Feb 16, 2003 Op Eds

Feb 16, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

By Linda Heard

Al-Jazeerah, 2/16/03

February 15 was the first day in ages that not only I am happy to be British, I'm even prouder to be part of the human race. On that historic day one million-and-a-half protesters surged into Central London from all over the country to form the largest anti-war demonstration that Britain has ever witnessed.

This was a manifestation of the will of the British people. This was a message to Tony Blair, the British Prime Minster, which read: Not in our Name. No war with Iraq.

Dr Azzam Tamimi of the British Moslems Association admitted that while the protestors may not be able to make a difference, it was their duty to try.

And try they did. These were not what are often referred to as 'the usual suspects', members of the Communist Party, Green Peace, and CND. These were grannies and grandpas, lawyers and doctors, secretaries and nurses. They were all creeds, colours and age groups. These were people who had never marched before in their lives.

As they surged up the mall, squeezed through Piccadilly and wended their way to Hyde Park from the Embankment, high profile speakers had already began their passionate speeches to the hundreds of thousands brandishing anti-war placards and even Iraqi flags. Their messages came in different forms, and they spoke with differing accents and even in multiple languages but they all said essentially the same thing: No war in Iraq.

The Rev Jesse Jackson said: "Don't kill them to save them". He appealed to the world to 'choose life over death and not to choose sides but to choose peace'. He asked France, Germany, Russia and Belgium to keep hope alive.

The activist Bianca Jagger maintained that any state, which goes against the will of the people would create anarchy instead of the rule of law.

The playwright and activist Tariq Ali urged the crowd to "punish the warmongers at the next election. In times of crises it is right to bring down a Prime Minster. Bring Tony Blair down."

Labour Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn told his government: Stop now or pay a political price. Corbyn complained: "The image of this country around the world because whenever Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney speak, all our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary can say is 'me too'.

He said: "The message today in London and Glasgow is this. Why are we spending three-and-a-half billion pounds on a war that nobody wants when there is an HIV Aids pandemic sweeping Africa and one quarter of the world's children are dying of starvation. For those who say this is a necessary and just conflict because it will bring about peace and security. September 11 was a terrible event but 8,000 deaths in Afghanistan did not bring back those who died in the Trade Centre. Thousands more deaths in Iraq will not do that either."

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said that three-quarters of London opposes an attack on Iraq. He said the war is not about human rights or weapons of mass destruction but about who will control the second largest reserves of oil on the planet.

He said: "Can we be proud to be dragged along by George W Bush? He got his daddy to get him out of national service. Where I come from we call that cowardice... Are we supposed to send our young men and woman to die for this creature? I don't think so."

Veteran politician Tony Benn, who recently interviewed Saddam Hussein, said that if there are to be inspectors in Iraq, there should be inspectors in Israel, inspectors in Britain and inspectors in America.

"I want to see sanctions on arms manufacturers all over the world," he said. "I want to see the money spent on weapons of mass destruction instead spent on hospital and schools all over the world."

The leader of the Liberal Democrat Party Charles Kennedy was on the podium too. "Given the evidence offered by Dr. Blix yesterday, there can be no just or moral case for war with Iraq. Without a second United Nations resolution based on authoritative fact from the weapons inspectors, I can assure you there is no way in all conscience that the Liberal Democrats would or could support a war with Iraq and we will not."

Labour Member of Parliament George Galloway accused the Prime Minister of being the governor of the 51st state of the United States. He said: "We don't want Bush's wars and we don't want Star Wars and we don't want to be in an alliance of an axis of evil with General Ariel Sharon either. I say to Mr. Blair that if he, despite this great demonstration today, despite the overwhelming feelings around the world against the war, if he takes Great Britain over this cliff with G.W. Bush, then he will break the Labour Party he is supposed to lead."

Blair may be displaying bravado when he said today before his party in Scotland: "I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour but sometimes it is a consequence of leadership."

Harold Pinter, the distinguished playwright called the United States "a monster out of control". He said: "It is a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics..." He called the planned attack on Iraq "premeditated mass murder". He ended by saying to Tony Blair: "Resign, resign, resign".

Lindsey German of Stop the War Coalition was one of the most militant speakers. She told Blair: "We will bring you down. You will not survive as Prime Minister of this country and you do not deserve to survive as Prime Minister of this country."

German went on to say: "On the day that war breaks out we are asking people to strike to stop this war. We want you to stop your labour, to occupy your colleges and to walk out of your schools. We want you to go to your town centers and city centers. We'll be doing that in London. They won't get their cars through White Hall and Westminster."

She complained that the government had tried to stop the marchers gathering in Hyde Park for health and safety reasons when they cared little about health and safety when they planned to bomb the Iraqi people

George Bush says his patience is running out, but the message from the British people was that their patience is running out with him and with their own leader Tony Blair.

The London demonstration and its one-and-a-half-million protestors were just a drop in the ocean of the numbers out in the street worldwide on February 15, a historical day. Over ten million people were doing likewise in more than 65 cities worldwide. Rome saw two million on its streets telling their Bush supporter billionaire leader that humanity is more important than oil, weapons and domination. Not in our name.

The people have spoken loud and clear and this columnist is delighted to say that she's one of them. Wake up and smell the democracy, Mr. Blair. Not in my name.

Linda Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be reached at: freenewsreport@yahoo.com

Another America
Arab News, 16 February 2003

In the US, the difference of opinion between Washington, Paris and Berlin on what to do with Iraq is being presented by politicians and the press as a rift between the good and the ungrateful, the selfless and the selfish.

The US, needless to say, is shown as generously doing its best to save mankind from the clutches of an bloodthirsty ogre while those wicked, weasel-minded Europeans do everything to save him and thwart honest George’s high-minded plans. France, Belgium, and Germany would be Soviet socialist republics by now if it were not for US saving them after World War II, the American public is told. These Europeans are ungrateful curs. What rubbish.

Quite apart from the question as to why there would still be a Soviet republic in France or Germany when all the others have gone in Europe, this rant forgets that the postwar division of the continent into Communist and non-Communist blocs was cooked up between Stalin and Roosevelt; Washington was determined to prevent British influence in Eastern Europe after World War II.

The Europeans remain immensely grateful for America’s past generosity and sacrifices for their freedom. But that does not mean that they have to dance to Washington’s tune for the rest of time. The idea that, because America helped save them in the past, they are morally obliged to submit to its will today negates the very principles of freedom that Americans fought and died for in two World Wars. That is the slavish obedience the Soviet Union imposed on its vassals. If governments are free, then they are free to disagree with the US, even on a matter as grave as the Iraqi crisis. Never has so much vitriol been targeted at the Europeans with such blind fury. Never has it been so arrogant. Never has it been so shortsighted.

At the moment, in fact, the rift is not between the US and Europe but within Europe. The British, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Dutch and Danes are Europeans too, but they are on the opposite side of the fence to the French, Germans, Belgians and Austrians when it comes to Iraq. But then, when it comes to foreign affairs, there are no Europeans — only French, British, Germans, Italians, et al. There is no united states of Europe; and Washington is not its capital. Yet that has not stopped all Europeans being targeted in this American rant. If it continues, it will alienate Washington’s friends in Europe and push them closer toward the skeptics.

But that is talking about governments. When it comes to people, it is a different picture and that picture says that never has the US has been more isolated or more mistaken. Across Europe, across the world yesterday, from India to Iceland, from Australia to the Arctic, millions upon millions took to the streets to reject war as the way to deal with Saddam Hussein. The fact that across the US, too, people demonstrated in their tens of thousands against war is the most encouraging aspect of yesterday’s protests.

There are plenty of Americans who profoundly oppose what the Bush administration is up to. Sen. Robert Byrd’s clarion call to sanity in the US Senate last Wednesday reminds us of that fact. And we must not forget it. There is another America, an America that is on the side of justice and integrity. This rift over Iraq is not about America against the world. It is about the White House against the world.

Sadly, President Bush seems to think that everyone else is wrong, and he alone is right. He may be even more dangerously deluded than we imagined.

After War in Iraq

By Christoph R. Hِrstel, Munich, Germany
Tehran Times, 2/16/03

MUNICH - Will the U.S. attack Iraq? No doubt.

The order to attack has already been issued by the U.S. president, complete with the dates - we just do not know it yet: Maybe shortly after the hajj period.

Looking back to Persian Gulf War II (the one following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait), historians found out that the order to attack Iraq ("Desert Storm") came on October 31, 1990 (footnotes 14 & 15), but the attack followed on January 17, 1991 - with that enormous bombardment which made clear that fighting was not on the U.S. agenda, only killing would do. Potential critics were silenced with commercial videos, only showing how soldiers were suffering under the bombardment, but no civilians whatsoever, which, of course, was not true. In fact, U.S. air strikes were anything but "surgical", hitting hospitals, civilian settlements, bridges, and the economic infrastructure. The U.S. bombing set Iraq back by 20 years of development. This was found out much later, after the "evil" dictator Saddam had survived and U.S. troops were needed in the region "to protect" his neighbors from him.

This time even the planes are not manned any more, guided drones will be dropping guided bombs. We will watch the usual blurred pictures on TV, plus much better material, this time coming from so-called "embeds", camera teams and reporters (U.S. citizens only) trained with selected army, air force and marine units, "embedded" in these forces, living with them and accompanying them, screened and okayed by top officials - and hopefully not reporting facts, which the soldiers they share the tents with might not like to see...

Wonderful expression: "Embedded". How objective can one possibly be, reporting on others with whom one is "embedded"? The reality behind this unprofessional, unjournalistic move is that the U.S. TV channels are embedded in the most important U.S. armament industries via share holdings. NBC belongs to General Electric (GE), top GE managers also hold positions on the ****Washington Post*** board, ABC and Texaco as well are mutually linked through board members, CBS in the same way with Honeywell and Rand Corporation, both prominent names in the international arms industry. Opposition to Persian Gulf War II was given 1% of pro-war airtime. Now, for Persian Gulf War III, it will easily be less.

We will instead see more of the clean, good-looking U.S. soldiers, little or no dead Iraqi children, no civilian targets in rubble, just these wonderful missiles going precisely down the chimney of the enemy's army barrack.

In Germany, this is being taken care of by Jay Tuck, senior editor of the main late night news show of the country ("Tagesthemen") - and, Honi Soit Qui Maly Pense, an American citizen. Friday, January 17, Tuck got his go ahead for transplanting U.S. propaganda into German public TV (ARD) from the Munich-based editor-in-chief, Mr. Von der Tann - after an extensive presentation. He himself will also join his country's troops as an "embed".

Reports will all be coming back to the basic chorus line, that it was all Saddam's fault - and, yes, the man is a dictator of the brutal kind.

Done with this, we have to look back into the history of Saddam's political and military mistakes.

---- Saddam's Way to Power----- The CIA helped his followers oust his predecessor, Abdel Karim Kassem, in a bloody coup on February 8 and 9, 1963. Kassem had nationalized the oil industry in Iraq - and thus angered U.S. oil companies.

-----Saddam's War Against Iran------ He was to trust U.S. promises of support in his strike against Iran - the first war in the Persian Gulf (before 2 and 3). The U.S. had done its best to ensure continuous bloodshed of more than one million dead over eight years. Henry Kissinger, a Zionist, outlined the U.S. interests in the region best in his statements: "It is too bad, they cannot lose both of them!" and: "I hope they both kill each other!"(4) Needless to say, of 17 countries delivering arms to fuel the fight, 12 served both countries. The Western arms industry blossomed. And, by the way, all the necessary ingredients for biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare were delivered in time by the U.S. and other Western countries to Iraq, with the firm hope that they would be used on Iran.

The U.S. intentionally played false information into Saddam's hands, making Iran appear weaker than it really was (5). This continued during the war: Fake U.S. satellite photos of Iran's troop movements misled Saddam's generals (6).

-----Saddam's War Against Kuwait----- Weakened by Persian Gulf War I and nearly bankrupt, he had tried in vain to stop Kuwait from exploiting the Rumailah oil fields, 900 sq. km. of which it had occupied during the Iran-Iraq War.

Rumailah was disputed territory between Kuwait and Iraq, with a majority of political observers on the side of Iraq. For the exploitation of Iraq's Rumailah oil resources, Kuwait used new drilling technology of the U.S.-based Santa Fe Drilling Corp., which allowed drilling at an angle, not straight down as before, reaching under ground and crossing the border into Iraq.

After Persian Gulf War I (against Iran), Iraq's economic position was a disaster: Debts amounting to more than 100 billion U.S. dollars and huge numbers of army conscripts waiting for their monthly salaries. Kuwait broke the OPEC agreement on August 8, 1988, just one day after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, and helped push down the oil price to such an extent that Iraq faced a further financial squeeze. Oil prices declined drastically, from 21 U.S. dollars per barrel to between 14 and 11, which caused Iraq's income to drop by around 10 billion U.S dollars.

Kuwait exploited the Rumailah oil fields. In addition, the little sheikhdom asked Baghdad to repay its debts of 12 billion U.S. dollars. The U.S. secretly backed Kuwait and made sure that the little sheikhdom took an unusually tough stance against its much stronger neighbor Iraq. A provocation of sorts, which a powerless country like Kuwait would certainly never have dared to execute without backing of considerable reliability. Kuwait's Sheikh Sabah himself admitted U.S. backing to a Jordanian delegation on July 30, 1990 (9).

What brought the U.S. to take all these steps against Iraq? The decision was made shortly after June 1989. That month a high-level U.S. delegation with representatives of Henry Kissinger's consulting firm, Bankers Trust, Mobil Oil, Occidental Petroleum, and others visited Baghdad.

The official agenda was the Badush Dam project, which should have enabled Iraq to produce enough food for its own people, thus making it independent from food imports. But upon arrival the guests changed the subject: They requested that Iraq first "settle their debt problems" by partially "privatizing" Iraq's oil industry - meaning in fact a cheap hand-over to U.S. companies. (We remember, the U.S. had just pushed Kuwait to help bring the oil price down and damage Iraq's economy.) Upon Saddam's refusal to obey, a loan of 2.3 billion U.S. dollars, already agreed by U.S. President George Bush, was revoked later in the year.

Foreseeably, this move led to an aggravation of the economic crisis in 1990. And a secret MOU between the U.S. and Kuwait, dated Nov. 22, 1989, describes both countries' joint efforts to put economic pressure on Iraq in order to create tensions on the border between Iraq and Kuwait, the consequences of which should be closely coordinated between the U.S. and Kuwait on the highest levels. The memo was addressed to the Kuwaiti interior minister and derived from a secret meeting between CIA Director William Webster and his Kuwaiti colleague, State Security Director Fahd Hakmad Al-Fahd. So quickly Saddam's refusal to hand over his country's wealth to the U.S. led to these grave consequences.

In a parallel move, The U.S. encouraged Iraq to increase the pressure on Kuwait, in much the same tricky style as in the Iran-Iraq conflict (10 & 11).

Confidential moves of the Bush administration encouraged Saddam, early in 1990, to put pressure on Kuwait to raise the oil price. The last of these activities was the much-quoted meeting of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie with Saddam, just five days prior to his attack on Kuwait, when the U.S. had full satellite intelligence on Iraq's war preparations along the Kuwait border. Glaspie assured the Iraqi head of state that the U.S. had no position on inter-Arab conflicts.

Given the circumstances, this was in diplomatic speech an invitation for an attack on Kuwait, according to a written protocol in the hands of U.S. TV network ABC and other journalists. And what is worse: Glaspie's wording was in full accordance with Washington's orders, which had reached her from secretary of state James Baker just one day prior to her meeting with Saddam.

Helga Graham exposed the whole two-pronged trick in the London-based ***Observer*** as early as October 21, 1990.

Directly after the invasion, the U.S. did their level best to stop Saddam Hussein from unilaterally withdrawing from Kuwait - and took a lot of trouble to make mere diplomatic window dressing in the months to follow look like real peace work (12) - just like nowadays. Father Bush went so far as to declare that he would attack Iraq even without the approval of the U.S. Congress (13).

---Public Relations Warfare---- Unforgettable is the production of false evidence before a congressional committee: Of a fake photograph, allegedly showing Iraqi soldiers, tearing prematurely born babies out of their incubators and throwing them on the floor.

This "evidence" was presented by a nurse in tears to a U.S. congressional hearing on human rights.

The fake photos were made by the world's biggest PR agency, Hill & Knowlton, which also rehearsed and trained the nurse: A daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S., a member of the ruling Kuwaiti Al-Sabah family. Hill & Knowlton presented more fake witnesses and videos. The total operation cost is estimated at 11 million U.S. dollars in just 50 days. It was highly efficient in turning public opinion in favor of Bush's war plans. When the truth came out (**New York Times****, January 6, 1992), the war was long over - and Germany had paid 15 billion German marks into the U.S. war fund.

The U.S. has never produced sound proof that Iraq possesses sufficient weapons of mass destruction for a successful attack on anybody. A year before Persian Gulf War II, August 1989, the Pentagon and the U.S. Energy Department invited Iraqi scientists to a highly classified conference on nuclear detonation, making sure Iraq got the information necessary. BBC journalists later "exposed" Iraq's possession of this material (e.g.

HMX-methods). After Persian Gulf War II the U.S. turned UN search missions into a spook scandal.

To win the Saudis' favor for U.S. troop deployment on their soil, another round of fake satellite photos was used, accusing Iraq of plans to attack the Saudis - though all U.S. intelligence agencies insisted in their memos to the White House that this was not the case (16). When a Saudi ground search mission into Kuwait resulted in evidence contradicting U.S. information (heaps of desert sand on the roads allegedly used by Iraqi vehicles, Iraqi troops withdrawing from the Saudi border instead of advancing toward it), the U.S. successfully placed personal pressure on the Saudi generals, who were more or less all U.S.-trained.

These generals duly found out that Saudi Arabia was in danger - and thus paved the way for the U.S. troops' presence in their country.

----U.S. Military Preparations--- Since 1983, the U.S. has built 20 ultra-sophisticated positions in Saudi Arabia, which enhanced the accuracy of missiles by 33%.

General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. took over as CENTCOM (Central Command) chief in 1987.

Its war plan no. 1002 was changed into 1002-90 in late 1989, making Iraq the only adversary in the region. (See Saddam's refusal to hand over his oil industry to U.S. companies in June the same year!) Since then, computer and troop exercises helped prepare the intervention, very much following the same procedure as today. Does anybody believe that the U.S. is truly not yet ready for combat and, therefore, willing to give the Blix team more time? Once again, the U.S. has deployed more troops in the region than it publicly admits, creating trouble by publishing contradictory statements on the figures involved.

Two lessons to be learned from this for the upcoming war: (A) Whatever the Bush administration states - the opposite may be far more accurate.

(B) If the target is a Muslim country, each and every statement of the current U.S. administration must be checked very carefully.

CIA members say that whether we like it or not, the war will come, it will depose Saddam Hussein, and lead to the inevitable installation of yet another weak puppet - a warning to all Arab countries.

---What Will Happen to Saudi Arabia?--- From Iran we hear a lot of concerned voices wondering what the U.S. will do next in the region after Saddam is ousted. But, according to my sources, Iranians need not worry. There will be some arm-twisting to ensure that Shia solidarity across the Iraqi border will not endanger the U.S. oil business in Iraq - but there is no imminent plan to directly interfere in Iranian affairs, so the trouble and cost in confronting Iran can be saved for the moment. Another reason why the focus is clearly more on the Saudis lies in the simple fact that they possess much higher quantities of premium quality oil.

Let's look at the hard facts: Persian Gulf War II served as the entrance ticket for U.S. troops onto Saudi soil. No need to ponder over the idea whether the U.S. intended this outcome, it happened - and the sole superpower normally does what it pleases to do. The U.S. promise to the Islamic world that the price for this ticket would be a fair peace for the Middle East (Oslo maybe), was never kept - and has been made obsolete by Ariel Sharon, with full support by the U.S., contradictory statements from Washington notwithstanding. Saddam survived "in power" because the U.S. let him. It is pure speculation whether they needed him as a permanent threat in the region to keep their military personnel based in Saudi Arabia, enlarging their influence in the area - the U.S. just did this.

The "war against terrorism" ended the interim stalemate. Now that U.S. troops are nearly everywhere in the region, Saddam is no longer needed. To make that point clear: Firstly, the rationale for the troop presence has changed from bad guy Saddam to "anti-terror war", making Saddam obsolete. He will fall first, since he is the weakest of the Islamic dominoes. After that, the second biggest oil owner is up for grabs: Saudi Arabia. And with that the U.S. will have a second tool (the first consists of huge amounts of free capital, the kind George Soros commands) to move the tides of the world economy, stock markets, and currency exchange rates at free will and any time - not to mention control over other countries' energy supply. Whoever invests money should ensure that he has access to privileged knowledge - or face heavy losses because the markets will become a completely rigged lottery, making sound economic judgement almost impossible. The main victims of this power will be all other high-tech countries, in Asia as well as Europe - as long intended by the U.S. (17).

What chance do Muslim countries opposed to the U.S. have to save at least part of their national freedom and sovereign rights? Good medicine is always simple but often hard to digest (the author therefore begs his readers' forgiveness): Faith in Allah, political and social unity of the believers - and a strong penchant for strong, strategically planned public relations, good money invested into efficient ways to communicate ideas and goals to the non-Muslim world. It is less expensive than most observers may think. In many cases a few training courses for embassy personnel will do - and this would be very rewarding every inch of the way.

Many people in the West are dissatisfied with the way their governments tackle current and future challenges. These unhappy citizens are the best and the easiest to win over to the idea of international partnership, fairness in the conduct of political affairs, and cross-cultural openness and tolerance.

When we come to the scenario of how the U.S. could secure a surplus of influence against the Islamic movement, financed by wealthy Arabs worldwide, and how the U.S. could take total control of oil resources, we should look to Iran and the story of how the ex-shah fell from power.

We can assume from the latest experiences in Afghanistan and the takeover plans for Iraq that the U.S. no longer plays the Muslim card, as it did in the past in Afghanistan against the Soviets and in Iran against the Shah.

The Wahhabis and others may therefore be allowed to play a role in weakening the Saudi royal family - but will be very quickly subdued by Western cries of anti-democratic radicalism, the gender issue, and, most of all, traditional links to "terrorists" - and that may well suffice to have the well-funded propaganda machine in the Western world prepare the breakup of Saudi unity.

Tribal leaders may play a greater role than nowadays - and disunity, a proven asset of Western influence on the whole Islamic world as well as in national issues, e.g. in Afghanistan, will secure foreign rule for a long time to come at a relatively cheap cost. A minority may be pushed to dominate the government, while unrest stemming from the angry majority will serve as the permanent door opener for foreign troops and/or agents "to help stabilize regional peace and continue anti-terror warfare". And if governments in Europe do not follow these lines easily, a little successful terror blast here and there, say in London, Paris, or Berlin, would certainly help.

All this is well known to the world from British colonialism's motto: Divide et impera.

U.S. policy may reap certain successes in the short term in Afghanistan. But already, in an intermediate time frame, Afghan specialties may well nix all clever planning in Western capitals.

This poor country is where the "rollback" may come from, the beginning of the end of the United States as a power dominating the world.

Footnotes, References, and Sources 1. Mansur Khan, "Die geheime Geschichte der Amerikanischen Kriege", Grabert Verlag, Tübingen, 2. Auflage, 2001.

2. Ramsey Clark, "War Crimes - A Report on U.S. War Crimes Against Iraq - Reports to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal's Final Judgment", Maisonneuve Press, Washington D.C., 1992, p. 63 ff.

3. John Bullock/Harvey Morris, "Saddams Krieg", Rowohlt, Hamburg 1991, p.127 4. Ramsey Clark, "The Fire This Time - U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf", Thunder's Mouth Press, N.Y., 1992, p. 6; or Werner Ruf (Hrsg.), "Vom Kalten Krieg zur Heissen Ordnung? - Der Golfkrieg - Hintergründe und Perspektiven", Lit, Hamburg-Münster, 1991, p. 36 ff.

5. Dilip Hiro, "The Longest War - the Iran-Iraq Military Conflict", Routledge, N.Y., 1991, p.

69-75.

6. John Cooley, "Payback - America's Long War in The Middle East", Brassey's, Washington, 1991, p.

92.

7. Peter Blackwood, "Die Netzwerke der Insider", Diagnosen, Leonberg, 1986, p. 181 ff.

8. "The Tower Commission Report - The Full Text of the President's Special Review Board", Bantam Books/Times Books, N.Y., 1987, p. 18-55 ff.

9. Pierre Salinger/Eric Laurent, "Krieg am Golf - Das Geheimdossier", Hanser, München, 1991, p. 7.

10. Jonathan Vankin, "Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes - from JFK to the CIA Terrorist Connection", Dell Books, N.Y., 1992, p. 241.

11. Russel S. Bowen, "The Immaculate Deception - the Bush Crime Family Exposed", America West Publishers, Carson City, N.Y., 1991, p. 146 ff.

12. Jean Edward Smith, "George Bush's War", Henry Holt & Co. Inc., N.Y., 1992, p. 222.

13. Smith, p. 231.

14. Hiro, p. 229.

15. Karl D. Bredthauer/A.Heinrich/K.Neumann, Hrsg., "Krieg für Frieden? - Startschüsse für eine Neue Weltordnung", Elefanten Press, Berlin, 1991, p.18.

16. Martin Yant, "Desert Mirage - The True Story of the Gulf War", Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y., 1991, p. 90 ff.

17. See authors Gary Allen, Peter Blackwood, Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, and Desmond Griffin.

Washington After Energy Resources

Tehran Times, 2/16/03

Washington has long-term plans in the region and wants to restructure Iraq according to its own interests, Head of Iran's Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said Wednesday adding that U.S. policy in the region is dangerous.

The best solution to the Iraq crisis is that Iraq turns into a democratic and Islamic country. The worst option is to create a puppet regime in that country.

Washington prefers to gain control over Iraq without the use of force, however, it will use force if it does not succeed through its diplomatic channels.

Both means of gaining control over Iraq would have grave repercussions on a regional and an international scale, for the U.S. is trying to prove that it is the indisputable ruler of the Middle Eastern region.

The U.S. policy of using its might to secure its own interests gives rise to new circumstances that could destabilize the world and cause global insecurity. This is why almost all countries of the world are against Washington's war-mongering and unilateral policies.

The U.S. intervention in the region would be detrimental to the U.S. interests as well, for the regional nations would not put up with Washington controlling the world's largest energy resources.

Current problems in the region stem from the U.S. hegemonic policy in the area. Obvious proof of Washington's unilateral policy in the Middle East is the U.S. full support for the occupant Zionist regime. Washington's unilateral support for the illegitimate Zionist regime and continued violation of the Palestinian truthful rights is the main obstacle in the establishment of peace and justice in the region.

In order to distract public opinion from the Palestinian plight and the U.S. role in it, the so-called anti-terrorist campaign was focussed on Iraq and therefore the U.S. evades a rational solution of the problem to capitalize on it for other objectives.

The solution to the Iraqi crisis is to avoid use of force, respect the rights of Muslim nations and realize the Iraqi people's right to choose their own destiny.

In this framework a suitable context would be created to solve the Iraqi crisis through dialogue, and a reliable source of energy needed in other countries would possibly be secured from the hands of American to blackmail their rivals.

Reckless administration may reap disastrous consequences
By Senator Robert Byrd, US Democrat

Senate Floor Speech — Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003, Arab News, 2/16/03

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.

On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in US foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation’s — hit list.

High level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and US intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism, which existed after Sept. 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama Bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant — these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of Sept. 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.

Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15 — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.

I truly must question the judgement of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation, which is over 50 percent children is “in the highest moral traditions of our country”. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly.

Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

'The waiting game

By Musa Keilani

Jordan Times, 2/16/03

WITH THE Hamas attack on an Israeli army tank that killed at least four Israeli soldiers near a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, the cycle of bloodshed continues in Palestine. The world eyes are focused on Washington in the run-up to the war against Iraq, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is slowly pushing his agenda of eliminating Palestinian resistance.

Fears are high that Sharon intends to use the expected war on Iraq to create new facts on the ground in Palestine, including the expulsion of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. We, in Jordan, might end on the receiving end of the expulsion spree. The self-deluding claim that Sharon would not undermine the security and stability of Jordan is based on the belief that a stable and secure Jordan is in Israel's interests. However, we could not really bet on that anymore because the importance of Jordan for Israel is the Kingdom's strategic location. With Iraq expected to go under total US control in a possible war, that importance might lose its edge. In any event, we know that Sharon could not be trusted to remain committed to any agreement with the Arabs except where it suits his interests.

While we plan ahead and prepare ourselves to absorb the $1.4 billion cost and impact of a war against Iraq in terms of refugee flow, suspension of oil supply from Iraq and halt to our exports to Iraq, we may also have to brace ourselves on the western front, in view of the strong possibility that Sharon might seek to realise his ancient “Jordan is Palestine” slogan.

The developments last week clearly indicate that Sharon is dead bent upon a US-style “ý la Baghdad regime change” in Palestine and this means he will target Arafat. He has brushed aside the quartet plan for peace in the Middle East and also scoffed at Arafat's moves to implement reform as demanded by the US.

Obviously, Sharon is waiting for the right moment to make his move to expel Arafat from the West Bank; it is highly unlikely that Sharon will allow Arafat to stay even in the Gaza Strip although a reoccupation of the strip is not in the cards, if only because Gaza had always been unwieldy for Israel. Indeed, we are assuming that Sharon would be bold enough to take matters to that level and one could also argue that he would be incurring international anger if he pressed ahead with his agenda. But then, international reaction to his moves has never been for Sharon an issue to be worried about. He believes only in Israel and himself. He has even shown that he would take on the US administration if its words or actions are deemed detrimental to Israel's interests. Let us not forget that in 2001, shortly after he took office, Sharon had the audacity to tell US President George Bush that Israel had more clout in the US Congress than Bush or the White House and it would be better if Bush kept his vision of a Palestinian state to himself. That was indeed an eye-opener to the way Israel deals with the US, and it leaves little doubt as to how Sharon would turn if it comes to a make-or-break situation in his plans for Palestine. That situation could pose itself when the US launches its planned war against Iraq. The obvious differences between Europe and the US over Iraq would play into Sharon's hands and European rejection or threats of action against Israel are not going to deter him from pursuing his “Jordan is Palestine” scheme.

Sharon's persistent accusation that Arafat is behind armed resistance against Israeli occupation is only a reflection of his effort to build a case against the Palestinian leader, who is also under strong American pressure. We have heard repeatedly from senior US officials of what they see as the need for change in the Palestinian leadership. As such, Arafat's moves to adopt the US-demanded reforms, including the appointment of a prime minister who would be given some share of power, do not really matter. They are all part of a waiting game, and the crucial truth would reveal itself once the guns get going against Iraq.

Safeguarding the gains

By Walid M. Sadi

Jordan Times, 2/16/03

THERE IS little doubt that Iraq is winning both the political and public relations round with the US. This is amply demonstrated by the growing opposition to any US-led war against Baghdad by practically all the governments and peoples of the world, even in the wake of the latest progress reports by Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and IAEA's Director General Mohammad Al Baradei to the UN Security Council on Feb. 14.

With France, Russia, China and Germany spearheading the rejection of the war option that Washington has been trying desperately to sell to the international community, the council is poised to reject outright any legitimation of a war against Iraq. Even at the NATO level, the rift between the key members of the Western alliance on how to deal with Iraq is wide open and threatens the viability of the alliance in the long-term.

Rounds and rounds of demonstrations have hit many capitals, including US and British cities, speaking out against a war. London has witnessed Saturday one of its biggest anti-war demonstrations in years. About half a million Britons took to the streets of London to say no to war against the Arab country.

A question imposes itself: Why are Washington and London failing so miserably in their sale pitch of the war option against the Iraqi regime at a time when both nations insist that the Iraqi government is in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

US President George Bush gambled by going through the UN to seek approval for his decision to attack Iraq and change its regime. There were some key members of his administration, such as Secretary of Defence Ronald Rumsfeld, who spoke against this route. US Secretary of State Colin Powell was the most outspoken advocate of the UN route, thinking all along that the US arguments would be received favourably by the UN Security Council and ultimately lead to the endorsement of the US point of view.

With the passage of more time, the forces against the war option are growing, not receding, despite Powell's painstaking efforts to convince the Security Council, on Feb. 5, that the Iraqi authorities are in breach of UN resolutions.

The world remains unconvinced of the US posture, and defiant. There are some obvious reasons why this is so. To start with, any call for any war is not a popular thing to make. Second, the US image as the only superpower has been steadily eroding. More and more countries are now calling the US a bully, arrogant and fast on the draw. Third, the alleged threats emanating from Baghdad are more directed at the US than at European countries, with the exception of Britain. The Sept. 11, 2001, acts of terrorism were directed at the US in particular and not at any other European country. European capitals can, therefore, afford to be more balanced, fair-minded and even legalistic about the war option, since they are not the ones facing similar dangers.

The more Washington tries to sell the alleged link between Al Qaeda network and the regime of Iraq's President Saddam Hussein, the less Europe gets convinced. It is almost as if there were a clash of civilisation between the US and Europe on terrorism and the alleged dangers of the Iraqi regime.

The fact that Bush has been talking about a war against Iraq during much of his first two years in office did not help much the US stance. His credibility on the war option has been eroding rather fast since his rhetoric in favour of a military intervention in Iraq was never matched by deeds. Normally, a nation does not talk for years about the need to go to war. If it takes that long to wage war, then there are really no immediate dangers that would warrant going to war in the first place.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi authorities may wish to safeguard their victories on the political and public relations levels by refraining from utterances and deeds that could change the mood of the international community. Iraq should play it cool and guard its success. Baghdad is winning so far and it must not say or do anything that may end up spoiling the gains achieved.

Iran — next American target?

By George S. Hishmeh

Jordan Times, 2/16/03

WASHINGTON — The $64 question here is whether the Bush administration, drunk with its assumed success in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, may decide to take the additional step and challenge neighbouring Iran, the third member of the “axis of evil”, alongside Iraq and North Korea.

The loudest cheering here for adopting such a course comes from influential supporters of Israel and a cabal of right wingers or neoconservatives, especially those in key governmental departments or the media.

It was noteworthy that Secretary of State Colin Powell chose George Tenet, head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to accompany him to the UN Security Council last week when he presented his flawed indictment of the Iraqi regime. There have been many former intelligence officers, as well as retired senior officers from the armed forces like General Anthony Zinni, a former commander of the US Central Command, which includes Iraq and the Middle East, who have voiced opposition to the anticipated American war on Iraq.

Leslie H. Gelb, president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview that there was “much more scepticism than support” for the Bush administration's Iraq policies among the 4,000 or so members of the nation's elite foreign policy think tanks.

Besides Iran, the neo-conservatives and their allies within the administration, as well as Israeli supporters, have lately begun to target Syria, accusing it of hiding some of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. Once the Iraqi regime is overthrown, they underlined, Syria will be totally surrounded by pro-American regimes, giving the Bashar Assad regime little room to manoeuvre. The neutralisation of Iraq, Iran and Syria has long been the objective of Israeli governments of all shades and persuasion.

But the immediate focus has been Iran, which has announced last Monday that it has started mining uranium for the first time and will soon open a facility to process the ore into fuel for “peaceful purposes”. This project would give Iran, which Israel and the US believe is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, independent access to fissile material. Meanwhile, it relies on Russia for its nuclear fuel.

Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, claimed in a recent article distributed on the Internet that “without effective steps on Washington's part, Iran's embattled conservative clerical leadership might obtain a nuclear weapon before they are removed form power.” He claimed that Iran is now the “premier customer” for North Korean arms, missiles and, more recently, nuclear technology. But, Eisenstadt noted, regime change may not alter Iran's motivation to develop nuclear weapons.

“It could, however, bring to power leaders who are more sensitive to the potential costs of nuclear weapons .... Therefore, Washington should leverage successful regime change in Afghanistan (and, perhaps soon, in Iraq) to embolden those seeking political change in Tehran and to deter the more bellicose members of Iran's clerical leadership.”

At the same time, he wrote that “Washington should continue its efforts to curtail Russian assistance to Iran while tightening restrictions on ongoing activities at its reactors”. Otherwise, he suggested, the United States might have to consider “prevention action” against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, provided it is careful not to “poison the reservoir of pro-American sentiment among Iranians”. Ultimately, he concluded, preventing an Iranian “nuclear breakout might depend on Washington's ability to forestall cooperation between Pyongyang and Tehran”.

Eisenstadt also echoed other views that have been urging Washington to seek Iran's adherence to the “Additional Protocol”, the enhanced safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Mohammad Al Baradei, the IAEA head, is scheduled to visit Tehran in late February to verify the country's nuclear facilities.

A writer in The Jerusalem Post has claimed that North Korea has supplied missiles and built missile production facilities for Syria, Libya and Egypt, “whose money all kept (North Korea) afloat while it financed its own weapons programmes”.

Barry Rubin, director of Global Research in International Affairs, claimed that the North Koreans have never stopped developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons — “they just did it in Iran rather than on their own territory” to avoid international scrutiny. Described as the largest importer of North Korean nuclear technology, Iran, Rubin claimed, has subsidised North Korea's Nodong missile, which can carry nuclear weapons more than 1,200 km, putting many countries within range, including Israel.

The Nation magazine exposed last September the hardline views of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Centre for Security Policy (CSP) “for war — not just war with Iraq, but `total war', as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year”.

Jason Vest wrote: “For this crew, `regime change' by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents — be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers — is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israel national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East — a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.”

The Pentagon's Defence Policy Board is chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan administration Defence Department official Richard Perle, and is stacked with advisers from both groups. The board recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heels through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which, Vest reported, mirror JINSA's recommendations, and reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt.

JINSA, founded in 1976, until the beginning of the current Bush administration, had on its board of advisers such “heavy hitters” as Vice President Dick Cheney, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. (Bolton was in Israel last week to discuss with senior Israeli officials “the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya”, reported The Jerusalem Post.)

It was Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser to Bush, and not his speech writers, who included Iran in the “axis of evil” in last year's State of the Union speech — a phrase that has become the centrepiece of Bush's foreign policy and reportedly prompted North Korea to start manufacturing plutonium in response to what it saw as “a serious threat in Bush's speech”.

Some Iranian officials are reportedly eager to confer with US counterparts about a future Iraqi government, as they did over Afghanistan, but this is seen here as unlikely because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby. “Many (Iranian) government officials and clerics say,” reported the Los Angeles Times last month, “that until the Palestinian quest for statehood is fulfilled, the animosity against the US will not diminish.”

War on Baghdad spurred by oil
By Syed Rashid Husain, Gulf News, 16-02-2003
-

Could war against Iraq be finally averted? No one has a definite answer to the question.

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah says he has a hunch that the war against Iraq may be averted, but not fully sure. If Prince Abdullah were not sure of how events would unfold in the region, who else could be.

People seem to be confused, apparently for the reason that no one is sure here of the actual reasons for the impending war.

Very few in the Arab streets believe that disarmament of Iraq is the real issue behind the U.S. rhetoric to use force against Baghdad. Still fewer are ready to believe that it is the removal of Saddam Hussain from power that is behind the U.S. push.

Had the removal of Saddam been the real issue, it could have been achieved more than a decade ago, when the U.S. forces ejected Saddam and his troops from Kuwait, many here believe.

Some see Saddam as a man, who was nurtured by the U.S., like many in the world to achieve its own - at times heinous - objectives.

Arab streets are abound with conspiracy theories. Many feel that the sole global power wants to ensure the supremacy of Israel in the region and therefore is ready to go all out against any power who could be any threat to it, even if in the distant future.

The confusion is also compounded by the fact that any action against Baghdad does not fit into the ongoing anti-terror campaign of the U.S. Baghdad has not been proved to have any links with the 9/11 events.

Indeed the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussain would be the last to be in truck with the ideology pursued by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida. It is oil; many here in the streets of Arab world strongly feel that is about to bring another catastrophe and another war in the region.

The former Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral during a recent visit to the region had disclosed that during one of his meetings with a former U.S. secretary of state, he was blankly told that the U.S. was not ready to compromise on its oil security for the sake of a dictator.

During a recent protest rally in Bahrain against the U.S. war on Iraq, protesters were also chanting slogans, "No to war for oil". Protesting Qataris also believed the same; the real reason behind the U.S. moves was oil and the rest is all eyewash.

There is no dearth of analysts both in the region and in the West, who feel that the U.S. wants to lessen its dependence, on Saudi Arabia as much as possible. The U.S. presence in the Kingdom ever since the Gulf war was definitely to ensure that security, many here strongly believe.

After 9/11, the right-wingers in the U.S. administration became of the stated view that their dependence on Saudi Arabia needs to be lessened. Some even go to the extent of pulling out of the Kingdom, exactly what bin Laden and the theologians around him have been demanding.

However, before pulling out of the Kingdom, the Americans need another energy source to ensure the continuity of its energy supplies.

After all the Americans do not want to change their lifestyles of pumping gasoline into their big cars at reasonable prices and their government seems to be ready to go all out, to the extent of even waging a war in the far flung Middle East, to ensure the continuity of the consumption based life style.

Invading Iraq could solve the U.S. problem. This would not only ensure security of its energy supplies, but could also provide it with the opportunity to move out of Saudi Arabia, if it feels the need to do so, at any given time.

If former U.S. president Bill Clinton could say to his predecessor, the elder Bush; it's the economy stupid, economy, one could safely vouch that it's oil, stupid, oil for the clouds of war that engulf the region today.

Ignoring will of the people
Gulf News, 16-02-2003
-

The preamble to the United Nations Charter starts: "We the people of the United Nations determined ... to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind...". Then follows 19 chapters on what is expected of the members of the UN, how policy and procedure shall be implemented and what avenues can be taken by members against another who is in default of the aims and objectives of the United Nations Charter. Nowhere, in its 111 Articles, does it state that any member - or nation - can be allowed to act pre-emptively against another, whatever the circumstances that may befall.

   To act pre-emptively in a war situation is equivalent to declaring war on another country, while unprovoked. Talk "pre-emption" is mere sanitisation for the benefit of those who doubt the necessity of such extreme measures. Historically, America has always prided itself on not being the instigator of war, yet now, for all the niceties that the Bush administration may tend to package the deal in, this historic and admirable policy is being cast aside, to wreak havoc and vengeance on Iraq. Why? For the unsupported and unproven allegations that the country is in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

   As a founding member of the United Nations, the United States of America should know better than most that a pre-emptive war against Iraq - with or without a "coalition of the willing" - is in direct contradiction of the UN Charter, besides its own moral stand that it has taken in all its years of Independence. How sad, therefore, that so much should be destroyed by the one act of going to war against an impoverished foe. How sad, also, that the very institution of the United Nations, and even Nato, may come into question, if the "willing coalition" persists in its declared aim of bringing down Saddam Hussain - at all costs.

   The foreign ministers representing their countries as members of the UN Security Council were almost unanimous in their condemnation of starting war upon Iraq at this early time, while the weapons inspectors had insufficient time to examine and evaluate, in accordance with their mandate. As Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Al Shara stated in his address to the Council, war is an admission of the failure of diplomacy.

   Yet there is no reason why diplomacy should fail. UN representatives are still present in Iraq; officials from other countries are able to visit and discuss matters with senior Iraqi personnel. And Iraq is slowly coming round to accepting a more proactive response to the UN inspection and being more co-operative. Surely, therefore, logic dictates that to suspend the ongoing process - especially while nothing pertinent has been discovered - and declare war on Iraq, would not only be ridiculous, but damage the image of America and Britain - and the "coalition of the willing" whoever they are - almost in perpetuity as far as Arabs and Muslims are concerned. It is a dangerous, high-risk game that is being played out by the Bush administration, in concert with Blair.

   However, the hostile reception at the Security Council of the British and American position has resulted in a change of plans. They now both agree that more time will be given to the inspectors thus acceding to some requests while now creating a deadline, that was not there before. But there is still time for diplomacy to work.

Double standards and a Korean scandal
By Abdullah Al Madani, 16-02-2003
-

Until a week ago the South Korean leadership had believed that avoiding a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula required opening up to the North Koreans and running a peaceful dialogue with its erratic regime. Owing to such a conclusion, president Kim Dae Jung's administration introduced its so-called "Sunshine Policy" with the aim of ending the hostility between Seoul and Pyongyang.

It was widely believed that the Pyongyang regime had reached the same conviction as a way of saving itself from its bitter isolation and rescuing its people from starvation. Otherwise it would not have received President Kim Dae Jung on its territory and would not have welcomed the historic June 2000 summit between the two Koreas.

However, recently revealed secrets surrounding Seoul's peace initiative, which had placed Kim Dae Jung among the leading peace makers in the world and qualified him for the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize have sent black clouds across the "Sunshine Policy" and have created a scandal involving both Kim Dae Jung and his Northern counterpart Kim Jong-il.

Intensive investigations over the past three months in South Korea have confirmed that a week before the historic summit meeting, Seoul transferred a sum of $332 million in cash from the state-run Korea Development Bank to Hyundai Merchant Marine, a subsidiary of the Hyundai conglomerate known for its business connections in North Korea.

This was for the purpose of bribing Pyongyang's dictator Kim Jong-il so that the latter would welcome Seoul's peace initiative and would agree to meet the South Korean president. The investigations also revealed that the South Korean company had kept $146 million for itself, while only $186 million was paid directly to the North Korean president.

This represents an additional scandal for president Kim Dae Jung, who prepares to leave the Presidential Blue House in less than a month, given the damage to his image and reputation caused by corruption and abuse of power involving his two sons (Hong Gul and Hong up). It also represents a more disturbing scandal for the Pyongyang dictator who is dubbed "Dear Leader".

In a democracy like South Korea's, president Kim Dae Jung can be held to account for wrongdoing. He could - as he has already done while admitting the incident - mitigate the controversy and criticisms over his action by claiming that he was seeking to avoid threats to his country and people, thus making a difficult and bitter decision that he would not make in normal circumstances.

However, how can the North Korean leader find a justification for accepting the bribe? And how can he be held to account, given his reckless behaviour and his totalitarian regime?

The basic principle is that national leaders engage in peace processes with their countries' rivals owing to their personal conviction of the benefits of peace and the dangers of wars.

However, Kim Jong-il seems to have engaged in a peace process with his Southern counterpart swayed by the attractiveness of the cash bribe and owing to his belief that he can extort more dollars to spend on his personal pleasures and prolong his miserable harsh regime.

All this, while his countrymen could not find food to maintain their dignity, school children were unable to find an oil lamp to enable them to read their books, and cities suffered from misery, backwardness and total darkness at night.

Of course, the greater part of the blame falls on president Kim Dae Jung who, according to the South Korean opposition represented by the Grand National Party, used the cash as a means to tame his North Korean counterpart and change his aggressive, reckless and unpredictable actions.

President Kim Dae Jung should have been familiar with the nature of the Pyongyang regime and that of its leaders who are more accustomed to deceit, manoeuvering, and using what funds that they can lay their hands on to strengthen their arsenals of weapons of mass destruction in order to blackmail the international community with.

The other issue for which Kim Dae Jung was criticised following the summit between the two Koreas was that he praised his Northern counterpart's peaceful attitude and showered him with qualities such as intelligence and bravery. He did this while being aware that the Northern leaders are the exact opposite (or as was said by the strategic analyst Peter Hayes: "they are tactically smart, but strategically dumb").

Of course, he was aware that if he had not paid millions of dollars in bribes to them, they would neither have met him nor welcomed his peace initiative. According to the Korean opposition, he deceived his people and his Nobel Peace Prize should be withdrawn.

In fact, Kim Dae Jung has not only embarrassed himself and the giant Hyundai Company (whose shares fell by 18 per cent during the second half of January due to its involvement in the scandal). He has also embarrassed president-elect Roh Moo Hyun, who is supposed to take power on February 25, since the latter belongs to the ruling Millennium Democratic Party.

It should be noted that during his election campaign the president elect emerged as an opponent of Washington's anti-Pyongyang hard-line policy, rejecting the American call to impose sanctions against Kim Jong-il's regime for its continuation in producing weapons of mass destruction, exporting them, and threatening to use them.

He also appeared as a supporter of the "Sunshine Policy" launched by his predecessor. However, now that revelation of bribery has been brought to light, he will not be able to claim that the North Korean leaders are faithfully working for peace.

Acting under the shock effect, he will not be able to save his reputation except by distancing himself from Kim Dae Jung and voicing his support for further investigation of the bribery case after his inauguration. Otherwise the opposition would not show any mercy to him.

In this context, the most recent shock experienced by Roh Moo Hyun was Pyong-yang's ignoring his special envoy, who arrived in the North Korean capital to discuss the possibility of easing the current tension between North Korea and Washington and restoring a peaceful dialogue, and Kim Jong-il's refusal to give him the "honour" of an audience (perhaps because he was not carrying with him a new cash bribe).

The scandal of the esteemed leader Kim Jong-il is presented to some of the élite in the Arab world, and probably elsewhere in the Third World, who suddenly seem to have been impressed with the North Korean leader as an embodiment of national pride.

Like his father, Kim Jong-il has no regard for the pride of his own people and has turned them into a starved herd ruled by a totalitarian system of government and a regime based upon worship of the individual.

Perhaps worse than that were articles written by some Arab commentators who have never visited North Korea and have never had the opportunity to see how its citizens live. In these articles, they have gone as far as to say "I wish I were a North Korean" simply because the Pyongyang regime threatened to use some of its missiles against the U.S. and used anti-American revolutionary rhetoric that is full of empty slogans.

This evidently reflects the double standards of some Arab intellectuals, since those who write such comments seem to be, on the one hand, impressed by a regime which is unanimously believed to be outrageous and fascist, and on the other, advocates of freedom, human rights, political pluralism, and a democratic system of government.

The writer is a Bahrain-based Gulf researcher and expert in Asian affairs. He can be contacted at: aelmadani@gulfnews.com

China trains 14 astronauts for fall launch
(Reuters), Khaleej Times, 16 February 2003

BEIJING - China has been training 14 fighter pilots to be astronauts and this autumn will become the world’s third nation to blast people into space, state media reported on Sunday.

The pilots, training in a northern Beijing suburb, are all under 30 years old, around 1.7 metres (5 ft 7 in) tall, weigh about 65 kgs (143 lb) and have completed more than 1,000 flying hours, the Beijing Evening News quoted aerospace sources as saying.

Officials would choose one or two candidates for the mission on the Shenzhou V spacecraft, expected to take off in the fall, the Beijing Star Daily said. The mission would be another feather in China’s cap after the successful flight of the unmanned Shenzhou IV craft, which landed safely in early January after orbiting Earth for about a week.

Following that flight, officials said China would put a person in space in the second half of 2003.

Bin Laden vows to pursue war on Americans: Report
(AFP), Khaleej Times, 16 February 2003

DUBAI - Osama bin Laden has vowed to pursue his struggle against the United States in a new audio tape recording, Al-Hayat newspaper reported on Sunday. Bin Laden also warned that Arab countries such as Egypt, Syria and Sudan, as well as Iran would be the next US targets after Iraq and branded US President George W. Bush as “stupid” and “the Pharaoh of the century,” the daily said.

The tape urged Muslims “to be convinced of the possibility of defeating the Americans”, citing a list of attacks against US interests across the globe in recent years.

The leader of the Al Qaeda network condemned the “crusades” waged by Washington in the Arab world, the London-based daily said.

A US-led war in Iraq “will only be a stage in a series of planned attacks targeting other countries, including Syria, Iran, Egypt and Sudan.”

The tape, obtained by Al-Hayat in Cairo, follows another recording broadcast by the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite television network on Tuesday, on which a voice believed to be that of bin Laden called on Muslims to launch suicide attacks and defend Iraq against a feared US attack.

Puppeteer’ behind Bush is forced from shadows
By Tony Allen-Mills, Washington
Sunday Times, 2/16/03

THE “boy genius” may have been too clever by half. Karl Rove, the political strategist who steered George W Bush to an unprecedented triumph in last year’s mid-term elections, is facing embarrassing questions about his role in White House policy-making and his influence over the president.
The low profile carefully cultivated by Bush’s closest political adviser has been shattered by two caustic biographies, both portraying Rove as a Texan-tinged mixture of Rasputin and Machiavelli. The aide once hailed by Bush as “the man with the plan” is in danger of embarrassing his boss.

Rove has protested that he is only “one voice among many” around the president’s table. He predicted that sales of the books were “going to be so darn poor”, but the first biography, Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W Bush, is riding high in non-fiction bestseller lists.

The second book, Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W Bush, to be published later this month, is also attracting attention for its stark claim that Rove has become America’s “co-president”. The authors argue that Rove, the 52-year-old son of a Rocky Mountain geologist, has redefined the role of political adviser and “raised a new and disturbing question for American voters . . . who really runs this country?” Behind the focus on Rove’s political muscle lurks the lingering suspicion — both inside Washington and around the world — that Bush relies heavily on aides who tell him what to think.

In Boy Genius, a trio of veteran political writers support the view that “George W is a meet-and-greet master . . . but his grasp of the details of policy is often shaky”. Lou Dubose, a former editor of The Texas Observer, and two colleagues describe Bush as a virtuoso performer but say: “Rove is the composer.”

In Bush’s Brain, James Moore and Wayne Slater go further. “Karl Rove thinks it and George W Bush does it,” says an advance copy of the book. “Bush is the product. Rove is the marketer. One cannot succeed without the other.” The authors depict the president as “a man smart enough to know he is not smart enough”.

Rove, by contrast, does all the things that Bush used to hate about President Bill Clinton. He runs “every discussion of policy through the (filter) of politics, evaluating the implications of various groups with a voracious energy, factoring the latest poll results and statistical voter trends”.

Bush has always insisted that he pays more attention to moral principle than to opinion polls. Both biographies suggest that Rove’s true brilliance has been to provide the president with moral arguments for decisions that also happen to serve a vote-winning political purpose.

Moore and Slater see Rove’s hand in almost every significant policy initiative adopted by the White House over the past two years, from protectionist steel tariffs to Iraq.

In a chapter titled General Rove, Moore and Slater claim that once the attack on Afghanistan had dissolved into a fruitless chase after Osama Bin Laden, Rove needed “a better, simpler, more marketable war”.

The book adds: “The ‘Suddenly Saddam’ strategy came out of nowhere . . . how did it happen that Saddam Hussein became the most important matter in the world at just the right instant in an election campaign to help the president and his political party?” Both books depict Rove as far too shrewd to embarrass Bush by presenting the case for war in vote-grabbing terms. But for many Democrats it was no coincidence that the key moments of the unfolding Iraq debate were also times of maximum electoral advantage for Bush, who last November became the first Republican president to win control of both the Senate and Congress in mid-term elections.

“I think this entire (Iraq) discussion was perfectly orchestrated by Karl Rove,” says one Democrat consultant.

Jim Jordan, director of the Democrats’ senatorial campaign committee, was widely quoted last year as predicting that potentially damaging questions about corporate crime and economic prospects would disappear “when General Rove calls in the airstrikes”.

Rove has been helping Bush since the president first ran for office in Texas 20 years ago. Bush sometimes calls him “Turd Blossom”, after a Texas flower that grows in cowpats.

For the fiercely loyal subaltern, the attention is both flattering and dangerous. Even Rove’s critics acknowledge that he is a superb political operator with rare breadth of vision and an uncanny feel for public opinion. A genial Anglophile, he is often seen at British embassy parties with a glass of white wine in one hand and his portable e-mail gadget in the other.

At a recent meeting with reporters Rove shrugged off his Svengali reputation. “I go to exciting meetings where we deal with such things as financing of drought relief,” he said.

Yet Bush has slapped him down in the past for getting too big for his boots. He once demanded a written apology for a remark that Rove made to a journalist and addressed him witheringly as “Mr Big Shot”. When Dick Cheney, the vice-president, was asked about a magazine cover story on Rove’s role, he described the piece as “grossly excessive”.

Democrats hope, rather forlornly, that the new biographies will help to turn Rove into an electoral liability for Bush. All the attention has “just painted a big target on his back”, said Charles Cook, a prominent Washington analyst.

“Bagging Karl Rove,” noted a veteran Republican lobbyist, “would be the biggest trophy in town.”

The world has spoken

By Andrew Collingwood, Al-Jazeerah, 2/16/03

The world has spoken, we do not want war with Iraq. I was among the 2 million marching through London who had travelled from all parts of the country, making it the biggest demonstration the country has ever seen, a scene repeated in capital cities throughout the world. The majority of the British population do not want war, and if Blair ignores public opinion it is likely to cost him his job at the next election.

We have to put a stop to US imperialism, as otherwise Bush & Blair will continue to attack country after country who oppose them.

Pre-emptive action is immoral and against international war, and it is only pre-emptive if there is a proven case that the country you are attacking is about to launch an attack on you, which is not the case with Iraq. I do not want to be part of a country which involves itself in such aggressive actions. War should only be a last resort, and should only ever be used in self defence.

The arguments they are use are transparent and weak. The statement about Iraq ignoring UN resolutions could be used against many countries, indeed Israel has had the most resolutions taken out against them, but there is no chance of the international community (if you call the US and UK the international community) taking action against them.

They say that Saddam Hussein has a bad record on human rights. I do not dispute that, but once again many other countries do, some of which are our allies, as Iraq was in the 1980's, when we were arming him to fight Iran.

Colin Powell also said that the UN will become irrelevant if they do not act. Yet, will the UN not also become irrelevant if we attack Iraq without a new UN resolution, which Bush and Blair have said they will do if the vote does not go their way.

At the end of the day, this so called "War on Terror" is just a mask against the real reason for this war - OIL.

Not in my name - www.StopWar.org.uk

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.