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, 02-09/04/03 (6) DESERTS OF ARABIA * Why are the Americans gunning for Syria? * Why non-Iraqis want to join the war * The Arabs' stake in Iraq's resistance * Saudis shun lucrative contracts to US-led forces in Iraq * UN can only have secondary role in Iraq: Arab League chief * AIPAC and the Iraqi opposition * Arabs 'won't recognize' puppet American administration in Iraq * Arabs react with dismay, disbelief to news of US troops in Baghdad PROGRESS OF THE PRETEXT * U.S. Troops Find Vials, Iraqi Chemical Arms Manuals * Marines shed their chemsuits * Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide DESERTS OF ARABIA http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/02_04_03_f.asp * WHY ARE THE AMERICANS GUNNING FOR SYRIA? Lebanon Daily Star, 2nd April Arab papers sound the alarm about soaring tensions between the United States and Syria, after three senior members of the Bush administration took turns to issue thinly veiled threats to Damascus, telling it to fall into line with US policy in the Middle East or else face unspecified consequences. Commentators see the outpouring of bellicose rhetoric from Washington as a shot across Syria's bows, following its emergence as the most vocal regional critic of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, and the only country in the area to openly applaud the Iraqis' dogged resistance to the invasion. But many also warn that it could mean that Syria is being granted belated membership of America's "axis of evil" and set up as its next prospective target after Iraq, in furtherance of both the administration's strategy for global dominance and the agenda and territorial designs of its right-wing allies in Israel. First came Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's surprise outburst, in which he accused Syria of providing night-vision goggles and other military or "dual-use" equipment to Iraq, and served notice that "we consider such trafficking as hostile acts, andwill hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments." Rumsfeld added a warning to Iran and the anti-Saddam Iraqi Shiite rebels it backs, advising them that if they cross the border back into their own country then US troops there will treat them as"combatants" and a "potential threat to coalition forces." This was reinforced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to a conference of AIPAC, Israel's main lobbying organization in the US, in which he spoke of the "critical choice" facing Damascus. "Syria can continue to direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices, and the consequences," he declared to loud applause. Powell also turned on Iran, demanding a halt to its "support for terrorists, including groups violently opposed to Israel" and its purported quest for weapons of mass destruction, and pledging US backing for "the aspirations of the Iranian people." Powell was followed by Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who told the same AIPAC gathering that Syria, Iran and also Libya were all seeking weapons of mass destruction, and that he hoped the invasion of Iraq would convince them to "back off." He added pointedly that "I don't think any of us are naive enough to think the example of Iraq alone will be sufficient." Bolton said Washington was "keeping a close watch on Syria" for any signs of "nuclear weapons intent" and charged that it had stocks of chemical weapons and was pursuing a biological capability. The Beirut daily As-Safir points out that all these American signals were subsequently "interpreted" by the Israelis themselves, whose chief military intelligence researcher, Yossi Kupferwasser, came up with renewed allegations that Syria has been concealing proscribed weapons on Iraq's behalf, coupled with recommendations that the Americans should put Damascus and Hizbullah next on their hit list after they're done with "regime change" in Baghdad. According to Syrian sources quoted by As-Safir, the view in Damascus is that the US and Britain have embroiled themselves in a fight in Iraq that "will last for months." They contemptuously dismissed warnings about what they were letting themselves in for, and plunged recklessly into an invasion of the country "in compliance with Israeli doctrines and incitement." Arab newspapers note that in replying formally to Powell, Damascus threw his remarks about it bearing "responsibility for its choices" back at him. A Foreign Ministry spokesman retorted that Syria was indeed responsible for its choices, "and Mr. Powell knows that she has chosen to support international legality as represented by the UN and the Security Council, and its role in preserving international peace and security. Syria has chosen to support the worldwide official and popular consensus that said no to aggression against Iraq Š She has also chosen to stand by the fraternal Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified aggression in which they are being subjected to all kinds of crimes against humanity." These sentiments are echoed by Al-Baath, daily paper of Syria's ruling party, which sees Powell's remarks as evidence that Washington's military adventure in the region is in large measure a proxy war being fought on Israel's behalf, and is not confined to Iraq "Ever since the US administration revealed that its objective is to reshape the Middle East's political structure, it has been clear that it is embarking on a rolling undeclared war against the countries of the region," the paper states in its main editorial. "It set the stage for it by deeming all resistance to be terrorism, and effectively recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and unified capital and treating the West Bank and Gaza Strip as spoils of war. The idea is for this to culminate in the Arab-Israeli conflict being deconstructed and the fraternal relationship between Syria and Lebanon meddled with, after the process of occupying Iraq has been completed," it says. Accordingly, while bombing Iraq, Washington has been threatening its neighbors and fellow Arabs by levelling "preemptive accusations" at them. The Americans do not only a want a "devastated Iraq" but also a cowed region that does their bidding, hence their refusal to tolerate any expression of sympathy with the Iraqi people as they bring them "freedom on the back of a tank," Al-Baath says. It also wonders how the US can continue trying to claim that the war has noting to do with Israel, when Powell chose an AIPAC podium from which to mouth his threats against Damascus. "Syria stands up for itself and its (pan-Arab) nation when it rejects the latest episode of aggression in the region; but the US shrinks to Israel's stature when it throws itself into a new occupation enterprise that is inconsistent with either the spirit of the times or the principles of law and justice," Al-Baath writes. In other editorial comment, Qatar's Al-Sharq finds it puzzling that the US should choose to open verbal fire on Syria before it has settled its battle in Iraq. "Is this the right timing, or has the US administration been pushed prematurely into opening a new front" in its war? the paper asks. Other questions also come to mind, it says. Did Syria somehow learn that "its turn will be next in the current American war on Iraq," and opt to up the verbal ante in the hope of preempting that? Are Israeli claims about Iraqi WMDs having been transferred to Syria based on real information, or just part of a drive to turn up the heat on Damascus? And why didn't the Iranians respond to the comparable threats that the Americans levelled at them as vehemently as the Syrians did, seeing as Iran is also on the Bush administration's hit list? "These questions boil down to one," Al-Baath suggests. "Have the American and Syrian sides really opted for a showdown? In other words, has the former's need for the latter, in all sorts of areas that Washington has talked about in the past, been abandoned, with such speed and at such a highly delicate juncture, while the fate of the war on Iraq remains far from decided?" As the UAE daily Al-Khaleej perceives things, Rumsfeld and Powell have been saying aloud what junior figures in the administration have been whispering for some time - namely, "That Syria will be the next target of the new colonial onslaught that began in Iraq." The paper sees Powell's remarks as particularly "grave." He made them to AIPAC, implying a commitment to the Zionist lobby that wields great influence in the White House, and accompanied them with fresh pledges of support for Israel, which on the same day engaged in renewed "incitement" against Syria by accusing it of taking delivery of proscribed Iraqi weapons. "Just as destroying Iraq and preventing it from standing on its feet for decades to come is a Zionist objective, which the US and Britain are undertaking to realize, in spite of the entire world, Syria is similarly targeted" because it stands up to Israeli expansionism, as is Lebanon by association. "If Syria and Lebanon were to be targeted after Iraq, that would bring everlasting comfort to the war criminals who raped Palestine, enabling the tripartite American-British-Israeli alliance to settle the Arab-Zionist conflict by eliminating the Palestinian cause, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms, and the Israeli octopus to extend its tentacles in any direction it pleases," the UAE paper warns. That is what the Americans mean when they predict that the war on Iraq will "reshape" the entire Middle East, Al-Khaleej says. Egyptian columnist Assayed Zahra says the US message to Syria can be summed up in a single sentence: "Either you support the aggression, or you yourselves will become targets of aggression." Writing for the Bahrain daily Akhbar al-Khaleej, Zahra states that the Americans began by claiming that Syria was sending aid and material to Iraq such as night-vision goggles. "Even if this were true, it would not have been a crime other than by America's designation. But it was demonstrated that what they said was just another of their innumerable lies," he remarks. Zahra says one reason the Americans are menacing Syria is in deference to the Zionist lobby, which "conceives and directs" the Bush administration's Middle East policy, was the chief driving force behind the invasion of Iraq, and is fighting hard for Syria and Lebanon to be targeted next in order to destroy all remaining bastions of resistance to Israel's occupation of Arab territory. The second reason is that Syria opted to condemn the invasion of Iraq unequivocally and "without beating about the bush," he explains. "It chose to stand by the Iraqi people's resoluteness and resistance without reservations or conditions. The invaders don't want any Arab country to dare even condemn the aggression in public, or any Arab government to dare even praise the steadfastness of a fellow Arab people. They would not have dared think and act in this way themselves had not the vast majority of Arab governments opted for ignominious silence. "That is why - because of the disgraceful position taken by most Arab governments. Syria won't be the first or the last of them to be threatened with aggression. But, in any case, the stand taken by Syria and its leadership deserves to be saluted and commended," says Zahra. Reflecting on developments on the ground in Iraq, Ameen Qammouriyeh writes in the Beirut daily An-Nahar that the Americans have five options now that their march on Baghdad has been blunted. They can wait for reinforcements and then proceed to flatten the Iraqi capital. They can lay siege to it until it implodes from within, exposing their forces out in the desert to attacks by tribesmen. They can leave Baghdad alone and concentrate on controlling the northern and southern oil fields, which is what they are mainly after. They can encourage the Kurds and Shiites to rebel and promise to help them set up separate enclaves Š And they can "reverse the strategic blunder that the Pentagon planners made" and "pull out of the Iraqi quagmire." Qammouriyeh writes that while the latter option is by far the most preferable for everyone concerned, and is still theoretically possible, "Bush will never do it." Instead, he will "continue waging war on Iraq and on everyone else who disagrees with him and his policies." The outcome, he predicts, will be a series of "mini-wars spawned by the big war, some of them American-made and others blowing up in America's face. For Iraq is like a Pandora's Box. Once you open it, you unlock the gates of hell from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and from Egypt to Pakistan." This is guaranteed to turn the Islamic world into a "sea of hostility" to the US, matched only by the resentment felt toward Israel, which will find expression in ways that may sometimes be organized but will more often take the form of indiscriminate violence against Americans. This to a backdrop of worldwide fear and loathing of the US, which is likely to prompt other countries to join forces in order to protect themselves against America's addiction to force and its contempt for international law. The upshot, Qammouriyeh predicts, will be an America that is "mighty in terms of treasures and weapons, but completely isolated and friendless." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035780241335&call_pageid=968332188854&col=9683500607 24 * WHY NON-IRAQIS WANT TO JOIN THE WAR Toronto Star, 2nd April DAMASCUS‹Ahmed Abdullah is ashamed to say he is one man who won't be answering Saddam Hussein's call to jihad. Not just now at least. Abdullah, 23, a third-year college student in the Syrian capital, was all set to make the journey to Baghdad this week. He said his goodbyes to friends, schoolmates, his girlfriend. He would give his life for his Iraqi brothers, even if it meant strapping a suicide belt to his waist and blowing himself to paradise. Abdullah went home to pack, only to find his tiny Damascus student apartment ransacked. The essential ingredients for getting to Baghdad ‹ passport, Syrian identity card, money ‹ were gone. A greater shock still came with the ring of his telephone. It was his mother. Claiming responsibility for the "robbery." Apologetic, yet firm, she told him a cousin had been dispatched to remove his things and ship them to the family home, four hours away in the city of Deir Ezzor. He would make Holy War over her dead body, she told him. Abdullah sat forlornly in a Damascus coffee shop yesterday staring for two hours at his untouched cup of tea as he spilled out his story for the Star. He was the portrait of wounded Mideast machismo. "I feel betrayed. I feel ashamed. I feel like a coward. How can I face my friends at school, my girlfriend? I have a duty to go, but my own mother has taken it away." Fearing Syrian security police will catch him out, Abdullah chose this pseudonym himself. It is not his real name. He asked also that his chosen field of study not be published, nor the school he attends. But in every other respect, Abdullah spared no detail in explaining what motivates an upper-middle-class Syrian such as he to throw down his life in defence of a regime he readily admits is run by "a real son-of-a-bitch." Indeed, Abdullah was unmoved by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's statement yesterday calling for jihad against "aggression on the religion, the wealth, the honour and the soul and aggression on the land of Islam." "It is not really about Islam. Because I am not a very good Muslim. I drink sometimes. I can't even remember the last time I went to mosque," he said. "It is not about Saddam, either. We know he is bad. But when I see the Iraqi people being bombed, I feel I have to do something. "These are my brothers and sisters. I cannot just sit here and pretend otherwise." In the weeks leading up to war, Abdullah and his activist classmates did do something. They undertook an informal project to infiltrate Internet chat rooms on behalf of the cause. He describes spending as much as six hours a day in various online cafes in Damascus, surfing for Americans. "We were always polite, just trying to have a conversation, just trying to explain our view of American policy and what this terrible aggression might trigger," he says. But within days of the first air strikes on Baghdad, two of his classmates ‹ both from Yemen ‹ made the leap, announcing they were leaving for Iraq as volunteer fighters. Two more followed last week. Abdullah was next. The eldest of four brothers, Abdullah said he forbade two eager siblings from volunteering because they are still in their teens. But he considers himself fit for battle. "In Syria, you don't do your two years of army service until after college. But even so, one month each summer we go into the desert with the army and train. "So I am very good with a Kalashnikov. And also with the RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). And I have worked in tanks enough to know what to do," he said. Abdullah spoke in glowing terms of the surge in Arab nationalist sentiment at his college. Both Christian and Muslim students alike, he said, are fervently against the war. But the Kurds in his class are another matter. "The Kurds say they are against the war, but I think deep down they are for it," he said. "Sometimes we see them speaking quietly together in Kurdish. People get angry, and tell them to speak Arabic. But what can you expect? They want their own country. I don't blame them." Israeli intelligence sources indicate as many as 4,000 volunteers have crossed the Syrian border to Iraq, the only route available to those bound for Baghdad. Abdullah dismissed the number as "a fabrication," but in the same breath admitted he has no idea how many have joined the war. "Syria is becoming a beacon because our president (Bashar al-Assad) is the only Arab leader who dares stand up to the Americans and tell them this war is a mistake," he said. Assad added to Syria's increasingly bitter war of words with America yesterday, telling an Austrian newspaper that Washington "has lost touch with the world." The English language Syria Times, meanwhile, added fuel to the fire, saying in an editorial that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a "fiasco" and warranted investigation for "crimes against humanity." For Abdullah, the political crossfire implies he may yet have his day to fight. "The Americans thought this would be over already. But we are all beginning to realize this fight is far from over," he said. "Today, I am ashamed not to be fighting. Now that the opportunity has been taken away from me, I feel maybe my time wasn't now. But it will come. Eventually I will be there." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/03_04_03_f.asp * THE ARABS' STAKE IN IRAQ'S RESISTANCE Lebanon Daily Star, 3rd April Syria is not overly alarmed by the bellicose rhetoric the administration of George W. Bush has been directing at it, and won't be cowed into abandoning its vociferous opposition to the American invasion of its eastern neighbor, Waleed Shoucair reports for the Saudi-run pan Arab daily Al-Hayat from Damascus. He says the thinking in Damascus is that the "warnings and threats" voiced by the US secretaries of state and defense have less to do with Syria's anti-war stance and its alleged supply of military equipment to Iraq, than with finding excuses for the setbacks the US military campaign has suffered. "They're looking for someone to accuse to justify their failure" to achieve a quick and easy victory, say Shoucair's "informed sources." Syria had warned from the outset that an invasion of Iraq would be "no picnic" and that the Iraqis would fiercely resist. Are Washington's warnings an endeavor to deter President Bashar Assad from supporting the Iraqi resistance? Shoucair asks. The sources reply that the president "did not talk about supporting the resistance" in his policy statements on Iraq. As to reports that US forces have deployed just across the Syrian-Iraqi border to intercept Iraq-bound military equipment and convoys of volunteers, Syria's position is that the border is open and anyone whose documents are in order is free to cross, including Western journalists and Syrians and Arabs with business in Iraq. "There are no convoys or military equipment," and if there are any volunteers, "they don't have it written on their foreheads or passports that they are volunteers." If the Americans object to that, they are rewriting international law. Shoucair says the Syrians intend to persist with their diplomatic efforts to rally international opposition to the invasion, and are relieved that a period of tension with Egypt appears to have been overcome. Cairo lodged a formal protest when anti-war protesters in Damascus chanted slogans denouncing President Hosni Mubarak's stance on Iraq, but he recently reiterated Egypt's commitment to its "strategic" relationship with Syria. Al-Hayat commentator Ghassan Sharbel says Washington's latest charges-cum-threats regarding Syria's support for Iraq, "terrorism" and its quest for weapons of mass destruction cannot be viewed in isolation from the hawkish noises that have been coming Syria's way from Israel. The Israelis and Americans are jointly trying to cow Damascus and prevent it from "banking on the ultimate failure of the invasion that is currently targeting Iraq," he writes. Sharbel suggests the two sides want to deter Syria from adopting the same role in Iraq as it did in Lebanon, where its support was instrumental to the success of the armed resistance that overcame Israel's overwhelming military superiority and ended its occupation of the south. Perhaps it is to exact revenge for Lebanon that the Israelis are hoping to turn the clash of interests between Syria and the US in Iraq into "a confrontation of sorts," he remarks. Sharbel writes that while Damascus is well aware of the short-term dangers of standing up strongly to the US over Iraq, it understandably feels it has no other option. If an American client regime were to be installed in Baghdad, "the Arab-Israeli imbalance of power would become deadly." And if Iraq were to "explode under the pressure of American blows" it would be a disaster for all the Arabs. These longer-term factors must inevitably outweigh "considerations of immediate safety or short-term interest" for Syria. Damascus may not be able to alter the course of the war, but it can object to it, and refuse to acquiesce to its conduct or its consequences, Sharbel says. Jordanian columnist Yaser Zaatra links Washington's fury at both Damascus and Tehran to the efforts they made during the buildup to the war to galvanize opposition to the US invasion among Iraqi Shiites. He writes in the Amman daily Ad-Dustour that the anti-invasion stand taken by Iraqi Shiite groups opposed to the Baghdad regime bore clear hallmarks of lobbying by Syria, Iran and Hizbullah. It also helps account for the effectiveness of the Iraqi resistance that US forces have encountered, contrary to the expectations of American military planners. "Being placed top of the post-Iraq hit list prompted Syria and Iran - especially Syria - to take a number of steps to encourage Iraq's steadfastness, so as to ensure that the country does not fall easy prey to the invaders, and thus whet their appetite for more." Hence Syria's fulsome backing for Iraq at the UN Security Council and its advocacy of a "defiant" Arab stand, "followed by the stories about volunteers and martyrdom-seekers, which further infuriated the Americans," Zaatra explains. "The Syrian and Iranian response to the American challenge in Iraq has been clever as well as compelling," he notes. It amounts to trying to turn Iraq into a quagmire for them, and a liability for the hawks in the Bush administration. "And if the American hawks are in a predicament, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Co. feel it even more deeply," Zaatra remarks. US Secretary of State Colin Powell "addressed AIPAC, Israel's main lobbying organization in America, in an effort to reassure them about a future that they have staked on the war, in the hope that it will vanquish all their enemies and make them lords of the region. But the dream dissipates further with every report of an Iraqi istishhadi or the death of an American or British soldier on the battlefield." Israel's influence is highlighted by the Syrian government-run daily Tishrin, which writes, "While speculation abounds about the likely duration and cost of the US invasion of Iraq and its ultimate outcome, the one constant is that it has as many, if not more, Israeli objectives than American ones." The Damascus paper recalls how hard the Israelis lobbied to persuade the Bush administration to adopt the idea of invading Iraq as policy, and then to translate it into practice as quickly as possible. This resembles the efforts they exerted to ensure continued US backing after the end of the Cold War by playing up the "Iraqi threat" and the "terrorist threat." The picture was completed by Powell when he took the platform at AIPAC to "list the services his administration has rendered Israel, even while waging a war on Iraq, and level threatening statements at Syria and all those who are hostile to Israel," Tishrin writes. He promised an extra $10 billion in aid to a nuclear-armed serial violator of UN resolutions that is waging a war of genocide against the Palestinians, while Iraq is being subjected to a full-scale invasion on the pretext of disarming it of doomsday weapons it does not possess. "Israel is the only threat in the region Š behind everything being hatched against the Arabs," Tishrin writes. "No one can separate the aggression underway in Iraq from Israel's aggressive plans against the Arabs. The danger thus doubles up, and it becomes both a national and pan-Arab duty to confront this American aggression." Jordanian columnist Tarek Massarwa says the position adopted by Syria and Iran is one reason why the Iraqis believe that, so far, "the battle is going according to plan" for them. He writes in the Amman daily Al-Rai that both countries are shifting from a position of "positive neutrality" to one of "negative neutrality" at the invasion. Washington has served notice that it will settle scores with them once it is finished with Iraq, so supporting Iraqi resistance has become a matter of self-defense where they are concerned, he argues. Meanwhile, the opening of a "northern front" has been effectively blocked, Massarwa remarks. The Turks, including the army, are furious with the Americans, and may even deny their warplanes overflight rights, he suggests. Their threat of military intervention has meanwhile prevented Iraqi Kurdish forces allied to the US from advancing on Kirkuk. Massarwa says how "enthusiastically" the Americans bombarded the Ansar al-Islam enclave in northeast Iraq, which Kurdish warlord Jalal Talabani's men had failed to capture, after declaring it a chemical weapons production site allied to Saddam Hussein. But "not even a pharmacy" was found in the ruins of the little groupof impoverished villages. "It is starting to be whispered in the Pentagon that the Kurds 'have let us down' just as the Turks did," Massarwa says. "The whispers in the American media about how the Iraqi people 'let them down' are growing louder. We wouldn't be surprised if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were to repeat after the Kuwaiti university professor that the millions of anti-war protestors who took to the streets of every world capital were merely Saddam's hirelings!" he quips. Massarwa concludes that despite the intensity of the American blitz, Iraq is faring well. "It has blunted the ground offensive. The Iraqis have proven that they are not Sunnites, Shiites, Arabs and Kurds but Iraqis first and foremost. And Saddam Hussein's regime has shown that it is capable of fighting a third war against a superpower and rescuing the region from fear and arousing its living forces." Meanwhile, there appears to be little mileage in Saudi Arabia's latest contribution to developments in Iraq: Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal's call on American TV for Saddam Hussein to resign in order to spare his country further devastation. The idea elicited an instant rebuke from the Iraqis, with Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan describing its Saudi proposer as "an agent." Rumsfeld also implicitly dismissed it when he insisted that the US would accept nothing short of the Iraqi leader's "unconditional surrender." Abdelbari Atwan, publisher/editor of pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi, is appalled that the Saudis should call on Saddam to stand down and "hand over his country to the invading forces" at a time when Iraqis are uniting in its defense and mounting brave resistance that has forced the attackers to rethink their military plans. "We don't know the reason for this Saudi addiction to coming up with initiatives aimed at demoralizing the Arabs and driving them to surrender and submit to American and Israeli dictates," he writes in a front-page commentary. It reminds him of the "famous normalization initiative," which the Saudis launched last year and "imposed" on the Arab summit in Beirut, only to see it "crushed by the Israeli tanks which reinvaded the West Bank" two days later. "Saudi Arabia has no right to propose initiatives or ideas relating to Iraq," says Atwan. "First, because it is itself a party to the aggression, with American warplanes and missiles launched from its territory; secondly, because it has not maintained diplomatic relations with Iraq; and above all, because it does not possess the stature it had in the past, and which it acquired by using the oil weapon in the Arabs' battles against their enemies." Atwan recalls that the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, admitted Riyadh tried before to engineer a military coup to topple the existing regime in Baghdad. Having failed to manage that, it is scarcely in a position to demand that the Iraqi president "stop leading his country's steadfastness and resistance to the aggression, and flee to a safe haven abroad under the pretext of protecting the Iraqi people and stopping the war." He is also critical of Mubarak's stance, and suggests his call for establishing a "new Arab order" based on modern principles is suspiciously in tune with Washington's professed desire to "reshape" the Middle East after its occupation of Iraq. "What kind of Arab order does he want to establish, when he is allowing the American warships Š to transit the Suez Canal in broad daylight?" Atwan wonders. "To those who want to establish a new Arab order on the ruins of Iraq's steadfastness and resistance in line with American and Israeli directives, we would say this: Move away and let this nation face up courageously and manfully to its fate and its invaders. You should disappear in disgrace for having conspired against it and colluded with its enemies," he says. "The ones who ought to be resigning, before the angry masses force them to, are those Arab leaders - and they are all, incidentally, commanders in chief of their armed forces - who watch American missiles rock Baghdad and crush the skulls of children in Basra without doing anything," Atwan writes. http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1268&search=&find= * SAUDIS SHUN LUCRATIVE CONTRACTS TO US-LED FORCES IN IRAQ RIYADH, April 5 (AFP) - A leading Saudi dairy company Saturday said it has turned down an offer to supply coalition forces fighting in Iraq amid reports that Saudi transport firms have rejected 40 potential contracts with US-led troops. Al-Safi Dairy Co., a subsidiary of Al-Faisaliah Group, said it would not support the war in any way. "We believe in the importance of peaceful solutions in keeping the danger of war and its misery away from this region," said Prince Mohammed bin Khaled al-Faisal, head of Al Faisaliah, the 16th largest group in Saudi Arabia. "The company has refused a request by a company responsible for supply of provisions to the coalition forces because this contradicts the company's humanitarian policies," Prince Mohammed said in a statement. The company did not specify the nature of the contract or its value. Al-Safi has the world's largest integrated dairy farm with some 32,000 cows and produces various types of dairy products and juices. A newspaper meanwhile said Saturday that transport firms in the Saudi eastern province have turned down offers and cancelled at least 40 contracts to rent their trucks for US British forces. The offers were made by Kuwaiti intermediaries to transport unspecified material through the Kuwaiti-Iraqi borders in favour of the coalition forces, Al-Eqtissadiah business daily reported, quoting unnamed sources. Saudis are overwhelmingly opposed to the US-led war against neighbouring Iraq, seen by many here as a new colonisation of an Arab country. http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/ * UN CAN ONLY HAVE SECONDARY ROLE IN IRAQ: ARAB LEAGUE CHIEF BERLIN, April 7 (AFP) - The United Nations can only really play a "secondary role" in rebuilding Iraq, Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said in an interview with German television late Sunday. Mussa told ARD public television that the United Nations could no longer play the central role that many European Union states want it to have because it was unable to prevent the US-led war from starting. "If it gets there after the facts, then (its role) can only be a secondary one," he said. Mussa travels to UN headquarters in New York on Wednesday to discuss "issues related to regional peace and security and ways to improve cooperation between the United Nations and regional organisations." The Arab League opposes the war and has repeatedly called for a ceasefire. In Brussels last Thursday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the United Nations would play some part in rebuilding Iraq but he said the "coalition" doing the fighting would have the leading role. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=281270 * AIPAC AND THE IRAQI OPPOSITION by Nathan Guttman Haaretz, 8th April [.....] Last week, the United States decided to alter the flight paths of its Tomahawk cruise missiles, which had been passing above Saudi Arabia, in response to Saudi complaints that four of the missiles had fallen in its territory and endangered residents of the kingdom. A similar request was voiced by Turkey, after it developed that the IQ of some of the smart bombs was not high enough for them to find their way to Baghdad, and they landed on Turkish soil. The Saudi request to cease firing the missiles above its territory is illustrative of a fact that all of the sides are trying to conceal - that from the outset Saudi Arabia agreed to place its air space at the disposal of the Americans for the purpose of launching missiles at Iraq from ships in the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia is the hidden player in the American war on Iraq. Prior to the outbreak of combat, it made it publicly clear that it opposed the war and declared that it would not cooperate with the Americans. As opposed to the first Gulf War, in which Saudi Arabia was a major partner and a main base of departure for the military forces in Iraq, it is now sitting on the sidelines, ostensibly uninvolved. Nevertheless, well-informed American sources report that the two countries agreed it would be better to obscure the military cooperation between the two sides, which have reached agreement to allow America to exploit many of Saudi Arabia's strategic assets. The trajectory of the cruise missiles above Saudi Arabia is but one example. It is further charged that the Saudis are also permitting the United States to use Saudi air space for intelligence flights and that the main U.S. Air Force base in Saudi Arabia is assisting by providing flight control of the aircraft conducting bombing missions in Iraq. This American base was supposed to play a major role in the war, and serve as a home base for most of the bombing sorties, but in the early stages of preparations for war about six months ago, the Saudis made it clear they would not permit the Americans to take off from Saudi soil to bomb Saddam. However, once the crisis atmosphere faded somewhat, the Americans realized it would be possible to reach quiet understandings with the Saudis. One if them is that while America would not take off from Saudi Arabia, it would be able to use its air space, and provide flight control from its territory. Another understanding has to do with oil. American war planners feared that one of the immediate repercussions of the war would be a steep spike in oil prices, due to both the suspension of albeit limited Iraqi oil exports (of 1.7 million barrels a day) and the generally nervous wartime market. In this case, Saudi Arabia again entered the picture. Many weeks before the first shot was fired in the Gulf, the Saudis stepped up the pace of oil production in order to compensate for a possible shortage, reaching a rate of production higher than anything in the past 20 years. The United States is buying up the surplus and laying in a stockpile, while simultaneously ensuring that world oil prices remain stable. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will again be able to out their relationship from the closet. One American source declared that the American public would be surprised to discover just how critical was the Saudi contribution to the American war effort. The kingdom is not enjoying much support from American public opinion. On the day after, Washington and Riyadh will have to find a way to overcome the other obstacles that have hurt relations of the two countries in the past two years: the attitude toward Crown Prince Abdullah's peace plan, the issue of Saudi cooperation in the terror investigations, and the continued massive presence of American soldiers on Saudi soil. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/08_04_03_f.asp * ARABS 'WON'T RECOGNIZE' PUPPET AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION IN IRAQ Lebanon Daily Star, 8th April As the US military pounds Baghdad and prepares to unveil its plans for running the areas of Iraq it has already conquered, the Beirut daily Al-Mustaqbal states that most Arab states will refuse to recognize any new government that is established in the country under American auspices. The paper says that a recommendation to that effect was made by a "legal and political committee" set up by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa to "consider available options in the event of US forces managing to seize Baghdad and topple the Iraqi regime." The committee concluded that no recognition should be extended to any "government established under occupation," even if that means suspending Iraq's membership of the Arab League. The legal rationale is that Arab League membership is only open to independent states, the paper quotes senior league sources as saying - which is why it had only seven members (including Iraq) at its inception in 1945, with the other Arab countries joining as soon as each achieved its independence over the course of the next quarter of a century. The sources say the committee considered previous cases in which Arab countries had faced "recognition problems," such as Somalia, which continued for years to be represented at the league by envoys of the pre-civil war regime after it ceased to exist in Mogadishu, until a consensus was reached in favor of recognizing President Abelkader Sallad Hassan's government. But the Iraqi case is without precedent, the sources add. If the American and British invaders get their way, it will be the fist time ever that an Arab state has "lost its independence after achieving it," and this calls for a collective stance by the other Arab League members. The sources add that "the only case in which the Arabs would recognize a new regime in Iraq" is if a conference were held under UN auspices to arrange for the election of a new Iraqi government. "But having American army generals in charge is unacceptable. There is no way they could have representation at the League, and none of the Arab states would recognize them - except perhaps one or two," the sources add. Al-Mustaqbal adds that Arab governments have agreed "not to discuss this possibility openly" so as not to give the impression that they are complying with American demands to "come to terms with the post-Saddam era." They also want to avoid undermining the brave resistance that the Iraqis are mounting to the invasion. While the league has publicly applauded that resistance, and is firmly opposed to the principle of changing ruling regimes by external force," that does not mean it shouldn't consider all the possibilities and prepare to face up to the different scenarios," the paper's sources explain. Washington's plans for Iraq are meanwhile seen to be taking a new twist with the purported airlifting of hundreds of so-called "free Iraqis" affiliated to the Pentagon-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC) into southern Iraq - including its controversial leader, Ahmed Chalabi, who has been relocated from the Kurdish north to the southern town of Nassiriya. Rajeh al-Khoury writes in the Lebanese daily An-Nahar that the Bush administration seems to be opting for what he calls the "Rumsfeld-Myers scenario" for Iraq's immediate future, which envisages setting up a surrogate "Iraqi government" in the south as soon as possible - probably with Chalabi playing a lead role. Khoury says he believes such a move would serve American purposes in a variety of ways, not least by signaling that "the war has been settled, at least psychologically." Just as the seizure by US forces of Baghdad airport was intended to impress on everyone that the regime's end is nigh, the establishment of an Iraqi government to "control" the country outside the capital would indicate that it is all but finished, he reasons. Setting up a puppet administration in the south would also "complement" the military siege of Baghdad, and would explain why the Americans think they won't have to storm the capital city, with all the extra blood-letting that would entail. Their aim is evidently to isolate the capital and leave the regime to disintegrate within it, while subjecting the city to air strikes and lightning raids, and wagering on a popular uprising or military rebellion to eventually topple the Iraqi leadership. This presages a prolonged and bloody siege, and Washington would be much better placed to counter international objections if it had an "Iraqi government" in place in the south, in whose name it could claim the war was being waged against a "former regime," Khoury acclaims. Such a government would also be designed to bestow "Iraqi legitimacy" on US operations to mop up resistance throughout the country, with the aim of eventually being able to claim that the new administration "controls" most of Iraq and is thereby the de facto authority in the country. Khoury suggests the Americans may set up a headquarters for this new government at Baghdad's airport, or in some other part of the capital that their forces overrun. That way this new government can claim to be in charge in the capital, and that Saddam Hussein's regime has been reduced to "an isolated pocket of resistance." This government is also likely to be credited with any relief, aid or reconstruction work the Americans undertake, in a bid to earn it some public support among Iraqis "even though it will not, of course, be capable of lifting a finger without orders from the American high commissioner." Meanwhile, Washington can be expected to lobby hard for other countries to recognize the new government. But, perhaps most importantly of all, the speedy formation of a puppet government of this kind would be aimed at preventing anyone else from having a say in the shape of post Saddam Iraq, and blocking efforts by the Europeans to ensure that the UN is given a central role. Such a government would be no more than a "local fig leaf" while the US assumes total control of Iraq, and places its administration "in the hands of retired army general Jay Gardener - a friend of Ariel Sharon and admirer of his methods of crushing the intifada - who is currently in southern Iraq along with a team of fellow hard-liners, such as James Woolsey, the CIA graduate who is tipped to succeed (Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed) Sahhaf!" In Muscat, a news analysis in the Omani daily Al-Watan says Washington's "hidden agenda for Iraq" is likely to become more perceptible once the debate is resolved about the UN's future role in the country - which is supposed to be top of the agenda at President George W. Bush's meeting with his British comrade-in-arms Tony Blair. The paper remarks that although the US administration consents to a UN humanitarian role in Iraq, even its most "dovish" figure, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has made clear that the administration intends to retain the final say in determining the country's future in every respect. Had Washington's goal merely been to "liberate Iraq from dictatorship and rid it of weapons of mass destruction," it would not have refused to apply the "East Timor model," under which the country would be placed under temporary UN administration until free elections were held, the paper reasons. "But the reality, which has long been visible to everyone, is that Washington has its own agenda in Iraq that is linked to its plans for reshaping the Middle East and is at odds with the UN agenda and the requirements of Resolution 1441. The picture is completed by the political signals that the US has been sending out: whether by excluding opposition forces from the 'war of liberation' on the ground, or by systematically upping the ante against Syria and Iran," Al-Watan says. The Omani paper says the Americans seem incapable of understanding that "the opposition of Iraqis to dictatorship does not make them accepting of occupation, and that slowly but surely an Iraqi consensus will develop that rejects both." This is likely to become increasingly noticeable over the days to come, especially if the period of direct rule the Americans envisage drags on, and they try to install "Washington's clients" by force as post-war Iraq's governors. And if Washington's relations with Damascus and Tehran continue deteriorating to a backdrop of Iraqi rejection of the occupation, "that rejection could quickly turn into resistance, which with time could find support and sustenance from Iraq's irate regional milieu," Al-Watan predicts. Other Arab dailies highlight the Bush administration's continuing "verbal escalation" against Syria, following a series of US television appearances by Pentagon super-hawk Paul Wolfowitz in which he reiterated warnings to Damascus to stop supporting Iraq, abetting "terrorism" or pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and alluded to the need for "change" in Syria as well as Iraq. The "direct threats to Syria" mouthed by Wolfowitz (on NBC's Meet the Press) are seen by Talal Salman, publisher of Beirut's As-Safir, as a warning to all Arab and Muslim countries that they will risk "meeting the same fate as Iraq" if they dare oppose America's occupation of the country and the "political project" that underlies it. "Could there be a more effective way of marketing American democracy?" Salman asks, adding that it is a strange "coincidence" that the Americans and British are talking about setting up an "Iraqi government" under their military occupation at the same time as promoting, along with the Israelis, the idea of a Palestinian government operating under Israeli occupation. "It's as though the Arabs are not competent to govern themselves, and must have their countries occupied so they can be given 'governments' appointed by the occupying armies," he remarks. Salman states that while figuring out how to run Iraq, the Americans have been sending out different messages to different sections of the population, addressing them not as Iraqis but as separate religious or ethnic communities, and saying conflicting things to different groups. Thus, while allocating to their British partners the task of supervising the Shiite south - on the strength of the "expertise" the British gained "inventing" a royal dynasty for the Iraqi state in the 1920s - they intend to subject the Kurds to their own direct sponsorship. "They affirmed that in blue Kurdish blood on Sunday, when one of the sons of the late Kurdish leader, Mulla Mustafa Barzani, became the first 'martyr' of that sponsorship," he remarks. "The leaders of the aggression are not minded to justify their bloody plans for occupying Iraq and scorching it to anyone: not to the world, whose peoples continue to reaffirm their opposition to this unjust war daily and around-the-clock, and not to religious leaders be they the Pope or the Sheikh of Al-Azhar (whose stature makes it essential for him to issue a jihad fatwa, even if that conflicts with the regime's official position). And they are least of all minded to justify it to the Arabs, other than by wielding the stick against any who disobey," writes Salman. "This is the most shameless invasion in history," Salman writes. http://www.jordantimes.com/Tue/news/news4.htm * ARABS REACT WITH DISMAY, DISBELIEF TO NEWS OF US TROOPS IN BAGHDAD Jordan Times, 8th April RIYADH (AP) ‹ Arabs reacted with dismay and disbelief to television images of US tanks in the heart of Baghdad, with some dismissing the news as American propaganda and others signing up for jihad. While few Arabs believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime could indefinitely hold out against the allied onslaught on Baghdad, many had expected the capital to put up a more ferocious fight than the southern city ofBasra, which had taken British troops two weeks to dominate. That is why news of US troops in central Baghdad left many shocked and wondering whether President Saddam had been bluffing when he promised to slaughter the invading troops at the gates of Baghdad. Over a breakfast of croissant and coffee at a men's only cafe, Saudi accounting instructor Haitham Al Bawardi said he was having a hard time believing the TV reports. "How can we know this is for real and not just coalition propaganda?" Bawardi, 30, said. "But if this is true, it's quite frustrating," he added. "We had hoped Saddam would inflict as many casualties on the invaders as possible to teach them a lesson and make them think twice before striking another Arab country." In Cairo, the news made some more determined to join other Arabs who have gone into Iraq for jihad, or holy war, alongside Iraqis fighting invading forces. The Lawyers' Syndicate, a professional union that has been organising people to join the war, began filling up with volunteers shortly after the news was broadcast. "As Arabs, we cannot see this and not move," said a man in his early 30s who was too worried about government retribution to give his name. "We are selling ourselves for a higher cost, for God, not for Saddam." Another volunteer, Abdelfattah, 41, a worker in a regional city council, refused to believe the Americans were in Baghdad, saying the reports were "all lies." "It is a psychological war," said Abdelfattah. "If it is true then it is only a military strategy, to lure the American forces into a trap." Despite the light resistance to Monday's incursion into the city, Abdelfattah insisted "Saddam himself will fight until the very end. ... He will remain standing until he dies while fighting for Iraq." Amjad Mohammad, a 23-year-old Syrian hairdresser, said he feels "very sad." "The Americans can never stay in Baghdad," said Mohammad. "Baghdad is noble Arab land." Ali Oqla Orsan, head of the Arab Writers' Union, described the US incursion as a "propaganda parade," and said he hoped the allied troops would face "total defeat." "They are practising terrorism against a sovereign country," said Orsan, a Syrian. "If the allied forces occupy Iraq, it would signal the beginning of a liberation war against the colonialists." In Muscat, Oman, scores of men watched the news from Baghdad with angry and resentful faces. One shouted, "Where is your army Saddam?" Another, not believing the television pictures, grumbled: "These Americans are relying on false propaganda!" In Iran, state-run Tehran Radio referred to the "beginning of the end of Saddam's regime" in its report on the Americans in President Saddam's palaces. Sona Maralani, 28, said she was happy to see Saddam and Baghdad falling. "Iraqis are now paying for invading Iran in 1980. Iranians will never forget when Iraqis were killing our children and using chemical weapons against our troops and people." But Mohammad Abdolghani, 36, an Afghan worker in Iran, was not happy with the way the war was going. "Americans didn't do anything good in our country after toppling the Taleban. Now, I think they will not do also anything for the Iraqi people," he said. "Americans are arrogant. I hope they suffer heavy casualties so that they will not invade other countries." In Lebanon, most citizens stayed close to their TV sets or radios to follow the news. Many refused to believe the Americans' reports, opting for Iraqi Information Minister Mohammad Said Al Sahhaf's version of events. "Al Sahhaf said they were not yet in Baghdad, didn't you hear him?" said Hisham Moniyyeh, 27, who runs a currency exchange shop in the southern port city of Sidon. "The Americans have been lying a lot since the beginning of this campaign so I don't believe them." Merhej Shamma, a 39-year-old Lebanese architect, said he was shocked at how easy it has been for the Americans to enter Baghdad. "I thought some of the fiercest fighting was supposed to take place in Baghdad. Where are the Republican Guards?" he asked. Shamma said he was "disconcerted by the events" but still hoped the Iraqis had "some surprises up their sleeves." "I hope they are preparing for a counterattack that would turn the tables once again," he said. Two Saudi university students echoed the same sentiments. "The Iraqi people will resist and turn Baghdad into another Vietnam for the Americans, a trap from which they will not emerge alive," said Saleh Al Nuaim, 20. His friend, Husam Al Baghdadi, 20, nodded in agreement. "Every Arab and Muslim is upset at what they see on television," said Baghdadi. "But, God willing, Baghdad will bring about the Americans' destruction. It will be their end." PROGRESS OF THE PRETEXT http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2509193 * U.S. TROOPS FIND VIALS, IRAQI CHEMICAL ARMS MANUALS by Luke Baker Reuters, 4th April NEAR BAGHDAD: U.S. troops have found thousands of boxes containing vials of unidentified liquid and powder as well as manuals on chemical warfare at two sites near Baghdad, a U.S. officer said Friday. "It's unclear at this point what the vials contain and we're sending a team of experts to examine them," Capt. Kevin Jackson told Reuters near Baghdad. The United States and Britain invaded Iraq on March 20, accusing President Saddam Hussein of hiding chemical and other weapons of mass destruction and vowing to topple him. They have so far found no evidence to back their accusations. One plant, which was shown on U.S. military maps as including underground storage facilities, was south of the town of Latifiya, east of the Euphrates River and southwest of Baghdad. The vials were about 4 1/2 inches long. Some contained liquid, some powder. The books and manuals were in a safe, Jackson said. Later, U.S. troops said they found a second site nearby containing vials of unidentified liquid and white powder. Separately, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a news briefing at U.S. Central Command in Qatar that special forces in Iraq's western desert had found what they believed to be a training school for handling chemical warfare. "We know that the Iraqis have conducted chemical training," he said, adding that initial evidence suggested that this was not a site housing weapons of mass destruction. Lt. Col. Vincent Quarles, of the engineers brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, said near Latifiya that a Sensitive Site Team was being sent to examine the liquid and powder. "I have to emphasize that we don't know what this is. There's something there, but the specialists will have to determine that (what it is)." Iraq used mustard gas against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. It is also believed to have used sarin, a lethal nerve agent, against Kurdish Iraqis in the 1980s. http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/ * MARINES SHED THEIR CHEMSUITS Haaveru Daily, Maldives, 7th April US Marines driving on Baghdad joyously shed their chemical protection suits for the first time Monday after being told the threat of a chemical or biological attack was no longer considered serious. "It's great to have them off," Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla, commander of the 1st marines battalion, said after his troops stripped down to lighter camouflage garb. US military officials said an order allowing removal of the suits, which troops said felt like heavy raincoats and thick rubber boots under a hot sun, had come down for the 20,000 strong 1st Marine Division. "They made an assessment and they determined there was not a serious threat right now," Padilla said. Brigadier General John Kelly, assistant commander of the 1st Marine Division, said field commanders would take the final decision whether their troops could take off the cumbersome garb. But the order was welcome news to the marines pushing towards Baghdad from the southeast in a bid to complete the encirclement of the capital. The possibility a cornered Saddam Hussein might unleash his suspected arsenal of chemical or biological weapons has haunted the US-led forces since they launched their invasion of Iraq on March 20. But after crossing a much-vaunted but unspecified "red line" around Baghdad that was said to be the trigger for the use of such arms, US forces have become increasingly confident the threat was much reduced if not eliminated. Commentators said the Americans had driven too close to the Iraqi defenders, who would be hesitant to throw any chemical weapons at them for fear they may blow back in their own faces. Kelly said the speed of the US movements also provided a margin of safety. "In order for him (Saddam) to unleash chemical weapons, he needs to know where you are," the general told AFP. "If you are moving, it makes it more difficult." The fact also remained that with US and British forces in control of a substantial part of Iraq 19 days into their offensive, they have yet to find any hard evidence of chemical or biological arsenals. They have found Iraqi gas masks and chemical protection suits; they also discovered what they believed was a training school for nuclear, chemical or biological warfare. But they have yet to turn up a "smoking gun." US military officials told AFP last week the threat of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack had been greatly diminished. The 101st Airborne Division gave its troops the green light four days ago to doff their protection suits. "Now that we have penetrated Baghdad's outer ring, the likelihood (of such an attack) is negligible," said Captain Adam Mastrianni, the intelligence officer of the division's Aviation Brigade. US war planners had feared Saddam might launch a chemical attack when invading troops reached three zones: the holy Shiite city of Karbala 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Baghdad, the capital's outskirts and the city interior. But US forces have moved into all three without any chemical riposte. Mastrianni also saw politics as a factor. "We think that, quite frankly, even if Saddam Hussein is in control, which is still debatable, he's paralysed by the fact he knows he will be prosecuted over war crimes," Mastrianni said. "If he somehow survives this, and if he doesn't use them, then he looks kind of like the victim to the Arab world," he added. http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-8apr2003-13.htm * SUSPECTED WMD SITE IN IRAQ TURNS OUT TO CONTAIN PESTICIDE Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8th April A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared. A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP news agency that comprehensive tests determined the presence of the pesticide compounds. Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin - a powerful toxin that quickly affects the nervous system - after US soldiers guarding the facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres south of Baghdad, fell ill. Captain Mastrianni said a "theatre-level chemical testing team" made up of biologists and chemists had finally disproved the preliminary field tests results and established that pesticide was the substance involved. He said that sick soldiers, who had become nauseous, dizzy and developed skin blotches, had all recovered. The turnaround was an embarrassment for the US forces in the region, which had been quick to say that they thought they had finally found the proof they have been actively looking for that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. A spokesman for the US army's 3rd Infantry Division, Major Ross Coffman, had told journalists at Baghdad's airport that the site "could be a smoking gun". "We are talking about finding a site of possible weapons of mass destruction," he said. The fact that the coalition forces have come up with no clear evidence of WMD after capturing much of Iraq in 19 days of fighting has raised questions over the war's justification. _______________________________________________ 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