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]
News, 20-27/12/02 (2) IRAQI/US RELATIONS * Citing Iraq, Bush Postpones Africa Trip * US Army Division Launches Massive Live-Fire Exercises in Kuwait * A Cynical Exercise in Iraq * Nasty turn on human rights in terror fight * Not All Iraq Claims Backed by Evidence * Did U.S. condemn Iraq too quickly? * US push for democracy in Arab world may not work * With Saddam, its Don Corleone or Donald Duck * Saddam planned to use bioweapons in Gulf War: CIA * Anti-Iraq Military Alliance Builds Slowly * Iraqi native accused of sending money home ordered held * U.S. ready to fight two wars at once * Persian Gulf War Veterans to Sue Alleged Iraq Suppliers * Iraq bans CNN Baghdad bureau chief * Coalition Gels Despite Some Latecomers IRAQI/US RELATIONS http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2002/dec/20/122003891.html * CITING IRAQ, BUSH POSTPONES AFRICA TRIP by Sandra Sobieraj Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 20th December The White House called off President Bush's planned trip to Africa next month, citing the standoff with Iraq and a desire to start work on domestic priorities. The trip will be rescheduled for later in the year, said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Fleischer said the multi-nation trip, which would have been Bush's first to the African continent, was being postponed "due to a combination of domestic and international considerations." "The president looks forward to visiting Africa in 2003 to continue building America's partnership with the continent and to sharing firsthand with African leaders his commitment to working on issues ranging from the war on terrorism to economic development," Fleischer said. One senior administration official denied that security was a factor. But law enforcement sources said the Secret Service had serious concerns for the president's safety in Africa after last month's terrorist attacks in Kenya, for which Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network claimed responsibility. http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=4174335D-BDC9-43AF 8489DDC3F1A6C6EA&title=US%20Army%20Division%20Launches%20Massive%20Live%2DFi re%20Exercises%20in%20Kuwait&catOID=45C9C78F-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C * US ARMY DIVISION LAUNCHES MASSIVE LIVE-FIRE EXERCISES IN KUWAIT Voice of America, 21st December The U.S. Army has launched its biggest military exercise in the Persian Gulf region since the Gulf war, in preparation for possible war with Iraq. The day and night live-fire exercises in the Kuwaiti desert involve thousands of troops from the army's Third Division and hundreds of armored vehicles. In one maneuver Saturday, an army spokesman said an armored brigade sent its high speed M1 Abrams tanks against forward positions that resembled Iraqi trenches and minefields. Third Division Major General Buford Blount told reporters the exercises involve what he called one of the best trained division in the army. [.....] http://www.counterpunch.org/rai1221.html * A CYNICAL EXERCISE IN IRAQ by Milan Rai Counterpunch, 21st December The presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq could delay and perhaps derail the US drive to war, therefore they are part of the problem, not part of the solution, so far as the US is concerned. A top US Senate foreign policy aide observed in May 2002 that: "The White House's biggest fear is that UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in." When he addressed the UN General Assembly on 12 September, President George W Bush demanded the elimination of "all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material" in Iraq, "if the Iraqi regime wishes peace." He also demanded an end to Iraqi "support for terrorism", an end to Iraq's "persecution of its civilian population", and an end to the oil smuggling which is the lifeblood of the regime. Nowhere did the president demand or even mention the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. The message seemed to be that even if weapons inspectors were re-admitted, the US could find another justification for a war against Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said in May, "US policy is that regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad. The United States reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change." There is pressure on UN weapons inspectors to instigate a confrontation that can be used to justify war, perhaps over the US demand that inspectors take weapons scientists and their families out of Iraq for questioning (where they will be offered asylum by the US). Iraq is expected to refuse to permit this, creating a "justification" for war. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is reluctant, having said: "We are not going to abduct anyone. The UN is not a defection agency." The abduction of scientists is not necessary to verify whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but disarmament is not the goal. The US goal is to bring about the replacement of Saddam Hussein. Thomas Friedman, diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, said in July 1991 that economic sanctions would continue until there was a military coup which would create "the best of all worlds": "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein". A return to the days when Saddam Hussein's "iron first" held Iraq together, "much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia". This is not "regime change"; this is "regime stabilisation/leadership change." In October, Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson, tried to deflect a question about the multi-billion-dollar cost of a US invasion by observing that the expense of a war on Iraq could be saved by the "cost of a bullet". Asked if he was calling for Saddam Hussein to be assassinated, in contravention of US law, Mr Fleischer said, regime change was welcome "in whatever form it takes". This clarifies the meaning of "regime change" beautifully: delete the Supreme Leader, and slot in another Iraqi general in his stead. In this viewpoint section on 12 December, Daniel Neep of the Royal United Services Institute commented that, in the event of war: "The ideal scenario is someone within Iraq, preferably within the army, killing Saddam and taking control. That would mean that entering Baghdad would not be necessary and would also solve the problem of who will govern once he has gone." The search for a replacement for the Supreme Leader has not gone well. The exiled general possessing the most "credibility" with the Iraqi military, General Nizar al- Khazraji, is being investigated in Denmark in connection with the war crime of gassing 5,000 Kurds in 1988. Another US favourite is Brigadier General Najib al-Salhi, who has called for multi-party democracy in Iraq. The general rather gave the game away, however, when he stressed the need to encourage Iraqi military leaders to switch sides by promising that no more than 20 of Saddam's closest henchmen would be treated as criminals by a new Iraqi Government. The United States is not committed to the weapons inspection process, has never called for the return of weapons inspectors, and is interested in the inspectors only insofar as they can be manipulated into creating a war crisis. That war has as its immediate goal the assassination and replacement of Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage, and a continuation of the same regime (with minor modifications). "Regime stabilisation with leadership change" will reinforce the stability of Washington's clients in the region, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and re-establish US dominance of Iraq's huge oil wealth. This is a deeply cynical exercise, as well as being illegal and immoral. Milan Rai is author of War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War (Verso, 2002) and a member of Active Resistance to the Roots of War (Arrow). He is also co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness UK, which has worked for the lifting of UN sanctions in Iraq. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3048188&thesection=news&t hesubsection=world * NASTY TURN ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN TERROR FIGHT New Zealand Herald, 21st December Hundreds of Middle Eastern and African men, some as young as 16, have been hauled into custody across southern California in the past few days, enraging civil liberties groups and drawing comparisons with the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II. The round-ups in Los Angeles, San Diego and suburban Orange County were part of a new counter-terrorism initiative by the Bush administration requiring men and teenagers from specific countries to register with the immigration authorities and have their fingerprints taken. Several thousand citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan - many of them accompanied by lawyers - willingly came forward to meet Tuesday's deadline. However, as many as a quarter of them - estimates vary between 500 and 1000 people - were arrested on the basis of apparently minor visa violations and herded into crowded jail cells under threat of deportation. Lawyers reported that some detainees were forced to stand up all night for lack of room, that some were placed in shackles and others were hosed down with cold water before being thrown into unheated cells. They said the numbers were so high that authorities were talking about transferring several hundred detainees to Arizona to await immigration hearings and deportation orders. Both the lawyers and the southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the round-up as an outrage that did not advance the fight against terrorism and very possibly hindered it. At a public demonstration in Los Angeles on Thursday, at least 3000 peaceful protesters waved signs saying "What Next? Concentration Camps?" and "Detain Terrorists, not Innocent Immigrants". "All of our fundamental civil rights have been violated by these actions," one lawyer, Ban Al Wardi, told the Los Angeles Times after 14 of her 20 clients were arrested during the registration process. "I don't know how far this is going to go before people start speaking up. This is a very dangerous precedent we are setting. What's to stop Americans from being treated like this when they travel overseas?" In one case, a 16-year-old youth was ripped from his mother and told he would never return home. The mother is a legal resident married to an American citizen. Many of the detainees came from Los Angeles' large Iranian Jewish population and are highly unlikely to have any link to militant Islamic guerrilla groups. Immigration officials said they would not discuss numbers but did not dispute one report putting the number of detainees at between 500 and 700. They acknowledged that anyone with even a slight visa irregularity was subject to arrest, regardless of their personal histories. The detainees' lawyers challenged the Government to produce any evidence of criminal behaviour among their clients, let alone a link to international terrorist groups. Many of the detainees, lawyers said, were waiting for green cards and other residency documents - all of which have been held up for months because of security concerns. The expiry of their student or tourist visas would normally be regarded as a minor issue. The next deadline for registration is January 10 and will cover the citizens of Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen - countries all associated by the Bush administration with either "evil" or "terrorism" or both. However, two countries whose citizens were closely associated with the September 11 attacks - Egypt and Saudi Arabia - have been exempted, presumably because of close ties between their governments and the Bush administration. The registration scheme was conceived by President Bush's ultra-conservative, much criticised Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and had already come under heavy criticism for blatant discrimination. One prominent dissident lawyer, Stephen Yagman, said he was shocked by the detentions but not entirely surprised given the US history of indiscriminate round-ups of minorities. "The en masse round-ups of people in this country always have involved members of a despised minority group. It's the American way - round up all the aliens and make a spectacle of it." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-aus/2002/dec/22/122206765.html * NOT ALL IRAQ CLAIMS BACKED BY EVIDENCE by Calvin Woodward Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 22nd December Today's claims about Iraq could become tomorrow's call to arms. But not all the statements coming from the Bush administration have been supported by evidence, and some that haven't are central to the question of whether Americans should go to war. The overarching claim, that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, may have the weight of probability behind it, but it has yet to be backed by proof shared with the public. Behind that is a cast of supporting allegations, some veering off into murky territory. Human rights monitors, for example, say it is news to them that when Iraqi soldiers captured by Iran in the 1980s returned from that war, President Saddam Hussein ordered their ears cut off, as the Pentagon stated. When President Bush flatly asserted about Saddam, "He possesses the most deadly arms of our age," he seemed to ignore the consensus that Iraq does not have the weapons of Armageddon - nuclear ones - however actively it may be pursuing them. A decade ago, Americans preparing for their first war against Iraq were shocked when a Kuwaiti girl, testifying to Congress, said she saw Iraqi soldiers occupying her country take infants off of their respirators and let them die. The story quickly became part of the first President Bush's campaign to win public support for the war. "Babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor," he said. Only after the war did the story fall apart and the witness' true identity - the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States - become known. With that in mind, Joe Stork, a Middle East monitor for Human Rights Watch, urged the government not to stretch its claims of Iraqi atrocities, because doing so can undermine confidence in carefully documented reports of genuine abuses. "I do think the human rights abuses in Iraq are systematic and serious," said Stork, whose group investigates mistreatment of citizens worldwide. "This is one of the worst governments in the world. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate." On the crucial question of Iraqi weapons, knowledge of Saddam's past chemical and biological stockpiles, combined with shadowy actions since the world last had a good look around there, leads many analysts to think he is capable of causing huge destruction now. But U.N. inspectors are still inspecting, some suspicions remain suppositions, and U.S. allies are waiting for a clincher. "So far the inspectors have found nothing, and the U.S. has produced nothing," said Phyllis Bennis, a Middle East analyst for the liberal Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. "I'm not prepared to support a war on spec." Other analysts put more weight behind U.S. allegations that Iraq has regenerated its biological weapons capabilities and may have chemical weapons, which it used in the past, as well. But the indictment offered by Washington last week, accusing Iraq of being in "material breach" of the U.N. disarmament resolution, rests not on what has been uncovered in the inspections but, in large measure, on what was omitted in Iraq's report on its weapons inventory. Among the administration's points: -Satellites have picked up on construction of an unknown nature at previously bombed weapons sites. -Iraq has offered no proof that it has destroyed a long list of highly destructive weapons it acknowledged having had before. -Iraq has imported suspicious materials that could advance its attempts to develop nuclear weapons. On other fronts, U.S. officials have made several charges without offering support in the past few weeks. For example, intelligence officials said Iraq has an audacious plan to destroy its own food sources, power supplies and oil fields, and blame America for it, if war against U.S. forces does not go well - all for the purpose of turning international opinion against Washington. They refused to describe their evidence. Government sources also said, in leaked comments, that Islamic extremists affiliated with the al-Qaida network might have taken possession of the deadly chemical weapon VX while in Iraq. The claim weakened under examination. U.S. officials have tried before to establish a connection between Iraq and the terrorist network that attacked America. In this case, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would not talk about any Iraq-terrorist VX transaction but said: "I have seen other information over a period of time that suggests that could be happening." But a variety of counterterror and defense officials said later they had no credible evidence that Iraq supplied the nerve agent to al-Qaida operatives. Questions also have been raised about claims made in U.S. radio broadcasts to Iraqi soldiers and citizens. One was the ear-cutting claim. Referring to the Iran-Iraq war, one new broadcast proclaims: "When the Iraqi soldiers that were taken prisoner were returned, Saddam ordered their ears cut off as punishment for being captured." Pentagon officials would not verify the claim. In fact, a 1994 investigation by the U.N. Human Rights Commission took note of reports that doctors were carrying out a decree that military deserters and evaders have their ears amputated. The report did not find that loyal Iraqi troops who had been captured in the Iran war years earlier were similarly punished. "That's quite a different assertion," said Stork. "I frankly doubt if it's true." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134601084_uniraq22.html * DID U.S. CONDEMN IRAQ TOO QUICKLY? by Julia Preston Seattle Times, from The New York Times, 22nd December United Nations ‹ By asserting that Iraq's arms declaration put it once again in material breach of U.N. resolutions, the United States added to the stash of violations it can use to make its case before the Security Council when Washington is ready to go to war against Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell's charge against Iraq on Thursday was reinforced in the eyes of Council nations by the similarities between the Bush administration's view of the Iraqi arms documents and the bluntly critical assessment by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. weapons inspectors. But the U.S. contention that Iraq's lapses amounted to the most serious form of defiance put it far out ahead of the other Council nations, including Britain, its closest ally. While it appears that the Council will generally agree about the failings of Iraq's declaration, Washington's move strained the united front that the Council has presented to Iraq since it unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, the measure of Nov. 8 that started the inspections. One after another, Council diplomats have come forward since the weapons inspectors' briefing Thursday to urge caution about activating the severe consequences threatened in the resolution if Iraq commits new infractions. Russia argued that the Bush administration was out of line in unilaterally saying that there had been a "material breach." The Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Sergey Lavrov, insisted that only the Council as a whole was entitled to make such a judgment, and only on the basis of reports from the weapons inspectors, not intelligence from national governments. "The work of the inspectors is at a very early stage," Lavrov said, barely concealing his aggravation. He demanded again that the Bush administration come forward with hard intelligence to prove that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. "To say, 'We know, but we wouldn't tell you,' is not something that is persuasive, frankly speaking," Lavrov said. "This is not a poker game, when you hold your cards and call others' bluff." France, a U.S. ally that negotiated stubbornly so Resolution 1441 would include no terms that could automatically be a trigger for war, was openly critical of the Iraqi declaration, saying, "It does not remove the doubts" about Baghdad. But the French ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, also maintained that only the whole Council could make the grave charge that Iraq was in further breach of U.N. resolutions. Even Britain did not second the statement by the chief U.S. delegate to the U.N., John Negroponte, that Iraq had committed "material omissions that in our view constitute another material breach." Not the least of the reasons why Washington's charge of a "material breach" seemed premature was that most of the 10 nonpermanent Council nations had barely had time to read the cover sheets of the 12,000-page Iraqi tome. The rotating nations only received their filtered copies late Tuesday. Many Council nations were uneasy ‹ although not surprised ‹ that the Bush administration was driving the events faster than they wanted to go. In fact, the Council consensus was already showing wear and tear. Syria, which shares a border with Iraq and is the only Arab nation on the Council, was infuriated by the U.S. maneuver two weekends ago to obtain uncensored copies of the Iraqi declaration for the five permanent members, excluding the nonpermanent group. Even more diplomats were irritated when Negroponte said the U.S. had made it clear that they would demand to see the Iraqi documents immediately, rather than after they had been filtered by Blix and ElBaradei. That was not so, they complained. Although Bush administration officials have said they are ready to provide more direct support to the weapons inspectors, the dissension on the Council complicates matters for Blix and ElBaradei as they struggle to decipher Iraq's weapons programs with little hard information from Iraq to work with. But after Iraq has made an arms declaration that has been judged to be flawed, the burden of proof in the inspections now falls even more heavily on the officials in Baghdad. "Because of Iraq's patchy record of cooperation, they need to have a 100 percent proactive posture in coming up with evidence to exonerate themselves," ElBaradei said. "The less clarification they provide, the less certainty with which we can report to the Security Council." He added, "Without a credible or high degree of certainty, I do not see the Security Council exonerating Iraq." http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,162183,00.html? * US PUSH FOR DEMOCRACY IN ARAB WORLD MAY NOT WORK by Asad Latif Straits Times, 23rd December A WAR with Iraq can help bring democracy to the Arab world - so some Americans believe. As the prospects of a conflict in the Middle East loom large, the argument is being scrutinised before it is put to the test and indications are that the US push for a democracy in the Arab world may not work. Earlier this month, Dr Richard Haass, who directs the policy planning staff in the US State Department, declared that his country would support democratic trends in the Muslim world more actively 'than ever before'. The reason for his emphasis on democracy is a growing gulf between many Muslim regimes and their citizens. The divide can compromise those governments' ability to co-operate with the United States in its efforts to combat terrorism or halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, he noted. Many would agree that the Middle East is in dire need of reform. Scholar Fareed Zakaria noted in a Newsweek article that the Arab world does not have a single full-fledged democracy among its 22 countries. 'More broadly, only 25 per cent of the Muslim world is democratic, compared with more than 50 per cent of the rest of the world,' he wrote. But can Iraq be democratised by force? And can that Iraq unleash a democratic tsunami across the Arab world? One view is utterly hostile to such suggestions. 'Everyone knows that the Iraqi opposition is so weak that it can only get to Baghdad aboard American tanks after a devastating war,' said the Al-Khaleej newspaper, which is published in the emirate of Sharjah. It was referring to exiled Iraqi opposition groups, which expect to play a crucial role in the country should President Saddam Hussein's regime be defeated. 'Washington will not hesitate to use any means to achieve its aim of crushing the Arabs and redistributing the roles in the region to the advantage of Israel,' the newspaper added. Other approaches to Middle Eastern issues question, not so much America's intentions, as its abilities to democratise the region by bringing about a regime change in Baghdad. A recent report by the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace casts doubt on this ambitious project. Looking at precedents, it notes that the US invasion and subsequent rebuilding of Haiti have led to political chaos. There is a 'tenuous political equilibrium' in Bosnia, it points out. Afghanistan - which Iraq resembles in that it is torn by ideological, religious and ethnic conflicts - suffers from a troubled and uncertain political situation. Iraq's future can be problematic, therefore. As for the wider Middle East, the report describes as far-fetched the notion that the Arab street will rise up in pro-democracy protests and install pro-Western governments in the wake of a regime change in Iraq. Rather, autocratic regimes that refuse to support America's war efforts may strengthen their positions on the back of revived Arab nationalism. Domestic advocates of reform will be in danger, then, of being branded as unpatriotic. Conversely, autocratic regimes that support the invasion of Iraq may win a reprieve from new US pressure to democratise. Also, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government may see a US invasion of Iraq as an invitation to skirt the issue of Palestinian statehood. The report argues that the Middle East lacks the domestic conditions that set the stage for democratisation elsewhere. The region has not seen prolonged periods of economic growth and dramatic changes in educational and living standards that helped democratic change in Taiwan and South Korea. Focusing on Islamist movements, it warns: 'Democratisation ironically raises the possibility of bringing to power political parties that might well abrogate democracy itself.' The report concludes that the idea of instant democratic transformation is a mirage. It proposes ways in which the US can promote democracy. Washington should press Arab states to respect political rights, widen political space, and carry out constitutional changes, it argues. The US should also nurture efforts to develop the rule of law and support civil society activists, including 'moderate Islamists'. This month, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet spoke of the need to encourage 'the silent majorities throughout the Muslim world to speak out on behalf of moderate alternatives to radical Islamic ideology'. He acknowledged that the US could not impose an 'approved' version of Islam on the Islamic world. 'What we instead need to do is help the Muslim world come to grips with its issues and to find its own way out of the political and economic dead end the radicals are urging,' he added. This US goal is a worthwhile one, to the extent that a democratic Middle East can reduce the push towards extremism in the region and make the rest of the world a safer place. The question is whether an invasion of Iraq will serve that purpose. Time will tell. Perhaps soon. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,864579,00.html * WITH SADDAM, ITS DON CORLEONE OR DONALD DUCK by Thomas Friedman The Guardian, from New York Times, 23rd December Saddam Hussein has always been a unique political creature - a combination of Don Corleone and Donald Duck. He's always been capable of the most shrewd, but brutal, survival tactics, à la the Godfather, and the most cartoonish miscalculations, à la the Donald. At the moment, we are witnessing his Donald Duck side. Imagine if instead of issuing a report saying he had no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had said: "Oh my gosh, we just found eight Scud missiles and four barrels of chemicals hidden under some blankets in the basement. I had no idea they were there! Please, take them away. I've already executed the general who was hiding them." That would have created a huge problem for the Bush war team. Instead, by playing totally (and unbelievably) innocent, Saddam is helping the US make the case for war. But does that mean war is inevitable? Not yet. I believe Saddam will have one more exit opportunity, and the Bush team needs to be ready for it. I call it "the Primakov moment". Yevgeny Primakov was the Russian envoy and KGB veteran who made several trips to Baghdad in 1990-91 to try to talk Saddam out of Kuwait-diplomacy that drove the first Bush administration crazy. Saddam probably could have kept half of Kuwait had he played along. My guess is we will see this play again. Before Gulf War II is launched, there will be a Russian-French or Arab delegation that tries to persuade Saddam to spare his family, and everyone else, from a war - either by disclosing his weapons or by going into exile under its protection. Why? Because, unlike Gulf War I, too many nations don't want Gulf War II. Egypt got two thirds of its debts to the west forgiven for participating in Gulf War I. But today Egypt is terrified about a popular backlash. Syria reportedly got $1bn from Saudi Arabia for joining Gulf War I, but the regime in Damascus has no interest in Gulf War II, because it could be the next target. Turkey got $3bn for its help in Gulf War I, but it will only get a huge headache from Gulf War II - which will choke its trade with Iraq and possibly bring a huge influx of Kurdish refugees across the border. Iran enjoyed watching Saddam get pasted in Gulf War I, but the last thing the Iranian hardliners want now is a pro-US Iraqi democracy next door. Saudi Arabia had to fight Gulf War I to survive. But public opinion today is strongly against war. Ditto the Russians and Europeans, who are not keen on Iraq becoming part of pax Americana, with all the economic benefits that could entail. And then there are the Iraqi Kurds. Their zone is protected by the no-flight regime and they have their own quasi-independent state, with oil revenues. They're not at all keen on having some new "democratic" regime emerge in Baghdad that tries to reassert control over them. Finally, the Sunni Muslim-dominated Arab world knows there is not a single credible Sunni Muslim among the whole US-funded Iraqi opposition front. They are virtually all Iraqi Shi'ites and Kurds. The Arab Sunnis are worried that if Iraq becomes a democracy, Iraq's Shi'ite majority will take over and energise Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Bahrain to start challenging Sunni domination. For all these reasons, the US needs to be both cool and prepared for anything. We need let the UN inspections process play out - because we have such reluctant allies, we must not appear as overanxious warriors. We still need a smoking gun to justify a war, if we expect any support. And as we approach the climax of this story, an Arab or European delegation could show up in Baghdad and forge a deal. The Don Corleone side of Saddam just might say yes. Or, once again, the Donald Duck in him will miscalculate. In which case, it will be his last cartoon. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_124826,0005.htm * SADDAM PLANNED TO USE BIOWEAPONS IN GULF WAR: CIA Hindustani Times, 23rd December Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a secret plan for a biological weapons strike during an early stage in the Gulf War but failed to carry it out because his reconnaissance planes got shot down, according to a newly-declassified Central Intelligence Agency document. The 1992 CIA dispatch, made public over the weekend by the National Security Archive, a local research organisation, displays blank spaces where the target of the strike had been mentioned. The document does not specify what biological agent was going to be used. However, researchers at the archive believe the operation was probably aimed against Israel. Iraq fired dozens of conventionally-armed Scud missiles into Israel during the Gulf War in hopes of drawing the Jewish state into the conflict and fracturing an international coalition of Western and Arab countries determined to eject Iraq from occupied Kuwait. The biological weapons strike, conceived by Saddam Hussein in the fall of 1990, was to have been a reconnaissance mission carried out by three Iraqi Soviet-made MIG-21 fighter jets carrying conventional ordnance, according to the document. "If these aircraft were able to penetrate air defences and successfully bomb, then a second mission was to take off within a few days of the first," said the CIA dispatch. The second phase of the operation was to include another three conventionally-armed MIG 21s, whose task was to divert the attention of enemy air defences from a single SU-22 fighter-bomber, which was to deliver a biological agent. http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=17525247&template=baghdad/indexsea rch.txt&index=recent * ANTI-IRAQ MILITARY ALLIANCE BUILDS SLOWLY Associated Press, 23rd December WASHINGTON: The United States has slowly and quietly begun building momentum for an international military coalition to challenge Iraq's Saddam Hussein as wavering allies have gotten on board in recent weeks. Nations such as Canada that had expressed doubts about joining a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a few months ago have changed course since the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution last month ordering Saddam to disarm. As U.N. weapons inspectors resumed their work in Iraq for the first time in four years, more countries began talking openly of their support for military action should the inspections fail. Besides staunch allies like Britain and Australia, the list of countries agreeing to aid a military campaign against Iraq now includes Iraq's northern neighbor, Turkey; other NATO allies such as Italy, Spain, Denmark and Portugal; and Arab states including Kuwait and Qatar. "When the (Bush) administration invested in the inspections process and decided to go the route of the United Nations, that's what a lot of these countries needed to hear," said Michael Donovan, an analyst at the private Center for Defense Information. "It's not so much because they necessarily felt Saddam was worthy of one more chance. The inspections process was the political cover they required for even quiet support of an operation like this." Some countries, especially new or aspiring NATO members such as Romania and Bulgaria, have been eager to offer help. Despite reservations by Germany and France, NATO itself is considering aiding any Iraq campaign, albeit mainly in a supporting role. Going to the United Nations showed reluctant countries that President Bush was willing to make the fight against Saddam an international one, analysts said. "What it means is, even if we don't get a second Security Council resolution (authorizing force), we'll still be in a better place," said Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "I think we'll get a decent coalition." Bush and other officials have said they welcome military and other assistance from abroad, pointing to the more than 90 nations helping in the global war on terrorism. But they have said repeatedly they will not let coalition partners change U.S. plans or keep America out of the fray. The administration has approached about 50 countries to ask if they would be willing to help in any military action against Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month. "Some have said they will help a lot, some have said a little," Rumsfeld said. "Some have asked that what they are prepared to do be kept confidential." Another reason the coalition is growing is that countries realize the United States has the military power to make Saddam's ouster virtually certain. "There is a growing acceptance internationally that a war is unavoidable against Iraq," said Nile Gardiner, a visiting scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Most countries will want to be seen supporting the winning side." That motive could prompt more Arab countries to join the anti-Iraq coalition, at least quietly, to be in a better position to protect their interests after Saddam's ouster. "At the 11th hour, I think you'll see a lot of countries jump on board," said the Center for Defense Information's Donovan. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/4810030.htm * IRAQI NATIVE ACCUSED OF SENDING MONEY HOME ORDERED HELD by Peter Shinkle and Jeremy Kohler The State, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24th December ST. LOUIS - (KRT) - An Iraqi native living in St. Louis, who friends say was merely helping Iraqis here send money home to impoverished relatives, was ordered Tuesday to remain in jail in Seattle until his trial on charges he was part of a conspiracy that illegally sent money to Iraq. At the same time, prosecutors filed court documents showing that a business and at least two other individuals in St. Louis have come under scrutiny in the investigation into illegal money transfers to Iraq. At the prosecution's urging, U.S. Magistrate Judge Audrey Fleissig ruled that Khalid Amen, a naturalized U.S. citizen accused of wiring $513,960 to Iraq through a Seattle-area businessman, must be detained without bail because of the risk that he might flee. Meanwhile, Hussein Alshafei, the Seattle-area businessman accused of handling Amen's money transfers and an additional $11.6 million sent to Iraq, could be freed on $100,000 bond following a ruling Tuesday in a federal court in Seattle. Amen has lived in St. Louis since 1994 and works as a math teacher at St. Louis Community College at Forest Park. He and Alshafei were among 11 defendants indicted last week for sending money to Iraq in violation of an Aug. 13, 1990, declaration by then-President George Bush. According to an indictment unsealed last week, Alshafei's company, Alshafei Family Connect Inc., collected money from "agents" like Amen in various U.S. cities from April 2000 to January 2002. The money was sent to Jordan and then later transferred to Iraq. Supporters of Amen said Tuesday that he was helping refugees send financial support to family members remaining in harsh conditions in Iraq. Amen is a Shiite Muslim, a sect that has suffered persecution at the hands of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. U.S. officials have said there is no sign the money went to terrorists. On Feb. 20, customs agents nationwide raided various locations in connection with the case, including a St. Louis convenience store, Gravois Discount Smokes at Gravois Avenue and Chippewa Street, Amen's home and the homes of two other Iraqis, Ikbal Alshafei and Adnan Aboregeda, all in south St. Louis. Ikbal Alshafei, a cousin of Hussein Alshafei in Seattle, said investigators took some documents when they searched his small, one-story brick house on Concordia Avenue near Morganford Road, though he wasn't sure which ones. Alshafei, who said he fled Iraq and spent two years in a refugee camp in Saudi Arabia before immigrating to St. Louis in 1993, said he has sent $100 or $200 several times to his relatives in Iraq. He sends the money to Jordan, and it is hand-delivered to his relatives, he said. He said he could never afford to send much money home because he makes only $300 a week as a parking attendant at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, and he would never dare send money directly, because if Saddam found out he was sending money, his family could be in jeopardy. Saddam had Alshafei's brother killed in 1985 and his father killed in 1987, he said. "Anything you say they don't like and you are gone," said Alshafei, who is married and has two young boys. "You are dead." A naturalized U.S. citizen, Alshafei said he knows nothing about his cousin's business in Seattle and said he was unaware that sending money to Iraq was illegal. At Gravois Discount Smokes, Hussein Al-Waeli, 33, a Shiite Muslim and naturalized U.S. citizen, said he has sent money to his six sisters in Iraq. About three years ago, he sent them $200, he said. He realizes that it is illegal, but without his help, "How will they eat?" he asked. Al-Waeli, a cook at the Marriott West who was watching the store for his cousin, said it is ridiculous to think that any Iraqis in St. Louis, many who are fleeing persecution as Shiites, would try to help Saddam. Al-Waeli, who fled southern Iraq into Saudi Arabia in 1991 before entering the United States in 1994, said Saddam had his father killed for speaking out against him at an election. "If someone kills your family, you help him?" he asked. "No Shiites like Hussein." In court Tuesday, Amen's attorney, Gordon Freese, urged Judge Fleissig to let Amen remain free, saying there is no chance Amen would return to Iraq because doing so would carry a risk of death. "He is a political refugee in this country and would face possible execution if he ever went back to Iraq," Freese said. Freese also noted that Amen has no criminal record and is taking care of his wife, who is due to have a baby in February. Fleissig, a former U.S. attorney in St. Louis, said the detention issue was "very difficult" and said Amen could appeal her decision to a judge in Seattle. Amen's wife, Fatima Alhasani, refused to comment. The investigation of the money transfers was spurred by Alshafei Family Connect's filing of a lawsuit in January seeking to block a bank from shutting down its account. Articles on the suit appeared in Seattle newspapers Jan. 12 and prompted a U.S. Customs Service investigation. A document seized at the business listed among its agents three people in St. Louis: Amen, Aboregeba and Ikbal Kadim, the application says. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id={54DE2942-25BD-4035-B570 301C71045EC5} * U.S. READY TO FIGHT TWO WARS AT ONCE by Jan Cienski National Post, Canada, 24th December WASHINGTON - The United States is ready and able to fight two wars at the same time, Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday, warning North Korea "it would be a mistake" to assume Washington is too absorbed with Iraq to do battle in Asia as well. "We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other," the U.S. Defence Secretary said. "Let there be no doubt about it." His comment came as the U.S. found itself confronting potential crises in two of the three countries that -- with Iran -- make up the "axis of evil" identified by George W. Bush, the U.S. President. At the same time, the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN watchdog, said North Korea had broken UN seals on about 8,000 spent fuel rods in a cooling pond at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, a possible prelude to recovering plutonium needed to make nuclear weapons. [.....] http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/25/02&Cat=2&Num=011 * PERSIAN GULF WAR VETERANS TO SUE ALLEGED IRAQ SUPPLIERS Tehran Times, 25th December TEHRAN -- Nearly 50 European chemical concerns are likely to face a class-action suit early next year by more than 3,000 sick Persian Gulf War veterans who accuse them of complicity in Iraq's drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction, an attorney for the plaintiffs said. The planned case also offers an unexpected glimpse into a sensitive portion of an Iraqi weapons declaration that is being examined behind closed doors by members of the UN Security Council and UN arms inspectors, Attorney Gary Pitts said Monday. The lawsuit will be based on new documents provided to the Houston, Texas-based Law Form of Pitts and Associates by the government of Iraq, which listed a total of 56 international suppliers of equipment and raw materials necessary to manufacture sarin, VX, mustard gas and other chemical agents. "It's the same list of people as in the most recent declaration," Pitts said in a telephone interview. A spokesman for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which is leading the U.S. government's review of the Iraqi declaration, said he could not comment on the list because of the need to maintain confidentiality. But the New York Times, which broke the story over the weekend, said it was able to confirm the document's authenticity through its own sources. The list, obtained by AFP, includes the names of 19 German, 10 British, four Swiss and two French concerns, as well as three companies from the Netherlands, Austria and the United States that supplied materials allegedly used in the Iraqi chemical weapons program through the 1980s. Leading the roster is the German firm Preussag, which, according to the document, supplied Baghdad with tons of precursor chemicals for manufacturing nerve gas, helped it build chemical agent facilities and sold it chemical agent production equipment. Other German companies include Hoechst, which is accused of supplying 10 tons of phosphorus oxychloride, a chemical used to manufacture the nerve gas sarin, and Karl Kolb that provided Iraq assistance in building and equipping a plant used for chemical weapons production, the document said. Dutch KBS shipped to Iraq more than three thousand tons of precursor chemicals between 1982 and 1984. At the same time, British firms Lummus, Gallenkamp, Sigma, Oxoid and others provided laboratory equipment that Iraqi weapons scientists used in perfecting their deadly agents, the list indicated. One of the U.S. suppliers on the list, Alcolac International, which sold Baghdad thiodyglycol, a precursor for mustard gas, has already been prosecuted for violating U.S. export law, according to the roster. Another, Al Haddad, is believed to be no longer in business. Pitts said the lawsuit on behalf of U.S., British, French and other Persian Gulf War veterans will probably be filed sometime in the next three months in Britain. "Essentially what we are saying is that Saddam (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) was killing people with poison gas against international law," he stressed. "These companies were enabling him by doing what they did." It should be noted that these Western countries, which helped Iraq to develop chemical weapons, were the main supporters of Baghdad in its war against the Islamic Republic of Iran which lasted from 1980 to 1988. Iraq made repeated use of chemical and biological weapons against Iran in the 1980-1988 war. The Iranian Judiciary has provided lawsuits against those Western firms which supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. The impacts of chemical war against Iran by Baghdad are still looming and there are many Iranian soldiers who succumb to their chemical injuries every day. The Los Angeles Times said recently that between the years 1985 to 1990 the U.S. Trade Department agreed to sell 5.1 billion dollars of military technology to Iraq. Baghdad even used chemical weapons against its own Kurdish people in northern Iraq. According to a U.S. government report released in September, there was "no indication" that Iraq resorted to offensive use of chemical weapons in the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War. But the report allowed the possibility that allied troops could have been exposed to deadly agents following the bombing of Iraqi chemical production and storage facilities, particularly of an ammunition dump in the southern Iraqi town of Khamisiyah that, as it became known later, was used to store sarin and cyclosarin. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is currently monitoring more than 100,000 veterans suffering from so-called Persian Gulf War syndrome, which manifests itself in joint pain, skin rashes, shortness of breath and other ailments. "They are accountable to these people for their medical bills and their lost income," Pitts said of Iraq's former Western suppliers. The list of companies was brought to the United States from Iraq by Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector-turned-critic of U.S. plans to use military force against the country, who made a controversial trip to Baghdad in September, according to the attorney. It occupies three full CD-ROMS that the law firm is storing at a secure location after sharing the information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pitts said. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/26/arraf.baghdad/index.html * IRAQ BANS CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF CNN, 26th December Iraq has banned longtime CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf from Iraq. Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf notified CNN of the ban in a Baghdad meeting this week with CNN newsgathering chief Eason Jordan. Al-Sahaf refused to explain why Arraf was being banned from Iraq, although he and other Iraqi officials have complained in recent days and weeks about CNN reporting they characterized as biased and offensive. Jordan appealed in vain for the ban to be rescinded, saying the ban was unjustified and that Arraf and CNN's Iraq reporting was journalistically first-rate. Arraf has been the only Westerner to serve as a Baghdad-based bureau chief and correspondent over the past four years. Arraf is the fourth CNN correspondent to be banned from Iraq this year. In August, Iraq banned CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Wolf Blitzer and Richard Roth. Jordan said Arraf, who is now in Amman, Jordan, will keep her Baghdad bureau chief title while she reports from neighboring countries and as CNN continues appealing to Iraqi authorities to permit her to return. CNN said it will maintain its Baghdad bureau, with CNN Senior Correspondent Nic Robertson, Rym Brahimi and other CNN correspondents reporting from the Iraqi capital. The CNN Baghdad team will be headed by Senior Producer Ingrid Formanek, Jordan said. Robertson and Formanek were among the CNN journalists in Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73964,00.html * COALITION GELS DESPITE SOME LATECOMERS Fox News, 26th December WASHINGTON ‹ For all his talk about an international coalition against the Iraqi regime, President Bush has found coalition-building a slow, sometimes unsteady process. Secretary of State Colin Powell sounded optimistic last week after the Iraqi weapons declaration drew criticism from countries beyond the United States and Great Britain. "The international community is concentrating its attention and increasing its resolve as the true nature of the Iraqi regime is revealed again," Powell said in a State Department news conference. "I think that we're actually doing reasonably well, maybe better than many thought that we would at this stage. What we have right now is general support for the process" of coalition building, said former Amb. Dennis Ross, a Fox News analyst. When asked in October about the difficulty of cobbling together a coalition against Saddam Hussein, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters that it would "not [be]very hard at all." Since then, the president has received public pledges of cooperation from Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Qatar and Kuwait, which was invaded by Saddam's forces 12 years ago. Senior administration officials have hinted that other nations are just as eager to join forces, but not eager for their participation to become known just yet. "In terms of how many nations would join the coalition, I don't know. My sense is that we have a great many friends, partners and allies who see the situation the same way we do. And I'll leave it at that," said Gen. Tommy Franks, CENTCOM commander. But not all friends and partners have been clear as to how they approach the Iraq situation. For example, Turkey, one of the U.S.'s main Muslim allies and Iraqi neighbor with an airbase that houses more than 100 allied planes, seems to have drawn the line of its support. Earlier this month at high-level meetings in Turkey, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz thought he had secured usage of the country's air bases and airspace for any U.N. sanctioned strike against Iraq. "We reached agreement on the next steps in military planning and preparations," Wolfowitz said during a stopover there. Later, though, Turkey's foreign ministry said no "commitment" was made. So a few days later at the White House, President Bush personally wooed the leader of Turkey's largest political party. "You're a strategic ally and friend of the United States," Bush told Recep Tayyip Erdogan, head of Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party. And although NATO has agreed to play a support role in a U.S. attack, member nation Turkey is not officially on board. Also key to European support are the French, whose U.N. ambassador signaled a newfound kinship with U.S. policy on Iraq when he found fault with Iraq's weapons declaration submitted earlier this month. "The declaration does not clearly answer and resolve impending questions identified in 1999," said French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc De La Sabliere. French support is crucial to any U.S. military plans, said Ross. "The way the French go becomes kind of a symbol for others, that if the French are willing to say this is okay, then it means it's not simply an American show," Ross said. Fox News' James Rosen contributed to this report. _______________________________________________ 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