[casi] News, 26/03-02/04/03 (13)

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

News, 26/03-02/04/03 (13)

THE COURT OF HULAGU KHAN

*  Key Rumsfeld Adviser Perle Resigns
*  Resignation Letter from Yet Another U.S. Diplomat
*  Offense and Defense: The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon
*  Emperor George

THE FAITHFUL FRIEND

*  History will prove us right
*  Cook: bring our lads home
*  Blair holds key to reuniting EU after war: Belgian FM
*  Straw's Iraq speech: Full text


THE COURT OF HULAGU KHAN

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030328_148.html

*  KEY RUMSFELD ADVISER PERLE RESIGNS
ABC News, 28th March

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Pentagon official Richard Perle resigned Thursday
as chairman of a group that advises Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on policy
issues, saying he did not want a controversy over his business dealings to
distract from Rumsfeld's management of the war in Iraq.

In a brief statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and said he was
grateful that the former Reagan administration official had agreed to remain
a board member. Rumsfeld made no reference to a reason for Perle giving up
the chairmanship.

Perle said he was stepping aside voluntarily.

"I have seen controversies like that before and I know that this one will
inevitably distract from the urgent challenge in which you are now engaged,"
Perle wrote in a resignation letter.

In the letter, made public by the Pentagon and dated March 26, Perle assured
Rumsfeld that he had abided by rules applying to members of the Defense
Policy Board. He has been chairman of the board since July 2001. The
position is unpaid but is subject to government ethics rules that prohibit
using public office for private gain.

The controversy centers on Perle's deal with bankrupt Global Crossing Ltd.
to win government approval of its purchase by a joint venture of two Asian
firms. Perle would receive $725,000 for his work, including $600,000 if the
government approves the deal, according to lawyers and others involved in
the bankruptcy case.

The deal is under review by a government group that includes representatives
from the Defense Department.

Perle denied any wrongdoing.

"The guiding principle here is that you do not give advice in the Defense
Policy Board on any particular matter in which you have an interest," Perle
said in a recent interview. "And I don't do that. I haven't done that."

Perle wrote in his resignation letter that he could not "quickly or easily
quell criticism" in the Global Crossing controversy, adding that it was
"based on errors of fact."

Nonetheless, he wrote, "I would not wish to cause even a moment's
distraction from" the war effort.

Perle said he was advising Global Crossing that he would not accept any
compensation from the pending sale and that any fee for his past services
would be donated to the families of American forces killed or injured in
Iraq.

In his written statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service.

"He has been an excellent chairman and has led the Defense Policy Board
during an important time in our history," Rumsfeld said. "I should add that
I have known Richard Perle for many years and know him to be a man of
integrity and honor."

Perle was an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan
administration.

 He became involved in another controversy stemming from an article in The
New Yorker that said he had lunch in January with Saudi-born businessman
Adnan Khashoggi and a Saudi industrialist.

The industrialist, Harb Saleh Zuhair, was interested in investing in a
venture capital firm, Trireme Partners, of which Perle is a managing
partner. Nothing ever came of the lunch in Marseilles; no investment was
made. But the New Yorker story, written by Seymour M. Hersh, suggested that
Perle, a longtime critic of the Saudi regime, was inappropriately mixing
business and politics.

Perle called the report preposterous and "monstrous."

Perle, 61, was so strongly opposed to nuclear arms control agreements with
the former Soviet Union during his days in the Reagan administration that he
became known as "the Prince of Darkness."


http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0303/S00489.htm

*  RESIGNATION LETTER FROM YET ANOTHER U.S. DIPLOMAT
Scoop, New Zealand, March 2003, 10:54 am
Source... t r u t h o u t . o r g, Saturday 29 March 2003

Truthout.org's Editor's Note: The following is a copy of Mary Wright's
letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wright was most
recently the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia. She helped open the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January
2002. Yet another diplomat has quit over Iraq.

U.S. Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
March 19, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell
US Department of State
Washington, DC 20521

Dear Secretary Powell:

When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open
the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first
political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be
writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US
policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I
have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in
our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and
Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department's Award for Heroism
as Charge d'Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26
years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction
projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I
attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.

This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I
cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I
disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself.
I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more
dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally
to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign
from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty
years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I
want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.

‹ I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq

I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the
Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United
Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now
will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done
incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally
support the international community's demand that Saddam's regime destroy
weapons of mass destruction.

However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC
agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we
have created deep chasms in the international community and in important
international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies
and created ill will in much of the world.

Countries of the world supported America's action in Afghanistan as a
response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then,
America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our
policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as
arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate
Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the
youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose
of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime
in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as
we did ten years ago.

I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and
Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will
result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans.
Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for
America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed
and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction
is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate,
strong and justified international response. There will be no question of
action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a
"preemptive attack" against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack
policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and
groups to "preemptively attack" America and American citizens.

The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that
is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should
not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give
moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must
reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in
Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic "holy soil" of Saudi Arabia will
be an anti American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains
and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government
and American citizens.

Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in
Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope
General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they
will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without
destruction of the Iraqi peoples' homes and livelihood. I strongly urge the
Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us
to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and
this is not yet the time for military action.

‹ I disagree with the Administration's lack of effort in resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use
its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As
Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations
kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the
Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our
considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities
and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the
Administration's long-needed "Roadmap for Peace" will have the human
resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward
peace.

‹ I disagree with the Administration's lack of policy on North Korea

Additionally, I cannot support the Administration's position on North Korea.
With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too
great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration's lack of substantive
discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized
security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is
dangerous for us to continue to neglect.

‹ I disagree with the Administration's policies on Unnecessary Curtailment
of Rights in America

Further, I cannot support the Administration's unnecessary curtailment of
civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of
ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of
America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections
for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without
access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which
our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration's secrecy in
the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against
the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the
protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.

Resignation

I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most
isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve
America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration
and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end
my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration's
policies.

Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have
made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the
Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your
extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and
I wish you and our colleagues well.

Very Respectfully,

Mary A. Wright, FO-01
Deputy Chief of Mission
US Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia


http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030407fa_fact1

*  OFFENSE AND DEFENSE: THE BATTLE BETWEEN DONALD RUMSFELD AND THE PENTAGON
by Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker, 7th April

As the ground campaign against Saddam Hussein faltered last week, with
attenuated supply lines and a lack of immediate reinforcements, there was
anger in the Pentagon. Several senior war planners complained to me in
interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of
civilian advisers, who had been chiefly responsible for persuading President
Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war's
operational details. Rumsfeld's team took over crucial aspects of the
day-to-day logistical planning-traditionally, an area in which the uniformed
military excels-and Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon
planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"He thought he knew better," one senior planner said. "He was the
decision-maker at every turn."

On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his
deputies were presented with operational plans-the Iraqi assault was
designated Plan 1003-he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply
reduced. Rumsfeld's faith in precision bombing and his insistence on
streamlined military operations has had profound consequences for the
ability of the armed forces to fight effectively overseas. "They've got no
resources," a former high-level intelligence official said. "He was so
focussed on proving his point-that the Iraqis were going to fall apart."

The critical moment, one planner said, came last fall, during the buildup
for the war, when Rumsfeld decided that he would no longer be guided by the
Pentagon's most sophisticated war-planning document, the TPFDL-time-phased
forces-deployment list-which is known to planning officers as the tip-fiddle
(tip-fid, for short). A TPFDL is a voluminous document describing the
inventory of forces that are to be sent into battle, the sequence of their
deployment, and the deployment of logistical support.

"It's the complete applecart, with many pieces," Roger J Spiller, the George
C. Marshall Professor of military history at the U.S. Command and General
Staff College, said. "Everybody trains and plans on it. It's constantly in
motion and always adjusted at the last minute. It's an embedded piece of the
bureaucratic and operational culture."

A retired Air Force strategic planner remarked, "This is what we do best-go
from A to B-and the tip-fiddle is where you start. It's how you put together
a plan for moving into the theatre."

Another former planner said, "Once you turn on the tip-fid, everything moves
in an orderly fashion." A former intelligence officer added, "When you kill
the tip-fiddle, you kill centralized military planning. The military is not
like a corporation that can be streamlined. It is the most inefficient
machine known to man. It's the redundancy that saves lives."

The TPFDL for the war in Iraq ran to forty or more computer-generated
spreadsheets, dealing with everything from weapons to toilet paper. When it
was initially presented to Rumsfeld last year for his approval, it called
for the involvement of a wide range of forces from the different armed
services, including four or more Army divisions.

Rumsfeld rejected the package, because it was "too big," the Pentagon
planner said. He insisted that a smaller, faster-moving attack force,
combined with overwhelming air power, would suffice. Rumsfeld further
stunned the Joint Staff by insisting that he would control the timing and
flow of Army and Marine troops to the combat zone. Such decisions are known
in the military as R.F.F.s-requests for forces. He, and not the generals,
would decide which unit would go when and where. The TPFDL called for the
shipment in advance, by sea, of hundreds of tanks and other heavy
vehicles-enough for three or four divisions. Rumsfeld ignored this advice.
Instead, he relied on the heavy equipment that was already in Kuwait enough
for just one full combat division. The 3rd Infantry Division, from Fort
Stewart, Georgia, the only mechanized Army division that was active inside
Iraq last week, thus arrived in the Gulf without its own equipment.

"Those guys are driving around in tanks that were pre-positioned. Their
tanks are sitting in Fort Stewart," the planner said. "To get more forces
there we have to float them. We can't fly our forces in, because there's
nothing for them to drive. Over the past six months, you could have floated
everything in ninety days-enough for four or more divisions." The planner
added, "This is the mess Rumsfeld put himself in, because he didn't want a
heavy footprint on the ground."

Plan 1003 was repeatedly updated and presented to Rumsfeld, and each time,
according to the planner, Rumsfeld said, "'You've got too much ground
force-go back and do it again.'" In the planner's view, Rumsfeld had two
goals: to demonstrate the efficacy of precision bombing and to "do the war
on the cheap." Rumsfeld and his two main deputies for war planning, Paul
Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, "were so enamored of 'shock and awe' that
victory seemed assured," the planner said. "They believed that the weather
would always be clear, that the enemy would expose itself, and so precision
bombings would always work." (Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for
comment.)

Rumsfeld's personal contempt for many of the senior generals and admirals
who were promoted to top jobs during the Clinton Administration is widely
known. He was especially critical of the Army, with its insistence on
maintaining costly mechanized divisions. In his off-the-cuff memoranda, or
"snowflakes," as they're called in the Pentagon, he chafed about generals
having "the slows"-a reference to Lincoln's characterization of General
George McClellan. "In those conditions-an atmosphere of derision and
challenge-the senior officers do not offer their best advice," a
high-ranking general who served for more than a year under Rumsfeld said.
One witness to a meeting recalled Rumsfeld confronting General Eric
Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, in front of many junior officers. "He was
looking at the Chief and waving his hand," the witness said, "saying, 'Are
you getting this yet? Are you getting this yet?'"

Gradually, Rumsfeld succeeded in replacing those officers in senior Joint
Staff positions who challenged his view. "All the Joint Staff people now are
handpicked, and churn out products to make the Secretary of Defense happy,"
the planner said. "They don't make military judgments-they just respond to
his snowflakes."

In the months leading up to the war, a split developed inside the military,
with the planners and their immediate superiors warning that the war plan
was dangerously thin on troops and matériel, and the top generals-including
General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, and Air Force
General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-supporting
Rumsfeld. After Turkey's parliament astonished the war planners in early
March by denying the United States permission to land the 4th Infantry
Division in Turkey, Franks initially argued that the war ought to be delayed
until the troops could be brought in by another route, a former intelligence
official said. "Rummy overruled him."

Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks
for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former
senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who "will do what
he's told." A former intelligence official asked, "Why didn't he go to the
President?" A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to
prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, "When you go in
to talk to him, you've got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and
walk out. Otherwise, he'll walk over you."

In early February, according to a senior Pentagon official, Rumsfeld
appeared at the Army Commanders' Conference, a biannual business and social
gathering of all the four-star generals. Rumsfeld was invited to join the
generals for dinner and make a speech. All went well, the official told me,
until Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session, was asked about his
personal involvement in the deployment of combat units, in some cases with
only five or six days' notice. To the astonishment and anger of the
generals, Rumsfeld denied responsibility. "He said, 'I wasn't involved,'"
the official said. "'It was the Joint Staff.'"

"We thought it would be fence-mending, but it was a disaster," the official
said of the dinner. "Everybody knew he was looking at these deployment
orders. And for him to blame it on the Joint Staff-" The official hesitated
a moment, and then said, "It's all about Rummy and the truth."

According to a dozen or so military men I spoke to, Rumsfeld simply failed
to anticipate the consequences of protracted warfare. He put Army and Marine
units in the field with few reserves and an insufficient number of tanks and
other armored vehicles. (The military men say that the vehicles that they do
have have been pushed too far and are malfunctioning.) Supply
lines-inevitably, they say-have become overextended and vulnerable to
attack, creating shortages of fuel, water, and ammunition. Pentagon officers
spoke contemptuously of the Administration's optimistic press briefings.

"It's a stalemate now," the former intelligence official told me. "It's
going to remain one only if we can maintain our supply lines. The carriers
are going to run out of JDAMs"-the satellite guided bombs that have been
striking targets in Baghdad and elsewhere with extraordinary accuracy. Much
of the supply of Tomahawk guided missiles has been expended.

"The Marines are worried as hell," the former intelligence official went on.
"They're all committed, with no reserves, and they've never run the
LAVs"-light armored vehicles-"as long and as hard" as they have in Iraq.
There are serious maintenance problems as well. "The only hope is that they
can hold out until reinforcements come."

The 4th Infantry Division-the Army's most modern mechanized division-whose
equipment spent weeks waiting in the Mediterranean before being diverted to
the overtaxed American port in Kuwait, is not expected to be operational
until the end of April. The 1st Cavalry Division, in Texas, is ready to ship
out, the planner said, but by sea it will take twenty-three days to reach
Kuwait. "All we have now is front-line positions," the former intelligence
official told me. "Everything else is missing."

Last week, plans for an assault on Baghdad had stalled, and the six
Republican Guard divisions expected to provide the main Iraqi defense had
yet to have a significant engagement with American or British soldiers. The
shortages forced Central Command to "run around looking for supplies," the
former intelligence official said. The immediate goal, he added, was for the
Army and Marine forces "to hold tight and hope that the Republican Guard
divisions get chewed up" by bombing. The planner agreed, saying, "The only
way out now is back, and to hope for some kind of a miracle-that the
Republican Guards commit themselves," and thus become vulnerable to American
air strikes.

"Hope," a retired four-star general subsequently told me, "is not a course
of action." Last Thursday, the Army's senior ground commander, Lieutenant
General William S. Wallace, said to reporters, "The enemy we're fighting is
different from the one we war-gamed against." (One senior Administration
official commented to me, speaking of the Iraqis, "They're not scared. Ain't
it something? They're not scared.")

At a press conference the next day, Rumsfeld and Myers were asked about
Wallace's comments, and defended the war plan-Myers called it "brilliant"
and "on track." They pointed out that the war was only a little more than a
week old.

Scott Ritter, the former marine and United Nations weapons inspector, who
has warned for months that the American "shock and awe" strategy would not
work, noted that much of the bombing has had little effect or has been
counterproductive. For example, the bombing of Saddam's palaces has freed up
a brigade of special guards who had been assigned to protect them, and who
have now been sent home to await further deployment. "Every one of their
homes-and they are scattered throughout Baghdad-is stacked with ammunition
and supplies," Ritter told me.

"This is tragic," one senior planner said bitterly. "American lives are
being lost." The former intelligence official told me, "They all said, 'We
can do it with air power.' They believed their own propaganda." The
high-ranking former general described Rumsfeld's approach to the Joint Staff
war planning as "McNamara-like intimidation by intervention of a small
cell"-a reference to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and his aides,
who were known for their challenges to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the
Vietnam War. The former high-ranking general compared the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to the Stepford wives. "They've abrogated their responsibility."

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of last week was the failure of the
Shiite factions in southern Iraq to support the American and British
invasion. Various branches of the Al Dawa faction, which operate
underground, have been carrying out acts of terrorism against the Iraqi
regime since the nineteen-eighties. But Al Dawa has also been hostile to
American interests. Some in American intelligence have implicated the group
in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives
of two hundred and forty-one marines. Nevertheless, in the months before the
war the Bush Administration courted Al Dawa by including it among the
opposition groups that would control postwar Iraq.

"Dawa is one group that could kill Saddam," a former American intelligence
official told me. "They hate Saddam because he suppressed the Shiites. They
exist to kill Saddam." He said that their apparent decision to stand with
the Iraqi regime now was a "disaster" for us. "They're like hard-core
Vietcong."

There were reports last week that Iraqi exiles, including fervent Shiites,
were crossing into Iraq by car and bus from Jordan and Syria to get into the
fight on the side of the Iraqi government. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A.
Middle East operative, told me in a telephone call from Jordan, "Everybody
wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not
Saddam. They've been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If
we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands,
they're still winning. It's a jihad, and it's a good thing to die. This is
no longer a secular war."

There were press reports of mujahideen arriving from Pakistan, Afghanistan,
and Algeria for "martyrdom operations." There had been an expectation before
the war that Iran, Iraq's old enemy, would side with the United States in
this fight. One Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, led by
Ahmed Chalabi, has been in regular contact with the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, an umbrella organization for Shiite
groups who oppose Saddam. The organization is based in Iran and has close
ties to Iranian intelligence. The Chalabi group set up an office last year
in Tehran, with the approval of Chalabi's supporters in the Pentagon, who
include Rumsfeld, his deputies Wolfowitz and Feith, and Richard Perle, the
former chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Chalabi has repeatedly
predicted that the Tehran government would provide support, including men
and arms, if an American invasion of Iraq took place.

Last week, however, this seemed unlikely. In a press conference on Friday,
Rumsfeld warned Iranian militants against interfering with American forces
and accused Syria of sending military equipment to the Iraqis. A Middle East
businessman who has long-standing ties in Jordan and Syria-and whose
information I have always found reliable-told me that the religious
government in Tehran "is now backing Iraq in the war. There isn't any Arab
fighting group on the ground in Iraq who is with the United States," he
said.

There is also evidence that Turkey has been playing both sides. Turkey and
Syria, who traditionally have not had close relations, recently agreed to
strengthen their ties, the businessman told me, and early this year Syria
sent Major General Ghazi Kanaan, its longtime strongman and power broker in
Lebanon, to Turkey. The two nations have begun to share intelligence and to
meet, along with Iranian officials, to discuss border issues, in case an
independent Kurdistan emerges from the Iraq war. A former U.S. intelligence
officer put it this way: "The Syrians are coördinating with the Turks to
screw us in the north-to cause us problems." He added, "Syria and the
Iranians agreed that they could not let an American occupation of Iraq
stand."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,927754,00.html

*  EMPEROR GEORGE
by Jonathan Freedland
The Guardian, 2nd April

This war is un-American. That's an unlikely word to use, I know: it has an
unhappy provenance, associated forever with the McCarthyite hunt for reds
under the beds, purging anyone suspected of "un-American activities".
Besides, for many outside the US, the problem with this war is not that it's
un-American - but all too American.

But that does an injustice to the US and its history. It assumes that the
Bush administration represents all America, at all times, when in fact the
opposite is true. For this administration, and this war, are not typical of
the US. On the contrary, on almost every measure, they are exceptions to the
American rule.

The US was, after all, a country founded in a rebellion against imperialism.
Born in a war against a hated colonial oppressor, in the form of George III,
it still sees itself as the instinctive friend of all who struggle to kick
out a foreign occupier - and the last nation on earth to play the role of
outside ruler.

Not for it the Greek, Roman or British path. For most of the last century,
the US steered well clear of the institutions of formal empire (the
Philipines was a lamentable exception). Responsibility was thrust upon it
after 1945 in Germany and Japan. But as a matter of deliberate intent,
America sought neither viceroys ruling over faraway lands nor a world map
coloured with the stars and stripes. Influence, yes; puppets and proxies,
yes. But formal imperial rule, never.

Until now. George Bush has cast off the restraint which held back America's
42 previous presidents - including his father. Now he is seeking, as an
unashamed objective, to get into the empire business, aiming to rule a
post-Saddam Iraq directly through an American governor-general, the retired
soldier Jay Garner. As the Guardian reported yesterday, Washington's plan
for Baghdad consists of 23 ministries - each one to be headed by an
American. This is a form of foreign rule so direct we have not seen its like
since the last days of the British empire. It represents a break with
everything America has long believed in.

This is not to pretend that there is a single American ideal, still less a
single US foreign policy, maintained unbroken since 1776. There are,
instead, competing traditions, each able to trace its lineage to the
founding of the republic. But what's striking is that George Bush's war on
Iraq is at odds with every single one of them. Perhaps best known is Thomas
Jefferson's call for an America which would not only refuse to rule over
other nations, it would avoid meddling in their affairs altogether. He
wanted no "entangling alliances". If America wished to export its brand of
liberty, it should do it not through force but by the simple power of its
own example. John Quincy Adams (before Bush, the only son of a president to
become president), put it best when he declared that America "goes not
abroad in search of monsters to destroy". Could there be a better
description of Washington's pre emptive pursuit of Saddam Hussein?

The Jeffersonian tradition is not the only one to be broken by Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Last year the historian Walter Russell Mead identified three
other schools of US foreign policy. Looking at them now, it's clear that all
are equally incompatible with this war.

Those Mead calls Hamiltonians are keen on maintaining an international
system and preserving a balance of power - that means acknowledging equals
in the world, rather than seeking solo, hegemonic domination. So Bush, whose
national security strategy last year explicitly forbade the emergence of an
equal to the US, is no follower of Alexander Hamilton. Jacksonians,
meanwhile, have always defined America's interests narrowly: they would see
no logic in travelling halfway across the world to invade a country that
poses no immediate, direct threat to the US. So Bush has defied Andrew
Jackson. Woodrow Wilson liked the idea of the US spreading democracy and
rights across the globe; banishing Saddam and freeing the people of Iraq
might have appealed to him. But he was the father of the League of Nations
and would have been distressed by Washington's disregard for the UN and its
lack of international backing for this war.

Which brings us to a key un-American activity by this Bush administration.
Today's Washington has not only broken from the different strands of wisdom
which guided the US since its birth, but also from the model that shaped
American foreign policy since 1945. It's easy to forget this now, as US
politicians and commentators queue up to denounce international institutions
as French-dominated, limp-wristed, euro-faggot bodies barely worth the
candle, but those bodies were almost all American inventions. Whether it was
Nato, the global financial architecture designed at Bretton Woods or the UN
itself, multilateralism was, at least in part, America's gift to the world.
Every president from Roosevelt to Bush Senior honoured those creations.
Seeking to change them in order to adapt to the 21st century is wholly
legitimate; but drowning them in derision is to trash an American idea.

The very notion of unprovoked, uninvited, long-term and country-wide
invasion is pretty un-American, too. When it thinks of itself, the US is a
firm believer in state sovereignty, refusing any innovation which might curb
its jurisdiction over its own affairs. Hence its opposition to the new
international criminal court or indeed any international treaties which
might clip its wings. Yet the sovereignty of the state of Iraq has been
cheerfully violated by the US invasion. That can be defended - the scholar
and former Clinton official Philip Bobbitt says sovereignty is "forfeited"
by regimes which choke their own peoples - but it is, at the very least, a
contradiction. The US, which holds sovereignty sacred for itself, is engaged
in a war which ignores it for others.

The result is a sight which can look bizarre for those who have spent much
time in the US. Americans who, back home, resent even the most trivial state
meddling in their own affairs are determined to run the lives of a people on
the other side of the planet. In New Hampshire car number plates bear the
legend, Live Free or Die; a state motto is Don't Tread on Me. If a
"government bureaucrat" comes near, even to perform what would be considered
a routine task in Britain, they are liable to get an earful about the
tyranny of Washington, DC. Yet Americans - whose passion for liberty is so
great they talk seriously about keeping guns in case they ever need to fight
their own government - assume Iraqis will welcome military rule by a foreign
power.

Talk like this is not that comfortable in America just now; you'd be
denounced fairly swiftly as a Saddam apologist or a traitor. The limits of
acceptable discussion have narrowed sharply, just as civil liberties have
taken a hammering as part of the post-9/11 war on terror. You might fall
foul of the Patriot Act, or be denounced for insufficient love of country.
There is something McCarthyite about the atmosphere which has spawned this
war, making Democrats too fearful to be an opposition worthy of the name and
closing down national debate. And things don't get much more un-American
than that.


THE FAITHFUL FRIEND

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,180006,00.html?

*  HISTORY WILL PROVE US RIGHT
by Tony Blair
Straits Times, 29th March

I RECOGNISE that the military action to disarm Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction has aroused strong feelings in
the region. So I am grateful for this opportunity to explain why we are
reluctantly undertaking this action and our goals for the future.

We had hoped that military action could be avoided. There has been no rush
to conflict. Indeed, the international community has waited 12 years for Mr
Saddam to rid himself voluntarily of his weapons of mass destruction as he
promised in 1991.

The United Nations demanded Mr Saddam disarm because of his record of
reckless aggression against neighbouring countries and because, uniquely in
modern times, he has used such weapons against both his own people and his
neighbours.

After more than a decade of his deceit and delay, the UN gave him a 'final
opportunity' to disarm peacefully through Security Council Resolution 1441
in November. Once again he refused.

The choice the international community then faced was to disarm Mr Saddam by
force and oust his regime, or to back down and to leave him hugely
strengthened to attack or intimidate his neighbours and to pass on these
weapons to extremist terrorist groups. I believe that history will judge
that we made the right choice.

Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people but with Mr Saddam, his sons and
his barbarous regime which has brought misery and terror to their country. I
recognise that the Iraqi people have been the biggest victims of his rule.
This is not a war of conquest but of liberation.

So we are doing all that is humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties
and finish this campaign quickly. Military conflict, sadly, always leads to
the loss of civilian lives. Mistakes may be made. But the missile attacks on
Baghdad witnessed on TV have shown the effort taken to target Mr Saddam's
regime and apparatus of power and oppression.

We are also working hard to bring immediate humanitarian aid to the Iraqi
people. Britain has so far pledged ï¿1Ž2120 million (S$335 million) in
assistance in addition to the ï¿1Ž2100 million we have given since 1991. We
will also mobilise the international community to provide emergency
humanitarian relief.

But our commitment does not end there. We are committed to working with the
UN and the whole international community to help the people of Iraq repair
the damage and destruction brought to their country by a quarter of a
century of Mr Saddam's tyranny and corruption.

Iraq is a country with a rich history and culture and massive potential.
Before Mr Saddam's shadow fell on Iraq, its economy was vibrant and people
prosperous. But his aggression, repression and misrule has reduced the
country to one in which 60 per cent of its population are dependent on food
aid.

Mr Saddam could have had sanctions lifted at any time by meeting his
disarmament obligations. Instead, he has deliberately exploited sanctions to
cause maximum misery to the Iraqi people.

Iraq's people deserve better than this. And it has the rich natural
resources to deliver a better future for them. United States President
George W. Bush, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and I have pledged
Iraq's oil will be placed in a UN trust fund to benefit the people of Iraq
and renew a once great nation. We will work towards lifting UN sanctions as
soon as Iraq meets its obligations.

I want all Iraqis - Arab, Assyrian, Kurd, Turkoman, Sunni, Shi'ite,
Christian and all other groups - to share in the fruits of this new,
prosperous Iraq, united within its current borders. An Iraq free from
tyranny, fear and repression, where thousands each year are no longer forced
from their homes or imprisoned, tortured or executed. A country where women
are not raped in front of their loved ones and where people can speak their
minds without fear of having their tongues cut out.

It is this terror and poverty which has led to four million Iraqis fleeing
their country. I know, having spoken to many Iraqi exiles, of their wish to
return home. I share their dream of seeing an Iraq truly at peace with
itself, with its neighbours, and the international community.

British military forces will withdraw from Iraq as soon as practicable. We
hope to see the early establishment of a transitional civilian
administration. We will work with the international community to build the
widest possible support for the reconstruction of Iraq and the move to
representative government.

Iraq, of course, is not our only concern in the region. I share the
widespread desire for real progress on the Middle East peace process.
President Bush and I have committed ourselves to a fair, lasting and
negotiated settlement by 2005 to provide a viable state for the Palestinian
people and security for Israel. We will strive to see this through and help
deliver the prize of peace.

It was a hard and difficult decision to take action against Mr Saddam. We
had hoped it would not be necessary. But I genuinely believe the course we
have taken will not only make the Middle East and the wider world a safer
place but, by removing him, will also be a blessing for all the Iraqi
people.


http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12790012&method=full&si
teid=106694

*  COOK: BRING OUR LADS HOME
by Robin Cook
Sunday Mirror, 30th March

This was meant to be a quick, easy war. Shortly before I resigned a Cabinet
colleague told me not to worry about the political fall-out.

The war would be finished long before polling day for the May local
elections.

I just hope those who expected a quick victory are proved right. I have
already had my fill of this bloody and unnecessary war. I want our troops
home and I want them home before more of them are killed.

It is OK for Bush to say the war will go on for as long as it takes. He is
sitting pretty in the comfort of Camp David protected by scores of security
men to keep him safe.

It is easy to show you are resolute when you are not one of the poor guys
stuck in a sandstorm peering around for snipers.

This week British forces have shown bravery under attack and determination
in atrocious weather conditions. They are too disciplined to say it, but
they must have asked each other how British forces ended up exposed by the
mistakes of US politicians.

We were told the Iraqi army would be so joyful to be attacked that it would
not fight. A close colleague of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
predicted the march to Baghdad would be "a cakewalk".

We were told Saddam's troops would surrender. A few days before the war
Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that the Republican Guard would lay
down their weapons.

We were told that the local population would welcome their invaders as
liberators. Paul Wolfowitz, No.2 at the Pentagon, promised that our tanks
would be greeted "with an explosion of joy and relief".

Personally I would like to volunteer Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz to be
"embedded" alongside the journalists with the forward units.

That would give them a chance to hear what the troops fighting for every
bridge over the Euphrates think about their promises.

The top US General, William Wallace, has let the cat out of the bag. "The
enemy we are fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed".

War is not some kind of harmless arcade game. Nobody should start a war on
the assumption that the enemy's army will co- operate. But that is exactly
what President Bush has done. And now his Marines have reached the outskirts
of Baghdad he does not seem to know what to do next.

It was not meant to be like this. By the time we got to Baghdad Saddam was
supposed to have crumpled. A few days before I resigned I was assured that
Saddam would be overthrown by his associates to save their own skins. But
they would only do it "at five minutes past midnight". It is now long past
that time and Saddam is still there. To compensate yesterday we blew up a
statue of Saddam in Basra. A statue! It is not the statue that terrifies
local people but the man himself and they know Saddam is still in control of
Baghdad.

Having marched us up this cul-de-sac, Donald Rumsfeld has now come up with a
new tactic. Instead of going into Baghdad we should sit down outside it
until Saddam surrenders. There is no more brutal form of warfare than a
siege. People go hungry. The water and power to provide the sinews of a city
snap. Children die.

You can catch a glimpse of what would happen in Baghdad under siege by
looking at Basra. Its residents have endured several days of summer heat
without water.

In desperation they have been drinking water from the river into which the
sewage empties. Those conditions are ripe for cholera.

Last week President Bush promised that "Iraqis will see the great compassion
of the US". They certainly do not see it now. They don't see it in Baghdad.
What they see are women and children killed when missiles fall on market
places. They don't see it in Basra. What they see is the suffering of their
families with no water, precious little food, and no power to cook. There
will be a long-term legacy of hatred for the West if the Iraqi people
continue to suffer from the effects of the war we started.

Washington got it wrong over the ease with which the war could be won.
Washington could be just as wrong about the difficulty of running Iraq when
the fighting stops. Already there are real differences between Britain and
America over how to run post-war Iraq.

The dispute over the management of the port of Umm Qasr is a good example.
British officers sensibly took the view that the best and the most popular
solution would be to find local Iraqis who knew how to do it. Instead the US
have appointed an American company to take over the Iraqi asset. And guess
what? Stevedore Services of America who got the contract have a chairman
known for his donations to the Republican Party.

The argument between Blair and Bush over whether the UN will be in charge of
the reconstruction of Iraq is about more than international legitimacy. It
is about whether the Iraqi people can have confidence that their country is
being run for the benefit of themselves or for the benefit of the US.

Yesterday there was a sad and moving ceremony as the bodies of our brave
soldiers were brought back to Britain.

The Ministry of Defence announced that they were to be buried in Britain out
of consideration for their families. We must do all we can to ease the grief
of those who have lost a husband or a son, cut down in their prime.

Yet I can't help asking myself if there was not a better way to show
consideration for their families.

A better way could have been not to start a war which was never necessary
and is turning out to be badly planned.


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/

*  BLAIR HOLDS KEY TO REUNITING EU AFTER WAR: BELGIAN FM

BRUSSELS, March 30 (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair can take the
lead in rebuilding the EU's shattered unity by insisting the UN play a
central role in post-war Iraq, anti-war Belgium's foreign minister said
Sunday.

"It is clear that Europe can rebuild its unity on the issue of
reconstruction under the auspices of the United Nations," said Louis Michel,
who has one of the fiercest opponents of the US and British-led attack on
Iraq.

"Blair's position on this question, on the role of the United Nations is
fundamental and can become the key to reunification," he added, in a
televised debate.

The Iraq war has opened up unprecedented divisions in the 15-member Union,
between a British-led pro-US camp and an anti-war group led by France and
Germany, backed notably by Belgium.

Blair held a summit with US President George W. Bush last week, including
talks on reconstruction, but commentators said afterwards he failed to
convince Bush of the need for a leading UN role in post-war Iraq.

"It is clear that Blair's attitude offers the European Union an opportunity
to come together on this question," said Michel.

"It can also basically become a key for transatlantic relations, founded on
a new reality, new mutual respect and new willinness to listen," he said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2908389.stm

*  STRAW'S IRAQ SPEECH: FULL TEXT
BBC, 2nd April

The full text of a speech by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, given at a
Newspaper Society lunch, on the progress of the war in Iraq.

The relationship between government and the media is never under greater
scrutiny than at times of military conflict. The competing pressures can be
immense.

On the one hand, the government's primary responsibility is to fulfil our
military objectives, and to protect the men and women of our armed forces.

Ministers must weigh the release of information about the military campaign
against the possibility that it might benefit our opponents and endanger our
troops.

Meanwhile, the media is rightly driven by other imperatives, the need to
penetrate the fog of war, to make definitive judgements on the basis of
fragments, and to deliver "breaking news" to an eager public.

Reconciling these priorities has never been easy. But I am also clear that,
in a democracy, the benefits of hour-by-hour and day-by-day reporting from
the frontline far outweigh the disadvantages.

That has been patent since the courageous and pioneering work of William
Russell, The Times' correspondent, who reported some of the senseless
horrors of the Crimean War.

Yet even in the 20th Century, a combination of delay and censorship have
helped governments to suppress the truth.

The innocent volunteers and conscripts of 1914 knew nothing of the war of
attrition lying in wait in Flanders.

Had the public been able to see live reports from the trenches, I wonder for
how long the governments of Asquith and Lloyd George could have maintained
the war effort. Imagine the carnage of the Somme on Sky and BBC News 24.

But it is also worth speculating how much harder it might have been to
maintain the country's morale after Dunkirk, had live reports confronted the
public with the brutal reality of German tactical and military superiority.

Could the "spirit of Dunkirk", so important to national survival, have
withstood the scrutiny of 24-hour live news?

Today in Iraq the media's proximity to frontline combat is unprecedented in
the history of warfare. Never before have so many journalists been so close
to the action and with the technology to report live.

This has profound implications which have been recognised, for example, by
Richard Sambrook, the BBC's Director of News.

Writing in The Guardian yesterday [Monday], he acknowledged the need for the
media "to think harder about the issues thrown up by broadcasting live from
the frontline".

I think Mr Sambrook is right. The live coverage we are seeing raises some
important questions: about the dangers of making snap judgements on the
basis of television pictures; and about the ability of democracies to wage
war against tyrannies who both deny the truth to their people and savagely
suppress public dissent.

Some of the dilemmas were well illustrated last week in the aftermath of the
first bombing of a market in Baghdad. It is increasingly probable that this
was the result of Iraqi - not coalition - action.

Yet when the story broke and we promised an inquiry, some chose to
characterise our response as an admission of guilt.

It usually takes time for the truth to catch up with the image. In an
intensely competitive media environment however, time is a luxury which
journalists sometimes can't afford.

Let me here pay tribute to the bravery of the correspondents on the
frontline, including those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit
of the truth.

So far, exposure to close-up coverage of the conflict appears to have
increased public support. The nature and scope of the newspaper coverage is
also interesting.

Those who question the relevance of newspapers in the age of satellite
television have their answer in the first-class front-line dispatches, and
the in-depth analysis by commentators, with which they are informing their
readers.

The regional press is, I would suggest, performing with distinction. It has
combined solid, factual coverage of the conflict with a focus on local human
stories of British servicemen, women and their families.

Often an undervalued part of the media world, the regional press is a pillar
of British democracy. The service which it provides to its communities is
invaluable and I pay tribute to its excellent work.

The regional - and the national - press have a crucial role to play in
peacetime. But at times of conflict - as we all know from recent experience
- their importance is magnified.

Let me give some illustrations: Much has been made of the impetus which
images from Vietnam gave to the opponents of the war in the 1970s.

Conversely, during the Falklands' conflict the horrific pictures of the
sinking of HMS Sheffield strengthened national resolve at a critical moment.

In Kosovo, Milosevic underestimated the power of television. His drive to
assert Serb hegemony in an apparently forgotten corner of Europe was
initially a cause for public hand wringing.

Then the sickening pictures of a massacre in the village of Racak, beamed
into Europe's living rooms one Saturday afternoon, stimulated demands for
action.

As the humanitarian catastrophe was relayed live on our screens, the British
prime minister's moral case for a military response became unanswerable.

This brings me to the paradox of coverage about Iraq. For over two decades,
Saddam Hussein has caused a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and one which at
least equals Milosevic's worst excesses.

But unlike Milosevic, Saddam Hussein has conducted his reign of terror off
camera.

So unlike Kosovo, Iraq has not pricked the world's conscience through our
television screens. Saddam has waged a war, but a hidden one, against the
Iraqi people.

Amnesty International reported in October 2000 that dozens of Iraqi women
had been executed on charges of prostitution.

According to witnesses, the killings were carried out by members of a
militia created by Saddam's elder son, Uday. They beheaded the women, with
swords, in front of their homes.

A series of decrees in Iraq have established branding, amputation and
mutilation among the penalties for "criminal" offences.

In one recent incident a courageous individual who had criticised the regime
had his tongue cut out and was left to bleed to death.

There are no TV cameras in Saddam's torture chambers or in the darkest
corners of Baghdad. But the suffering and oppression are real.

Until his long reign of terror is ended, Saddam Hussein will remain a scar
on the conscience of the world, and a standing affront to the ideals which
underpin the foreign policies of the UK, the United States and our European
allies.

The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime has become necessary to eradicate the
threat from his programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction.

But, beyond that, all of those who believe in the values of democracy, human
rights and the rule of law should welcome the fact that the Iraqi regime's
days will end. There may be more setbacks for coalition troops.

As the regime enters its final stages, we will encounter fierce resistance
from those elements of the regime's apparatus of terror whose fate is tied
to their tyrannical ruler.

But we will rid the world of a brutal dictator and, in doing so, ensure that
the long-suffering Iraqi people will emerge from the shadow of dictatorship
into the light of freedom.

Today our primary focus has to be the military campaign. Our immediate
concerns are for our troops and for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi
population.

But we have given - and we are giving - a huge amount of thought to the
post-conflict situation.

The Iraqi people will then finally have the chance to build a country which
follows in the proud traditions of one of the world's greatest
civilisations.

I don't underestimate the scale of the task. Saddam has led his country to
ruin. In 1979, he presided over a country which seemed set on embracing its
destiny as one of the leaders of the Arab world.

Turning things round in a fully comprehensive way will not be the work of
months, it is likely to take years

Never before has such economic promise been squandered so swiftly.

The oil revenues, which could have funded world-class schools and hospitals,
have been wasted on deadly weapons and luxuries for the ruling elite.

By centralising control over the distribution of basic foodstuffs and
imposing measures that have devastated the economy, the regime has made 60%
of the population dependent on it for their basic needs.

Turning things round in a fully comprehensive way will not be the work of
months. It is likely to take years. The psychological scars inflicted by
Saddam will take even longer to heal.

Just as Cambodia will continue to be affected by the horrors of Year Zero
for decades to come, so atrocities such as the Anfal campaign and Halabja
against the Kurds, and the brutal suppression of the Shia, will haunt future
generations of Iraqis.

Today I want to assure all the Iraqi people that our belief in their future
prosperity is as strong as our belief in their liberation.

In the short term, our approach to humanitarian relief and reconstruction
will be founded on four key commitments, each of which will help to reunite
a country which has effectively been stolen by Saddam Hussein from its
people.

We will work with the United Nations and others on the long term
redevelopment and rehabilitation of Iraq

First: there will be emergency relief over the coming days and weeks which
will be channelled through both our armed forces and through the Department
for International Development.

The Ministry of Defence has been allocated £30m to help the armed forces
carry out their immediate obligations. DFID has earmarked £210m for
humanitarian work in the current crisis.

Of this, £115m has already been committed to help agencies such as the Red
Cross and Red Crescent movements to deliver essential supplies and services
to those Iraqis in areas freed from Saddam's control.

Second: We will ensure that the United Nations oversees the medium and
long-term international aid programme to Iraq.

Under the Oil for Food Programme, the UN has performed this role well for
the past seven years.

I am delighted that following the unanimous adoption of UNSCR 1472 last
Friday, the UN will continue to take the humanitarian lead in a post-Saddam
Iraq.

[something missing] from the major international financial institutions and
aid donors which Iraq will need as it embarks on the path to recovery.


Third: we will work with the United Nations and others on the long term
redevelopment and rehabilitation of Iraq.

We will be seeking new UN Security Council resolutions to affirm Iraq's
territorial integrity, and to endorse an appropriate post-conflict
administration.

I very much hope that following the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, the
UN will have a leading role in organising a conference to bring together
representatives from all sections of Iraq's society.

The objective of such a conference would be to place the responsibility for
decisions about Iraq's political and economic future firmly in the hands of
the Iraqi people.

And fourth: we will ensure that Iraq's oil wealth will be used for the
benefit of the Iraqi people, to develop the infrastructure and services the
country so desperately needs.

As we confront the immense task of reconstruction, there will be no shortage
of Jonahs, of those who rail at the apparent futility of efforts to bring
stability and prosperity to a country characterised by ethnic and tribal
division, and mistrust of foreign interference.

We heard similar criticisms in respect of Afghanistan. I simply ask these
critics to consider this: in Afghanistan following the downfall of the
Taleban, we have seen one of the greatest movements of people in human
history.

Over 1.5 million Afghan refugees have returned to their homeland in the past
18 months.

Today it is the Afghan people - not the Taleban - who are taking the
decisions which will affect the future of their nation.

The removal of a brutal regime has allowed those that had fled the country
in fear and despair to return in hope.

We have the same aspiration for Iraq, an aspiration which many of the four
million Iraqis who have fled the terror of Saddam Hussein's regime will
share.

Nobody should underestimate our resolve to make this aspiration a reality.




_______________________________________________
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