[casi] News, 1-8/11/02 (1)

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

News, 1-8/11/02 (1)

'UNITED NATIONS' MATTERS

*  Mauritius UN Envoy Recalled for Hesitating on Iraq
*  A Pas De Deux
*  Mexico Says Revised UN Iraq Draft Has Deep Support
*  U.N. allowed Iraqi purchase of agent usable for weapons
*  New draft allows US to act alone, says Powell
*  A tiny nation's envoy caught in the crossfire over Iraq
*  U.N. Council OKs Iraq Resolution8
*  D.C. Assurances Secured Syrian Vote
*  Text of resolution on Iraq

NO FLY ZONES

*  US, British warplanes bomb targets in southern Iraq
*  Allied Planes Drop Leaflets in Iraq
*  Four Iraqis wounded in US- British planes; Baghdad amnesty covered
releasing 560 Arabs


'UNITED NATIONS' MATTERS

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20021102_173.html

*  MAURITIUS UN ENVOY RECALLED FOR HESITATING ON IRAQ
ABC News, 2nd November

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. ambassador of Mauritius, Jagdish
Koonjul, has been recalled by his government because he did not openly back
Washington's position on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, diplomats said
on Saturday.

The Mauritian foreign minister, Anil Gayan, was quoted as telling reporters
that Koonjul had not followed instructions and "gave the impression that
Mauritius was against the U.S. drafted resolution on Iraq," according to the
Pan African News Agency.

Koonjul, a favorite of journalists and many diplomats, left for the
Mauritian capital of Port Louis on Friday, diplomats said.

Mauritius, an Indian Ocean island nation, is among 10 council members
elected for a two year term.

Koonjul had not openly opposed the draft U.S. resolution, which had been
criticized by several council members, but he did not endorse it publicly
either, thereby attracting attention as a sought-after swing vote. At home
in Mauritius, his equivocation made headlines after the government said it
was backing the United States.

Mauritius began its two-year term on the 15-member council in January 2001
as a result of a successful U.S. campaign against the candidacy of Sudan.

There was no evidence of U.S. pressure on Mauritius and U.S. officials were
not immediately available for comment.

President Bush is planning a visit to Mauritius in January.

Mauritius receives aid under the U.S. African Growth And Opportunity Act,
signed by former President Bill Clinton in his last year of office. Among
the terms of the legislation are that a recipient "does not engage in
activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests."

On Tuesday, Gayan said that he hoped for a compromise in the Security
Council where France, Russia and others were asking for amendments in the
U.S. text.

But he said that if there was no unanimity, "Mauritius would support the
draft resolution presented by the United States, subject to some
modification proposed by the arms inspectors."


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny
vpvai032988141nov03,0,1493467.story?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines

*  A PAS DE DEUX
by Justin Vaisse
Newsday, 3rd November

(Justin Vaisse, a French political scientist and author of several books on
U.S. foreign relations, is a fellow at the Center on the U.S. and France at
The Brookings Institution.)

Why is France getting in America's way at the United Nations? Since George
W. Bush addressed the UN Sept. 12, launching a negotiation now in its
seventh week, it has seemed as if the only obstacle to UN approval of a
resolution to use force against Iraq is Paris' intransigence.

American pundits have offered various explanations for the French attitude.
Some contend that Paris is just posturing, using its outdated veto power on
the Security Council to look powerful to the rest of the world. Others
suggest that France is shielding Saddam Hussein from the international
community to protect French commercial interests in Iraq. The most
narrow-minded explain that the French are acting out of nostalgia for their
past glory, or even simply out of jealousy: They can't stand America being
the superpower France once was.

These commentators are all wrong. Reducing the UN debate to a selfish French
quest for narrow national interests hides the real issues: What is the best
way to deal with Iraq, what kind of international legitimacy is needed to
wage war, and is America accepted as the world's sheriff?

This does not mean that France is not pursuing its national interests. Of
course it is, as any normal actor in international relations would. For
example, its insistence that the Security Council is the only source of
legitimacy is not just an expression of France's attachment to international
law, but a wise management of its assets: France holds veto power there.

But reducing Paris' position to a trivial quest for commercial interests or
for glory is the equivalent of anti-American arguments that reduce
Washington's Mideast policy to a scheme for securing access to more oil
fields or achieving complete domination in the region. Iraq represents only
0.12 percent of French exports. And it sells 9.6 percent of its oil to
France, compared with 46.2 percent to the United States.

The real divergence between France and America lies in two political
questions: How best to deal with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and what
legitimacy is needed to declare war on Baghdad.

The Bush administration has been ambivalent toward Iraq. Sometimes its
policy is one of preventive war and "regime change," sometimes it is just
disarmament. The problem is, no matter how moral and desirable regime change
is, it has no standing in international law; nor does preventive war. And
there are good reasons for this. An international system where these are
fair game would be plagued with wars. Why would India not invade Pakistan on
the grounds that it is a non-democratic regime harboring terrorists and
developing weapons of mass destruction?

The French position is that war is legitimate only when defensive or decided
by a large consensus of the international community, and that the best
vehicle for this, despite its many flaws, remains the UN. Even the Bush
administration, for all its talk about the irrelevance of the multilateral
body and its threat to go it alone, has deemed it important to obtain a UN
mandate - not to please France, but to get other countries with deep
reservations on board. This includes Russia and China, also members of the
Security Council, both of whom essentially are free-riding, expressing
toned-down reservations about unilateral intervention while the French do
most of the arguing about principles.

Among others, the governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Mexico,
faced with possible anti-war and anti-American protests, will support
military intervention, or at least lend silent consent, only if it is
preceded by a serious attempt to disarm Iraq peacefully and if it is the
policy of the international community as a whole - that is, sanctioned by a
UN mandate - and not if it is a purely American crusade. Polls indicate that
the American public also has a strong preference for multilateral action.

In a world where order and stability are largely provided by the United
States but where world opinion is increasingly resentful of the freedom
Washington demands in return for this special responsibility, American
policymakers need to heed the words of James Madison in "The Federalist":

". . . independently of the merits of any particular . . . measure, it is
desirable . . . that it . . . appear to other nations as the offspring of a
wise and honorable policy . . . particularly when the national councils may
be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the . . . opinion of
the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed."

This explains France's strength in this negotiation: It stands for much more
than itself, and its position is much closer to that of the rest of the
world than Washington's. Paris holds one of the keys to the legitimacy of an
armed intervention in Iraq. And, at the end of the day, if peaceful
disarmament doesn't work, French forces will end up fighting alongside
American forces, as they did in the Gulf War. Money has already been
earmarked in the French defense budget for possible operations in Iraq.

An argument could even be made that French opposition, although frustrating
in the short term for U.S. policymakers, is a valuable asset in the long
term. It shows that Washington doesn't impose its choices on the rest of the
world. By offering a constructive opposition, by working inside the American
order, rather than against it, Paris strengthens U.S. legitimacy. After
eight weeks of debate, no one will argue that UN approval is a mere rubber
stamp.

Of course Bush could bypass the UN and decide to act unilaterally; he has
enough domestic support for this, and a case could be made that previous
resolutions and Iraqi violations enable him to attack Iraq with some legal
authority. After all, France itself took part in the war in Kosovo against
Serbia with a tenuous UN mandate.

But legality doesn't equate legitimacy. The risk would be to lose key
regional allies as well as the support of world opinion, antagonize other
countries when the war on terrorism makes their help essential (they
wouldn't stop fighting al-Qaida, but might show less zeal to comply with
specific demands from Washington), and create a dangerous precedent. And
Washington will also need help, or at least tacit support, for its
occupation and reconstruction of Iraq after a war; it can win the war on its
own, but will need help to win the peace.

So what do the French want ? They have been advocating a two-stage process
and refuse to pass a resolution that would not give a serious chance for the
disarmament of Iraq through inspections. The first stage would be a new
mandate for the inspectors, and the second would be a new convening of the
Security Council, if Baghdad fails to comply. The council would then
authorize war, and this would lend the operation great legitimacy.

The French are wary of the intentions of the Bush administration; they know
it is divided, and that some in the administration would like to toughen the
inspections regime so much that Hussein would never want to comply, giving a
pretext to launch a war. This explains the tug-of-war on two issues: the
"automatic trigger" that Washington is looking for - that is, only one
resolution rather than the two-stage approach - and a series of clauses to
make the inspections regime harder for Hussein to foil.

It is not hard to guess that Washington and Paris eventually will find a
compromise and strike a balance between threatening Hussein enough to
prevent him from cheating again, but also making inspections acceptable in
order to get his compliance. Secretary of State Colin Powell said late last
week that the UN debate would likely be concluded toward the end of next
week.

Both countries need this resolution: France, because a unilateral action
would make the Security Council irrelevant, and America, because an action
seen as illegitimate would further antagonize a world that increasingly
tends to see it as a hegemon, not as a leader.


http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/breaking_news/4442043.htm

*  MEXICO SAYS REVISED UN IRAQ DRAFT HAS DEEP SUPPORT
by Fiona Ortiz
The State (South Carolina), 3rd November

[.....]

Castaneda said the revised resolution would give the security council a key
role in determining what would happen if Iraq violated conditions
established by the United Nations.

"A clear relationship is established between any possible future violation
by Iraq of the U.N. resolutions and the Security Council. The council must
be the one to determine what will happen if weapons of mass destruction are
found or if Iraq blocks the work of the inspectors," Castaneda said.

The United States has offered to wait until U.N. arms inspectors report any
possible violations and the discuss them with the council before launching
any military strike, but France wants the council to decide whether a
violation exists.

Castaneda said the changes in the resolution represented a triumph for the
United Nations and for countries that had not been happy with the original
wording of the resolution drafted by the United States and Britain.

[.....]


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021106-6179116.htm

*  U.N. ALLOWED IRAQI PURCHASE OF AGENT USABLE FOR WEAPONS
by Bill Gertz
Washington Times, 5th November

The United Nations overruled U.S. government objections and allowed Iraq to
buy a specialty chemical that U.S. intelligence officials say will boost
Baghdad's chemical and biological warfare agents.

A large quantity of a chemical known as colloidal silicon dioxide was
ordered by the Iraqis in August 2001 and held up by the U.S. government
because of concerns about its use.

However, the United Nations approved the sale and it was shipped to Iraq
last month, said Hasmik Egin, a U.N. spokeswoman.

Colloidal silicon dioxide is used in making commercial products such as
glass or electronic circuit boards.

But the superfine powder also has a military use. It is a key element in
producing what are known as "dusty" chemical or biological weapons, agents
that are able to penetrate protective suits, equipment and facilities, U.S.
intelligence officials said.

"The U.N. is helping the Iraqis to enhance their biological and chemical
weapons," said an intelligence official familiar with reports of the
chemical sale.

The chemical is not contained on the United Nations' list of banned
equipment and material known as the Goods Review List (GRL), said Miss Egin,
a spokeswoman for the U.N. oil for-food program in Iraq.

"If it is not a GRL item, it is up for approval," Miss Egin said in a
telephone interview.

The initial contact for the colloidal silicon dioxide was "placed on hold"
by the U.S. government, Miss Egin said.

When additional information on the sale was provided to a special sanctions
committee, "that hold was lifted," she said.

The first shipment of the chemical was carried out under procedures that
have since been changed, she said.

The second contract for the chemical was rejected as "noncompliant" with the
Goods Review List but is under review by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, Miss Egin said.

The supplier of the chemical and the size of the shipment were not
identified.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment.

According to chemical-weapons specialists, colloidal silicon dioxide, also
known as silica sol, has particles so small they are largely unaffected by
gravity.

As a result, adding the particles to a mixture of chemical or biological
agent will enhance the lethality of the agent by making it easier to
disperse.

Eric Croddy, a chemical- and biological-weapons specialist, said colloidal
silicon dioxide is a fine powder that could greatly enhance nerve or toxin
weapons.

"We know the Iraqis did prepare dusty mustard" agent, Mr. Croddy said. "In
the desert, where temperatures reach 104 degrees, they want to make sure
their agents don't dissipate in the breeze."

Colloidal silicon dioxide would also enhance the killing power of the nerve
agent VX, said Mr. Croddy, who is a researcher with the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif.

"If you have a dust, the agent can get everywhere and can defeat protective
gear," he said.

Mr. Croddy said the U.S. government knows about the utility of silicon
dioxide because it was used in U.S. weapons development in the past.

Mr. Croddy said in a recent article that U.S. intelligence agencies estimate
that the use of a dusty nerve agent can cause as high as 38 percent
fatalities in troops wearing full protective gear.

"With a concern that dusty agents might defeat chemical protective masks and
garment ensembles, U.S. military researchers subsequently looked to topical
skin protectants for additional protection against dusty agents," he said.

"Because Iraq has proven artillery systems for chemical delivery, the
alleged Iraqi development of a dusty VX formulation further increases the
chemical exposure risks to U.S. troops that may be operating in theatre,"
Mr. Croddy said.

A CIA report made public last month stated that Iraq has imported $10
billion worth of goods a year under the U.N. oil-for-food program. Some of
the imported goods "clearly support Iraq's military and [weapons of mass
destruction] programs," the report stated.

"Iraq has been able to import dual-use,
[weapons-of-mass-destruction]-relevant equipment and material through
procurements both within and outside the U.N. sanctions regime," the report
said.

The agents in Iraq's arsenal include the chemical nerve agents VX, sarin,
cyclosarin and the blistering agent mustard.

Its biological and toxin weapons include anthrax, botulinum toxin and
aflatoxin.


http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/06/int6.htm

*  NEW DRAFT ALLOWS US TO ACT ALONE, SAYS POWELL
Dawn, 5th November

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 5: The United Nations is close to agreeing a resolution
on Iraq that gives Washington scope to act alone if Baghdad blocks arms
inspections, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted as saying on
Tuesday.

He told the French daily Le Figaro he was confident weeks of negotiations in
the UN Security Council over the issue were close to a compromise all
Council members could live with.

The United States has said it expects to submit a resolution this week,
intended to give unrestricted access to arms inspectors who will return to
Iraq, and hopes for unanimous backing after amending it to meet concerns of
other members.

Powell said the US resolution would call on the Council to decide action if
Iraq did not comply with inspections, but that it would not rule out later
action by individual countries.

"Whatever the Security Council decides, whether it decides to act or not,
the United States and the other countries that feel as it does should not be
handcuffed if they consider action necessary," he said.

"My colleagues and I have been holding intense discussions for days in the
Security Council...we are getting there."

President Saddam Hussein has agreed to allow inspectors to return after a
four-year absence and in a possible policy shift, said Iraq might comply
with a new disarmament resolution as long as it did not "provide a cover for
America's ill intentions".


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/06/1036308366071.html

*  A TINY NATION'S ENVOY CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE OVER IRAQ
by Maggie Farley in New York
Sydney Morning Herald, from Los Angeles Times, 7th November

Missing: one softly spoken, full-bearded Mauritian ambassador with
independent views. Last seen leaving a United Nations Security Council
meeting without throwing his full support behind a United States resolution
on Iraq. May have run foul of perceived US economic pressures in the
diplomatic arena.

Mauritius has recalled its UN ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, for not
accurately conveying his government's pro-US stance in the Security Council
debate over how to disarm Iraq, a senior official from the Indian Ocean
nation said this week.

The White House was so concerned Mauritius was not squarely behind it that
it sent a warning to the capital, Port Louis. The Mauritian response was
swift - Mr Koonjul did not show up for his Friday meetings at the UN because
he was packing to go home.

"We support the US," Mauritius's Foreign Minister, Anil Goyan, declared this
week. "Our position is not neutral."

Mauritius's concern over solidarity with the US may well have an economic
subtext. Some Mauritian officials fear that Mr Koonjul's equivocal stance on
the resolution could cost them access to the US market under a recent trade
deal that explicitly requires support for US foreign policy.

Although the program was a Clinton administration initiative, it illustrates
a growing trend of linking economic issues with US foreign policy
objectives.

Mauritius, an island off east Africa, is not the only Security Council
member subject to the political requirements.

Cameroon and Guinea also receive trade benefits under the same act, putting
these three Francophone nations in the midst of French and US lobbying
efforts at the UN. While Mr Koonjul's stance had elevated Mauritius's status
as a key swing vote in the council, it did not go down well at home.

"Our position on this issue is very clear," Mr Goyan said. "If there is
consensus, we will go along. If there is no consensus, we will support the
United States and the United Kingdom. The ambassador has been recalled for
not following strictly the instructions that were given him."

[.....]


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2002/nov/08/110806900.html

*  U.N. COUNCIL OKS IRAQ RESOLUTION
Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 8th November

UNITED NATIONS- The Security Council unanimously approved a tough new Iraq
resolution Friday, forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm or face "serious
consequences" that would almost certainly mean war.

The vote came after eight weeks of tumultous negotiations and was seen as a
victory for the United States, which drafted the resolution together with
Britain.

The broad support sends a strong message to Baghdad that the Security
Council - divided for years over Iraq - expects full compliance with all
U.N. resolutions.

"Iraq has a new opportunity to comply with all these relevent resolutions of
the Security Council. I urge the Iraqi leadership for sake of its own
people...to seize this opportunity and thereby begin to end the isolation
and suffering of the Iraqi people," said U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

A breakthrough in negotiations came Thursday when France and the United
States reached a critical agreement to address French concerns that the
resolution could automatically trigger an attack on Iraq.

President Bush, who spurred the council to action with a Sept. 12 speech to
the U.N. General Assembly, said it was up to Saddam to cooperate with
inspectors.

"When this resolution passes, I will be able to say that the United Nations
has recognized the threat and now we're going to work together to disarm
him," Bush said Thursday. "And he must be cooperative in the disarmament."

Chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was preparing to send an advance
team to Iraq within two weeks, after a nearly four-year absence.

While the United States made some major concessions to critics, the final
draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N.
weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military
action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying.

At the same time, it gives Saddam "a final opportunity" to cooperate with
weapons inspectors, holds out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old
sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and reaffirms the
country's sovereignty.

Washington and London spent eight weeks trying to get all 15 Security
Council members to approve the resolution to send a united message to
Saddam.

But Syria, Iraq's Arab neighbor, had been out of reach until Friday.

Syria had wanted the vote delayed until after an Arab foreign ministers
meeting in Cairo this weekend. But the United States won in the end,
convincing the council to vote Friday.

Russia too had remained a holdout, but only in an effort to obtain U.S.
concessions.

Russia is Iraq's closest ally on the council.

The United States had tweaked its draft several times to account for French
and Russian concerns over hidden triggers that could automatically launch an
attack on Iraq.

In a key provision that would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N.
obligations, the United States changed wording that would have let
Washington determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction.

The new wording requires U.N. weapons inspectors to make an assessment of
any Iraqi violations.

Iraqi state media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged
the Security Council Thursday not to bow to American demands.

"America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its
aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation," the ruling Baath Party
newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday.

According to a strict timeline in the resolution, Iraq would have seven days
to accept the resolution's terms and 30 days to declare all its chemical,
biological and nuclear programs. Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said
Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of its large petrochemical
industry in that time, but the United States decided against giving Baghdad
more time.

Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10
days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to actually begin work, and must
report to the council 60 days later on Iraq's performance.    Inspectors
will have "unconditional and unrestricted access" to all sites, including
eight presidential compounds where surprise inspections have been barred.


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=16657352&template=baghdad/indexsea
rch.txt&index=recent

*  INSPECTORS RETURN TO IRAQ NOV. 18
Associated Press, 8th November

UNITED NATIONS (AP) ‹ An advance team of weapons inspectors will be in
Baghdad in two weeks, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix announced
Friday.

"We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday, Nov. 18th," Blix said shortly
after the Security Council unanimously passed a tough new resolution that
expands his powers.

Blix said he was pleased with the full council support for the U.S.-drafted
resolution. It "strengthens our mandate very much," he said.

Blix has said an advance team would be involved mostly with logistics and
preparations for resuming full inspections, but that some surprise checks
could be done.

Under the new resolution, inspectors have 45 days from Friday to begin their
work.

Inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
as well as a nuclear team from the International Atomic Energy Agency are
mandated to disarm Iraq of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
programs.

The inspectors must report any Iraqi infraction immediately to the council
for its assessment.


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021108_1779.html

*  D.C. ASSURANCES SECURED SYRIAN VOTE
ABC News, Associated Press, 8th November

UNITED NATIONS Nov. 8 ‹ Syria's state-run radio broadcast a commentary on
Friday depicting the pending vote on a new Iraq resolution as part of an
American campaign to use force against Saddam Hussein.

Hours later, Syria raised its hand and voted "yes" along with the 14 other
Security Council members, sending a unanimous message to Iraq to disarm or
face "serious consequences" and almost certain war.

Syria's vote surprised council members. It surprised Iraq, and it surprised
Syrians at home.

After eight weeks of intense negotiations, there was no doubt that the
resolution drafted by the United States and cosponsored by Britain would be
adopted with broad support but the prospect of consensus was more dream than
reality.

Syria had been very critical, insisting that there was no need for a new
resolution. So in the pre-vote count Damascus was expected to either vote
"no" or not vote at all.

But in the end, Syria chose to remain consistent in its Mideast policy
rather than support Iraq, a traditional rival. Syria has depended on
Security Council resolutions in its diplomatic campaign to force Israel to
return the Golan Heights and other land seized in the 1967 Mideast war.

Syria's deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad hinted at that when he said
for Syria what was important was the "central role of the Security Council."
He also said Syria was committed to upholding council resolutions "be they
regarding Iraq, the Palestinian cause, or the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The first sign that Syria's opposition to the U.S. resolution might be
crumbling came on Thursday. For the first time, Mekdad said that if his
country's demands were met, Syria would join a consensus.

But he wanted voting postponed until Monday after a weekend meeting of Arab
League foreign ministers in Cairo and expressed disappointment late Thursday
that the council decided to go ahead on Friday.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, intense diplomatic activity was under way at
the highest levels, with Syria's U.N. Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe back in
Damascus as a point man.

Syria's key concerns mirrored those of France and Russia.

Syria opposed any language that could automatically trigger an attack on
Baghdad. It wanted to ensure that a resolution reaffirmed Iraq's
sovereignty, and it wanted a light at the end of the tunnel for Iraq the
lifting of U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

France was leading the opposition to the resolution, and when Paris and
Washington reached an agreement Thursday afternoon that satisfied all those
issues, the diplomatic offensive moved into high gear.

France, Syria's closest friend in the West, played a pivotal role in the 24
hours before the vote, helped by the other permanent Security Council
members, diplomats said.

In the flurry of high-level contacts, the French and Syrian foreign
ministers spoke on Thursday. French President Jacques Chirac followed with a
call to Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Russian foreign minister phoned
his Syrian counterpart and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sent an
"oral message" to Assad, according to a senior U.S. official.

An hour before the vote, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov phoned Powell
to say Moscow would be voting "yes." That left Syria as the only question
mark.

As U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte was heading into the council chamber for
the 10 a.m. vote, he got word that Syria would be making the vote unanimous,
the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

When Mekdad explained Syria's "yes" vote in the council chamber, he said
Damascus had received assurances from Washington, London, Paris and Moscow
"that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq."

In addition, he said, the resolution reaffirmed the Security Council's key
role in dealing with Iraq, preserved Iraq's sovereignty, and envisioned a
comprehensive settlement of Baghdad's problems with the United Nations.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134572800_iraqtext09.html

*  TEXT OF RESOLUTION ON IRAQ
Seattle Times, 9th November

The text of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 on Iraq that was
unanimously approved Friday:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its
resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686
(1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April
1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986
(1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the
relevant statements of its president,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses
to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)
and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq
as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring
international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of
its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles
with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well
as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for
purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons
inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant
resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite
of the council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution
1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and
regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the
suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism,
pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian
population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations
to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686
(1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for
Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to
return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a
ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that
resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without
conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991)
and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the
council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor
organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the
implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the minister for foreign
affairs of Iraq addressed to the secretary-general is a necessary first step
toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant council
resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the executive chairman
of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the
government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to
their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of
inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest
concern at the continued failure by the government of Iraq to provide
confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states,

Commending the secretary-general and the members of the League of Arab
States and its secretary-general for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in
particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations
inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under
paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up
an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified
completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and
subsequent resolutions of the council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament
obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations,
the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council,
not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently
accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to
develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and
other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal
systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise
locations of such weapons, components, sub components, stocks of agents, and
related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research,
development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical,
biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for
purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to
comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution
shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be
reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and
12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including
underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of
transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded,
unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom
UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's
or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further
decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews
inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed
and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of
UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of
observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the
IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this
resolution and to update the council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC
and the director general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government
of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the
letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of
the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the
tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and
notwithstanding prior understandings, the council hereby establishes the
following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon
Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection
teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and
experienced experts available;

‹ All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities
provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out
of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from
inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings,
including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to
presidential sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the
provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names
of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical,
biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and the associated
research, development, and production facilities;

‹ Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient
U.N. security guards:

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare for the purposes of
freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding
areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial
movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being
inspected;

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing
of fixed and rotary winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned
reconnaissance vehicles:

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion
verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons,
subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the
right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production
thereof; and

‹ UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of
equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any
equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search
of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts
directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of
any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution;

9. Requests the secretary-general immediately to notify Iraq of this
resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven
days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this
resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately,
unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA
in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information
related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates; including
on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by
recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of
such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be
reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of
the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its
disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections
under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the
need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in
order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq
that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued
violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


NO FLY ZONES

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-11/07/content_620978.htm

*  US, BRITISH WARPLANES BOMB TARGETS IN SOUTHERN IRAQ

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- US and British warplanes attacked two air
defense sites in southern Iraq on Wednesday, the US Central Command said in
a statement.

Using precision-guided weapons, the allied aircraft bombed two
surface-to-air missile systems and a command and control communications
center at 6:30 a.m. EDT (11:30 GMT), the Florida-based Central Command said.

The two missile systems were positioned near Al Kut, about 100 miles (about
160 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, and the commandcenter was located near
Tallil, about 160 miles (256 kilometers) southeast of the Iraqi capital.

The Central Command, which is responsible for US military operations in the
Gulf region, said that damage assessment was still under way.

The latest strike brought to 54 the total number of days this year when such
attacks were carried out by the US and British planes patrolling the
so-called "no-fly" zones in Iraq.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2002/nov/08/110807804.html

*  ALLIED PLANES DROP LEAFLETS IN IRAQ
by Robert Burns
Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 8th November

WASHINGTON- For the third time in six weeks, allied planes dropped tens of
thousands of leaflets over southern Iraq urging Saddam Hussein's military
not to fire on American and British warplanes.

Besides urging the Iraqis not to fire on the fighter jets that patrol
southern Iraq nearly daily, the leaflet "emphasizes the consequences that
Iraqi military actions are having on the local civilian populace," according
to a brief statement issued Friday by U.S. Central Command, whose forces
carried out the mission.

Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a Central Command spokesman, said the second part of
that message was intended to convey to Iraqi civilians that they would not
have to fear U.S. airstrikes if the Iraqi military were not firing upon
allied pilots.

Central Command posted images of the leaflets, in English and in Arabic, on
its Web site. They are similar to leaflets used in earlier drops over two
other southern Iraqi cities on Oct. 27 - Basra and As Samawah.

One said, "Before you engage coalition aircraft, think about the
consequences." The back of the leaflet said: "Think about your family. Do
what you must to survive." Another contained a sequence of images of an
Iraqi anti-aircraft battery firing upon an American plane, the plane
responding with a missile attack, and the Iraqi position going up in smoke
and fire.

In Friday's operation, 240,000 leaflets were dropped around the town of Al
Amarah, which has been a frequent target of U.S. and British retaliatory
strikes in recent weeks. Al Amarah is about 120 miles southeast of Baghdad.

The first in a series of leaflet drops was Oct. 3. Before that the most
recent leaflet drop had been in October 2001.

U.S. and British aircraft have been patrolling two zones over Iraq for a
decade in an effort to protect minority Shiites in the south and Kurds in
the north from government repression. Baghdad considers the patrol flights
violations of its sovereignty, and Iraqi forces regularly try to shoot the
planes down.

In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air-defense systems.

The last coalition bombing reported over Iraq was Wednesday, when allied
planes fired on two surface-to-air missile systems near the city of Al Kut,
about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and a command and control
communications facility near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of the Iraqi
capital.


http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021108/2002110815.html

*  FOUR IRAQIS WOUNDED IN US- BRITISH PLANES; BAGHDAD AMNESTY COVERED
RELEASING 560 ARABS
Arabic News, 8th November

The Iraqi weekly al-Zawra' said yesterday that the general amnesty issued by
the Iraqi President by the end of October covered the release of 560 Arab
detainees from 12 Arab states, with six of them that were sentenced to
death.

The weekly which is issued by the Iraqi journalists union added that those
who are governed under the general amnesty are distributed on 12 Arab
states. They are 278 Egyptians; 63 Syrians; four Lebanese; 33 Palestinians;
79 Jordanians; one Yemeni; 86 Sudanese; 8 Saudis; 4 Moroccans and 3
Tunisians, one from Somalia and one from Arabistan.

The paper continued that those who were sentenced to death and also governed
by the amnesty are from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Palestine, while
women who are governed by the Amnesty are two from Egypt and other two women
from Palestine.

On October 20, the Iraqi President issued two decisions in which he pardoned
all Iraqi prisoners and Arabs held in the Iraqi jails with the exception of
those who are arrested under charges of spying for Israel and the USA.

Meantime, an Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad said that four Iraqis were
wounded in raids launched by American and British planes against civilians
and service companies to the south of Iraq. The spokesman who was quoted by
the Iraqi official news agency said that the "enemy planes bombarded our
civil and service establishments in Waset province and the bombardment
resulted in wounding four innocent citizens." The spokesman explained that
several enemy formations coming from the Kuwaiti airspace, backed by AWACS
plane from inside the Saudi Arabian airspace and one A-2 C plane from the
Kuwaiti airspace carried out 26 armed sorties over several areas of southern
Iraq.

He added that the Iraqi anti warplanes missiles intercepted these planes and
"forced them to flee back to their bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."




_______________________________________________
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