, which Washington
claims are produced by Iraq.

Najib said an arms inspections against Iraq must be carried out prior to any
action against the country.

"Even then, the decision must based on whether Iraq does possess dangerous
weapons as claimed by the US," said Najib.

Bangladeshi Independent, 16th October

AFP, Kuala Lumpur, Oct 15: Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed warned
Tuesday that a US-led attack on Iraq could lead to escalating terrorism,
perhaps even nuclear terrorism.

Unilateral action and "the use of pre-emptive military power" would lead to
a downward spiral in efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation, he told an
International Nuclear Conference here.

Mahathir did not name either country, but his remarks were a clear reference
to US threats to attack Iraq on the grounds that it is developing weapons of
mass destruction.

There was a tendency for some countries to "unilaterally judge others" for
developing or intending to develop nuclear weapons without considering the
findings of multilateral agencies, Mahathir told some 200 delegates from
more than 20 countries.

"As a result of such a propensity to unilaterally act as an international
prosecutor, judge and jury, there is also now a threat for these countries
to launch pre-emptive military strikes on the nuclear facilities of the
alleged proliferating states," he said.

The Southeast Asian Muslim leader, who opposes any war against Iraq without
UN support, said the war on terrorism served as a "convenient excuse" for
such an attack.

A "lack of clear moral standing" between such unilateral tendencies and
efforts towards nuclear export control and disarmament would lead to a
"downward spiral" in efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation. "More states
will, understandably, feel threatened and be alarmed by such unilateralist
actions as well as the use of pre-emptive military power," he said.

"As a result, the radical and hard-line constituencies in the threatened
states will grow and be emboldened with some probably even wishing to take
matters into their own hands by resorting to acts of terrorism, perhaps even
nuclear terrorism.

"Even more dangerous is when the threatened states are those that are
predominantly populated by people of a particular religious faith. "This
will further lead to a perceived escalation in the victimisation of
countries and people of that faith, following similar widespread perception
in the context of the current global war on terrorism."

Mahathir said nuclear terrorism was a new threat to the world, which was
faced with the use of radioactive materials in so-called "dirty bombs" after
the September 11 attacks on the United States.

He noted there were reports that terrorists were trying to acquire nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This was "unfortunate"
because suspicions directed at some countries, particularly Muslim nations,
would prevent them from having access to materials and technology for
peaceful use, he said.

"Already there is an attempt to inhibit peaceful nuclear cooperation among
Middle Eastern states," he added.

Mahathir called for an international dialogue to assess the threat of
nuclear weapon proliferation, the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament
and to avert any unilateralist action.

The premier, a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, told a news
conference later that there was "no pressure on Israel to do away with their
nuclear weapons but there is so much pressure on other countries."

If the United States was planning an attack based on the possibility of Iraq
developing nuclear weapons, he said it should also attack Israel.

"If you attack a country because of possibilities, then every country is
going to be attacked. They should attack Israel," he added.,5744,5282774%255E17

The Australian, 14th October

AUSTRALIA was paying the price for its high profile in the campaign against
Iraq with the Bali bombing, a former diplomat has said.

South-East Asia specialist Bruce Haigh, who served as an Australian diplomat
in several countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, said
the root cause of such terrorist attacks, however, was the US backing of
Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister John Howard was being badly advised on Australia's approach
to the Iraq situation, Mr Haigh told the Nine Network.

He said Australia had been too vocal in its support of US threats to attack
Iraq if it did not eradicate weapons of mass destruction.

"Our Prime Minister should adopt a much lower profile; he's been beating a
big drum on this issue," Mr Haigh said.

He said the Government should look at Canada and other countries.

"They're not making the sort of noises this Government's been making," he

"Going to war against Iraq will not solve the problems which have arisen in

At least 13 Australians are believed to be among the more than 180 people
killed in two bomb blasts at Bali's Kuta Beach on Saturday night.

On responsibility for the attack, Mr Haigh said elements in the Indonesian
army had been sheltering Islamic fundamentalists for many years.

But he did not think the bombing was carried out for domestic reasons in

"The root cause of this issue has been America's backing of Israel on

"It didn't surprise me when September 11 occurred and what we see now is
these sort of attacks coming closer to home."

Daily Star, Bangladesh, 14th October

AFP, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia yesterday urged the 57-nation Organisation of
the Islamic Conference (OIC) to call an emergency meeting in a bid to avert
a US-led war against Iraq.

The organisation needed to speak with one voice on Washington's threat to
invade Iraq and topple the regime of President Saddam Hussein, Foreign
Minister Syed Hamid Albar told the official Bernama news agency.

"I will send the letter (calling for an emergency meeting) to the OIC
secretary-general tomorrow.

"We must come out with one voice and our actions must be integrated," Syed
Hamid said.

"This is the time for all OIC member states to issue clear statements on
their respective stands and initiate diplomatic efforts and negotiations to
avert a war on Iraq."

Syed Hamid said he feared an attack on Iraq would "arouse anger and feelings
of marginalisation among Muslims and even moderate Muslims will eventually
be influenced and become extreme because their moderation was not

Malaysia, a mainly Muslim Southeast Asian nation which has supported the US
war on terrorism, is due to take over the chairmanship of the OIC after a
summit here in October next year.

Qatar is the current chair of the group, which is based in the Saudi Arabian
city of Jeddah.

by Parvaiz Ishfaq Rana
Dawn, 15th October

KARACHI, Oct 14: Iraq has shown keen interest in importing another 500,000
tons of upgraded wheat of 'hard winter' quality from Pakistan, official
sources said.

Iraq's intention to buy half a million tons from Pakistan follows successful
completion of earlier contract of one million tons.

A cargo vessel recently offloaded around 30,000 tons of wheat at the Iraqi
port, replacing the earlier one, has successfully brought to an end the
earlier contract of 0.1 million tons won by Pakistan under UN programme of
'oil-for-food' for Baghdad.

Sources said the Iraqi Grain Board had expressed its satisfaction over the
quality and specification of Pakistani wheat which entirely met their
standards and demand.

Pakistani wheat, which is of "hard milling" quality, met the Iraqi
specification that demands 28 per cent gluten and 14 per cent moisture.
However, Baghdad gave some relaxation by allowing average gluten of 25 per
cent. However, Baghdad urged Islamabad that it should ensure that elements
such as stones and mud be checked strictly and process of cleaning the
produce be undertaken with utmost care, sources said.

In another development, Trading Corporation of Pakistan chairman Syed Masood
Alam Rizvi told Dawn that he would be heading a wheat delegation to Egypt
from Oct 19-20.

He said the delegation comprising 4-5 members of the private sector
exporters would negotiate export of wheat with Cairo. Egypt, he said,
imported around six million tons of wheat annually, out of which half of the
quantity was handled by its private sector.

Under the new policy, he said further exports of wheat to Iraq would be
carried out by the private sector under the supervision of TCP.

Mr Rizvi said: "TCP's involvement was on the request of Baghdad and not our
demand." Refuting some media reports that the last vessel, loaded with
30,000 tons of wheat, had been rejected by Baghdad, the TCP chairman said
the vessel 'Silver AN' had already unloaded its cargo as the quality fully
met the Iraqi Wheat Board specifications.

He further said that after meeting other cost, including freight, insurance,
etc., the per ton price of wheat unloaded by the last vessel came at around
144 euro per ton fob and with this, the contract of 100,000 tons with
Baghdad had been concluded successfully.

Despite the fact that country could not meet its wheat production target of
20 million tons this year and only harvested around 18.50 million tons, but
huge carryover stocks of around 3.7 million tons will still enable it to
export around two million tons, official sources said.

Accordingly, the government has offered generous incentives to exporters in
the form of export rebate. The minimum export price fixed by the government
is Rs8,250 per ton. The exporters will qualify for export rebate at the rate
of Rs4,200 per ton.

ABC News, 18th October

The head of the Anglican Church in Australia has blamed the Bali bombings on
Australia's outspoken support for the United States in planning military
action against Iraq.

In an address last night to the annual synod of the Anglican Church in
Perth, the Most Reverend Dr Peter Carnley stopped short of blaming the Prime
Minister, but says he was warned.

Dr Carnley says he and other church leaders wrote to John Howard on August
8, questioning the Government's strident support for a US led war in Iraq.

He says from that point the Prime Minister appeared to moderate his
comments, but it was doubtless already clear to militant Muslims that
Australia was a high-profile ally of the United States.

Dr Carnley says he knows his comments are controversial, but he is not
worried about that.

"I think it's probably a widespread or a widely held view around the country
now," he said.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says the criticism is not
valid because it is not yet clear who even carried out the attack in Bali.

"If we don't know who did it, then it's pretty hard to know what their
motives were and obviously if Archbishop Carnley's Diocese has some
information that can assist with the investigation then we would obviously
appreciate that information," he said.

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]