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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] News, 14-22/10/03 (3)

News, 14-22/10/03 (3)


* A Toothless Resolution
*  A Solid Vote That Buttresses 'Made in USA'
*  U.S. presents draft Iraq resolution to UN
*  Upcoming donors conference shaping up
*  Contentious Iraq resolution withdrawn by OIC leaders
*  Jews rule world but Muslims can win


*  Iraq appeals to Kuwait to forego war reparations     
*  Iraqis force rethink on Turkish help
*  Kuwaiti Cabinet forms committee to examine Iraqi war crimes
*  Time for Arabs to stop saying 'no'


*  CIA and Pentagon split over uranium intrigue
*  Powell 'Misled Public over Iraq Threat'
*  Experts Downplay Bioagent

[Riverbend on sniffer dogs and Turks]


by Fred Kaplan Posted
Slate, 15th October

Hip, hip, but not hurray. The U.N. Security Council is expected to approve
the Bush administration's revised draft of a resolution designed to
legitimize the U.S.-led occupation authority and the U.S.-commanded security
force in Iraq. However, the vote will probably be close and, in any case,
the support is certainly tepid.

There is good reason for this lack of enthusiasm. The resolution essentially
changes nothing. Its drafters have paid lip service to accelerating the
process of Iraqi self-governance and strengthening the United Nations' role
in this process. But a close reading of the resolution indicates that all power remains
in American hands, that no real authority is transferred to the United
Nations, and that a new Iraqi government remains a long way off.

The resolution may pass, but the act will have no effect. It will not compel
or persuade other countries to donate money or manpower. Nor will it
convince anyone who needs convincing on the ground in Iraq that the U.S.
occupation is short-term or legitimate. In short, the resolution fails to
accomplish the main diplomatic tasks at hand-to share the burdens of
building postwar Iraq and to quell the violent resistance so the rebuilding
can proceed securely.

Take a look at Section 1 of the resolution. This contains the much-quoted
passage that notes the "temporary nature" of the U.S.-led occupation
authority, and emphasizes that the authority's functions "will cease when an
internationally recognized, representative government established by the
people of Iraq is sworn in" and takes over the authority's responsibilities.

Sounds good, but two things are amiss here. First, most members of the
Security Council want authority to pass from the United States to the
Security Council itself-or to some body representing the Security
Council-before moving into the hands of a new Iraqi government. Section 1
explicitly rejects this position: The U.S.-led authority will cease only
when the new government is sworn in; there is no provision for an interim
U.N. (or any other international) body.

Second, nothing in the resolution indicates that this transfer is going to
take place any time soon. Many press reports have noted that the resolution
gives Iraq's current Governing Council a deadline of Dec. 15 to come up with
a new constitution and a procedure for holding democratic elections. Some
reports have depicted this deadline as a sign of the Bush administration's
newborn realization that power must be transferred quickly.

In fact, the deadline does no such thing. It merely "invites" (not
"requires") the Governing Council "to provide to the Security Council, for
its review" (with no provision for how long the review will last), "a
timetable and a program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and
for the holding of democratic elections under that constitution" (not a new
constitution, not the drafting of a new constitution, but merely "a
timetable and a program" for the drafting).

How long will it take to go from a) an invitation to submit a timetable and
a program to b) a review of the timetable and program to c) the actual
drafting of a constitution to d) the approval of a constitution to e) the
holding of elections to f) the elections' winners taking power?

Judging from the resolution, the Bush administration assumes it will take at
least a year. The telltale sign here is Section 15, which notes that the
mandate of the U.S.-commanded multinational security force "shall expire .
when an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq has
been sworn in and assumed the responsibilities of the Authority." However,
Section 15 also notes that the U.N. Security Council shall review the
requirements and mission of the multinational security force "not later than
one year from the date of this resolution." Put those two provisions
together, and one can infer that Bush assumes the multinational force will
still exist-meaning the new Iraqi government will not yet have been sworn
in-a year from now.

The resolution does contain a few compromises by the Bush administration. In
Section 15, it is a new concession that the Security Council is given any
role in reviewing requirements and missions of the multinational force. It
is also new that, in Section 7, the Security Council reviews the Governing
Council's timetable for a new constitution. Previously it had been assumed,
if not laid down in stone, that the U.S.-led authority alone would have
these roles.

However, it should be noted that these sections do not give the Security
Council any power to do anything as a result of its reviews. And the review
provided in Section 7 is explicitly to be conducted "in cooperation with the

Those compromises will probably be enough to push the resolution through.
They do reflect, albeit to a very limited degree, a realization that the
United Nations must be more actively involved in the occupation if a new,
democratic Iraq is ever to take hold. James Dobbins, former head of
peacekeeping operations in the Bush and Clinton administrations, thinks this
will be but the first of several resolutions that move steadily in a more
multilateral direction. The other member-states of the Security Council are
thinking along these same lines-which is why they will probably approve this
resolution, however half-heartedly.

Another reason for its likely approval is that, in the meantime, just as it
poses no real obligations for the United States to share power in Iraq, it
also poses no obligations for the rest of the world to share burdens.

As with previous resolutions on the subject, it merely "welcomes the
positive response of the international community"; "urges member states to
contribute assistance . including military force, to the multinational
force"; "calls upon member states . to contribute to the training and
equipping of Iraqi police"; "appeals to member states and international
financial institutions to strengthen their effort to assist the people of
Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy"; and so forth.
Nowhere does the resolution determine or demand or insist that assistance be
rendered. (Emphasis added.)

The other countries of the Security Council no doubt have, to some extent,
self-aggrandizing motives for their demand to be included in Iraq's
transitional rule. They want a hand on the lever of power, they want a share
of commercial contracts. However, they also have objectively reasonable
motives for this demand. Why should they spend their taxpayers' money and
risk their soldiers' lives for a cause that most of them never believed in
without a substantial say over how their resources will be used?

by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer
Yahoo, 17th October

The Bush administration, having won unanimous approval yesterday of a U.N.
Security Council resolution that backs the U.S.-appointed Iraqi leaders, was
muted in its celebration -- and for good reason.

President Bush (news - web sites) greeted the vote with one sentence,
thanking the Security Council, toward the end of a speech in California and
an 80-word written statement. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, while
calling it "a great achievement," was careful to add: "I don't see this vote
as opening the door to troops."

The 15 to 0 vote, bringing in not just France, Germany and Russia but also
Syria, was no small feat. But analysts and diplomats said the impact of the
resolution would be limited, and perhaps not worth its cost of exposing the
deep-seated resentments in the world community over the U.S. handling of the
Iraq (news - web sites) war. Few believe the Security Council's resolution
will bring much in terms of pledges of troops or aid, even though the Bush
administration originally sought the resolution for precisely that reason.

France's permanent representative to the United Nations (news - web sites),
Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, underscored that point when he read a statement
from France, Germany and Russia calling the resolution "a step in the right
direction" but saying it "should have gone further" to broaden the U.N. role
and transfer power to Iraqis. "In that context, the conditions are not
created for us to envisage any military commitment and any further financial
contribution beyond our present engagement."

And Pakistan, from which the administration has eagerly sought troops for
Iraq, said the resolution was not good enough. "Under these circumstances,
Pakistan will not be able to contribute troops for the multinational force
in Iraq," Pakistan's U.N. ambassador, Munir Akram, told the Security

A week ago, some U.S. officials had suggested the administration was on the
verge of withdrawing the resolution. That would have been a diplomatic
disaster, and might have imperiled the congressional vote on Bush's $87
billion funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). But a
range of analysts said the final vote, while far better than a withdrawal or
a resolution approved with numerous abstentions, is too weak to be
considered much of a victory.

Dropping the resolution "would have been a colossal slap in the face," said
Kenneth M. Pollack, research director at the Saban Center for Middle East
Policy at the Brookings Institution. "They successfully avoided a major
negative. It is not a major plus."

The resolution does provide a U.N. imprimatur to the American enterprise
(news - web sites), both to the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and
U.S.-led occupation forces. But analysts said it largely papered over
differences between the United States and many key nations on the Security
Council, ensuring that the effort to build an Iraqi government will remain
stamped with a "Made in USA" label.

"It was in the interest of all concerned to get another resolution," said
Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy. He said the resolution "will make incremental progress; that is the
name of the game in Iraq. The glass is a little more full."

Indeed, some of the support appeared mostly intended to begin repairing
relations with the Bush administration, as some nations were distinctly
uncomfortable with the resolution's language. Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, the
Mexican ambassador, earlier this week told the Security Council he had deep
reservations about the U.S. proposal, especially language saying that the
U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council "embodies the sovereignty of the
State of Iraq," sources said. But after declaring the resolution all but
useless, he indicated he would vote for it anyway.

The World Bank (news - web sites) has estimated Iraq will need $35 billion
in reconstruction aid through 2007, in addition to $20 billion that the
administration has requested from Congress. Japan said Wednesday that it
would provide $5 billion in aid and loans, and the European Union (news -
web sites) has pledged a little over $200 million. It is unclear how the
administration will bridge the gap.

The only major nation to pledge more troops in recent weeks is Turkey, which
indicated it could provide as many as 10,000. But the Iraqi Governing
Council has balked at permitting Turkish troops in Iraq, given the long
history of animosity between Turks and Kurds in northern Iraq.

U.S. officials worked hard in recent days to tweak the resolution to bring
on board Russia, France, China and Germany -- key nations that had been at
odds with the United States over its decision to go to war without U.N.

Passage of the resolution "shows a desire on the part of the United States
and others to heal the breach over Iraq," said Jessica Tuchman Mathews,
president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But, she added,
"in content, it accomplishes very little."

For instance, she said, while the resolution appears to convey some status
of government to the Iraqi Governing Council, in reality the Coalition
Provisional Authority does not treat it as a sovereign government. Moreover,
although the United States in part sought the resolution to bolster the role
of the United Nations, she said that status of the world body and its role
in the political transition are barely addressed.

Lee Feinstein, acting director of the Washington program at the Council on
Foreign Relations and a former Clinton administration official, noted that
this is the third Security Council resolution on rebuilding Iraq since the
war, and it will likely have as much impact as the first two. "The
administration isn't interested in broadening international support for the
reconstruction in Iraq," he said.

Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at
the American Enterprise Institute, said it appeared that the administration
had been begging to win approval of some sort of resolution. "I'm not sure
we want to be in that position, especially if begging gets you nothing," she

RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT, Vol. 6, No. 43, 16 October 2003

The United States formally presented a draft resolution on Iraq to the UN
Security Council on 14 October, international media reported (see "RFE/RL
Newsline," 14 October 2003). According to Reuters, the new draft sets a 15
December deadline for the Iraqi Governing Council to establish "a timetable
and a program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the
holding of democratic elections under that constitution." "The draft
outlines the process of returning as soon as possible full authority and
responsibility to the people of Iraq," U.S. State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher told a press conference in Washington on 14 October

According to on 15 October, Russia, France, and Germany
have dropped their demand that the United States transfer power to a
provisional Iraqi government in the near future. According to the website,
they have also dropped their demand calling for the UN to play a central
role in rebuilding Iraq. But the three states have called for a definitive
timetable for the end of the U.S. occupation, and for a Security Council
role in monitoring Iraq's political transition, the website reported. The
draft was cosponsored by Cameroon, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters at the UN in a 14 October
press conference that the new U.S. draft resolution on Iraq does not
represent a "major shift" from the previous version floated by the United
States, international media reported. The draft that was formally presented
on 14 October was the third revision. "Obviously, the current resolution
does not represent a major shift in the thinking of the coalition...of
course I will implement any resolution that the council might adopt, bearing
in mind the constraints that we are all aware of," Annan said.

At the told reporters on14 October: "In terms of the vital role that the
United Nations can play, they can play an important role in the humanitarian
assistance and reconstruction and the constitutional electoral process, just
to name a few. And this draft, this resolution, requests that the United
Nations and the special representative of the United Nations lend their
unique expertise to the Iraqi people in the process of drafting a
constitution and conducting the elections."

Asked about a phrase in the resolution that says that the Iraqi Governing
Council will embody the sovereignty of Iraq, Annan said: "Well, it is a nice
phrase, but the resolution also says that the occupying power is the
authority, and is the government. So in my judgment, the occupying power is
the government, will remain the government, whether this resolution is
passed or not, until such time that power is fully handed over to the
Iraqis. And I think the resolution recognizes that." (Kathleen Ridolfo)

RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT, Vol. 6, No. 43, 16 October 2003

As world leaders prepare to attend the 23-24 October donors conference for
Iraq, there are signs that the conference may fall short of reaching the
UN/World Bank estimate of $36 billion needed for Iraq over the next four

According to the Downing Street website (, the
United Kingdom will pledge some 296 million pounds (over $494 million) in
new aid over the next two years. This is in addition to the 248 million
pounds ($414 million) already pledged to Iraq, bringing the U.K.'s total
two-year commitment to 544 million pounds (about $908 million). Spain,
another major U.S. ally in the coalition that deposed former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein's regime, has said that it will pledge 90 million euros ($105
million) for reconstruction. Australia is expected to pledge "in the tens of
millions," but less than 50 million Australian dollars (nearly $34.5
million) at the Madrid conference, quoted government sources as
saying on 15 October. That contribution is in addition to the 100 million
Australian dollars ($69 million) given to Iraq in April. Denmark has pledged
$50 million.

Meanwhile, Japan has said that it would provide $1.5 billion to Iraqi
reconstruction efforts. Japanese media have reported that Japan may announce
a pledge on 23-24 October of some $5 billion over the next five years to
Iraq. It is the largest single contribution after that of the United States
and should account for around 10 percent of the estimated cost of
reconstruction. U.S. President George W. Bush has asked Congress for $20.3
billion in aid to Iraq for next year (see above). And, the European Union
has pledged some 200 million euros ($235 million) for 2003-04.

Other states are expected to contribute to the rebuilding effort in Iraq,
but have remained noncommittal. Sweden has said that it would only offer
humanitarian aid as long as the U.S. remained in charge of Iraqi
reconstruction, or until the establishment of a sovereign Iraqi government,
Reuters reported on 15 October. South Korea has said that it intends to make
a financial contribution in addition to the 5,000 combat troops already
committed to Iraq, but has thus far not disclosed an amount. And Germany,
France, and Russia have yet to commit any economic aid to Iraq.

Iraqi interim Trade Minister Ali Abd al-Amir Allawi told Reuters on 15
October that his weeklong Asian tour to secure funds for Iraqi rebuilding
has shown positive signs, particularly from Japan and South Korea. Regarding
China, Allawi said, "Their response was positive on humanitarian aid but
they're awaiting the resolution of various political issues in the [UN]
Security Council before they take a position regarding financial commitments
to reconstruction."

The CPA's chief fundraiser is former Polish Deputy Prime Minister Marek
Belka. He told Reuters in a 14 October interview that he expects the Persian
Gulf states to help in the reconstruction effort. "We expect Gulf countries
to be active in Madrid and we have unofficial promises they will be," he
said. Belka, who will begin serving as the deputy director of economic
development on 1 November, also said that he expects that some countries
would contribute by writing off Iraq's foreign debt incurred under the
deposed Hussein regime, which is estimated at about $120 billion including
commercial debt. About 45 nations are expected to attend the donors
conference. (Kathleen Ridolfo)

Bangladeshi Independent, 17th October

AFP, PUTRAJAYA, MALAYSIA, Oct 16: Islamic countries have agreed to drop a
contentious draft resolution calling for a timetable for the end of the
US-led occupation of Iraq in the face of opposition from Iraqi leaders, the
country's interim leader said Thursday.

Iraq's US-appointed Governing Council, led by Ayad Allawi who is attending
the two-day Organisation of the Islamic Conference, was also unhappy with
the resolution's call for the United Nations to take a central role in the
transition to democracy.

"The draft (resolution at the Islamic summit) contains a lot of interference
in the internal affairs of Iraq, it will be replaced by a political
statement," Allawi told AFP after the first day of the summit.

The Iraqis had received support from Kuwait ahead of a planned UN Security
Council vote on a US resolution which has no timetable for a troop
withdrawal or elections for a new government.

"We think that the Iraqis, represented by the Governing Council, should be
left to decide," Kuwait Oil Minister Ahmad Fahad Al-Sabah told reporters on
the sidelines of the summit in Malaysia's new administrative capital.

He said the Iraqis objected to the draft because it included a demand the UN
Security Council should set a timetable for the withdrawal of the US-led
coalition which toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in April.

"There are no differences on the essence, but the difference is on the
mechanism and stages that should lead to a transfer of power to the Iraqi
people," he said.

Mohammed Sauhan, director for International Organisations for United Arab
Emirates, said the statement would "confirm the sovereignty of Iraq, and
(urge) the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and the role of UN in (Iraq)".

He said the Governing Council had come under pressure from the United States
to have the resolution withdrawn.

"When the resolution was out, the Americans saw the resolution and they
started to put pressure on them," he said.

"The resolution has become a political declaration, but it will be very
weak." The OIC draft had called for the United Nations to play a "central
role in Iraq, covering all aspects of transition" and for the Security
Council to set a "defined and clear timetable for the withdrawal of
occupying powers as soon as possible".


Bangladeshi Independent, 17th October

AGENCIES, PUTRAJAYA, MALAYSIA, Oct 16: Jews rule the world by proxy but
Muslims can defeat them through the use of brains as well as brawn,
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told a major Islamic summit

In a speech at one of his last appearances on the world stage, Mahathir told
the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) summit that Muslims could
exploit what he termed the increasing arrogance of the Jewish people.

"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews
rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them," said
Mahathir, who is due to retire at the end of the month after leading this
moderate Muslim country for 22 years.

"1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews." He urged
Muslims to emulate the Jewish response to oppression, however, saying the
Jews had "survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by

"We cannot fight them through brawn alone, we must use our brains also," he

The Muslim people had become angry and the Jewish people had become
arrogant, "and arrogant people like angry people will make mistakes, will
forget to think," he said.

Mahathir said Muslims were "humiliated and oppressed", a reference not only
to the Palestinian situation but to what he sees as the West's use of the
war on terrorism as a pretence for a war against Islam.

The summit is the biggest gathering of Islamic leaders since the 2001
terrorist attacks on the United States, drawing more than 30 heads of state
and government from throughout the Muslim world.

In an apparent denunciation of terrorism, Mahathir‹who often criticises both
sides in a dispute‹said "we find some of our people acting irrationally,"
killing themselves and others as they "lash back blindly in anger".

Muslims must seek another way to "counter-attack", he said, calling for them
to build stable, economically strong and technologically advanced countries
along with military might.

"Of late, because of their power and their apparent success they have become
arrogant. And arrogant people like angry people will make mistakes, will
forget to think."

"They are already beginning to make mistakes. And they will make more
mistakes. There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future.
We must seize these opportunities," he urged fellow leaders.

Mahathir's speech, apart from its racially explicit attack on the Jewish
people‹rather than the state of Israel, was in line with the general theme
of the summit, which is that the Muslims feel besieged by the fallout from
the terrorist attacks on the United States.



Jordan Times, 15th October
KUWAIT CITY (AFP) ‹ A leading member of Iraq's US-appointed Governing
Council has appealed to Kuwait to forego tens of billions of dollars in war
reparations, saying the Iraqi people too were victims of Saddam Hussein, a
newspaper reported Tuesday.

"We are looking for an understanding from the State of Kuwait... That Saddam
Hussein oppressed the Iraqi people before oppressing Kuwait," Ibrahim Al
Jaafari said in remarks published in Al Rai Al Aam.

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, ousted by a US-led coalition in
April, was never elected by the Iraqi people, who should not pay for his
mistakes, said Jaafari, who spoke on arrival in Kuwait late Monday night.

"We believe that the Kuwaiti government and people are well aware that this
(Saddam's atrocities) is not linked to Iraq in any way... We look for a
humanitarian gesture to overcome this issue," Jaafari added.

The US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, last month called on Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia to re-examine war reparation payments Baghdad owes them in
light of Iraq's poverty and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who ordered the
invasion of Kuwait.

"Regarding Bremer's call to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to forego reparations,
this is an Iraqi request," stressed Jaafari, who is the third member of the
Governing Council to visit Kuwait in the past two weeks.

The two other members, Abdel Aziz Al Hakim, the leader of the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Massoud Barzani, who heads
the Kurdistan Democratic Party, have acknowledged the emirate's right to
compensation but appealed for at least a payment delay.

Bremer's call was condemned by Kuwaiti lawmakers, who threatened action
against the government if it responded positively.

Parliament's legal and legislative panel Monday cleared the way for such
action by unanimously approving a draft law banning the Kuwaiti government
from foregoing war reparations from Iraq.

The bill, which was sent to another parliamentary panel to be finalised,
must be passed by the 50-member house and endorsed by Kuwait's emir to
become a binding law.

Kuwait has filed compensation claims worth more than $170 billion to the
United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), set up by the UN Security
Council after Iraq invaded the emirate in 1990.

The UNCC has already approved claims worth about $35 billion to Kuwait and
paid out just under $9 billion, mostly to individuals.,3604,1064851,00.html

by Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
The Guardian, 17th October

The US-British coalition in Iraq is running into problems over its attempt
to bolster its forces with Turkish troops.

Washington and London have been forced to rethink by the level of hostility
generated in Iraq by the prospect of troops from Turkey, a neighbour and
detested former colonial power.

The crisis has also sparked a fresh round of in-fighting in Washington
between the Pentagon and the state department.

Several options are being considered to try to minimise Iraqi anger.

One being floated is for Turkish troops to serve in Iraq but not in uniform,
a proposal that is unlikely to go down well with the Turkish high command.
Another is for the Turkish troops to be given tasks that would not involve
highly visible frontline policing of the kind being carried out by US and
British troops. Instead, they would be used to train the Iraqi army or as
border guards.

Yet another is to halve the proposed number of Turkish troops, from the
estimated 10,000 being suggested at present.

The Turkish parliament voted last week to send the troops, a move gratefully
seized on by the US and British governments, who have had little success in
obtaining troops from other countries for duties in Iraq. But the Iraqi
governing council voted by 24 to 0 against the move.

It is understood that Paul Bremer, the US envoy to Iraq and head of the
coalition in Baghdad, is sympathetic to the Iraqi governing council and
favours minimising the role of Turkish forces.

Mr Bremer is from the state department, though until now has enjoyed the
backing of the Pentagon. But Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy US defence
secretary, favours maximum involvement of Turkish troops.

The extent of the dilemma facing the US and British governments was
underlined yesterday when the Iraqi Kurdish leader, Masoud Barzani,
threatened to resign from the Iraq governing council if the Turkish troops

Turkey has a long history of suppression of the Kurds, including those in
Iraq. Mr Barzani told Asharq al-Awsat newspaper: "The intervention of
Turkish troops in Iraq will have dire consequences.

"Military involvement in Iraq by a neighbouring country will create a
dangerous situation and lead to greater instability."

The urgent need for more troops to bolster US and British forces was
underlined by the highest-ranking Briton in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who
said Iraq's open borders must be blocked.

"I don't believe that having open borders or ammunition dumps around the
country open to the world helps in damping down the use of violence on Iraqi
territory. These gaps need to be plugged," he told journalists in London on
a visit from Baghdad to brief Tony Blair on recent developments.

The US and British forces are worried about the extent of easy movement
across the border not only of supporters of the former regime but of
elements bent on mischief and supported by the Syrian and Iranian

Sir Jeremy, until recently the British ambassador to the United Nations,
said there was a need to redouble efforts on the security front.

"There is a security threat and challenge, particularly in Baghdad and in
the 'Ba'athist triangle' north and west of Baghdad. I think it will go on
for some time. You will be reporting bangs every few days in and around

He added: "That is not going to knock us off our stride ... we have to
redouble our efforts to meet that [threat]."

RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT, Vol. 6, No. 43, 16 October 2003

The Kuwaiti cabinet has decided to form a committee to examine war crimes by
the deposed Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein that took place during Iraq's
1990 invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent 1991 Gulf War, KUNA reported on
12 October. The committee will examine illegal acts with the purpose of
seeking a legal resolution to the crimes.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for Cabinet and National
Assembly Affairs Muhammad Dhaifallah Sharar said following the decision that
the committee would be chaired by the Ministry of Justice, and comprise
representatives of the Foreign, Fatwa and Legislation, and Interior
ministries, as well as the Public Authority for the Assessment of
Compensation for Losses (incurred during the invasion), the Martyr Office,
and the National Committee for Prisoners of War and Missing Affairs.

Sharar added that the committee would seek to enforce international
agreements regarding war crimes and genocide. The remains of a number of
Kuwaiti nationals missing since 1990 91 have been discovered in mass graves
in Iraq since the Hussein regime's downfall. (Kathleen Ridolfo)

Ashraf Hamdi Fouad
Lebanon Daily Star, 20th October

Iraq's occupiers need real help in what is proving to be the impossible task
of restoring security in one of the Arab world's richest states. Countries
with little knowledge of the Middle East are lining up to step in to gain
Washington's political and financial favor.

But Arab states are refusing to even explore collective negotiations with
the United States and Britain to try and influence events in one of the
region's most important nations.

Turkey, which dragged its feet during the first phase of the war, is now the
first Muslim state to pledge troops, a 10,000- strong force, to the Iraq
operation in an attempt to gain a political and military foothold in its
southern neighbor despite opposition by Iraq's Kurds. The decision is
expected to somehow have a positive impact on Turkey's debt review talks
with the IMF on a $16 billion package. Ankara last month secured $8.5
billion in Dubai in various soft loans and grants from the United States
after months of tension over the war in Iraq.

But when Arab states were offered a role, they slammed the door shut -
something they have been doing for decades now.

The Arab League at a meeting in Cairo turned down the US request for troops
with the traditional "no" instead of trying to influence realities on the
ground which many in the region disagree with so adamantly.

Probably, Macedonia or Latvia, each with about 35 troops in Iraq, have more
say in Baghdad than many Arab states, not to mention Poland which runs an
80,000 square kilometer zone in Iraq - almost the size of Jordan or the
State of Virginia and much larger than many Arab countries.

Arab states could have tried to negotiate their own terms instead of just
highlighting from the sidelines and criticizing all the mistakes that are
being committed in Iraq. Surely, Arab states want a better future for Iraqis
and can find a diplomatic formula to help without appearing to be protect
and enforce the occupation.

In the end, some Arab states might have to be part of the Iraq operation
once the United Nations Security Council agrees on a new draft resolution to
send international troops and financial aid. Arab forces could go to Iraq
but under the command of non-Arab states which will enjoy economic and
political benefits for their early "commitment" to the US plan to draw the
future of the new Middle East.

The "international" deployment in Iraq will not be on Arab terms, but rather
conditions currently being drafted in long haggling sessions held behind
closed doors between key world players and the two occupying powers. For
sure Arab demands and views are not high on that agenda, and the single Arab
member of the Security Council will have little impact on the negotiations.

Poland, with just 2,400 troops, controls the south-central Iraqi zone. Some
10,000 troops from 21 countries operate under Warsaw's command although it
has no real experience in this part of the world. And Washington is paying
Poland for a large chunk of the operational costs not to mention generous
political and economic favors, including a deal for F-16 warplanes with
considerably soft terms.

France, Germany, Russia and China - who were more vociferous than many Arab
states in opposing the Iraq war - are trying to force the hand of the United
States at the UN to surrender some of its control and grant the world body a
bigger say in the future of Iraq in return for international troops.

The United States and Britain now know that they do need a helping hand in
Iraq and their "allies" are using this and pressure from Congress after some
94 US and 11 British soldiers were killed in attacks since the end of the
war on May 1 to squeeze out of the United States the best deal possible.

But Arabs states still say "no" although they do have a chance to maneuver
in advance of a possible deal at the UN.

How about trying a new Arab policy aimed at engaging the world and having
some impact on mending this regional disorder? The policy of saying "no" and
walking out of international meetings over the past 50 years has not worked,
so far at least.

If Arabs cannot get their Iraq terms met, they could try to improve on what
is on offer and engage the occupying powers into a negotiation which will
benefit ordinary Iraqis. The world is changing fast and there are new US-led
realities that many ordinary Arabs disagree with, but they cannot be changed
or amended if regional states continue to refuse to influence them.

The Arab countries could negotiate a deal to send a united Arab force to
Iraq ready to take charge in one of the zones.

There are no language or religious barriers; there is full cultural
understanding and Arab sympathy for the Iraqi people. Add to that formula
generous Arab funds and humanitarian assistance, then we could see an
Arab-controlled zone enjoying relative stability, sufficient services with
eventual growth in terms of jobs and development projects.

Such a desired Arab success, or even part of it, would boost moral in a
region where pessimism prevails and influence events on the ground in favor
of the Arab view point. It would no doubt place positive pressure on other
foreign troops in Iraq, mainly the two occupying powers, to work harder on
matching the success by restoring law and order, providing services and
respecting basic human rights for Iraqis.

The quicker this is achieved the faster the "occupiers" could leave Iraq
with the other troops behind them.

But the Arabs have only given a collective "no" to date.

Ashraf Hamdi Fouad is a political commentator with Abu Dhabi television and
has been a correspondent in the Middle East for the past 20 years with an
international news agency. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR


byJulian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, 17th October

A bitter row has broken out between the CIA and Pentagon over reports that
Iraqi uranium was smuggled to Iran, demonstrating that the rifts between the
US agencies are as deep as ever.

The tangled tale of contraband, radiation sickness, two shifty middlemen,
secret meetings and demands for cash is the stuff of Hollywood, though it
might make a better comedy than an action movie.

Yet no uranium was found, the distrust between the CIA and the defence
department leadership has worsened, and the hunt for banned weapons to
justify the Iraq invasion is growing even more desperate.

The drama's central figure is Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer
based in Paris who was involved in the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan

At that time, the CIA gave him two lie detector tests, which he failed. In
1984 and 1985 the CIA issued two "burn notices", warning all members of the
US government not to go anywhere near him.

That did not stop two Pentagon officials from meeting Mr Ghorbanifar in
December 2001 in Paris and January 2002 in Rome, lured by his promises to
build bridges to influential Iranians who were interested in bringing down
the Tehran theocracy.

The meetings took place in secrecy, intelligence sources say, and the CIA
director, George Tenet, and the secretary of state, Colin Powell, only found
about them when the Rome meeting was reported by the US ambassador to Italy.

Nevertheless, according to one source, the meetings continued until they
were leaked to the press this summer and the defence secretary, Donald
Rumsfeld, ordered a halt.

But Mr Ghorbanifar maintained lines of communication with the
neoconservative thinktank, the American Enterprise Institute, and in
particular a friend from the Reagan days, Michael Ledeen, and through him
passed on an extraordinary story.

According to Mr Ledeen and a US intelligence source, five years ago Iraqis
working for Iranian intelligence were smuggling enriched uranium out of Iraq
and into Iran.

These agents developed radiation sickness and in the wreckage of postwar
Iraq, were willing not only to tell the story but to lead US officials to
uranium remnants that were still in a Baghdad laboratory.

"I think it's a credible story," Mr Ledeen, a former national security
council consultant, said, adding that he had talked to Mr Ghorbanifar's
source for the story, an Iraqi Shia Muslim.

Mr Ledeen took the story to the Pentagon but a Rumsfeld aide told him that
since the CIA's appointment of David Kay, a former UN inspector, as leader
of the US hunt for Iraqi weapons, the defence department's hands were tied.

The Pentagon allegedly said that "if it was up to us we'd go and look, but
no military person can do anything".

Mr Ledeen says he was told to go to the CIA but he was not hopeful about
gaining their help because of what he called their "mistake about
Ghorbanifar 20 years ago".

"I said, 'What's the worst that can happen? You've chased hundreds of false

Under pressure from the Pentagon and the White House, the CIA agreed, as
long as they did not have to talk to Mr Ghorbanifar, and after the affair
was over, the agency even issued a statement denouncing him as "a fabricator
who has peddled false information for financial gain".

According to Mr Ledeen, who helped to set up the meetings with the Iraqi
informants, two attempts to make contact failed, once when the CIA
officials' satellite phone did not function, and again when the official did
not show up.

On the third occasion, two weeks ago, the CIA men turned up, along with a
military official on the insistence of Mr Ledeen's Shia contact, and the
negotiations took place behind the tinted windows of a vehicle which was
driving around the streets of Baghdad.

Opinions differ as to who was responsible for what went wrong.

An intelligence source said Mr Ledeen's contact "couldn't answer any
questions, so we said 'get us a sliver of uranium', and he got mad. He
demanded money and when he didn't get it, he walked away.

"The whole story was the same old crap. It was typical Ghorbanifar. The idea
that these Iranian agents would smuggle uranium out five years ago, and only
now go down with radiation sickness - it was all well-designed fabrications
designed to make headlines."

Mr Ledeen said the US agents had simply misunderstood. "The CIA was going to
pay for travel, and then make a payment only if something was found. Nobody
was asking for any money in advance."

He added that the Shia middleman would not simply lead the CIA officials to
the store of uranium because it was in the control of the Iraqi agents who
had carried the rest of it into Iran. "These were people who required
protection and reward, and why not?" Mr Ledeen said.

He said he was leaving the matter in the hands of the administration was
going back to writing a book about Naples, his personal passion.

Mr Ghorbanifar remains untouchable as far as the CIA is concerned, and the
stash of uranium he talked of remains no more than a mirage.

by Mark Sage, PA News, in New York
The Scotsman, 15th October

US Secretary of State Colin Powell misled the world about the threat posed
by Iraq when he spoke at the United Nations last winter, a former top
weapons expert claimed today.

Greg Thielmann, who retired last year as the State Departmentıs expert on
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, described the appearance as one of
Mr Powellıs career "low points".

He claimed that intelligence was interpreted to lead to the conclusion that
war was necessary.

In fact, he said, Iraq posed no imminent threat to the world or even to its

His claims are contested by the American and British governments, who
believe Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and could
have eventually passed them on to terrorists.

Mr Thielmann made the claims on the CBS 60 Minutes II programme, which will
be shown on US television tonight.

He said: "I think my conclusion (about Powellıs speech) now is that itıs
probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to the

"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I
call faith-based intelligence.

"They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show.

"They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information
the intelligence community would produce."

His claims were backed up by Steve Allinson, a British-born chemical
engineer who was a team leader among the 30-member UN chemical inspection
group which was pulled out of Iraq in March when an invasion was imminent.

He said that some UN inspectors laughed during Mr Powellıs speech, during
which he memorably produced a vial to demonstrate how little anthrax could
terrorise a population.

Inspectors turned towards each other after watching Mr Powell, and said
"They have nothing,", he added.

His own experience in Iraq led him to believe that there were no stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction, he told the programme.

On one occasion, suspected "decontamination vehicles" turned out to be fire
trucks, he said.

Another time, the team examined refrigerated trucks, which intelligence
suggested were linked to biological weapons, and found nothing but cobwebs.

Earlier this month the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group said in an interim report
that so far no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

Group head David Kay added, however, that there were signs that Iraq had
breached UN resolutions on weapons and that it would take up to nine months
to finish the search.

by Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, 17th October

WASHINGTON ‹ A suspicious sample of biological material recently found by
U.S. weapons hunters in Iraq probably was purchased legally from a U.S.
organization in the 1980s and is a substance that has never been
successfully used to produce a weapon, experts said.

The discovery of the hidden vial of C. botulinum Okra B, which was revealed
in an Oct. 2 interim report by chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay, was
highlighted in speeches by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior administration officials
as proof that President Saddam Hussein's government maintained an illicit
bio-weapons program before the war.

The significance of the vial is one of several elements of Kay's report that
are being called into question by U.S. biowarfare experts and former United
Nations weapons inspectors. Although most praised Kay for uncovering
numerous cases in which Iraq hid suspicious equipment and activities from
U.N. inspectors, they said the report appeared misleading in several areas.

Overall, Kay, who returned to Iraq last week, reported that he had found no
evidence so far to indicate that Hussein's regime had reconstituted its
chemical weapons program, or had taken significant steps to build nuclear
weapons or produce fissile material, after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

He found considerable evidence, however, that Hussein secretly had begun an
extensive effort after 1998 to design missiles that violated U.N. rules; had
launched numerous schemes to procure missile technology and other prohibited
equipment from foreign suppliers, including North Korea; and had maintained
a clandestine network of about two dozen small laboratories, run by Iraq's
intelligence services, which Kay said contained equipment "suitable" for
chemical or biological research.

The single vial of botulinum B had been stored in an Iraqi scientist's
kitchen refrigerator since 1993. It appears to have been produced by a
nonprofit Virginia biological resource center, the American Type Culture
Collection, which legally exported botulinum and other biological material
to Iraq under a Commerce Department license in the late 1980s.

The vial of botulinum B ‹ about 2 inches high and half an inch wide ‹ was
the only suspicious biological material Kay reported finding. It was sealed
and stored in the scientist's home with 96 other apparently benign vials of
single-cell proteins and biopesticides.

In his 13-page declassified report, Kay said "a biological agent" could be
produced from the botulinum sample. Speaking to reporters at the White House
the next day, Oct. 3, Bush said the war in Iraq was justified and cited
Kay's discovery of the advanced missile programs, clandestine labs and what
he called "a live strain of deadly agent botulinum" as proof that Hussein
was "a danger to the world."

But Dr. David Franz, a former chief U.N. biological weapons inspector who is
considered among America's foremost experts on biowarfare agents, said there
was no evidence that Iraq or anyone else has ever succeeded in using
botulinum B for biowarfare.

"The Soviets dropped it [as a goal] and so did we, because we couldn't get
it working as a weapon," said Franz, who is the former commander of the U.S.
Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, Md.,
the Pentagon's lead laboratory for bioweapons defense research.

"From the weapons side, it's not something to be concerned about," agreed
Dr. Raymond Zilinskas, another former U.N. inspector who is now director of
the chemical and biological weapons nonproliferation program at the Monterey
Institute in California.

Botulinum B is a source of botulism, a common form of deadly food poisoning
that usually results from improper canning. It disperses quickly in the air,
however, and thus is not effective as an airborne agent for weapons,
Zilinskas said.

Asked for comment, a U.S. official who consulted with government experts
said Kay "didn't oversell this."

"He stated a simple fact. What Dr. Kay said was botulinum B can be used to
produce a biological agent," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Can that agent be used to produce a biological weapon? You bet."

During the 1980s, Iraq produced botulinum A, a highly lethal neurotoxin that
causes respiratory failure and can lead to death in 24 hours. According to
U.N. reports, Iraqi scientists produced more than 19,000 liters of botulinum
A and poured about 10,000 liters of the toxin into missile warheads and
400-pound bombs.

But U.N. inspectors found no evidence that Iraq ever produced botulinum B in
its laboratories. A CIA spokesman said Kay has not yet traced the origin of
the vial he obtained. But Zilinskas said the sample almost certainly came
from American Type Culture Collection. "We know they bought their botulinum
strains from the United States, including B," he said.

In 1994, an investigation by the House Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Committee determined that American Type Culture Collection had been a
primary supplier of botulinum, anthrax and other pathogens to Iraq. The
organization, based in Manassas, Va., shipped at least seven batches of
botulinum strains to Baghdad in May 1986 and September 1988, according to
records released by the committee.

Nancy Wysocki, a spokeswoman for the bioresource center, said there was no
way for her to know if her organization had exported the vial of botulinum B
found in Iraq. But she said all botulinum and other exports to Iraq at the
time had been approved by the Commerce Department. "Iraq was not an
embargoed country in the 1980s," she said.

The circumstances of the botulinum B find were one reason for Kay's concern.
Some of the other vials found in the scientist's refrigerator had labels
indicating they came from Al Hakam, which was one of Iraq's chief bioweapons
production labs before 1991. In addition, Kay said the scientist also was
asked by the government to store other biological material, including a
virulent strain of anthrax. He briefly did, but then returned the material.
The scientist has passed a polygraph test, Kay said.

Terence Taylor, another former U.N. biowarfare inspector who now heads the
Washington office of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a
nonpartisan think tank, said it is too early to dismiss the discovery of the

"Just because botulinum B has not been used in a weapons program elsewhere,
and we never found evidence of it in the 1990s, that does not necessarily
rule out" transforming it into a weapon, Taylor said. "There's not enough
detail in Kay's [unclassified] statement. And there's a lot we still don't
know about their weapons programs."

In addition to the doubts about the botulinum B, several outside experts are
also questioning the significance of Kay's claim that he uncovered covert
"new research" in Iraq on such potential biowarfare agents as Brucella and
Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever as well as "continuing work" on ricin and
aflatoxin that were not declared to U.N. inspectors.

CCHF, as the hemorrhagic fever virus is known, is common in Iraq. The World
Health Organization reports that the disease, which can cause intense
bleeding and death, is "endemic in many countries in Africa, Europe and
Asia." There is no evidence that Iraq or anyone else has weaponized it.

"There are public health reasons to work with it in that part of the world,"
said Franz, the former bioweapons lab chief. "I wouldn't find it alarming
that they're working on that."

Brucella, which chiefly affects livestock, is also endemic to Iraq. U.S.
military scientists weaponized the bacterium during the Cold War but did not
consider it effective because it is slow acting and can be treated with
antibiotics. U.N. inspectors have not found evidence that Iraq worked on
Brucella as a weapon.

Aflatoxin causes vomiting and other incapacitating symptoms but is rarely
lethal in humans. The fungal toxin is chiefly known for causing liver
cancer. Iraq produced aflatoxin as a weapon in the 1980s, but
nonproliferation program director Zilinskas said it has never been clear

"It's not particularly toxic, and its primary effects are long term," he
said. "My feeling to this day is that it was a scam that the scientists put
over on the decision-makers because it's easy to produce and the
decision-makers wouldn't know it is useless as a biological weapon."

Hussein's regime also had sought to weaponize ricin, which can be highly
lethal if inhaled, but ended the program in 1990 after field tests failed to
kill animals, according to U.N. reports.

"They gave up using ricin as a weapon," Franz said. "That was the right
decision, in my opinion." Because it is so difficult to produce the proper
powdered form for aerosol distribution, he added, "you almost need to be hit
by a brick of it to kill you."

Former U.N. inspectors also questioned Kay's plan to search Iraq's 130 known
ammunition storage sites for further evidence of chemical weapons; he has
scoured 10 so far. Kay reported: "As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of
their chemical ordnance and [was] to store it at the same [sites] that held
conventional rounds, the size of the required search is enormous."

U.N. inspectors found, however, that virtually all of Iraq's "special
munitions," as chemical and biological weapons were known, carried
distinctive, if inconsistent, markings. They included numbers, a black
stripe, a white circle or a painted letter.

"Kay's comment gives the impression [that chemical weapons] were kept with
conventional munitions and he'll have to check every shell," said another
former U.N. inspector, who asked not to be identified. "That's baloney. They
kept them separated from regular munitions, they had separate security, and
they had a separate chain of command. They were never co-located with
conventional munitions."


*  Baghdad Burning

Tuesday, October 21, 2003


I heard some more details about the demonstration todayŠ The whole situation
was outrageous and people are still talking about it.

Ever since the occupation, employees of the Ministry of Oil are being
searched by troops- and lately, dogs. The employees have been fed upŠ the
ministry itself is a virtual fortress now with concrete, barbed wire and
troops. The employees stand around for hours at a time, waiting to be
checked and let inside. Iraqis have gotten accustomed to the 'security
checks'. The checks are worse on the females than they are on the males
because we have to watch our handbags rummaged through and sometimes
personal items pulled out and examined while dozens of people stand by,

Today, one of the women who work at the ministry, Amal, objected when the
troops brought forward a dog to sniff her bag. She was carrying a Quran
inside of it and to even handle a Quran, a Muslim has to be 'clean' or under
'widhu'. 'Widhu' is the process of cleansing oneself for prayer or to read
from the Quran. We simply wash the face, neck, arms up to the elbows and
feet with clean water and say a few brief 'prayers'. Muslims carry around
small Qurans for protection and we've been doing it more often since the
war- it gives many people a sense of security. It doesn't not mean the
person is a 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist'.

As soon as Amal protested about letting the dog sniff her bag because of the
Quran inside, the soldier grabbed the Quran, threw it out of the bag and
proceeded to check it. The lady was horrified and the dozens of employees
who were waiting to be checked moved forward in a rage at having the Quran
thrown to the ground. Amal was put in hand-cuffs and taken away and the
raging mob was greeted with the butts of rifles.

The Iraqi Police arrived to try to intervene, and found the mob had
increased in number because it had turned from a security check into a
demonstration. One of the stations showed police officers tearing off their
"IP" badge- a black arm badge to identify them as Iraqi Police and shouting
at the camera, "We don't want the badge- we signed up to help the people,
not see our Quran thrown to the groundŠ"

Some journalists say that journalists' cameras were confiscated by the

This is horrible. It made my blood boil just hearing about it- I can't
imagine what the people who were witnessing it felt. You do not touch the
Quran. Why is it so hard to understand that some things are sacred to

How would the troops feel if Iraqis began flinging around Holy Bibles or
Torahs and burning crosses?! They would be horrified and angry because you
do not touch a person's faithŠ

But that's where the difference is: the majority of Iraqis have a deep
respect for other cultures and religionsŠ and that's what civilization is.
It's not mobile phones, computers, skyscrapers and McDonalds; It's having
enough security in your own faith and culture to allow people the sanctity
of theirsŠ

Saturday, October 18, 2003


The topic of the moment is "Turkish troops". We discuss Turkish troops at
breakfast, we discuss them as we get ready for lunch, we discuss them with
neighbors as we communicate over the walls separating our homes. E. says
it's the same at topic at gas stations, shops and street corners.

The discussion isn't actually about Turkish troops, per se: it revolves more
around the Puppets and their ability, or lack thereof, to convince the CPA
what a bad idea introducing Turkish troops into Iraq would be. Iraqis of
different ethnicities all have different opinions of late, but this is one
thing we all seem to be agreeing upon- Turkish troops will only make the
situation worse.

There are all sorts of reasons why people don't like the idea of Turkish
troops in the region. First, there's a lot of animosity between the Kurds
and Turks; thousands of Kurds faced constant persecution while on Turkish
territory- many of them were driven into Iraq. Ever since the beginning of
the war, there have been several clashes between Kurdish militias and
Turkish troops in northern Iraq.

Second, everyone knows that Turkey has certain interests in the region-
namely, Kirkuk and Mosul. Turkey has been overly eager to send in troops
ever since the 'end' of the war in April.

Third, Shi'a are adamant about not allowing Turkish troops into Iraq because
Turks are predominantly Sunni and the thought of an aggressive Sunni army
makes the majority of Shi'a nervous.

One faction of Christian society in Iraq, Armenian-Iraqis, are dead set
against having Turkish troops in Iraq. They speak of Turkish occupation,
bloodshed, executions and being driven into Iraq. Armenian-Iraqis are
horrified with the thought of having Turkish troops inside of Iraq.

Then there are all of the historical reasons. For almost 400 years, Iraq was
ruled by the Ottoman Empire.... The Ottoman Rule in Iraq ended in 1918, with
the start of the British occupation. Iraqis haven't forgotten that during
World War I, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were forced to fight and die
for the Ottoman Empire.

Then there's the little issue of all the problems between Iraq and Turkey.
Iraqis still haven't forgotten the infamous Ataturk Dam on the Furat
(Euphrates), the fourth largest dam in the world. We had to watch the
Euphrates diminish in front of our very eyes year after year, until in many
areas, it seemed like nothing more than a stream. In a country that is
largely composed of desert land, ebbing the flow of a river that many people
depend on for survival is an atrocity.

People here don't understand why there's so much insistence to bring in a
Turkish army anyway. What good can it possibly do? America is emphasizing
how important it will be to have 'Muslim troops' in the region- but what
difference will it make? If Turkish troops enter under the supervision of an
occupation army, they will be occupation troops- religion isn't going to
make a difference.

It's like this: imagine America being invaded and occupied by, say, North
Korea. (Note: I only say 'North Korea' because of the cultural differences
between the US and North Korea, and the animosity.... I, unlike Chalabi, am
not privileged to information on WMD, etc.) Imagine Korean troops invading
homes, detaining people and filling the streets with tanks and guns. Then
imagine North Korea deciding it 'needed help' and bringing in?. Mexico. And
you ask, "But why Mexico?!" and the answer is, "Well, Mexicans will
understand you better because the majority of Americans are Christian, and
the majority of Mexicans are Christian- you'll all get along famously."

The Puppet Council is completely opposed to a Turkish presence inside of the
country; America is insistent that there should be one.... we're all just
watching from the sidelines, waiting to see just how much real respect the
CPA has for the Puppet Council.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]