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 (4) IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS * U.S. Asks Germans to Guard Bases End of Jan-Source * French Defense Minister backs Mubarak's warnings against striking Iraq * Japan said to begin drafting bill permitting troops in Iraq * Oilman to lead MPs on tour of Iraq * Germany wins key U.N. role * Niger Denies Uranium Sale to Iraq, Accuses U.S. of 'Libel' * Iraq is 'dead meat' * Germany Says No Money for Iraq War This Time * Russia rallies round Iraq * Germany to pressure the EU against possible war in Iraq * Iraq to buy 50,000 tons wheat from Pakistan * Three UN Council members unconvinced of need to attack * Saddam secretly funded Pakistan A-bomb * Intelligence Predicts Hussein's Reaction to Attack * Iraq showing unusual interest in Ukraine nuclear laboratory * Nato would back attack if inspectors find arms * Niger Says Iraq Sought But Failed to Buy Uranium IRAQI COLLABORATION * Saddam's foes skewed by sectarianism IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021220/ts_nm/iraq_usa_ge rmany_dc_2 * U.S. ASKS GERMANS TO GUARD BASES END OF JAN-SOURCE by Markus Krah Yahoo, 20th December BERLIN (Reuters) - Washington has asked Germany to provide 2,000 troops to guard U.S. bases in the country at the end of January, a government source said on Friday, as speculation mounted of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq early next year. In Washington, U.S. defense officials declined to discuss numbers, but told Reuters the United States would welcome any offer from Berlin both to provide base security and not to interfere with potential movement of Americans troops in Germany. A senior German government source told Reuters an informal request had been made for German forces to help guard barracks and other military installations as well as transport routes for U.S. troops. A parliamentary source also confirmed the request. A Defense Ministry spokesman said only that Germany had agreed to a U.S. request for help guarding bases in case of war but was still examining when and how much support would be needed. "A decision can be expected at the beginning of the new year," the spokesman said. The United States has 71,000 troops, mostly army and air force, stationed at various bases around Germany. Despite German government opposition to a war with Iraq that has strained relations with Washington, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder assured President Bush last month that Germany will grant fly-over and transit rights for U.S. forces. However, any troop movements are likely to attract protests from Germany's large pacifist movement and any war would raise the level of security alert for U.S. installations in Germany. A war and any German support for it is also likely to provoke tension in the ruling coalition of Schroeder's Social Democrats and Greens partners, some of whom have said U.S. fly-over rights should only be granted if there is a U.N. mandate for an attack on Iraq. A U.S. defense official in Washington told Reuters Rumsfeld had met with German Defense Minister Peter Struck and that the United States would leave any announcement on German help to that government. [.....] http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021220/2002122024.html * FRENCH DEFENSE MINISTER BACKS MUBARAK'S WARNINGS AGAINST STRIKING IRAQ Arabic News, 20th December French Minister of Defense Michele Alliot-Mariot Wednesday expressed support to warnings made by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak against dealing a military strike to Iraq. The French Minister said she agreed to all what President Mubarak had said on risks of war. In a Press Conference she gave before leaving the Qatari capital, the French Minister said that her country was opposed to any military action against Iraq without the approval of the United Nations. She said the United Nations was the only party entitled to decide whether there was a need for a military intervention following examination of the Iraqi weapons report. Asked about military cooperation between Qatar and France, the French minister said that their relations were strong, pointing out that a number of agreements was signed between the two countries in the military and economic domains. The two sides signed during the visit a contract to modernize Qatari equipment as part of the military cooperation. http://asia.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=LTRZ5E2EI1GAGCRBAEZSFF A?type=topnews&StoryID=1946176 * JAPAN SAID TO BEGIN DRAFTING BILL PERMITTING TROOPS IN IRAQ Reuters, 21st December TOKYO: Japan may send troops to Iraq to help scrap any chemical and biological weapons following a possible attack on that country, Japanese media said on Saturday. The report came a day after U.S. President George W. Bush said a recent Iraqi arms declaration was "not encouraging" for finding a peaceful solution to a standoff over disarming and amid speculation Washington may be eyeing military action early in 2003. Japanese government sources said the government has begun drafting a bill that would allow Japan's Ground Self Defence Forces to help dispose of chemical and biological weapons once any military action was over, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said. It added that the United States had informed Japan that Iraq may have huge amounts of chemical weapons and chemical substances and had unofficially sought its help to dispose of them. Government officials were not immediately available for comment. Japan is barred from dispatching troops overseas for peacekeeping operations unless a ceasefire is in place and countries concerned consent to the dispatch. Officials have previously said Tokyo is considering what it could do in the event of an Iraqi war, given the limits of its pacifist constitution, with media reporting the government has drafted plans centring on refugee relief and logistical support. Japan, keen to avoid a rerun of its diplomatic humiliation when it failed to send even token troops for the 1991 Gulf War, last year passed a law enabling the country to deploy naval ships to support the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan -- its first military dispatch into a conflict since World War Two. On Monday, a Japanese warship equipped with a high-tech Aegis air defence system left for the Indian Ocean, a controversial move some analysts say signals support for a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Japanese voters, however, have been lukewarm to providing backing for a possible U.S.-led military operation against Iraq. A survey by the liberal Asahi Shimbun newspaper published on Monday showed 57 percent of respondents said Japan should not provide any backing for such an operation. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id={5E2F1F19-63A9-4557-A248 7BCD8A6A264F} * OILMAN TO LEAD MPS ON TOUR OF IRAQ by Michael Friscolanti National Post, Canada, 21st December A peace activist and the president of an Alberta oil company are planning to lead a small group of Canadian MPs on a tour of Iraq, but they are anxiously waiting to hear back from Lloyd Axworthy, the former minister of Foreign Affairs, before booking any plane tickets. One member of parliament has already agreed to participate in the Baghdad expedition, scheduled for early next year, but organizers, who have invited numerous other MPs, want to make sure the trip coincides with Mr. Axworthy's schedule. "He's well-seasoned and he's well-respected in the international community," said Colleen Beaumier, a Liberal MP who will accompany with the group. "He would be a great asset to have." Mr. Axworthy, who is now the director and CEO of the University of British Columbia's Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues, was travelling outside the country yesterday and could not be reached for comment. But Donn Lovett, one of the organizers, said the former Cabinet minister has already committed to being part of the excursion, which will embark sometime during the week of Jan. 20. The only question now, he said, is what day of the week the group will leave. The previously unannounced trip has been in the planning stages for weeks, but MPs and organizers have been hesitant to discuss details because of concerns that some Canadians would be wary of an oil executive leading the tour. Arthur Millholland, the president of Calgary-based Oilexco Inc., brushed aside those concerns yesterday, saying if war broke out in Iraq, his biggest worry would be that thousands of innocent people would die -- not that he would lose business. In fact, Mr. Millholland, who imports oil from Iraq as part of the United Nations Oil for Food program, said he would probably profit from a war because oil prices would soar. But the executive said he does not want to see further damage to a country already struggling with starving children and decrepit hospitals. And with Washington preparing to oust Iraqi president Saddam Hussein -- a strategy that could involve Canadian troops -- Mr. Millholland believes it is time Canadian MPs get a first-hand glimpse of what the US appears so eager to attack. "We need to be told the truth," he said yesterday. "And the only way to find the truth is to go there and see it for yourself." Mr. Millholland has extensive contacts within the Iraqi regime, including a close relationship with Tariq Aziz, the country's Foreign Minister. He has offered those contacts to Canadian dignitaries. The decision to send a group of MPs overseas comes as United Nations weapons inspectors continue to scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. This week, in a sign that the United States is one step closer to war, the American government rejected a 12,000-page declaration that claims Iraq is free of such weapons. Ms. Beaumier said she is "absolutely disgusted" with the U.S. response, adding that the trip will give her the "moral authority" to better comment on the state of affairs in Iraq. She stressed yesterday that any MPs who go to Baghdad will have to pay their own way, quashing any suggestions of a conflict of interest. And while their tour guides may hold strong views, Ms. Beaumier said their only job is to show them around. "It's up to them where they want to go," said Mr. Lovett, the former vice-president of the United Nations Association of Canada. "They tell us where they want to go and we'll help them set it up." Organizers have tried to recruit numerous other MPs, but as of yesterday, only Ms. Beaumier had committed. Francine Lalonde of the Bloc Québécois and Keith Martin of the Canadian Alliance are still deciding whether to accept the invitation. "In any trip that I take, I want to make sure that one is going to get the most objective view of what is going to take place," Mr. Martin said yesterday. "That is critically important. There is no point in going anywhere that is skewed or partisan or subjective in any way." http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/21/germany.un/index.html * GERMANY WINS KEY U.N. ROLE CNN, 21st December UNITED NATIONS -- Germany is to be chairman of the U.N. Security Council's Iraqi sanctions panel despite opposition from the United States. Washington was against the deal because it feared anti-war Germany might challenge U.S. policy on Iraq. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won re-election this year after pledging that German troops would not take part in a Gulf War II. But key security council countries, including permanent members France and Russia, backed the German appointment, Reuters reported. The appointments come into effect in January when Germany, Chile, Spain, Angola and Pakistan join the 15-member council, replacing Norway, Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius and Singapore. Norway currently heads the Iraq committee, which takes decisions Iraq's oil prices and supplies Baghdad imports. Usually the high-profile post is given to a Western European nation and Germany, which chaired the committee in 1995-96, was considered the most able to do the job again. Chile, Washington's original choice for the Iraq panel, will take over the Afghanistan sanctions committee that compiles lists of people and groups suspected of association with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and remnants of the country's former Taliban rulers. Spain, with strong U.S. backing, was given the chairmanship of the Security Council's counter terrorism committee, a high-profile post which becomes vacant when Britain's U.N. ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, retires in mid-2003. This panel, set up after the September 11 attacks against the United States, monitors reports from all 191 U.N. members on what they have done to stop terrorism. The Security Council has five permanent members the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China -- and 10 member-nations who are elected by regional groups for two-year terms, five each year. http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/22/02&Cat=2&Num=12 * NIGER DENIES URANIUM SALE TO IRAQ, ACCUSES U.S. OF 'LIBEL' Tehran Times, 22nd December NIAMEY -- Niger has never sold uranium to Iraq, Mining Minister Hassane Yari said Saturday, adding that U.S. allegations that Baghdad tried to procure the mineral from the West African country amounted to "libel." "There has never been any question of selling uranium to Iraq and there has been no contract whatsoever," the minister said over radio. "Niger reserves the right to file charges against this libel," he said, challenging Washington to release proof of Niger's involvement "if they have any." He also slammed the United States for "not contacting Niger officially" over alleged moves by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons. Niger is the world's second poorest country, according to the World Bank, but is the third largest producer of uranium along with Russia after Canada and Australia. Meanwhile, a senior retired official stressed that Niger could not sell its uranium to any country without the consent of its partners -- France, Japan and Spain. "I took part in negotiations in Paris between Niger and its three partners (France, Japan and Spain) regarding uranium and I state that Niger does not control its uranium output," Sanoussi Jackou, a former head of the National Minerals Office told AFP. "Therefore it would surprise me that Niger could ever sell part of its production, which is entirely controlled by its partners." Jackou, however, stressed that U.S. allegations that Iraq had tried to procure uranium from Niger could be true but underlined that such moves had not borne fruit. Niger sells 64 percent of its uranium to France, 29 percent to Japan and seven percent to Spain. The UN's nuclear body Saturday criticized Iraq and the United States, saying neither had produced evidence to prove or disprove that Iraq made moves to procure uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. Mark Gwozdecky, spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told AFP that Iraq had not addressed the accusations in its weapons declaration, handed to the United Nations on December At the same time, he rapped Washington for failing to "substantiate its claim." President Mamadou Tandja of Niger said Friday he had no knowledge of Iraq's alleged moves to procure uranium. "For the time being, nothing like this has come to my knowledge," he told AFP. "Niger sells its uranium to France and Japan, that's all we know." http://www.paknews.com/editorials.php?id=1&date1=2002-12-22 * IRAQ IS 'DEAD MEAT' Pakistan News, 22nd December 'Pakistan News Service is a non-partisan, non-political independent news and information service' (its logo shows hands emerging out of Pak and US flags shaking - PB) The damning American critique of Iraq's weapons declaration to the United Nations this week has set in motion the chain of events for an American attack on Iraq. New policy on containing Iraq is based upon 'pre-emptive strike' policy developed by United States after September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on its mainland. United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said that Iraq fell short on meeting the requirements of declaration. Consequently, the American military might is already in motion and war plans laid out for complete annihilation of Iraq via conventional weapons, if needed, via nuclear weapons. Gravity of the situation is perhaps misunderstood by Iraq. It is hoping to gather support by again playing the 'Islam' or 'Muslim brotherhood' card. Iraq is expected to openly align itself with Muslims under oppression to show the 'sincerity' of its appeal. A careful examination reveals the exact opposite. Iraq has never been a 'Muslim brother' or really supported any 'Muslim causes.' The chemical and biological weapons that America wants Iraq to give up were used by Iraq on its Muslim neighbor Iran in its 1980 ten years long war. Iraq used its conventional military strength to harass and eventually invade its defenseless small Muslim neighbor Kuwait in 1990. Iraq paid no head to any advice to leave Kuwait unless American lead coalition forced Iraq's surrender in the Gulf War. Iraq does more damage by claiming mutual support of Palestinians. Although Palestinians are happy to take even token support from Iraq but they do not realizing that support from a rogue country actually hurts their own cause. Iraq's support from Palestinians has been nothing more than lip service. When it comes to cruel & genocidal occupation of Kashmir by India and the suffering of Kashmiris, most of who are Muslims, Iraqi's stance is either of 'silence' or it supports Indian brutalities and murders of Kashmiris. Just like India, Iraq openly defies United Nations resolutions, showing its contempt by promising to act but never really implementing the resolutions. Deceit of such actions is obvious to everyone. An attack on Iraq will inevitably cause grave loss of civilian life, directly or indirectly, like Gulf-War did. Rather than letting Iraq play the religion card, maybe Arab League should consider disarming Iraq, taking administrative and executive control from Saddam Hussein, the current Iraqi dictator. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021223/wl_nm/iraq_german y_dc_2 * GERMANY SAYS NO MONEY FOR IRAQ WAR THIS TIME Yahoo, 23rd December BERLIN (Reuters) - German Finance Minister Hans Eichel said on Sunday the country would not contribute any financial support whatsoever to a war launched against Iraq. Germany, a vocal opponent of any military strike against Iraq, had contributed some $5.5 billion to U.S.-led efforts to drive Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 because it said at the time its constitution forbade sending troops abroad. Those restrictions, in place since World War II, have since been lifted and some 9,500 German soldiers are now on foreign peacekeeping missions as well as on anti-terror Enduring Freedom military operations in Afghanistan and in the Horn of Africa. "It is quite clear that we will not contribute any financial support for a war against Iraq," Eichel told Bild newspaper's Monday edition. Eichel said a war could lead to higher security costs for the German government and might also have a negative impact on economic growth, especially if oil prices rise. "It is in any event a big risk," Eichel said, referring to the possible war that could tear new holes in his budget. Relations between Germany and the United States have been strained since Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won re-election in September on a campaign sharply attacking the United States government over its policies on Iraq and the war threat. U.S. President George Bush has ignored Schroeder since the pacifist eruption and even broke diplomatic custom by not congratulating the German leader on his re-election. Bush officials said German-U.S. relations were "poisoned." Since then, however, both sides have acknowledged frosty relations have at least partially thawed. Schroeder assured Bush last month that Germany would grant fly-over and transit rights for U.S. forces, and was considering a request from Washington to guard U.S. bases in Germany in the event of war. http://www.dailystarnews.com/200212/23/n2122313.htm * RUSSIA RALLIES ROUND IRAQ Daily Star, Bangladesh, 23rd December AFP, Moscow: Russia yesterday stood up firmly for Iraq by declaring that a military campaign there ran counter to Moscow's national interests and urging Washington to strictly abide by the United Nations resolutions on the conflict. "The most important thing is making sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction," Foreign Minister Ivanov said in an interview with Channel One, broadcast first in Russia's far-eastern regions, and picked up by news agencies. "All other goals run counter to our interests," Ivanov said in reference to the military campaign. Ivanov called on Washington to abide by the rules of UN Security Council resolution 1441 - which sets strict conditions for Iraqi compliance with weapons inspection - that he stressed was the best method for assuring that Saddam Hussein's regime disarmed. "Russia and the United States have developed a joint groundwork - the most important goal is that Iraq complies with the UN resolution," Ivanov said. He added that Russia would take no part in any campaign if it went ahead. Edging still closer to Saddam, Ivanov further brushed aside a recent conflict between Russia and Iraq over Baghdad's decision to rip a lucrative oil contract held in Iraq by Russia's state run oil company LUKoil. Reports said that Saddam's regime nullified the deal after learning that LUKoil executives had contacted the Iraqi opposition and US officials in a bid to make sure that the contract would still be valid should the current Iraqi regime fall. The problems between LUKoil and Iraq "arose two or three years ago, and are not directly linked to the current situation," Ivanov said in his first public comments on the dispute. His comments are the firmest to date in support of the pace of Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspections. Russia had previously offered only a vague response to the 12,000-page weapons report delivered to the United Nations by Iraq this month. Although as a Security Council permanent member it is in possession of the full Iraqi declaration, it has refused to comment on the text directly, saying that UN inspectors' report delivered to the UN on Thursday did not prove that Baghdad was at fault. Analysts had suggested that Moscow's cautious approach betrayed an implicit support for a joint US-British campaign to topple Saddam's regime - as long as such a strike was first approved by the United Nations, where Moscow wields veto power. http://www.iht.com/articles/81249.html * GERMANY TO PRESSURE THE EU AGAINST POSSIBLE WAR IN IRAQ International Herald Tribune, from The Associated Press, 24th December BERLIN: Germany intends to work for more diplomatic pressure by European nations against a war in Iraq, a member of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's cabinet said in an interview published Monday. "Bush's priorities are baffling to me," Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the minister of development, said in an interview that portrayed President George W. Bush as misguided. "War must not be the extension of politics or the economy by other means," she was quoted as telling the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. She said it was "depressing that the U.S. administration is preparing for war apparently regardless of the result of weapons inspections." Members of Schroeder's Social Democratic party have stepped up their anti-war warnings in recent days since the Bush administration declared that Iraq's report on its weapons programs was flawed and in breach of a UN resolution. "We are working on still preventing a war. That is the most important thing," Wieczorek-Zeul said. She did not provide further details. "We hope that more European states will join in and together send a strong signal to the American government," she said. [.....] http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/24/ebr3.htm * IRAQ TO BUY 50,000 TONS WHEAT FROM PAKISTAN Dawn, 24th December KARACHI, Dec 23 (Reuters): Iraq has agreed to buy at least 50,000 tons of milling wheat from private Pakistani exporters at 218 euros per ton, traders and government officials said on Monday. They said the deal might eventually be much bigger, with exporters saying Iraq had expressed interest in buying 150,000 tons and a Pakistani official saying tenders for the export of 200,000 tons of wheat for Iraq would be issued next month. Exporters had quoted a higher price to Iraq but eventually accepted a counter offer, they said. "Iraq made a counter offer of 218 euro per ton last week," Hamid Gharib, an exporter approached by the Iraqi grain authority, told Reuters. "We have accepted their offer." Baghdad plans to import around 500,000 tons of wheat under the 13th phase of the UN oil for-food-programme. Iraqi authorities had contacted three Pakistani private exporters and the state-run Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) for the wheat, which will be shipped from January, traders said. Gharib said the three Pakistani exporters were likely to sell around 50,000 tons of wheat to Iraq, but a TCP official said the state-run agency would not take part in this sale because it received the offer very late. "They have showed interest in buying 150,000 tons, but we have firm orders for 50,000 tons of wheat supply," Gharib said. Pakistan exported 100,000 tons of wheat to Baghdad in fiscal 2001-02 (July-June) in a government-to-government deal. Another wheat exporter said local traders had already started negotiations with the commerce ministry in Islamabad to buy wheat stocks from the government to meet the order. "The commerce and agriculture ministries will meet next month to review the stock availability," the exporter said. "The government has promised to supply us wheat for exports." A commerce ministry official said wheat would be made available for the deal and a sale tender issued in January. "We will arrange supplies for them but the price will only be determined though open bidding," he said. The official said the government planned to issue a tender for at least 200,000 tons of wheat for Iraq next month. Pakistan began to export wheat for the first time last year. It found a big market for its wheat in the Middle East and Africa. Pakistan also exported wheat to European and Southeast Asian countries. http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=72063 * THREE UN COUNCIL MEMBERS UNCONVINCED OF NEED TO ATTACK by John Daniszewski and Sebastian Rotella Gulf News, from Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service, 25th December Three key members of the UN Security Council Russia, France and China say they are not yet convinced that an Iraqi declaration this month failed to fully disclose any weapons of mass destruction, an indication that the United States might face an uphill battle building the case for war against Baghdad. The wait-and-see positions taken by the countries, all veto-holding permanent members of the Security Council, contrast sharply with President Bush's assertion last week that the 12,000-page weapons declaration from Iraq was "a long way" from meeting the Iraqi regime's obligations. Speaking at a news conference on Monday in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Ivan Ivanov seemed to rule out any attack based on the Iraqi regime's behaviour so far. "Any action outside the framework of Resolution 1441 ... can do nothing but complicate the regional security situation," Ivanov said. Replying to a journalist's question about "hysteria" regarding Iraq in the United States, Ivanov said: "Hysteria is not the best way to resolve a problem, and therefore we will continue to work calmly" within the UN process. Indications are that the Bush administration faces an uphill battle persuading the three Security Council members, who often have been at odds with the United States over Iraq. In Paris, experts continue to go over Iraq's declaration while diplomats have stuck to a carefully calibrated Iraq policy. They acknowledge the Iraqi declaration suffers from serious omissions and shortcomings, but say they want the United States and its allies to be focused on aggressive UN inspections, not preparations for a military invasion. Diplomats have denied reports that the French government has decided that military action is the answer. A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Friday that if Iraq is found to have not fully disclosed its weapons programmes, the inspectors must be able to force Iraq to disarm. Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxun has warned against jumping to conclusions on the Iraqi report, saying China needs more time to study it and that no judgements should be made until the inspectors have been at work longer in Iraq. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_126626,0005.htm * SADDAM SECRETLY FUNDED PAKISTAN A-BOMB by Pramit Pal Chaudhuri Hindustani Times, 25th December Saddam Hussein was an active partner in Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme not just once, but twice. Iraq funded Pakistan's clandestine nuclear weapons project in the early 1980s in return for uranium-enrichment technology. A decade later, the two were back in bed. This time they were busy trading money for an A-bomb design. Pakistani nuclear spy, Abdul Qadeer Khan, stole the blueprints for a simple uranium enrichment centrifuge made of aluminium from a Netherlands firm where he was working in the 1970s and 1980s. India became suspicious when the same technology then popped up in Iraq and was used by Baghdad from 1987 to 1989. Citing Dutch media, the Indian embassy in the Netherlands sent a report to New Delhi in September 1991 quoting Khan's Dutch assistant, Frits Veerman, as saying: "Those lethal ultra-centrifuges in Iraq are purely Dutch. Khan first saw to it that Pakistan could grab them. Later his institute supplied blueprints to Baghdad." In the late 1980s an investigation by Indian intelligence concluded Iraq had helped fund Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme in return for the centrifuge technology. Besides cold cash, the report said, the two Sunni Muslim countries' shared an interest in containing revolutionary Shia Iran. Teheran was covertly funding Shia militants in both countries. K. Santhanam, head of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses and a person who tracked Iraqi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation in the 1980s, suspects Pakistan turned to Iraq because it needed outside money as its atom bomb project carried a $ 6 to 8 billion off budget price tag. Islamabad, he points out, had earlier turned to Libya and the United Arab Emirates for money. Analysts believe Iraq probably channelled money to Pakistan through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a now-defunct Pakistani bank later beset by scandals over its illegal money transfers. Indian sources say it is likely part of the payment was also in the form of petroleum shipments. Iraq and Pakistan eventually abandoned aluminium centrifuges as unreliable. Both were later to acquire maraging steel centrifuges from a renegade German scientist. The Iran-Iraq war, says Santhanam, forced Baghdad to put its nuclear weapons programme on a "maintenance budget" for much of the late 1980s. By 1990 Iraq was back in the black market for bombs. But this time it wanted the blueprint for a functioning nuclear warhead. Iraq already had a cumbersome, Hiroshima-type atomic bomb design. Saddam Hussein wanted a smaller bomb that could fit on the top of a Scud missile. The man who offered to sell Iraq one was A.Q. Khan. According to a report written in 1998 by West Asian expert Yossef Bodansky: "One of the Iraqi documents retrieved after the [1991] war includes a scrawled footnote describing an offer made to Iraqi intelligence by an unidentified Pakistani offering to establish contacts with 'senior figures in Pakistan's nuclear programme who were willing to help President Saddam Hussein's regime to manufacture a bomb." A memo found by UN inspectors from Section B15 of Iraqi intelligence to Section S15 of Iraq's nuclear weapons directorate was explicit. It said Baghdad has received a proposal from "Pakistani scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan" to help Iraq "manufacture a nuclear weapon." Iraq admitted to the UN inspection regime that Khan made the offer, but insists it turned it down for fear it was a US sting operation. Pakistan, for its part, insists Khan never made the offer. Not many believe either claim. Khan publicly denied he had ever "set foot on Iraqi soil." But B. Raman, ex-head of RAW's Pakistan desk, says one "reliable" source had informed Indian intelligence that Khan had gone to Baghdad at least once. Western intelligence believes one of Khan's deputies acted as the primary middleman between the two countries. Santhanam says India had evidence that there was much "too-ing and fro-ing" between Baghdad and Islamabad on the nuclear front at this point. US proliferation expert Gary Milholin, who spoke with UN inspectors, says they were also certain that Baghdad accepted Khan's offer. A UN probe failed because Pakistan refused to cooperate. The UN was not allowed to meet Khan. Islamabad announced that it had held its own investigation and cleared Khan of any wrongdoing. No surprise, say Indian officials, as Khan has never been a nuclear freelancer. He has always acted as a nuclear courier at Islamabad's behest, they say. In September this year Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote that Western intelligence sources had told him that they were certain "Pakistani nuclear scientists visited Iraq, and Iraqis visited Pakistan's safeguarded enrichment plant at Kahuta." What it is certain is that Iraq did get a smaller bomb design. Tellingly, say experts like Milholin, the new Iraqi design is one with a "flying tamper" - a device that helps compact a nuclear explosion. Such a tamper exists in Pakistan's most-recent bomb design. Indian and Western sources believe Pakistan hastily severed its nuclear trade with Iraq once the US went to war with Iraq over Kuwait. Baghdad did not benefit as much as it wanted to from its atomic alliance with Pakistan. It received a faulty centrifuge technology in the 1980s. And though the Pakistani nuclear design was functional, the UN inspections of the 1990s had destroyed Iraq's uranium-enrichment machines and its stock of enriched uranium. The bulk of the centrifuges the UN destroyed were made of maraging steel. Interestingly, the US accused Iraq in September this year of spending the last 14 months trying to buy thousands of aluminium tubes. Washington said the tubes were for centrifuges. This seems to indicate that Iraq, realizing buying maraging steel tubes would immediately arouse suspicion, tried to get some nuclear fodder using the older centrifuge technology it had bought from Pakistan in the 1980s. Baghdad may have hoped that the more innocuous aluminium tubes would slip through UN sanctions. Evidence of a double nuclear trail from Baghdad to Kahuta is clear but not clinching. But many in New Delhi believe Pakistan has reason to be worried at what dirty secrets will be found amid the rubble of a post-Saddam Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37825-2002Dec25.html * INTELLIGENCE PREDICTS HUSSEIN'S REACTION TO ATTACK by Walter Pincus Washington Post, 26th December [.....] The intelligence community is also following Hussein's rare public appearances. Last Sunday, he received a delegation from Belarus headed by Nikolai Ivanchenko, the deputy head of President Alexander Lukashenko's administration. Belarus is one of the few countries accused by the United States of selling prohibited weapons to Baghdad, and Michael Kozak, the U.S. ambassador to Belarus, made the charge openly last month at a conference in Washington sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. He described Lukashenko as someone who has sold illegal arms to Iraq and, thus, chosen the wrong side in the war on terrorism. Last spring, the State Department accused Belarus of training Iraqi forces to use antiaircraft systems, but at last month's meeting, Kozak said U.S. details on Lukashenko's arms transfers to Baghdad must remain secret to protect sources and methods of collection. Previous U.N. inspections found that in the mid-1990s Belarus sold Baghdad machine tools capable of turning out components for missiles and high-speed centrifuges that Iraq could use to process highly enriched uranium used in bombs. In 1998, U.N. inspectors saw similar machines in Iraq, although they were said to have been used to make lenses for artillery shells. At last Sunday's meeting, according to Belarus radio, Hussein told the Belarus delegation that he was getting little help from other countries in his efforts to lift the embargo on this type of machinery because of accusations that he was still making weapons of mass destruction. "We already told the world that we don't produce these kinds of ammunition, but the world doesn't seem to care," Hussein was quoted as saying. Iraq's news service reported that Hussein then promised Ivanchenko "huge reciprocal cooperation" with Belarus in the future. [.....] http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021226/wxkiev12 26/Front/homeBN/breakingnews * IRAQ SHOWING UNUSUAL INTEREST IN UKRAINE NUCLEAR LABORATORY by Mark MacKinnon Globe and Mail, 26th December Kiev ‹ It sits now, almost forgotten, in a downtrodden nuclear research institute in Eastern Ukraine: 75 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium. Enough material to construct three nuclear bombs. Not far from where the uranium is stored at the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology is a fourth-floor office in a Soviet-style office block on Kharkiv's Leninsky Prospekt that happens to sport Iraqi flags on either side of the door. Western diplomats call it one of the clearest suggestions that Iraq wishes to build a nuclear weapon. According to officials of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Ukraine, the office of Yuri Orshansky, a Ukrainian businessman who was named Iraq's honorary consul to Kharkiv two years ago, is one case of smoke definitely betraying a fire. It's not by chance, they believe, that Iraq set up diplomatic representation in a city that was once a centre for the Soviet Union's nuclear-weapons research. Iraq has sent three trade delegations to Kharkiv in the past four years. One of them was given an official tour of the Institute of Physics and Technology. "It looks blatant, and it is blatant," a NATO official said. "There's all sorts of military interest by Iraq in Kharkiv." According to a report released this year by British intelligence, if Iraq could acquire even one third of the uranium known to be stored at the institute, it could have nuclear weapons within 12 months. The apparent Iraqi interest in Kharkiv brings back a nightmare scenario that has worried the West since the collapse of the Soviet Union 11 years ago. When Ukraine achieved independence, it immediately became the world's third-largest nuclear power, trailing only Russia and the United States, and at the same time lost much of its financial ability either to ensure the security of its nuclear installations or to pay the scientists there properly. Fifty thousand weapons scientists once worked in the city of Kharkiv alone, and many of them now are paid just $6 or $7 a day. Their laboratories are no longer world-class; in some cases, they are not even even properly heated. The city is also home to Khartron, one of the world's largest missile-technology plants. "Most of the scientists in Ukraine are in very difficult financial situations," said Yves Carmel, a Canadian who heads the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine, an institute funded by Canada, the United States and the European Union that works to employ Ukrainian weapons scientists in other, peaceful, scientific fields. Although Ukraine eventually agreed to give up its functioning nuclear arsenal in exchange for Western aid money, there remains in the country a potentially dangerous mix of loosely guarded nuclear materials and underemployed scientists who might be tempted by a big money offer to defect to a rogue state. Mr. Orshansky, many here believe, did just that. An engineer by trade, he now proudly displays the emblem of Iraq's ruling Baath party above the door of his Kharkiv office. When a team of U.S. and British weapons experts travelled to Ukraine last month and asked to interview him about weapons-sale allegations, they were told he was in Baghdad celebrating Saddam Hussein's victory in a recent national referendum on his leadership. In an interview last year with a Ukrainian defence-industry publication, Mr. Orshansky said he had made more than 40 trips to Baghdad since 1993 and suggested that he would, if asked, work to buy nuclear material on Iraq's behalf. "On some issues, we have begun to work with Iraq in order to create conditions so that orders are placed with Ukraine," he was quoted as saying. "Even if they want to create a nuclear bomb, we will study this." Whether he has ever actually bought any weapons material on Iraq's behalf is unclear. Western experts say tracing Iraq's dealings in the arms market is difficult, since Mr. Hussein's regime often uses middlemen and circuitous delivery routes. A Western diplomat here said "there's plenty of evidence" that Mr. Orshansky shipped weapons to Baghdad, but refused to share any of the alleged proof. The Kharkiv Institute says it has never sold ‹ and would never sell ‹ nuclear material to Iraq or anyone else. Director Oleksiy Yehorov says the uranium is to be used domestically for energy production. He says the lab's security has been upgraded, and that the uranium in Kharkiv is as secure as that at top sites in Western Europe and North America. "The uranium cannot be sold to anybody, no matter who offers to buy it and what their reasons are," Mr. Yehorov told the Ukrainian news agency, UNIAN. But to the chagrin of the U.S. State Department, the Ukrainian government has refused to give up the uranium, a step Yugoslavia took earlier this year in a high-profile deal that saw 45 kilograms of enriched uranium from the Vinca Institute near Belgrade taken to Russia to be processed. Recent revelations have made the U.S. administration even more suspicious of Ukrainian intentions, especially a sensational audio recording allegedly made by a former bodyguard of President Leonid Kuchma that appears to catch Mr. Kuchma personally authorizing the $100-million (U.S.) sale of the Kolchuga advanced radar system to Iraq two years ago, in direct contravention of United Nations sanctions. Kolchuga is a passive radar system that tracks aircraft without giving off the telltale "ping" that tells pilots they've been spotted. If Iraq were to acquire the system, the British and U.S. governments say, the danger to the allies' pilots patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq would greatly increase. The alleged sale has called into question whether Ukraine, which the United States initially saw as a partner and perhaps future member of NATO, is a reliable ally in the war on terrorism. Though Mr. Orshansky's name has turned up on documents that UN weapons inspectors found in Baghdad during the last round of weapons inspections in the late 1990s, Ukraine accredited him as Iraq's representative in Kharkiv in 2000. That accreditation was revoked only this year after the Kolchuga scandal broke and the international spotlight was suddenly turned on Ukrainian-Iraqi dealings. "The Iraqis are trying hard now to get as much military equipment from whoever will sell it," a Western diplomat said. "Ukraine is one of those who will sell." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=364541 * NATO WOULD BACK ATTACK IF INSPECTORS FIND ARMS by Nigel Morris, Political Correspondent The Independent, 27th December Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the Secretary General of Nato, said yesterday the alliance's full weight would be thrown behind US-led attacks on Iraq if Saddam Hussein is deemed to have breached United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. He made clear that George Bush would not need to act unilaterally under those circumstances because Nato would face a "moral obligation" to provide support. The weapons inspections process has continued without a break over Christmas, with the United Nations team interviewing an Iraqi scientist at Baghdad's Technology University yesterday. But Iraq said the inspectors had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in one month of checks across the country. The Iraqi military also accused US and British warplanes of killing three people and wounding 16 when they bombed civilian targets, including a mosque, in southern Iraq. In Washington, the US military said the planes attacked Iraqi military command and control facilities after Iraqi aircraft violated the southern no-fly zone. Lord Robertson stressed that any action by the 19 Nato members - including the US - would be governed by UN Security Council resolution 1441, which requires Saddam Hussein to abandon chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "Up to now the US has kept very rigidly to the UN route. They still do - the inspectors are still there," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "What the Americans have done in Nato is to suggest a number of options where Nato could help in a military action and countries have been invited to consider that, but no decisions have yet been taken. The decision won't be taken by America. The decision will be taken by Saddam Hussein. "Either he complies with the will of the UN, in which case no military action will be required, or he fails to comply, in which case the international community, united in resolution 1441, is going to have to do something about it. So there is certainly a military capability being put in place." The Secretary General added: "Frankly, the history of dealing with Saddam means that unless he knows that there are going to be severe consequences, he just simply ignores the will of the international community." Lord Robertson, a former secretary of state for defence, said the US could not act on its own because it depended on its allies for airspace and bases in the Middle East. "All of the characteristics of the Bush administration have been to involve allies," he said. "There is a certain amount of rhetoric but President Bush has strongly placed his country in the fold of Nato and also within international, multilateral institutions." The year ahead was likely to be filled with "risks and new threats", the Secretary General said. "On one hand the terrorists, and indeed rogue states with these weapons of mass destruction, can conceivably inflict terrible damage. "But I think the world is now putting in place mechanisms that will deal with terrorism and also seek to prevent some of these catastrophes. Although I remain worried about these new risks, I am also optimistic that we can, and we are, putting in place mechanisms that will give us some insurance for the future." Lord Robertson's intervention was aimed at bolstering world opinion ahead of the attacks on Iraq, expected to take place in late January or early February. The Government will also hope that his comments will reassure the Labour MPs who fear that Britain is being dragged into war by the US. http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E883DECE-D294-4880 8B89181F282F2435&title=Niger%20Says%20Iraq%20Sought%20But%20Failed%20to%20Bu y%20Uranium&catOID=45C9C78D-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C&categoryname=Mideast * NIGER SAYS IRAQ SOUGHT BUT FAILED TO BUY URANIUM Voice of America, 27th December Officials of the central African country of Niger say two decades ago Iraq tried to buy uranium but the request was rebuffed. Niger's Prime Minister Hama Hamadou says in the 1980s, Baghdad did not get a favorable response from the then president of Niger, Seyni Kountche. Last week, the United States accused Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Niger to produce nuclear weapon. Niger is the third leading supplier of mined uranium in the world. It says it sells the mineral mainly to just three countries - France, Japan and Spain. Enriched uranium is the key element of nuclear weapons. Two other African countries, Namibia and South Africa, are also among the world's 16 nations with rich uranium supplies. The World Nuclear Association lists Canada, Australia, Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, United States, South Africa, China, Ukraine, Czech Republic, India, France, Romania and Spain as countries that supply uranium. IRAQI COLLABORATION http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/20_12_02_c.htm * SADDAM'S FOES SKEWED BY SECTARIANISM by Khairallah Khairallah Daily Star, Lebanon, 20th December The most ominous term in the "political statement" that came out of the just-concluded Iraqi opposition conference in London was perhaps that which referred to the "Shiite majority," in the context of the practices of the Iraqi regime over the last 30 years. While it is certainly true that the content of the paragraph relating to the Shiites was watered down before the statement was issued in its final form, the mere mention of this sect by name does a disservice to the Iraqi cause. In fact, it creates sensitivities that Iraq can certainly do without at this particular point in time. Such sensitivities benefit no side other than the Baghdad regime, which is trying hard to gain the support of at least some of the Iraqi people in order to survive - especially after it confirmed its total ignorance in reading regional and global correlations. This same strategy served the regime well in 1991, when, faced with a critical revolt, it succeeded in convincing Iraqis that what was happening was a Shiite insurrection against the Sunnis. If the Iraqi opposition was thoroughly interested in learning the lessons of 1991, the first thing it should have done was avoid all references to sectarianism for the simple reason that the Iraqi regime itself never discriminated between Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Kurds. It oppressed all Iraqis of all persuasions in order to keep itself in power. In fact, the Saddam Hussein regime began by murdering Sunnis even before it started killing Shiites. Saddam's thugs murdered Hardan al-Takreeti and jailed Abdulkhaleq al-Samarai (both prominent Baathist leaders; the latter was subsequently murdered). After director of internal security Nadhem Kzar tried to assassinate President Ahmed Hassan al-Baqr and his then deputy Saddam Hussein, the regime showed mercy to no one. When Saddam assumed the presidency in 1979, most of the victims of the bloodbath that followed were Sunnis. This does not mean that Shiites got off lightly; far from it. The brutal torture and murder in April 1980 of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Sadr should never be forgotten. Yet it must always be kept in mind that sectarianism serves the regime more than harming it. The language used to refer to the oppression the Shiites and their religious leaders were subjected to was unfortunate, despite the fact that the statement made a point of "the need to eradicate all sectarian policies, and uphold the legitimate rights of the Shiites," and despite the fact that the reference to the Shiites was in the context of announcing that "the new Iraqi constitution must guarantee that such acts are not repeated, and that the rights of all the constituents of the Iraqi people must be respected." Yet at the end of the day, the only impression that remains is that the Shiites suffered at the hands of the Sunnis - even though the regime responsible for that oppression was not Sunni at all; it was a tribal regime that did not spare even its closest relatives. Fortunately, the London meeting counted among its participants a man named Masoud Barzani, who spoke as a statesman should. Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), rejected assertions by other delegates that they were oppressed more than others. Perhaps that was because he was independent enough not to need anyone or to be at the mercy of any side. That is why Barzani was able to say: "None of us should give himself the right to usurp the rights of others; none of us should throw accusations at those who are not here (at the meeting)." Statesmanlike, Barzani spoke of "building a pluralistic, democratic, and free federal Iraq." Yet he stressed the need for "tolerance, and for genuine national reconciliation. If we go down the route of revenge, that route would lead us into an abyss." Barzani, who lost 37 close relatives and 8,000 members of his clan to the regime, said: "The law must reign supreme," and, "No one must be allowed to seek revenge." The Kurdish leader added: "The interests of the country must take precedence over all others." Opposition leaders had better realize before it is too late that only by avoiding sectarianism can they hope to build a better future for their country. For the most important question was and will continue to be whether a new regime would really be civilized enough to fulfill Barzani's dream of a "democratic, pluralist, free, and federal Iraq" - or whether unbridled ambition would take Iraq back to where Iran was at the time of its Islamic revolution in 1979. Iraq should not allow itself to sink even further than it has sunk already. If the United States has deliberately encouraged the opposition to adopt a certain tone in order to warn Iraq's Arab neighbors against remaining impassive toward the momentous developments about to take place in Iraq, it is not necessary for the opposition to fall into the American trap and agree to be used to threaten Iraq's Arab neighbors. On the contrary, the opposition must avoid raising tensions with its Arab neighbors. It must realize that sooner or later such policies will boomerang. At the end of the day, does the opposition want to build a modern Iraq that would become an example for its neighbors, or does it want to sow the seeds of a civil war without end? The choice is clear. The opposition can either adopt an inclusive rhetoric stressing that Saddam's oppression affected all Iraqis equally, or it can adopt a sectarian message that concentrates only on the oppression suffered by a certain group and calls for revenge. The latter message is unsuitable for modern nation-building. The Iraqi opposition meeting should have recognized these differences and tried to find a mechanism to settle them, rather than allowing them to fester unattended only to come back with a vengeance in future. Khairallah Khairallah is a Lebanese London-based political analyst. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star _______________________________________________ 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