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, 26/03-02/04/03 (12) INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WAITS ITS TURN * Iraq war must end immediately, says Russia's Putin * Russia to lose out on postwar Iraqi oil reserve, oil chief warns * Paris Indignant At British Coverage Of French Foreign Minister's Remarks * More than 135 countries demand end to Iraq war * US sanctions feeding "Pakistan next after Iraq" fears: analysts * Belgium's good intentions on human rights go awry * French PM wades into a tide of anti-Americanism UNITED NATIONS WAITS ITS TURN * We won't be subcontractors, warns UN * Deal Reached on Iraq Oil-for-Food Effort * UN gives the nod to revamp its oil-for-food programme * France pushes for UN aid resolution * The United Nations ‹ a stolen future * US-led war violates UN charter: former UN chief * U.N. Expert Urges Monitors for Iraq * U.N. pinpoints $1 billion in food, medicine for Iraq INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WAITS ITS TURN http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1239&search=&find= * IRAQ WAR MUST END IMMEDIATELY, SAYS RUSSIA'S PUTIN Haaveru Daily (Maldives), 28th March Russian President Vladimir Putin called on Friday for an immediate end to the US-led war against Iraq, warning of a looming humanitarian disaster and global destabilization, news agencies reported. "The only means to resolve the Iraqi problem is an immediate halt to hostilities and the resumption of efforts to find a peaceful settlement within the UN Security Council," Interfax quoted Putin as telling the leaders of the political parties in the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament. The main task of the international community is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq," he warned. "The military operation in Iraq is becoming bitter and long drawn-out. With every hour the killing and the destruction increases, civilians die, American and British and Iraqi soldiers die," Putin said. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that Moscow and a majority of other countries were doing everything they could to put a stop to the conflict. "If the war is not stopped in the near future, there is a great threat of the worst possible humanitarian disaster, the worst the world has seen," he said at talks with Indian Deputy Foreign Minister Kanwal Sibal. "We are working together with India and the overwhelming majority of the world in searching for ways to stop this bloodshed," he added. In its consequences, the war in Iraq is becoming more than a local conflict, Putin warned. It marks the first time since the end of the Cold War that the international community had encountered "such a serious crisis capable of upsetting the fundamentals of global stability and international law", he said. Moscow has strongly opposed the military campaign, which the United States says is aimed at disarming the regime of President Saddam Hussein by force, and has asked the United Nations to rule on the legality of the invasion launched on March 20. Putin moreover rejected suggestions that Russia's position on Iraq was motivated simply by economic concerns. "(Russia) has never based its policy towards Iraq solely on economic factors or interests. Economics is an important part of politics but if we get political assessments wrong, that leads also to economic losses," Putin said. Russia remains open to cooperation with all sides engaged in the conflict, he added, stressing in particular that "our partnership with the Americans give us the basis for an ongoing, open dialogue." Russia has noticeably hardened its stance towards the stand-off with Iraq since the start of hostilities, insisting that the conflict be returned to the UN Security Council and for the earlier weapons inspection regime to be resumed. Putin has called the coalition invasion a "serious political mistake," warning that it could seriously destabilise the region, while foreign minister Ivanov on Wednesday warned that it was "illegal and doomed to failure." The mounting tone between Moscow and Washington has led commentators to warn of a return to Cold War-era tensions. http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1239&search=&find= * RUSSIA TO LOSE OUT ON POSTWAR IRAQI OIL RESERVE, OIL CHIEF WARNS Haaveru Daily (Maldives), 28th March Russia can forget about its oil interests in Iraq, as Washington and London will cut Moscow out of any postwar carve-up of the world's second largest crude reserves, a Russian oil chief said Friday. "We're clearly going to have to cut our losses on anything we have there and anything we could have had," the head of Russian state-run oil firm Zarubezhneft, Nikolai Tokarev, told the daily Vremya Novostei. "The Americans haven't gone into this war intending to share with anyone. It's a war trophy," he said. The United States "has sufficient potential, including financial, to exploit Iraqi deposits themselves," he added, noting that Iraqi oil reserves were considered the second largest in the world after those of Saudi Arabia. Tokarev estimated his own firm's "concrete losses" in Iraq at 150-180 millions dollars (140 170 million euros), not counting lost revenue from subsequent projects. "We were on to some huge deposits, irrigation projects, a whole lot of things apart from the oil sector," he said. Russia's top oil company LUKoil, which saw a lucrative contract with Baghdad cancelled last December following reports that the oil firm was in contact with exiled opposition groups, is unlikely to receive any favourable treatment, Tokarev said. "No one is going to ask them (the Iraqi opposition) who is going to work there. There will be a puppet government, and the United States and Britain will themselves carve up the cake," he said, expressing the view that it was "obvious" the main object of the US-led war was to control Iraqi oil reserves. Analyst Sergei Rogov of the USA-Canada Institute agreed that there was "no point in rushing to try and get a share of post-war Iraq's oil wealth: we won't get even a breadcrumb." Moreover, "as far as oil contracts as concerned, Russian firms don't have the capital or technology needed to develop Iraqi oilfields, they would have needed Western firms in any case," he told reporters. As for Iraq's eight-billion-dollar debt to Iraq, "neither Saddam nor the regime that replaces him will pay our debts back. The economic reconstruction of the country will absorb all resources," Rogov predicted. Further economic losses would be caused by a sharp fall in oil prices if the war were to be ended quickly, he added. Russia is a major oil exporter and relies heavily on energy taxes for its budget revenues. Russia has bitterly opposed the US campaign to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, blocking moves earlier to seek UN authorisation for a military offensive and asking the Security Council more recently to rule on the invasion's legality. Moscow has maintained important trade ties with Baghdad since Soviet times, and Russian oil companies have invested more than one billion dollars in the Iraqi oil industry since 1996, although they have been mostly unable to develop fields because of UN sanctions. The US ambassador to Moscow offered assurances Friday, telling the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta that Washington would "seek ways of respecting Russian economic interests (in Iraq) in the framework of joint work with the UN or other organisations." But Alexander Vershbow warned that the United States "can offer no guarantees, because we will not be able to dictate the attitude of the next Iraqi government." http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1239&search=&find= * PARIS INDIGNANT AT BRITISH COVERAGE OF FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER'S REMARKS PARIS, March 28 (AFP) - France reacted furiously Friday to British newspaper reports which implied that Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin did not want the US and Britain to win the war on Iraq. At a press conference following a speech in London Thursday, De Villepin sidestepped a question from a journalist for the conservative Daily Telegraph, who asked: "Who do you want to win the war?" The foreign minister replied, "I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I have said before. You already have the answer." This was interpreted in several British papers Friday as a sign of French duplicity in the conflict, which it sees as illegal. But in a statement Friday the foreign ministry in Paris said: "We are indignant at the way certain correspondents have represented the remarks of the minister ... on the outcome of the war in Iraq." It said de Villepin had referred the questioner back to earlier remarks which were "devoid of ambiguity." On March 24 De Villepin told French television that "the US, we hope, will quickly win this war," it said. On March 16 -- before the war started -- President Jacques Chirac said that if there were to be conflict he hoped for a quick victory for the US-led forces. "It is not acceptable for France's position to be distorted or misrepresented in this way," the statement said. De Villepin was at the International Institute for Strategic Studies for a speech in which he set out France's view of the United Nations as the only source of international legitimacy. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_764920.html?menu= * MORE THAN 135 COUNTRIES DEMAND END TO IRAQ WAR Ananova, from AP, 27th March More than 20 Arab countries and 115 other nations have demanded an end to the US-led war against Iraq. They have called on the United Nations Security Council to break its silence and find a way to return to peaceful methods for disarming Saddam Hussein. They have called on the United Nations Security Council to break its silence and find a way to return to peaceful methods for disarming Saddam Hussein. Secretary General Kofi Annan opened the security council meeting by expressing regret efforts to avert war had failed. He said the warring parties must now ensure the protection of civilians, those injured in the conflict, and prisoners of war, as well the safe distribution of vital humanitarian aid. "The inability of the council to agree earlier on a collective course of action places an even greater burden on you today. "We all want to see this war brought to an end as soon as possible," he said. "But while it continues it is essential that everything be done to protect the civilian population, as well as the wounded and the prisoners of war on both sides, and to bring relief to the victims." The 22-member Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents about 115 mainly developing countries, had asked for the meeting to denounce the military action. But they did not introduce a resolution demanding a halt to the fighting and withdrawal of all foreign forces, apparently out of concern that it would not be passed. In an interview with al-Jazeera, US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejected any move Arab nations might make for a UN ceasefire resolution. "We will watch it carefully, but right now our policy is to continue to prosecute this conflict until we can bring it to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible and then get about the task of rebuilding Iraq," Powell said. http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1256&search=&find= * US SANCTIONS FEEDING "PAKISTAN NEXT AFTER IRAQ" FEARS: ANALYSTS ISLAMABAD, April 1 (AFP) - US sanctions on Pakistan's top nuclear research facility over alleged technology-sharing with North Korea are fuelling a popular theory that Washington plans to deal with Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction once it has finished with Iraq. "It's possible these are signals that Pakistan has to fall in line or it could be the target in the future," A.H. Nayyar, an analyst from the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, told AFP. The US announced Monday it had slapped sanctions on A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), a uranium enrichment plant near Islamabad, and North Korea, following months of claims by intelligence officials that Pakistan had supplied the Stalinist state with uranium enrichment technology for its controversial nuclear program, in exchange for missiles. US officials did not publicy link Islamabad and Pyongyang, but one Washington official said on condition of anonymity the sanctions were because of their alleged bilateral weapons trade, adding: "You connect the dots." "There has already been much talk of Pakistan becoming a target after Iraq," The News daily wrote Monday in response to the KRL ban. "That might be leaping to premature conclusions but Pakistan needs to be wary of the direction of its relationship with the USA." The "Pakistan next" theory has been bandied around for months in newspaper editorials, and politicians have bought into it as anti-US hostility swells among Pakistanis enraged at perceived US aggression and perceptions of ingratitude from Washington for Pakistan's pivotal war on terrorism role. Even President Pervez Musharraf gave it currency when he told businessmen on January 18 "there were chances" that Pakistan would become a target of Western forces after Iraq. "We will have to work on our own to stave off the impending danger," Musharraf said. "Cynics would say the axis of evil includes Pakistan also," Institute of Regional Studies researcher Khalid Mahmud told AFP, referring to US President George W. Bush's description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. "There are many in Pakistan who say that after Iraq, the US will turn its attention to other countries and on the hit list are Iran, Syria, North Korea and maybe Pakistan also. "So (the KRL sanctions) may be an indicator of things to come." Mahmud said the main factors feeding the "Pakistan next" theory were the combination of Pakistan's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the rise of Islamic fundamentalists. "From the beginning this nuclear program has been branded an 'Islamic bomb' which poses a direct threat to Israel," Mahmud said. "The other irritant is the rise of religious extremist forces. These two irritants could be the basis of the US aggressive posture vis-a-vis Pakistan." Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri brushed off concerns that Washington had Pakistan's nuclear program in its sights. "We are not the next target, as we are a responsible state," he told reporters. Proponents of the "Pakistan next" theory point to the policy of pre-emption embraced by Washington in its attempt to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and its goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. Musharraf is embraced by the US as a "tight" ally in its 18-month campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and the ongoing hunt for fugitives from the extremist groups. But the spectre of Pakistan's home-grown extremists or fundamentalist Islamists getting their hands on its estimated 30 to 50 nuclear warheads is why the US is paying extra attention to Pakistan's nuclear program and not India's, analysts say. Fervently anti-US Islamic parties surged to power in October polls, winning control of one provincial parliament and almost one-fifth of the national parliament. Islamic militant groups continue to operate despite government efforts to stamp them out. They have executed 11 deadly attacks on Christian and Western targets in the past 18 months. http://www.iht.com/articles/91756.html * BELGIUM'S GOOD INTENTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS GO AWRY by Richard Bernstein International Herald Tribune, from The New York Times, 2nd April BRUSSELS: "The News from Absurdistan" was the headline on a commentary here the other day, written by Luc Van der Kelen, the chief editor of the Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws. "A former president and the vice-president are indicted for what happened during a war of liberation against a monstrous dictator who had invaded a small country," Van der Kelen wrote. "This is the totally absurd and inevitable consequence of grotesque legislation." The former president to whom Van der Kelen was referring was George Bush, the father of President George W. Bush, and the vice president the current vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney. Both have been charged in Belgium with war crimes in connection with the bombing of a civilian shelter in Baghdad that killed 403 people in the Gulf War of 1991. The accusations were filed under a Belgian law that gives this small country "universal jurisdiction" to try the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide - even if there is no Belgian connection with the alleged crimes, the victims or perpetrators. In fact, the effort to use the law against former President Bush, which provoked angry complaints from Secretary of State Colin Powell (who is also named in the suit), has now led to an abrupt change here. On March 27, a parliamentary commission rewrote the law to insert "filters" that will essentially enable the government to dismiss the case against Bush. "There will be enough changes to prevent all these ridiculous cases," Van der Kelen said in an interview. "Hopefully we will be out of these problems." Yet, pending a vote of the full Parliament on the changes in the law, the Belgians' effort to make their country a place where the victimized of the world can get a hearing seems a case study in good intentions gone awry. It is also the story of a small country that is seeking a special moral role but that, in the view now beginning to prevail, has overstepped the margins of good sense. The Belgian law of universal jurisdiction was adopted in 1993, when the Parliament, horrified by civil strife in Rwanda - a former Belgian colony - wanted to act against what the law called "grave violations of international human rights" wherever they occurred. Other countries also have laws that enable them to reach beyond their borders when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Israeli law grants its authorities power to arrest and try those responsible for the Holocaust, as happened with Adolf Eichmann in 1961. In 1998, a Spanish magistrate relied on Spanish law and the international law of universal jurisdiction to seek the extradition of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet from Britain. But the Belgian law is unusual in that it requires no connection with Belgium for a case to be brought. In its first years, many people who had suffered grave abuses of human rights did come here to file their cases. Saddam Hussein was accused by Iraqi Kurds of chemical attacks on them; exiled Cubans accused Fidel Castro of human rights violations. Israeli victims of suicide bombings filed suit against Yasser Arafat. None of these suits meant very much in practical terms. The accused leaders ignored them, and Belgium clearly has no capacity to pursue anybody indicted of war crimes. But supporters of the law felt there was an important element of symbolism. "We shouldn't forget that people who have undergone extraordinary suffering have been able to find a country in the world capable of hearing their pain and following up on their demands, even if it is in a purely theoretical way," Eric David, a professor of law and a strong advocate of the Belgian law, told a French-language newspaper. In 2001, a group of Lebanese Palestinians filed a suit against Ariel Sharon, charging him with war crimes because of Israel's failure to prevent the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres in Israeli-occupied Lebanon. Israel protested vigorously, and Belgians questioned what business they had subjecting any Israeli to prosecution. Israel became the first country to defend a case here, arguing successfully in lower courts that Belgium had no jurisdiction to try an Israeli leader. But a few weeks ago the Belgian Supreme Court issued a ruling that left open the possibility that Sharon could be prosecuted after he leaves office. Then, on March 18, seven Iraqi families filed suit against Bush, Cheney, Powell and H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the U.S. commander in the 1991 Gulf War. "The objective of the Iraqi families, who together lost four or five children in that bombing, was to bring up the question of responsibility for their losses," said Raymond Coumont, president of an anti-war group called Meetings for Peace that filed suit with the Iraqis. "They also knew from their own experience that it is simply not true that precision weapons prevent civilian deaths," Coumont said. "And when they learned that President Bush had decided to go to war against Iraq, they felt that it was the moment to present their case." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=393447 * FRENCH PM WADES INTO A TIDE OF ANTI-AMERICANISM by John Lichfield in Paris The Independent, 2nd April The Prime Minister of France, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, is expected to make a statement today denouncing anti-Americanism and making it clear that France is "on the side of democracy" in the Iraq war. Although the French government remains convinced that the war is unjustified and probably illegal, M. Raffarin has been alarmed by signs of growing anti-American and anti-Semitic feeling at anti-war demonstrations in Paris and other French cities. He has also been disturbed by an opinion poll earlier this week that suggested one in four French people was on the side of the Iraqi government and one in three would prefer to see a victory for Saddam Hussein. Other commentators suggested that the poll showing a majority of French people (53 per cent) wanted to see an American victory, despite 78 per cent opposition to the war was nothing to worry about. They pointed out that the far left and the far right in France both habitually anti-American and blindly pro-Iraqi for many years added up to about 30 per cent of the electorate. Seen in this light, the 33 per cent "on the whole supporting Iraq" was not such a surprising total, they said. None the less, M. Raffarin is expected to restate today, in stronger terms, comments that he made earlier this week rejecting any suggestion that France is aligned with Iraq against the US and Britain. In Clermont-Ferrand on Monday, M. Raffarin said: "We think this war was the wrong choice ... but that is no reason to mistake our enemy. The Americans are not our enemy. We are in the camp of democracy." Some French commentators have drawn attention to the fact that this statement was made by M. Raffarin, who rarely takes positions on foreign policy issues, rather than by President Jacques Chirac, who personally directed French pre-war policy and made the decision that France would veto a pro-war resolution in the United Nations. The centre-left newspaper Libération said there had been "radio silence" from the Elysée Palace since the war began. Elysée officials said no statement by M. Chirac was planned but that the President agreed with M. Raffarin and had "always denounced the dictatorial regime in Iraq". Extra concern has been raised by the daubing of anti-war and anti-British slogans on a monument at a British First World War cemetery at Etaples, near Boulogne, last week. French officials have condemned the desecration but dismissed it as a one-off incident, probably the responsibility of the far right. Overall, French public opinion remains resolutely anti-war and thankful that France is not involved. Away from the political extremes, French people are as ambivalent as many of the anti-war moderates in Britain and other countries. The overall view seems to be that the war should never have started but now that it has, the best outcome would be a short war and a victory for America and Britain. In a poll published in Le Monde, 78 per cent of French people said they disapproved of the war. Sixty-five per cent said they thought the conflict was America's fault. Only 34 per cent said they felt "on the whole on the American and British side". Twenty-five per cent said they were on Iraq's side and 31 per cent said they felt no sympathy for either side. However, 53 per cent of French people said that "au fond d'eux-mêmes" (in the depths of their heart) they wanted America and Britain to win. Although there have been few visible signs of anti-Americanism in France so far, officials said M. Raffarin had been disturbed by a minority of viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic slogans and banners on recent marches against the war. UNITED NATIONS WAITS ITS TURN http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,924427,00.html * WE WON'T BE SUBCONTRACTORS, WARNS UN by Oliver Burkeman in Washington The Guardian, 27th March The United Nations will refuse to play a "subservient" role or act as a "subcontractor" to the United States in the reconstruction of Iraq, the organisation's development chief has warned. Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the UN development programme, told the Guardian that rebuilding contracts already announced by the Bush administration were only "a Band Aid on services knocked out in the conflict", and not "a sustainable formula for the long-term reconstruction of the country". Speaking before Tony Blair's trip to Camp David, Mr Malloch Brown said the UN had a clear obligation to carry out humanitarian work in the immediate aftermath of conflict. But in the long term, "if they want the UN in there - the UN role in civil administration, in the political processes managing the transition", then "we can't go in there playing some subordinate role to a US redevelopment which somehow suggests we are a subcontractor to that US-led effort", he said. "The Geneva conventions will require that our relations with the occupying power are not subservient ones ... We have pretty well-developed plans, but I'm not going to take them out of the drawer until there's a security council resolution. We're not a US or British NGO who can be asked by the government to take on a reconstruction role." Mr Malloch Brown said the UK had assured him that "it is the devout hope of the British government that the peace will be managed by a much broader coalition" than the war. "But were you today to ask most people in Washington, 'Is that the way you expect things to turn out?', I think the answer would be no. "There may be many people in Washington who may think this is a war they run, and they should run the peace. And for us, so be it." USaid, the American government agency coordinating redevelopment, has been under fire for awarding the first reconstruction contracts to US firms, and for budgeting only $50m (£31m) so far to aid agencies. On Wednesday, USaid announced that $1.9bn in reconstruction contracts would go to US companies. But, Mr Malloch Brown said, "that is such a downpayment of the total volume of resources the US and others are going to have to put up, that I'm not construing too much from it. I don't think it's a sustainable formula for the long-term reconstruction of the country - but I doubt they do themselves. Or they will quickly learn that it isn't." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/mar/27/032705203.html * DEAL REACHED ON IRAQ OIL-FOR-FOOD EFFORT by Gerald Nadler Las Vegas Sun, 27th March UNITED NATIONS (AP): The U.N. Security Council agreed on a draft resolution Thursday to revive a humanitarian aid program for Iraq that uses Baghdad's oil revenues for medical supplies and food. Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, who chaired a week of acrimonious negotiations on the aid measure, said he hoped the council would formally adopt the measure Friday. The resolution aims to speed up the delivery of aid by giving Secretary-General Kofi Annan control for 45 days over the oil-for-food program, which has been suspended since the outbreak of hostilities. "We are glad to have found, I hope, a resolution that accommodates the problems of most of the people involved," Pleuger said. He called the program "the biggest humanitarian assistance program in the history of the U.N," and said quick implementation was crucial to preventing a humanitarian disaster. More than 80 nations spoke at the first open meeting of the bitterly divided council since U.S. and British forces launched their campaign in Iraq last week. In a dramatic end to a two-day debate on the war, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte walked out of the council Thursday after Iraq's envoy accused Washington of planning the military assault for years. After he left, Iraq's Mohammed Al-Douri also accused the United States and allies Britain and Australia of trying to exterminate the Iraqi people. "I did sit through quite a long part of what he had to say, but I think that I'd heard enough," Negroponte said outside the council chamber, adding that he rejected the allegations. The oil-for-food program has allowed Iraq to sell unlimited quantities of oil provided the money goes mainly to buying food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. The oil proceeds are deposited in a U.N.-controlled escrow account. Annan has cautioned that how quickly aid starts flowing will depend on the military situation and safety conditions for the U.N. staff. At Camp David, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the United Nations to restart the oil-for-food program. But Bush said the issue "must not be politicized." That was an allusion to Russia and other anti-war nations that have argued over how the program should be administered, aides said. Russia and Syria have insisted that the resolution must not legitimize the war, presuppose a change in Iraq's leadership, or give the United States control over the escrow account, which contains billions of dollars. Russia was also concerned about Iraqi sovereignty over oil resources. The draft resolution reaffirms "the respect for the right of the people of Iraq to determine their own political future and to control their own natural resources." Negroponte cautioned that "narrow economic interests and extraneous political matters" should not hold up revival of the oil-for-food program. The resolution, which was co-sponsored by France and Germany, notes that "the occupying power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population." The oil-for-food program was adopted in 1995 to help ordinary Iraqis cope with sanctions imposed after Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait in 1990. It has provided food for 60 percent of Iraq's 22 million people. The United Nations has been running the program in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq but Saddam Hussein's government has been in charge in central and southern Iraq. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1048313282240 * UN GIVES THE NOD TO REVAMP ITS OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAMME by Mark Turner Financial Times, 28th March The United Nations Security Council on Friday voted unanimously in favour of temporary measures to revamp Iraq's oil-for-food programme, as UN aid agencies appealed for $2.2bn (£1.4bn) in emergency funds over the next six months. Advertisement The oil-for-food resolution allows the UN secretary-general to rejig approximately $10bn worth of agreed contracts, and a further $5bn, approved but not paid for, to address the immediate humanitarian needs of Iraqis. It also introduces more flexibility into a tightly defined system of entry points and bank accounts. It comes amid UN warnings that the plight of Iraqis "is likely to become desperate as distribution systems are disrupted", and that "prolonged hostilities may result in a serious humanitarian crisis". The resolution, agreed unanimously, marked something of a diplomatic coup for Germany. The country proposed the resolution and steered it through acute tensions between the US, Russia and others over the balance it struck between the responsibilities of the occupying powers, the continuing sovereignty of the Iraqi government, and a pragmatic need for the UN to step in and help. The UN's sanctions committee, of national experts, will retain monitoring powers over its implementation. There had also been concerns over a proposal to allow the UN to borrow funds from a Kuwait compensation fund for humanitarian needs. The resolution now expresses an open ended "readiness" by the UN to use those funds (due to be disbursed in April) "on an exceptional and reimbursable basis". Mohammad Abulhasan, Kuwait's ambassador to the UN, said he supported the idea, as long as the plight of 44,000 people affected by Iraq's previous occupation of Kuwait was not ignored. The final version was co-sponsored by fourteen countries, and while negotiations were tense, they revealed a new ability by the European members of the Security Council in particular to put aside ideological differences to achieve pragmatic ends. But it remained clear that deep disagreements remain over any future UN role for the administration or rebuilding of Iraq, and that further resolutions will be far more difficult. The resolution does not address the future of Iraq's oil industry. Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, on Friday warned there were "certain red lines" in the council, many of whose members "did not want to see any situation where the UN is subjugated to the authority of a country or several countries". He added: "Some are concerned they should not be placed in a situation where they take action that appears to legitimise the military action ex post facto. We are going to have to determine the relationships between the UN, occupied Iraq and the occupying power; lots of issues will have to be tackled." The UN now faces a big task in managing the oil-for-food contracts, and also in handling separate funds accrued under its emergency appeal. The UN said its $2.2bn appeal, particularly the $1.3bn covering food items, could be cut following the resolution - but was uncertain to what extent. Of the $10.1bn goods in the oil-for-food pipeline, a quarter covers food needs, but of that only $270m are active contracts ready for immediate application. Many of the contracts in the pipeline do not account for the additional emergency needs due to the outbreak of hostilities. UN aid chiefs said any programme will be dependent on the security situation on the ground, and will also rely on the substantial Iraqi-government-run network in the centre and the south. While that network appears to be struggling on, it is unclear in what state the UN will find it once it returns. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1048313243783&p=1031119383196 * FRANCE PUSHES FOR UN AID RESOLUTION by Robert Graham and David Buchan in London Financial Times, 28th March France is pressing for a rapid resolution at the United Nations of the oil-for-food programme to unlock large amounts of humanitarian aid urgently needed by Iraq. In an interview on Thursday with the FT, France's foreign minister Dominique de Villepin said getting the food programme going again under a new UN resolution should be the first step for the renewed involvement of the Security Council after it was bypassed by the US led invasion of Iraq. "The oil-for-food programme must be approved. I see no reason not to have the resolution passed," he said. In the face of continued US reluctance to consider a role for the UN in postwar Iraq, Mr de Villepin insisted that the UN was vital to tackling problems in Iraq, and their repercussions in the region. "The requirement for UN approval is both a principle and a necessity," he said. The US and Britain, above all, would find political cover and legitimacy from the UN necessary in the war's aftermath. This position, he claimed, was shared by a majority on the Security Council who had not changed their views on the illegitimacy of the Anglo-American invasion. He said the international community had to deal with two phases: "The first is the war phase and then the reconstruction of Iraq." During hostilities, he said, the rules of war make the forces on the ground totally responsible for what happens in the country. In the war's aftermath, he accepted that "it is clear that the countries that have taken the lead on the ground may have a special responsibility". But they should exercise it "under the umbrella of the UN to confer legitimacy". The UN should approve, even if it did not run, operations in postwar Iraq. All the current difficulties facing the US-led forces were foreshadowed in French warnings to Washington and London, he said. But they did not listen because they were intent on pursuing their military agenda in Iraq, he said. France itself had found out how difficult it was to maintain the peace in the Ivory Coast with 3,000 troops in recent months, even with the support of regional powers and the UN. France is evidently tempted to keep repeating its criticism of the attack on Iraq. But its foreign minister recognises that the dangers to the wider world of an unstable Iraq in an unstable region are so great that no one can afford to carp on the sidelines for too long. On a brief visit to London on Thursday, he saw no ministers from the Blair government. Jack Straw, his British counterpart, was in the US, with Tony Blair, the prime minister. Speaking at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, urged greater collective responsibility through the UN, and stressed that "force is not a privilege some enjoy and law the alibi of others - we are all bound by the law". Mr de Villepin offered an olive branch to the US and UK in his speech. "We must now find once again the path to European unity and reassert transatlantic solidarity," he said. But a new world order "must be based on a number of regional poles", and one of them had to be a strong Europe. Claiming to find London and Washington deaf to its views, France was on Thursday continuing to co-ordinate its position on Iraq in talks in Paris with senior German and Russian officials. At the same time it is pursuing a separate European Union defence initiative based on a core membership of itself, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. Paris is not closing the door to Britain's involvement in this defence move, but feels it cannot wait for a Britain preoccupied with Iraq and its war alliance with the US. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/28_03_03_d.asp * THE UNITED NATIONS ‹ A STOLEN FUTURE by Abdelmalik Salman Lebanon Daily Star, 28th March The unauthorized Anglo-American war on Iraq has cast a deep shadow on the future of the UN. Grave doubts are being felt on the ability of the world body to survive the war it so miserably failed to prevent through the inspections process. Experts in international law fear the UN might soon go the way of the League of Nations, and collapse completely. Such an eventuality would signal a colossal failure for American policy, since it would expose the US before the entire world as an outlaw state at odds with international legitimacy. The most serious aspect of the approach adopted by the Bush administration vis-a-vis the UN has been the contempt with which it dealt with the Security Council when it threatened to go to war, regardless if the council failed to issue a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. American recklessness and highhandedness reached a zenith with the Azores ultimatum, which gave the Security Council 24 hours to accede to American demands; otherwise, the US threatened, Washington would abandon the diplomatic route altogether. The Western press saw this ultimatum as an insult to the UN and as an attempt to minimize its role. America's total disregard for the UN was further emphasized by President George W. Bush's announcement that his country does not need to ask anyone's permission when it came to issues affecting its national security. He put this sentiment into practice with his decision to attack Iraq in spite of Security Council opposition. Bush's decision to go to war was severely criticized by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said war on Iraq without Security Council authorization "will not be in conformity with the (UN) Charter," a cornerstone of international law. By attacking Iraq, therefore, the United States committed a "material breach" of the UN Charter, and - according to Chapter 7 of that document - must be punished. But this, of course, assumes that the UN can impose sanctions on the USA. Nevertheless, international law experts called for punishing the US for attacking Iraq illegally. One of Spain's leading and most high profile judges questioned Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's interpretation of the war as being legal. Spanish High Court Judge Baltazar Garzon - who achieved international fame when he indicted former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and has more recently waged a relentless campaign against the Basque separatist group ETA - said the war on Iraq was "utterly illegal, despite all the justifications put forward by the Spanish, British, and US governments." He said the war was "an illegal war, a criminal war," while noting that the US was "indifferent" to international law. Judge Garzon went on to say that, "An illegal action runs from its conception to its final execution and therefore allowing the use of infrastructure, such as air bases in Spain, is illegal." As a matter of fact, the Bush administration had already made a habit of treating the international community disrespectfully. The Americans refused to become party to the agreement setting up the ICC because the US could not bear the idea of its officials being hauled before a foreign judge. America has put itself above international law, and is consequently playing a clear role in weakening the authority of the UN and the credibility of international law. Washington's decision to renege on the Kyoto Protocol on global warming was another example of its selfish pursuit of its own interests at the expense of the international community. These examples - among many others - reflect a dangerous and destructive American tendency to undermine the very bases of international coexistence and civilizational intercourse - which flies in the face of America's professed espousal of globalization. It appears that the only acceptable concept of globalization where Washington is concerned is Americanization - i.e., imposing America's will on the rest of the world through threats, pressure and coercion, and rejection of the concept of mutual cooperation. In fact, America's tendency to ignore the interests of its friends and allies was the reason behind the rebellion led by France (and strongly supported by Germany, Russia, and China) against American policies in the Security Council. These countries deeply resent Washington's attempts to subordinate them and treat them as mere instruments for American policies that sometimes seem neither rational nor objective. This behavior on the part of the Americans threatens to undermine one of the basic principles of international cooperation as the UN has represented it for more than 50 years. The concept of democracy in foreign relations, and the idea of pluralism in international affairs, is coming under threat by the United States. America's dictatorial tendency to impose its policies and its interests on others could never be accepted by democratic nations - like Germany and France - that respect the opinions of their citizens and seek to assert their national identities on the worldstage. Of all the new policies introduced by the Bush administration that threaten to undermine the authority of the UN, none are more dangerous than those grouped under what is called the "Bush Doctrine" or his "National Security Strategy." Under this doctrine, the United States gives itself the right - in the context of its "war on terror" and in the interests of its own national security - to wage pre-emptive wars against any group or country that Washington thinks might at some time in future pose a threat to US national security - without the need for UN authorization. This new doctrine - which is currently finding expression in Iraq - turns the United States into an aggressor according to international law. In fact, the principle of pre-emption espoused by the Bush administration is a variant of the idea of "abortive war" enshrined in the Israeli theory of national security by which the Jewish state gives itself the right to attack any country it thinks poses a threat to its security. The application of Bush's doctrine of pre-emption will undoubtedly lead to the re-emergence of the law of the jungle in international affairs. The adoption of the language of force in settling international disputes constitutes a body blow to the UN Charter, which calls for the use of peaceful means to settle disputes. Should the Bush administration continue on its course of undermining and ignoring the UN and using force without UN authorization, there is no doubt that the organization faces a bleak future in the aftermath of the Iraq war - unless countries opposed to the current war manage to create an alliance strong enough to confront American policies. Only thus can the idea of the UN as a framework for international peace and security be preserved. Abdelmalik Salman is an Egyptian political analyst who heads the Studies and Research Department at the Bahrain daily Akhbar al-Khaleej (abdelmaliksalman@hotmail.com). He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/ * US-LED WAR VIOLATES UN CHARTER: FORMER UN CHIEF LONDON, March 30 (AFP) - The United States and Britain violated the United Nations charter by launching war against Iraq without a second UN resolution, the organisation's former secretary general, Boutros Boutros Ghali, said on Sunday. "This intervention is certainly a violation of the UN charter," Boutros Ghali told BBC television. He said Resolution 1441 on Iraq, passed by the UN Security Council last November, was "quite clear -- they need a second resolution". He warned that the Iraq conflict threatened to fuel Islamic extremism. "What is dangerous is that this war is reinforcing the position of the fundamentalist in the Arab world," he said. "This war corresponds to the dialectic of the fundamentalists, who say there is a crusade against the Islamic world." The priority for the international community now was to "know what ought to be done so that this war ... will not (cause) destablisation in other countries in the region" and prepare for post-war reconstruction, he said. Boutros Ghali, who is Egyptian, was secretary general of the United Nations from 1992 to 1996. His re-election to a second five-year term was vetoed by the United States. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/apr/01/040103539.html * U.N. EXPERT URGES MONITORS FOR IRAQ by Jonathan Fowler Las Vegas Sun, 1st April GENEVA (AP): The United Nations should send human rights monitors to Iraq as soon as the security situation allows it, a U.N. expert said Tuesday. "I would go tomorrow if the circumstances allowed it," Andreas Mavrommatis told a session of the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission. "There is a lot to be gained by a U.N. presence in Iraq in the future in the field of human rights." The Cypriot specialist presented a 15-page report on the rights situation in Iraq during the commission's annual six-week session. The report was prepared before the start of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, and makes no direct reference to the conflict. But in his speech, Mavrommatis urged both sides to "scrupulously observe international humanitarian law and shield the civilian population from the consequences of war." The office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has appealed for $1.6 million to send observers to Iraq "when conditions permit," spokesman Jose Diaz said Tuesday. Mavrommatis said his recommendations were similar to those in earlier reports. Last year, he urged Iraq to adopt a moratorium on executions, reduce the number of crimes that carry the death penalty and improve prison conditions. He also criticized discrimination against Iraq's Kurds and Shiite Muslims, who have suffered under Saddam Hussein's rule. Cooperation with Iraq was "a slow, painstaking process," Mavrommatis said. Baghdad's replies to his questions and recommendations "are at times incomplete and unsatisfactory." Mavrommatis was appointed in 1999 and visited the country for the first time in February 2002 at the invitation of Iraqi authorities. Iraqi Ambassador Samir al-Nima said the report was influenced by "unwarranted and unjustified political considerations," and failed to address violations by coalition forces attacking Iraq. He said Baghdad had cooperated properly but Mavrommatis had relied too heavily on "information from sources hostile to Iraq." Mavrommatis told reporters later that he was "steering clear of politics," saying he deplored both civilian deaths and suicide attacks on coalition forces. Mavrommatis said he had taken a less confrontational approach than other U.N. experts in an attempt to enlist the cooperation of the Iraqi authorities. He said that approach led to the general amnesty last October that freed 25,000 Iraqi inmates, after he had urged the step as a way to ease appalling prison conditions. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=834&ncid=731&e=10&u=/nm/200 30402/wl_india_nm/india_110483 * U.N. PINPOINTS $1 BILLION IN FOOD, MEDICINE FOR IRAQ by Evelyn Leopold Yahoo, 2nd April UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations said on Tuesday it had identified over $1 billion worth of food and medical supplies that could reach Iraq by mid-May but said civilians and not the military would distribute them. The goods were purchased by Iraq from its oil revenues before the war began and administered by the United Nations under the oil-for-food program. The world body is under a 45-day time line to see which supplies are able to begin shipping the goods before May 12. The Security Council last Friday authorized U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to review over the next 45 days some $13 million worth of contracts already approved under the program to see which ones could be delivered quickly to Iraq. But the complicated program, which has more money in an escrow account than any emergency appeal could hope to raise or the U.S. and British governments have offered, includes many contracts that are not suited for emergency needs. Farid Zarif, a director for the program, told a news conference his staff had $2.9 billion in uncommitted funds. Of these, the $1 billion in humanitarian contracts includes goods already in transit and others that could be delivered quickly. "We're working very much against the clock to make sure we are able to contact suppliers and see how many of them can deliver within this very short time period that we've been given," said Phillip Ward, a World Food Program official. The oil-for-food program was set up in late 1996 to ease the impact of sanctions imposed on Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Some 60 percent of the Iraqi population is totally dependent on rations under the plan. The United Nations approves contracts for food, medicine and a host of civilian goods ordered by Iraq. Some 13 percent of the goods are earmarked for Kurdish provinces where the United Nations, rather than Baghdad, ran the program. But oil revenues have now stopped, although some oil is still reaching the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan from fields in Kirkuk. But Zarif said no firms were lifting the oil, mainly because they are unable to make contract with the Iraqi State Oil Co., which drew up the contracts. Ward stressed that U.N. relief agencies expected to tap into an Iraqi network of 45,000 distribution centers, if they remain intact, rather than the U.S. and British military. "Any use of military assets is always very much a last resort," Ward told the news conference. Many major aid agencies, poised to help with emergency supplies, have appealed to the United States to make sure distribution is done by civilians, preferably under a U.N. umbrella, in a dispute that has reached the Pentagon. Secretary of State Colin Powell last week wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making clear that civilian authorities, not the Pentagon, would be in charge of American humanitarian assistance, U.S. officials said. Teams of U.N. security experts have been waiting in Kuwait before crossing into southern Iraqi to make a security assessment. A team was expected to enter Iraq this week. However, large-scale civilian aid will not begin until the fighting subsides. Most of the goods that has reached people in the needy southern area has been distributed by the troops. In addition to the oil-for-food program, U.N. agencies have appealed for $2.2 billion in emergency funds. The World Food Program has asked for $1.3 billion from donor governments, mainly so food can be purchased in the region quickly. The appeal is causing some confusion since the agencies do not know precisely how much of their needs may be covered under the oil-for-food program. The funds from the appeal will also be used for any refugee needs, such as tents, as well as water purification and other emergency needs not covered under the oil for food program, according to Oliver Ulrich of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. U.N. officials estimate that most Iraqis have stored enough food to last through the end of April. _______________________________________________ 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