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, 4-10/6/03 (3) INTERNATIONAL PROSTITUTION RACKET * U.N. expected to exempt U.S. from suits by new court NERVOUS NEIGHBOURS * Bahraini King Invites Iraqi Groups To National Conference * Iraq needs $500 billion investment ‹ McKinsey * Future of prewar Iraq contracts still unsure * The Arab world, divided and humiliated, asks: 'Which way Iraq?' WHO'S NEXT? * Administration to Announce 'Rollback' Strategy for WMD * Rumblings afoot in Azerbaijan PROBLEMS WITH THE WORLD * Russian contracts in Iraq: forgive or forget? * US raid on Palestinian embassy in Baghdad: an act of political gangsterism PROBLEMS WITH MEDIA * Occupiers Propose New Media Code in Iraq * A nasty slip on Iraqi oil INTERNATIONAL PROSTITUTION RACKET http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2881174 * U.N. EXPECTED TO EXEMPT U.S. FROM SUITS BY NEW COURT by Evelyn Leopold Reuters, 5th June UNITED NATIONS: With major powers loathe to do battle with Washington again, the U.N. Security Council is expected this month to renew its exemption of Americans peacekeepers from prosecution by the new war crimes tribunal. The council a year ago approved a resolution that shielded Americans serving in U.N. approved peacekeeping missions from prosecution by the International Criminal Court until July 1. The 15-0 vote came after the Bush administration threatened to close down U.N. peacekeeping missions, starting with Bosnia. This year, diplomats say, the resolution is expected to be extended for another year, unless the United States makes new demands, but it is uncertain if the vote will be unanimous. At the same time, several nations in the council and elsewhere, including Germany, Jordan, Canada, Mexico, are contemplating a public debate to warn the United States of the alleged illegality of the resolution and not to take renewals for granted in the future, the envoys said. "The council is in too fragile a state to put it through another meat grinder," one key ambassador said, referring to a bruising fight over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. "But such renewals should not be automatic." Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, a strong advocate of the court, said efforts were underway for an open meeting. "Whether or not the Security Council is intimidated into approving it again or not is somewhat besides the point," he said in an interview. "What is crucial is that there is a principle state of opposition to this unlawful resolution so that the door is open for its ultimate appeal." The court, whose treaty has been ratified by 90 nations, came into being more than a year ago, despite fierce opposition by the United States and is expected to function later this year in The Hague, Netherlands. Its prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, will be sworn in next week. As the first permanent global criminal court, the ICC was set up to try individuals for the world's most heinous atrocities -- genocide, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses -- in a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials 57 years ago that prosecuted Nazi leaders for war crimes. Among its chief advocates are European Union nations, especially Germany, which has a seat on the council this year. But the United States fears its soldiers could be the target of politically-motivated prosecutions while the court's supporters argue that perpetrators of major crimes can only be pursued when national governments are unwilling or unable to do so. In the meantime, the United States sought to negotiate bilateral agreements with more than 150 countries that would prohibit the surrender of U.S. citizens to the court. Some 34 such accords have been signed so far. Mexico's U.N. ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, said he suggested to Security Council members that the new court immediately pursue perpetrators of the recent massacres in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. "They are very bloody killings of women, they are raping, tearing apart two-year-old girls," he said. The council a year ago adopted a text that fell short of U.S. demands for blanket immunity from the court but saved U.N. peacekeeping missions from American threats to veto them, one by one. NERVOUS NEIGHBOURS RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT Vol. 6, No. 25, 6 June 2003 * BAHRAINI KING INVITES IRAQI GROUPS TO NATIONAL CONFERENCE Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa has invited all Iraqi political groups to hold a national conference in Bahrain, Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister Shaykh Muhammad bin Khalifa al-Khalifa announced on 28 May, according to a "Gulf Daily News" report the next day. Addressing the 30th session of Islamic foreign ministers in Tehran, al-Khalifa said the king is eager to encourage an Iraqi national dialogue as its citizens move toward rebuilding their country. In other news, Bahraini Minister of State and National Committee for Supporting the Iraqi People head Abd al-Nabi al-Shu'ala announced that Bahrain will fund the reconstruction of a health center in Baghdad that serves 50,000 families. (Kathleen Ridolfo) http://www.jordantimes.com/Fri/economy/economy6.htm * IRAQ NEEDS $500 BILLION INVESTMENT ‹ MCKINSEY by Mustafa Alrawi Jordan Times, 6th June Amman ‹ Over the next decade, Iraq will need a considerable amount of direct foreign investment (FDI) if it is to sustain a desired growth rate of more than 10 per cent annually. That's according to a presentation given by the US McKinsey Company at the "Doing Business with Iraq" conference at the Hyatt Amman. The report claims that Iraq now has a debt burden of between 230 to 485 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), leaving it bankrupt many times over. It will take a minimum of $250 billion to restore basic infrastructure and sustain minimum economic growth. McKinsey estimates optimum levels of growth at around 13 per cent annually, which will require an investment of half a trillion dollars until 2013. The report also says that the bulk of these funds must be provided by FDI, because Iraq's oil industry cannot even come close to paying for it alone. Oil will need $35 billion worth of investment itself over the next decade. Attracting such a large amount of foreign capital to Iraq will be challenging because of the high level of investor confidence required. McKinsey highlights three key features that must be put in place before this can be achieved. First, Iraq must be a constitutional state with an independent judiciary. Second, there must be an accountable civil service. Finally, an open economic environment which includes a minimum level of investor protection must be in place. The report also stressed how badly Iraq is in need of repair. For example, just to bring transport and roads back up to the standard of 1980 will take several billion dollars. http://www.jordantimes.com/Fri/economy/economy4.htm * FUTURE OF PREWAR IRAQ CONTRACTS STILL UNCERTAIN by Mustafa Alrawi Jordan Times, 6th June Amman ‹ The ballroom of the Hyatt Amman was filled to bursting on Thursday as hundreds of Jordanian entrepreneurs gathered here for the "Doing Business with Iraq" conference. There is obviously a hunger in the Kingdom to know how to win new business in a much changed country. However, the most contentious issue was easily the worry over prewar contracts that are currently still unresolved. Under the large umbrella of the oil-for-food programme, the United Nations approved many contracts between Jordanian businesses and the former Iraqi regime via its memorandum of understanding and Resolution 986. Many of these contracts were even under execution just as the war begun. Despite the presence of Richard Greco, a keynote speaker from the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA) in Iraq, and an assistant to US Ambassador Paul Bremer, the participants could not get any conclusive answers to their questions on this matter. Industry and Trade Minister Salah Bashir struggled to be a little more reassuring. "We have collected all relevant information regarding trading mechanisms and we are working with the UN. We are waiting to have a counterpart in Iraq so we can reach a fair and orderly settlement of all these contracts," he said. Jordan Steel is a notable example of a company waiting for the limbo on these contracts to end. It has more than 40,000 tonnes of steel bound for Iraq sitting around collecting dust in a warehouse. Many more firms are also feeling the pinch from the delay of contracts with Iraq under the "Jordanian protocol." This scheme allowed companies here to export goods to Iraq in return for oil. Bashir underlined his sympathy for those businesses stuck in this situation saying: "We are trying our best to find a mechanism under which we can address this with surrogate partners, and it is not just a purely Jordanian issue." According to some reports there is more than $17 billion worth of prewar Iraq contracts pending worldwide. For Mustafa Hasan, general manager at Metito Emirates, a company that supplies water and sanitation products and services, the situation is particularly uncomfortable. Metito has almost $30 million worth of prewar business with Iraq hanging in the balance. "I'm not the only one at this conference wondering about this (the prewar contracts), but ORHA couldn't give us an answer. And my business is a critical one," Hasan said. "You hear about all these organisations, including the UN, expressing concern about water and sanitation in Iraq. Yet, we haven't been contacted at all. I don't understand it." Hasan and his peers say that they only want some kind of time frame on when the matter of prewar contracts will be resolved. They fear that the longer that this uncertainty continues the more likely that business agreed with the old Iraqi regime will become less binding to any new administration. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/05_06_03_e.asp * THE ARAB WORLD, DIVIDED AND HUMILIATED, ASKS: 'WHICH WAY IRAQ?' by David Hirst Lebanon Daily Star, 7th June Ever since the Anglo-American armies went to war against Iraq, the Arabs have been wondering whether this conquest of one of their major states is headed for success or the most catastrophic of failures. They wonder whether the Americans really can make Iraq into a platform for a strategic, economic and cultural "reshaping" of the entire Arab world (plus Iran), or whether this extraordinary, neoconservative ambition provokes what some already see as a second Arab struggle for independence. The achievements of that first struggle, conducted principally against Britain and France, have now been lost, totally and physically in Iraq's case, and politically elsewhere. Not surprisingly, therefore, signs - in the shape of attacks on its soldiers - that the US administration in Iraq may be running into armed resistance have had a great resonance around the region. With their utterly chaotic and hopelessly ineffectual response to the invasion, the Arabs reached what they all regard as the lowest point yet in a process of political and institutional decomposition and decay. Yet, at the same time, the invasion illustrated just how strong, psychologically, remains the Arabs' sense of common destiny and identity. So American actions and Arab reactions to it ensure that whatever does now happen in Iraq will, for better or worse, be region-wide in its repercussions. Among the Arab intelligentsia and political classes, the shockwaves of the Iraqi earthquake have thrown into sharp relief the existence of two broad, region-wide currents competing for public favor; a relatively new, "democratic" one on the one hand versus the older, more traditional pan-Arab nationalist or Islamist ones, which have dominated Arab politics since independence, on the other. Both currents see Iraq, in the words of Egyptian journalist Kamil Labidi, as "a humiliation of the Arabs unparalleled since the crippling defeat inflicted by Israel in 1967 on Egypt, Jordan and Syria." Both are deeply skeptical of the US' ostensibly reformist mission, considering that even if, at one level, it were genuine about its professed desire to spread democracy, accountable government and civil liberties, on another level it has self-serving, neo-imperial objectives. These range from the promotion of its oil and corporate interests to exploiting its greatly enhanced regional dominance to impose a Middle East peace settlement that would virtually end the very notion of pan-Arab nationalism, planting Israel firmly at the heart of a new Middle East order. Both camps want to end the "new colonialism," but envisage different routes toward that end. "The basic question," says Lebanese columnist Abdel-Karim Aboul-Nasr, "is whether Iraq should give priority to liberation or to building Iraq on all levels." The Arab "democratic" camp essentially favors the second course. That is because, for them, it was the lack of democracy, in all its aspects, which brought the Arabs to their present abysmal condition, a condition for which they blame the nationalists, holders of power since independence, as much as they do the Americans. "National liberation regimes," said Reda Helal, deputy editor of Cairo's Al-Ahram, "have trampled the freedoms of their peoples for so long under the pretext of ending colonialism that they ultimately helped colonialism return under the pretext of liberating their peoples." Like those Iraqis who saw the US, initially at least, as liberators, they consider that only foreign armies could ever have got rid of Saddam, just as only they got him out of Kuwait 12 years ago. It may go emotionally against the grain, but they want America, in its official, democratizing aims at least, to succeed. "I never imagined," said Leila Qadi, a Lebanese researcher, "that I would be looking to those neoconservative, pro-Israeli extremists and right-wing Christians to improve our lot, but the fact is that as a result of this adventure there is a chance for change everywhere." Saddam's ignominious collapse is seen to exemplify the rottenness not just of the more overtly "nationalist" or Islamist regimes, like Syria and Iran, which are the likeliest candidates for further American-engineered "regime change," but of those more slavishly pro American ones, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whose turn might come later. This does not mean that the "democrats" want the US to do to them what it did to Saddam. "The change must be internal, not US-imposed," said Syrian academic Hanan Hassan, "the moment the Americans turn on the regime we shall support it." But everywhere they are exploiting the American threat to reinforce their own long-standing demands. That was the basic argument of the latest, bold petition from Iran's reformist deputies, demanding that the country's unelected institutions, stronghold of religious dictatorship, cease their systematic blocking of legislation introduced by its elected institutions. The only way, said Syrian commentator Ali Atassi, that the Syrian regime can now defend itself is to "give the people their freedom." Egyptian reformist agitation has been given a new lease of life. The American occupation has also cast its shadow over recent parliamentary elections in Yemen. The nationalist/Islamist camp, on the other hand, believes that "liberation" of Iraq should take precedence over "building," in spite of all the evidence that it was essentially this self same choice - or, more to the point, the type of parties and regimes, demagogic, tribal, repressive, uncouth, that came to embody and implement it - which, a generation or two back, first led the Arabs astray. The nationalists and Islamists may now often be advocates of democracy too, though the kind of democracy they have in mind, especially the Islamists, is very different from that of the liberal, secular modernists; but, still, their priority remains what it always was, national or religious self-assertion, cultural authenticity, confronting American imperialism and Zionism. They want to see Iraq emerge as the crucible for a new anti-colonial struggle. Many Arab "democrats" consider that to be as presumptuous as Iraqis do themselves. "The most peculiar thing," said Kuwaiti commentator Raja Talib, "is that some Arabs are more Iraqi than the Iraqis, urging them to hurry to launch a popular liberation war - this after they suffered in three absurd wars, none of which had anything to do with defending Iraqi dignity or rights." Besides, they argue, even if the "democratic" route to regained Arab independence is slower, it will be much less costly, and ultimately just as sound as the nationalist/Islamist one. Let the Americans bring us democracy, they say, because in so doing they will by their own hand defeat their other, neo-imperial agenda to which nationalists and democrats alike object. For in the final analysis there can't be true democracy without nationalism; by its nature, a democratic Arab order would genuinely embody national aspirations in a way which the current despotisms have long ceased to do. "America's requirements," said the Saudi daily Al-Watan, "cannot be fulfilled by the free choice of any Arab people. What would happen if a freely elected Iraqi Parliament wanted China, for example, to participate in reconstruction, or refused to become an oil milch cow, or to normalize with Israel?" On the other hand, if, under a nationalist/Islamist banner, the Iraqis chose "liberation" above "building," and armed resistance really took hold, that would have a catalyzing effect throughout the region, stimulating all those popular forces in Arab societies that are in a state of latent rebellion against what they see as an intolerable, American-supported existing order. The effect would be most dramatic in Palestine, that Arab land "occupied" in an earlier era of Western colonialism and a touchstone of Arab nationalism ever since; there the militants would welcome an Iraqi resistance as an invaluable accessory to their own. It would be a great boost for Hizbullah. Syria would be tempted to back it both as a means of refurbishing its badly tarnished nationalist credentials and regaining some of its now drastically eroded strategic influence. And it would face the most pro-American regimes, such as Egypt and Jordan, with an even more invidious choice than they faced during the Iraq war itself, between siding with Arab "freedom-fighters" and "imperial aggressors." Which way Iraq - and by extension the Arab world - will go remains to be seen. Much depends on the Americans themselves. After 35 years of Saddam and Baathism, the Iraqis are weary of conflict, and, despite the portents of resistance, the overall balance of forces almost certainly favors the democratic camp. But the more inept, oppressive and exploitative their rule, the more obviously their neo-imperial, or Israel-serving agenda takes precedence over their reformist one, the more that is liable to tip the balance in favor of the nationalist/Islamist camp. Few Arabs would dispute that so far they have done badly, so badly in fact that, in the opinion of Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi, they risk provoking a "national awakening and war of attrition that make Vietnam seem like a picnic in comparison." Certainly, the consequences of an anti-American Iraqi insurgency would be very costly indeed for all concerned, not least the Arabs themselves, in a Middle East now firmly in the cockpit of global politics. WHO'S NEXT? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/4/01438.shtml * ADMINISTRATION TO ANNOUNCE 'ROLLBACK' STRATEGY FOR WMD by Phil Brennan Newsmax, 4th June The Bush administration will tell Congress in open hearings Wednesday that the threat of weapons of mass destruction remains so real the U.S. may have to use military force again to stop their proliferation. In the strongest policy statement yet made, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton will reveal to the House's Committee on International Relations the administration's "roll back" doctrine in dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Bolton will use his testimony to not only justify the U.S. war on Iraq, but also explain why the U.S. may engage in military conflict with other rogue states in the near future. NewsMax.com has obtained an advance copy of Bolton's prepared statement from sources close to the committee. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice have endorsed Bolton's statement. Administration officials are prepared for fireworks during Wednesday's hearing, when Democratic House members are expected to make noise over the administration's failure to find significant evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bolton's testimony is intended to put to rest White House critics who claim the administration used WMD as a ruse to invade Iraq, while outlining a sweeping policy toward other "Axis of Evil" and rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea. Bolton will tell the committee that the U.S. aims ultimately "not just to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction but also to eliminate or 'roll back' such weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups that possess them or are close to doing so." Though Bolton will stress the U.S. will seek peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the proliferation threat, he will add, ominously, "we rule out no options." Among those options, Bolton will say, is pre-emptive military force, "as the case of Iraq demonstrates." According to the draft of Bolton's testimony, he will vigorously answer critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bolton argues that there is no doubt that Iraq had a "robust program to develop all types of weapons of mass destruction nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and the technology to deliver them." Bolton charges: Iraq continued its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and could have produced one if it had been able to acquire weapons-grade fissile material abroad. According to the CIA and UNMOVIC, Iraq had biological weapons and chemical weapons programs and retained the ability for large-scale production of both weapons systems. "The plethora of chemical weapons suits we have found indicated that these weapons must have been there and in abundance." U.N. inspectors concluded that Iraq did not destroy about 10,000 liters of anthrax and reported that Iraq never accounted for an estimated 6,000 missing chemical warfare munitions. U.S forces found tactical rockets with warheads especially designed for delivery of chemical weapons. Bolton says the administration now worries that other rogue states or terrorist groups will employ Iraqi scientists and technicians who worked in the WMD programs. Bolton also reveals the creation of the Iraq Survey Group, formed to track down and locate Iraq's WMD. The group will include 1,400 knowledgeable technicians from around the world who will search for banned weapons in Iraq. Bolton will move from Iraq to existing and emerging WMD threats, beginning with Axis of Evil member Iran. Bolton reports that the U.S has compelling evidence of Iran's clandestine program to develop nuclear weapons. He plans to tell Congress the administration will not "let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire the most destructive weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East or further." Iran, he charges, "is pursuing its 'civil' nuclear energy program not for peaceful and economic purposes but as a front for developing the capability to produce nuclear materials for nuclear weapons." Using a similar argument that helped form U.S. policy toward Iraq, Bolton notes "one unmistakable indicator of [Iraq's] military intent is the secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding Iran's nuclear activities." Iran, Bolton says, has also pursued a program to develop chemical weapons and biological warfare weaponry. "It is widely known," he asserts, "that Iran has stockpiled blister, blood and choking CW warfare agents and possesses the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them." The U.S. also believes that Iran has produced biological warfare weapons. Bolton will save his strongest rhetoric for North Korea, whose nuclear program poses "a grave threat to regional and global security." Bolton will also remind Congress that the world must be concerned that the outlaw communist regime could produce and then export nuclear weapons to rogue states of terrorists. "This is a danger that cannot be ignored," Bolton concludes. North Korea, he says, has one or possibly two nuclear weapons in its arsenal and could quickly produce more. Bolton's testimony suggests the U.S. may be on a collision course with Pyongyang. "We are not going to pay for the elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program," Bolton says, nor will the administration capitulate to "North Korea's claims and threats." "Giving in to nuclear blackmail will only encourage this behavior," Bolton will warn Congress. In addition to North Korea and Iran, Bolton will tick off a roll of nations now known to be playing in the high-stakes WMD game. Libya presents a serious WMD threat, Bolton will say. Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi has asserted the right to have nuclear weapons, and his chemical warfare efforts are well advanced. Libya has a biological warfare program. Syria maintains a chemical warfare program, has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and is engaged in research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents. They are also working on biological weapons. Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort and has provided dual-use biotechnology to rogue states. Sudan may pursue a ballistic missile capability in the near future, Bolton will predict. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/07_06_03_c.asp * RUMBLINGS AFOOT IN AZERBAIJAN by William O. Beeman Lebanon Daily Star, 7th June Washington officials continue to look for a way to dislodge the clerical leadership of Iran's Islamic Republic. The latest ploy may be to inflame passions in the most politically active part of Iran-Azerbaijan. Administration officials have been meeting quietly with Mahmoud Ali Chehregani, who heads the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakeness Movement which is operating inside Iran. Although, according to the Washington Times, defense officials emphasized their meetings were not aimed at supporting or encouraging a change in Iran's government, it is hard to believe such an assertion. It is now no secret that the Bush administration would like to see "regime change" in Iran. However, military planners know that an Iraq-style invasion could not win in a military conflict with Iranian troops. Therefore the most satisfactory strategy for the White House hawks will be to try to find an indigenous resistance movement and provide it with financial, possibly logistical, support and hope for the best. Chehregani seems ideal. He is an academic (a linguist), and a charismatic figure. He was a popular Parliament representative from Azerbaijan, elected with 600,000 votes. He was imprisoned three years ago for his strong protests against the Islamic regime, but freed with the help of Amnesty International and a letter from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. More important, he espouses a secular, democratic government for Iran. Azerbaijan is fertile ground for a new Iranian political movement. It has traditionally been the part of Iran with the loosest connections to Tehran. Although culturally Iranian, the majority of its population speaks Azeri - a Turkic language. Armenian, Assyrian and Kurdish communities make up significant minority populations in the region Over the past century, four major anti-government movements have begun from Azerbaijan, starting with Iran's constitutional revolution in 1905. Azerbaijanis also claim to have started the Islamic revolution of 1978-9. Its independent spirit was exploited by the Soviet Union immediately after World War II. Azerbaijanis also tried to set up an independent People's Republic of Azerbaijan in 1945. For a short period, they succeeded. Then the Soviet Union tried to convert it into a communist republic. The United States intervened at that time, and the Iranian state took the extraordinary measure of using the World Court in the Hague to get the Soviets to withdraw. Ever since this period, the Iranian central state has kept a wary eye on the Azerbaijanis. Under the shah, publication in Azeri and other minority languages was repressed, and although there has been some relaxation of this policy, publication and school instruction in Azeri is discouraged. Under the Islamic Republic, chief resistance to the form of government espoused by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who had extensive support in Azerbaijan. When Khomeini held a referendum on the kind of government Iranians were to choose, he gave voters only one choice: an Islamic republic with the chief Ayatollah as head. Shariatmadari lobbied for wider choice, and his followers rioted and occupied the Tabriz radio station. Eventually, Shariatmadari was arrested and stripped of his religious credentials, leaving Azerbaijanis deeply resentful of this action. The idea of independence for Azerbaijan is still alive. Chehregani was welcomed warmly in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. It is known that the citizens of that country would welcome reunification with Iranian Azerbaijan, something the Iranians do not favor. Chehregani has also espoused a government for Iran that would be a federation, somewhat like the United States or Germany, where individual states would have a degree of autonomy. Still, President Aliyev of the Republic of Azerbaijan is 80 years old and in poor health. He collapsed suddenly on June 3. Although few people expect much change in that nation upon his passing (his son is being groomed for the presidency), one never knows. The United States is interested in the developments in Azerbaijan not only because of the possibility of launching regime change from an Azeri platform, but because of something much more important - oil. Azerbaijan lies just between the great Caspian oil fields, and the oil fields of northern Iraq. The transport of Caspian oil is one of the great economic puzzles of modern times. If Iranian Azerbaijan were to take a sharp turn toward the United States, a new pipeline linking the Caspian fields with the Iraqi oil delivery system would be constructed in a trice. The schemes for transforming Iran now seem to be proliferating: using the Mujahideen Khalq (the anti-Iranian government terrorist group in Iraq), restoring the monarchy, direct military intervention. With so many plans in play, can anyone doubt that one of them, at least, will eventually be activated? Stay tuned. William O. Beeman (William_beeman@brown.edu) teaches anthropology and is director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. He is author of Language, Status and Power in Iran, and two forthcoming books: Double Demons: Cultural Impediments to US-Iranian Understanding; and Iraq: State in Search of a Nation. PROBLEMS WITH THE WORLD RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT Vol. 6, No. 25, 6 June 2003 * RUSSIAN CONTRACTS IN IRAQ: FORGIVE OR FORGET? by Daniel Kimmage World punditry's sound bite of the moment is "Punish France, ignore Germany, forgive Russia." Attributed to U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, the phrase is said to be the blueprint for the United States' postwar policy toward its three most prominent prewar critics. The current brouhaha over the contract to develop Iraq's vast West Qurna oil field indicates that, at least as far as Russia is concerned, forgiveness is a tricky business. West Qurna is one of Iraq's tastier morsels. According to data published in "Vedomosti" on 2 June, the field contains reserves of 8 billion-10 billion barrels of oil. A 1997 production sharing agreement gave Russia's LUKoil a 68.5 percent stake in the field (with 3.25 percent stakes each for compatriots Mashinoimport and Zarubezhneft). The agreement, which ran through 2020, envisaged investments of $6 billion into the field's development. According to a report in "Kommersant" on 27 May, the contract would have brought the three Russian companies $70 billion worth of oil. UN sanctions rendered the contract stillborn. Iraq canceled the contract with LUKoil in December, initially alleging that the company had failed to meet its obligations. LUKoil pointed indignantly to UN sanctions that prohibited work on the project. Subsequent reports indicated that Saddam Hussein's regime really intended to punish LUKoil for behind-the-scenes talks with the United States aimed at securing the company a role in a post-Hussein Iraq. Throughout, LUKoil insisted that unilateral termination represented a violation of the contract's terms and promised to pursue the matter through international arbitration. War temporarily quelled the controversy. The issue resurfaced on 26 May, when Thamir al-Ghadban, Iraq's U.S.-appointed oil minister, told the BBC that LUKoil had "already lost" its contract to develop West Qurna. With their company suddenly in the unenviable position of a suitor spurned by both Hussein and his successors, LUKoil representatives went on an verbal offensive. "Kommersant" reported spokesman Dmitrii Dolgov's official reaction the next day: "We do not consider the remarks by Thamir al-Ghadban the official position of the legitimate government of Iraq. We will conduct negotiations about the future of the oil field only with lawfully elected authorities." LUKoil Vice President Leonid Fedun went farther, threatening legal action in the event of the contract's cancellation: "We'll arrest tankers with Iraqi oil through the arbitration court in Geneva. LUKoil will present claims for $20 billion in lost profits." Coming on the heels of Russia's 22 May vote for a U.S.-backed UN resolution to end sanctions against Iraq, al-Ghadban's comments prompted a gloomy 27 May editorial in "Vedomosti." "Russia has lost the diplomatic Iraqi campaign once and for all," the editors began. They went on to conclude: "The bargaining failed: the resolution passed, and the U.S. position has hardly changed. The fate of the debt, it's true, may still be decided within the Paris Club of creditors, but the contracts will be canceled." LUKoil kept pressing its case. On 30 May, Interfax quoted an anonymous source in the company as saying that the lifting of sanctions on 22 May had kicked off a 100-day period in which LUKoil would begin fulfilling the terms of its West Qurna contract. On 1 June, a U.S. State Department representative told a briefing in St. Petersburg, temporarily at the center of world attention for its 300th anniversary celebration, that al Ghadban's comments had been "incorrectly cited," Prime-TASS reported the same day. The official explained that a decision on West Qurna would have to wait for a government to emerge in Baghdad. Until then, all contracts would be frozen. By 2 June, LUKoil Vice President Leonid Fedun had switched from litigation to negotiation. "We are in consultation with the occupying power," he told journalists at an investment conference, "The Moscow Times" reported the next day. According to Fedun, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was making LUKoil's case to U.S. officials in the course of high level contacts in St. Petersburg and Evian, France. The two highest levels of contact were coy when queried about Qurna. According to the White House transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov), U.S. President George W. Bush responded to a question about Iraqi oil and Russian companies at a 1 June joint press conference in St. Petersburg as follows: "And as to the energy sector, the Iraqi people will make the decision which is in their best interest." Not to be outdone, Russian President Vladimir Putin parried: "We don't rule out that our companies will work there. That will depend on the situation that emerges in Iraq." West Qurna is not the only Russian oil contract in Iraq, just the biggest and best-known. "Nefte Compass" reported on 28 May that other contracts include: Mashinoimport ($77 million), Slavneft ($21.2 million), Zarubezhneft ($8.3 million), Tatneft ($4.8 million), and Stroitransgaz ($33.5 million and $150 million). According to "Nefte Compass," representatives of LUKoil, Zarubezhneft, and Stroitransgaz plan to accompany a group of Russian diplomats to Baghdad in early June to discuss the fate of the contracts. Under Saddam Hussein, Baghdad made lavish promises to Russian companies; Moscow responded with occasionally sympathetic rhetoric. With UN sanctions preventing real movement on the juiciest contracts, the billions remained shimmering on the horizon as the two capitals bartered promises for rhetoric in a verbal tit-for-tat that did not, in the end, amount to much. With Hussein gone and UN sanctions a thing of the past, the development of West Qurna is now a real possibility. That said, LUKoil's future in Iraq remains shrouded in uncertainty. What seems clearer in the back-and-forth of the past week is that even if the pundits are right about postwar forgiveness for prewar obstreperousness, forgiveness might not come easy. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/emb-j05.shtml * US RAID ON PALESTINIAN EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD: AN ACT OF POLITICAL GANGSTERISM by Jean Shaoul World Socialist Web, 5th June US troops raided and ransacked the Palestinian embassy in Baghdad at the end of May. They arrested 11 members of its staff, including its top diplomat, and nothing has been heard of the Palestinians since then. The raid is an act of political gangsterism carried out by US armed forces that have occupied Iraq on the basis of an illegal war. It was instigated at the direct request of Israel's finance secretary and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. An AP report cites Mohammad Abdul Wahab, a member of staff at the embassy, as saying, "They even took all our water bottles and food cans. They behaved like common thieves." According to Wahab, on May 28 dozens of US troops escorted by several armoured vehicles entered the embassy. After the guards opened the gate, they were immediately arrested and handcuffed by the soldiers who burst into the building and held up officials, drivers and gardeners, including Charge d 'Affaires Najah Abdul Rahman who was running the legation in the ambassador's absence. Wahab said that they were taken to a US base in the centre of the city and are still in custody. The soldiers kicked and smashed their way in‹many of the doors in the building had the marks of combat boots‹and used shotguns to blast open office doors, although they were all either unlocked or had keys in them. Filing cabinets were ransacked and their contents removed. Troops broke off the hinges of an embassy safe and cleaned it out. They smashed an official photo of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian president, and threw it on the ground. Wahab said that the soldiers had taken away two embassy flags and seized three AK-47 automatic rifles and a hand gun that the sentries had used to guard the building during the looting that destroyed much of the city after the US seized Baghdad. "To attack a foreign embassy is a criminal act and a breach of diplomatic immunity," Wahab said. The US troops had told the embassy staff that the mission did not have "authorisation" to possess automatic weapons, claiming this as proof of the embassy staff's involvement in terrorism. But Wahab explained that they had had a licence from the Saddam Hussein government. "Every embassy has guns. We used them to ward off looters," he said. Many foreign organisations and rich Iraqis have hired armed guards since the collapse of law and order after the US overthrew the Hussein regime. Following the raid, the troops sealed off the embassy, putting up barbed wire around the building and locking the main gate. The next day, US General David McKiernan, commander of US ground forces in Iraq, confirmed the raid but claimed that only eight people were detained‹seven Palestinians and one Syrian. McKiernan said that he did not know how many of them had diplomatic status. "This happened in a part of Baghdad where we lost a soldier," he said. He clearly meant to imply that the Palestinians were responsible and that the embassy was being used as a weapons store for terrorists. The following day, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher announced that all diplomats accredited under the Saddam Hussein regime could no longer expect diplomatic immunity or any of the rights accorded under accreditation to Saddam Hussein's government. The US was "discouraging" foreign diplomats from entering Iraq until a new government was in place as "at this point there is really no purpose" for them to be there. Even those who were there with the approval of the US forces did not have diplomatic immunity, he added. The raid follows the deliberate bombing of the embassy on April 7. The attack from an air to-ground missile launched by US military aircraft in broad daylight severely damaged the building and its contents. The embassy is located in Baghdad's diplomatic quarter. A Palestinian Authority spokesman at the time said, "No other embassies were targeted for bombing, which proves that the targeting of the Palestinian embassy was premeditated and not an accident." He denounced it as a flagrant violation of all diplomatic norms and laws, which give foreign embassies immunity and safety and considers them outside the theatre of military operations. The attack followed the bombing the previous day of a civilian neighbourhood of Palestinian refugees, who have been in Iraq since the establishment of the Zionist state in 1948. The US has ripped up every international convention of wartime conduct. It is now open season. Anything goes. During its illegal war on Iraq, Washington has shot and killed journalists covering the war and bombed the Al-Jazeera TV station in Baghdad. It also bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO-led war on Serbia in 1999, to name but a few of its most egregious acts. The recent attacks on the Palestinian embassy are important for what they reveal. Firstly, this is an undisguised attempt to link the Palestinians to Iraq and terrorism in an effort to intimidate the Palestinian Authority at Israel's behest. There is every indication that this attack was mounted at Israel's insistence. An article on Israel's finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu's website by Joseph Farah states: "As I report in the latest edition of G2 Bulletin, there is plenty of substantial evidence to suggest the Palestinian embassy in Iraq knows plenty about where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were hidden. "Sources said the site's diplomatic immunity kept the documents beyond the reach of UN arms inspectors for years and may still present a hurdle for US-led forces. The documents relate to the purchase of raw materials required for Iraq's manufacture and deployment of weapons of mass destruction. The PA embassy is situated in Yasser Arafat's private residence in Baghdad, a heavily guarded palatial structure well inside a compound. "One of the Iraqi opposition groups' American sympathisers, who worked with them in London from 1991 to 1994 and resumed activity on their behalf in Washington, said that the hidden documents refer to Iraq's chemical weapons, VX nerve gas, "and possibly nuclear arms." Netanyahu is the political favourite of the far-right, Christian fundamentalist and extreme Zionist elements that exercise such political sway within the Bush administration. With this raid and arrests, the Bush administration is sending out a message writ large. It intends to impose its "road map" and the Palestinian Authority (PA) had better fall in line with the demands of the Zionist state, or face being linked directly to the so-called war against terrorism in line with the repeated demands of the Likud government. To avoid this fate, the PA must police and pin down their own people in fenced off reservations‹cynically termed an "independent" state‹in the interests of US imperialism and its local sheriff in the region, Ariel Sharon, in Israel. More generally, this action is aimed at intimidating everyone and anyone who steps out of line. Libya certainly got the message. Two days after Boucher's announcement, Libya announced that it was breaking off diplomatic relations with Iraq and closing its embassy in Baghdad. "Libya has decided to cut diplomatic relations with Iraq, to close its embassy in Baghdad and recall all its personnel," the Foreign Ministry said. It added that the decision was taken as a result of "the practices of the American and British occupation forces against diplomatic missions in Baghdad and the announcement that their diplomatic immunity had lapsed". It stressed that the US-led occupation was responsible for the safe return of the Libyan diplomats and the protection of their embassy. One of the most significant features of the raid is the lack of opposition to them from right across the official political spectrum. One has to ask: where is the outrage at such acts of US barbarism and lawlessness? Just what does the Bush administration have to do before suffering some form of censure? The United Nations and the European Union that have bankrolled the Palestinian Authority have kept silent, fearful of upsetting Washington and provoking a chain of social unrest that will threaten their own imperialist interests in the region. The craven Arab regimes have not uttered a word of condemnation. The Libyans pulled out of Baghdad without so much as criticising the US. Nor have there been any angry outcries from the world's press. Large sections of the nominally liberal press failed even to report the affair or dropped it like a hot potato after an initial cursory article. Such silence paves the way for similar bullying, intimidation and the tearing up of social norms and basic democratic rights all over the world including in the US and in the European metropolitan centres. PROBLEMS WITH MEDIA http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/jun/04/060404573.html * OCCUPIERS PROPOSE NEW MEDIA CODE IN IRAQ by Borzou Daragahi Las Vegas Sun, 4th June BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Faced with a freewheeling Iraqi media, the U.S.-led occupation authority is devising a code of conduct for the press, drawing protests from Iraqi journalists who endured censorship under Saddam Hussein and worry for their newfound freedom. Coalition officials say the code is not intended to censor the media, only to stifle intemperate speech that could incite violence and hinder efforts to build a civil society. The country is just too fragile for a journalistic free-for-all, they say. "There's no room for hateful and destabilizing messages that will destroy the emerging Iraqi democracy," Mike Furlong, a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, told The Associated Press. "All media outlets must be responsible." U.S. forces have reason to worry about instability. Divisions run deep in postwar Iraq, a tribal society split between majority Shiite Muslims and minority Sunnis and between Arabs, Kurds and smaller ethnic groups. Plus there is a thick seam of distaste for the American occupation. The issue is also proving another example of the coordination problems that bedevil the effort to rebuild Iraq. As coalition officials draw up press regulations, the U.S. State Department brought together media people this week in Athens, Greece, to devise a proposed rule book for Iraqi journalists. Naheed Mehta, a coalition spokeswoman, said occupation officials didn't know about the Athens meeting. Representatives of the Athens group didn't know about the code being drawn up in Baghdad. Asked about the unofficial proposal put together in Athens, Mehta said, "There's no reason why that can't feed into our work." Coalition officials haven't released details of their planned code. But, Iraqi journalists, when told of the idea, worried that it could lead to censorship. "How can they say we have a democracy?" demanded Eshta Jassem Ali Yasseri, 25, editor of the new satirical weekly Habezbooz. "That's not democracy. It sounds like the same old thing." Under Saddam, all media were controlled by the government and anyone who strayed beyond the official line was punished. But in the weeks since Saddam's government fell, new newspapers and other media have sprouted, blanketing the streets with information and opinions - some of which have called for resistance or even violence. "Under America's watch: raping, killing, burning and looting," read a recent headline in Al Ahrar, a new semiweekly paper. Another newspaper, Al-Haqiqa, this week began publishing excerpts of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - an anti-Semitic forgery by the Russian czarist secret police that purported to be a plan for Jewish domination of the world economy. Mehta said the Coalition Provisional Authority's regulations would ban hate messages, including statements likely to "incite violence or ethnic or racial hatred." "I'm not going to comment on specifics. They are still in the discussion phase," she said. "These are all issues that need to be looked at." The Americans already are making clear they are keeping an eye on Iraqi media. Editors at the new daily newspaper Al-Manar said U.S. soldiers turned up at its offices last week to tell them about a new media monitoring board and ask for their opinion. "They plan to set up a committee and some jerks will be on it," said Mohamad Jubar, the editor in chief. "I'll fight any attempt at censorship." Iraq's postwar journalists and politicians say criticism of authority is at the core of the democratic ideal. U.S. officials in Iraq insist there will be no attempt to block criticism of the occupation. The Baghdad television station, for instance, which falls under the coalition's control, has run a number of stories critical of the U.S.-led occupation. Journalists there say they're allowed - and even encouraged - to criticize the occupation authority responsibly. One recent report showed footage of U.S. soldiers grappling with retirees trying to collect pensions. "We've done some pretty critical stories on U.S. authorities," said Don North, an Arlington, Va.-based adviser to the station who has helped launch independent media in the Balkans and eastern Europe. "The journalists ask, `It is it all right to criticize the U.S. in our story?'" North said. "Yes, of course - if you can substantiate the charges." Still, to Iraqi journalists, the idea of a code evokes years past when media were tightly controlled by the Ministry of Information and Odai Hussein, Saddam's son and former head of the Iraqi journalists union. "Is there a media code of conduct in the U.S. or U.K.? Why should there be such a thing here?" asked Hamid al-Bayati, a leader of the Iran-linked Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Its new newspaper regularly criticizes the occupation. Furlong said the coalition would not tolerate "outside forces spreading destabilizing messages," an apparent reference to Iran, which has flooded airwaves with radio and television broadcasts critical of the occupation. Even some Iraqi journalists wonder if the media scramble is excessive. Jubar, the Al-Manar editor, called the current climate "a mess," and Hamida Smessem, the new dean of Baghdad University's journalism faculty, said the unfettered media is too much, too soon. "These newspapers need to be organized, Smessem said. "They're hurting each other with these words." As U.S.-led occupation officials draw up a code of conduct for Iraqi media, an international gathering of legal and media experts working independently in Greece sketched out its own ideas this week. Some key proposals: -Adopt media law with penalties, ranging from public apologies to closure, for defamation, incitement to violence, hate speech. -Set up council to help draw up code of conduct for journalists, resolve complaints against media. -Create commission to regulate media, with authority to allocate radio and TV frequencies, monitor content, hear complaints. Separate board would hear appeals. -Do not require licenses for newspapers, magazines, individual journalists. -Grant public and press access to all documents and decisions of U.S.-led interim governing authority. -Allow private Internet service providers to operate. -Transform state-owned radio and TV into public broadcasting system with editorial independence. -Turn government newspapers over to independent, private owners. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,972620,00.html * A NASTY SLIP ON IRAQI OIL by Ian Mayes The Guardian, 7th June On Wednesday, journalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil". Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind, as a deluge of email, most of it from the US, was quick to point out. Some of it registered disappointment more than anything else - disappointment that a valued source of news and liberal comment had in this instance let them down. "The briefest of searches will bring up articles to totally discredit your story," one complained. Many correspondents seized the opportunity the paper had provided to attack it. One wrote from Chicago: "Thousands of people all over the world read your paper's internet edition. It is a global journalistic presence and a global force...In the past year I have seen your paper abandon any pretext of objectivity and become little more than agitprop for the Bush-haters' club." Another called the report "part of what appears to be...an ongoing media campaign to discredit Jews in general and Mr Bush in particular". Here is one in the disappointed category: "You make it sound [as though Mr Wolfowitz] was saying the US had to go to war for economic reasons because it needed the Iraqi oil, when what he was really saying was that...economic sanctions and incentives didn't work with Iraq because of the oil revenue. "I'm no fan of the Bush administration - but this is blatant manipulation. If you want to condemn the Bushies there are sufficient facts...without inventing them. My trust in the integrity of your newspaper rests upon a prominent retraction in tomorrow's edition." By 4.30pm on Thursday, about 24 hours after it was posted, the report was deleted. A statement to that effect was posted prominently on the home page of the website. It was amended at about 5.30pm to take in more of the precise words of Mr Wolfowitz, which were available on the website of the US defence department. That statement remained on the home page of the Guardian website until about 6.30pm. At that time all the corrections that were published on the leader page of yesterday's print edition, with the Wolfowitz correction leading, were made available to the website, several hours earlier than usual. Unusual efforts were made not only to correct but to kill the story because it was wrong and by Thursday morning was attracting worldwide interest. There were telephone calls from media organisations in South Africa and New Zealand, for example, seeking to check it. It provided another example of the speed with which information (and misinformation), spreads through the internet. The paper has done its best to send a frank correction in pursuit and I repeat it here: "A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, 'The...difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.' The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed." That has not satisfied all the paper's critics. There is no total satisfaction in these situations. The story should not have run. In view of the significance of the statements attributed to Mr Wolfowitz, rigorous checking should have taken place. The hazard of translating remarks from German back into the English in which they were originally made should have been apparent. It concluded a week in which the Guardian apologised to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, for locating him at a meeting he did not attend. It has not been the best of weeks. _______________________________________________ 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