Jan 23, 2003 Op Eds

Jan 23, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

Won’t I ever give up, old geezer from the 60s that I am, on trying to make a difference, to change the world? I mean, heck, how long can I keep this shtick up, as a counterculture activist, marching, rallying, joining vigils, shouting slogans? To tell you the truth — as long as it’s gonna take. For how tragic, how wrong, how unpardonable it would’ve been to miss out on the peace rally on the Mall last Saturday, held to protest the imminent war on Iraq. And, hey, let’s bundle up for peace, for it’ll be eight degrees below freezing. No matter, for once you get there and imbibe the group ecstasy of 500,000 demonstrators from all over the East Coast and the Midwest, you feel the affirmation, the hope, the passion you share with all those fellow peace warriors around you.

It’s allright to believe, you say, it’s allright to tell the world you’re mad as hell and you won’t take it anymore. But first you have to put up with the speeches — two long hours of that, standing there in the freezing cold — from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, whose presentations were typically delivered as if a gospel choir was singing in the background, and the film actress Jessica Lange, whose birdy tweet, sonorous voice didn’t carry that well. But who was listening! You walk up and down the Mall, circulating as if at some social gathering, to see if all the usual suspects are there — the college kids, the lefties, the environmentalists, the feminists and, yes, the baby boomers, with graying beards, broadening waists and thinning hair, who had been there, done that, during the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement in the late 60s and early 70s.

Then there’s the stroller brigade, parents bringing their babies to the demo. The old men with signs saying, “Korean veterans against the war,” accompanied by wives walking along on canes or sitting in wheel chairs pushed along by young relatives. Children holding up signs asking, “How many Iraqi deaths does it take to fill your SUV’s?” and especially that fetching 4-year-old slung over his dad’s shoulder, fast asleep, still clutching on to a tiny sign proclaiming, “I don’t want Iraqi children killed.” And how could you have a rally on the Mall without that kooky Uncle Sam on stilts? Or the odd smart aleck, like the demonstrator who had brought his dog along, with a sign over its back saying, “Don’t wag this dog”?

And, yes, blessed are the slogan makers, whose penchant for the pithy expression at an event like this is legion. Looking for the philosophical? “Speak truth to power.” The committed? “Freezing out here for peace.” Anti-government? “Drop Bush, not bombs.” Existential? “No killing in our name.” Political science? “War is terrorism.” Anti-establishmentarian? “This country is going to hell in a Bush basket.” Cynical? “Regime change here.” Personal? “I have family on both sides.” Commonsensical? “Money for jobs, not war.” Disrespectful? “Bush, a moron and a bully.” (So, scribble, scribble, in gloved hands clutching onto a pen and a steno notebook, and, heck, my own sign to hold up too, “In Palestine, give me liberty or give me death.”)

Truth be told, Bush came in for disrespect, and then some — and this one takes the cake: “The asses of evil,” it read, accompanied by pictures of the president, vice president and secretary of defense. And among the profusion of these free-for-all anti-Bush statements was the one, emblazoned on a large banner, held up by a group of young anarchists (who else?) was this: “(Expletive) Bush and his stupid war.” Only in fun-loving America, folks! And only in Washington, where this great American tradition, of allowing the citizenry to let off steam, do their thing, and tell it the way it is, began in 1894 with Coxey’s Army, the rally of unemployed men led by the radical, though somewhat eccentric, businessman Jacob Coxey, who marched to the Capitol in support of a jobs bill.

Mercifully, the speeches ended, thank heavens, before hypothermia set in, and the march proceeded to the Navy Yard a mile away, where this chanting throng of demonstrators gathered, and then demanded (you have to love these guys’ sense of theater, irony and panache) that their own “inspectors” be allowed to enter the military compound to search for “weapons of mass destruction.” That was, pardon my 60s idiom, really hip, dude. Since no permit had been granted by the DC Metropolitan Police for that, or even seriously considered in the first place, the cops on the beat — who had been, given the well behaved nature of the crowd, drawing the easiest overtime pay around — blocked the way. Then everybody went home, some, in groups like those who had come from Maine, Vermont, New York and Massachusetts, shouting rhythmically, “This is what people’s democracy is all about.”

Did we make a difference? Was it all a shrill exercise, a bore to the rest of the nation, earning us the sneers of those neocons who want to go “get the gooks,” the disparagement of the media, that doesn’t take us seriously, the ambivalence of the pundits, who don’t give two-pence what we think, and the indifference of the powers that be, who never listen anyhow? Maybe, but who cares. It’s good to have been out there, energized by the knowledge that you are with like-minded people — and half a million like-minded souls are not a mean number of folks to be hanging out with — who give a damn. It’s a great society we live when college kids from all over take 5-hour bus rides each way, and old geezers whose idealistic side has stayed up there intact after all these years, insist on making a statement against those who believe that the only way to solve international disputes is to send in the Marines and the B52s. How much nobler in the mind is it, as the bard would attest, than to stand up and be counted! And how thoroughly American! Now, I’ll be able to tell the kids: I never skipped the bus ride to Washington in 2003, so stop bugging me about having missed out on Woodstock in 1969.

(disinherited@yahoo.com)

Iraq and US
Arab News, 23 January 2003
-

Is the US going to lead an attack on Iraq or not? That is the question being asked around the world with increasing nervousness — and no one really knows the answer, not even the White House or the Pentagon; President Bush has clearly not yet made up his mind. Russian military officials may confidently state (as they did yesterday) that war will start in mid-February but since they also say that the Americans are not really interested in toppling Saddam Hussein and that the objective is to grab Iraq’s oil, there in no point relying on them: their intelligence is painfully poor.

This crisis is about far much more than Iraqi oil, which in any event the US does not need to control; there is going to be so much more coming onto the market in the next few years — from the Caspian, from Alaska, from northern Siberia, and not to mention other new energy sources — that, as former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov predicted in Jeddah earlier this week, the price is going to fall.

This crisis is about something completely different and of far greater consequence. It is about who wields power and influence in the Middle East. It is about the shape and destinies of states in the region, and it is about Americans’ need to wipe out the stain and pain of Sept. 11 and prove to themselves and everyone else that they still are No. 1 in the world and that anyone who messes about with them is heading for big trouble. The US feels it needs, in blunt terms, to ‘kick ass’ to be great again. Saddam Hussein is in Washington’s sights because he is an easy target, unlike Al-Qaeda. Iraq is there: it can be bombed. As an abstraction, Al-Qaeda cannot. It is to be hoped that today’s meeting in Ankara of Iraq’s neighbors — Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iran and Turkey — can produce something concrete to avoid war. However, the fact that a change of Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein going into exile is not to be discussed on the grounds that these are matters for the Iraqi people to decide (can they?) must limit their options on alternatives to war. Not that he is ever going to quit voluntarily: the only way he will leave is in a coffin. It is also strange that Kuwait was not asked. This too must weaken the prospects for any regional proposals since the US is listening very strongly to what Kuwait has to say — and Kuwait, for obvious reasons, is the one Arab state that most wants Saddam Hussein toppled.

One idea, however, that today’s meeting ought to consider is that arms inspectors not only be allowed to get on with their job but that they should again be stationed permanently in Iraq. Saddam Hussein may well manage to conceal a bomb or two up his metaphorical sleeve, but if inspectors were constantly at work in Iraq he would never be able to move or deploy them.

This may not be the solution the US wants, but it is a practical and workable alternative to war as the means of controlling Saddam Hussein. There is not a government in the world that does not agree that he is a tyrant who if left uncontrolled would try again to impose himself on his neighbors by brute force. There is an absolute and permanent need to contain him. Constant supervision would achieve that. His physical removal as a result of invasion could do so as well, but the risks from that to the stability of the region are just too great.

This ‘Perle’ was not found in an oyster!
By Hussein Shobokshi,

Arab News, 1/23/03

Richard Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon’s advisory panel, is an enigma with an agenda. Although his job is not only important but also very relevant, it should be anonymous, Perle instead has used the position to establish himself as the official mouthpiece for new conservative (neocon) toughness. Like some other neocons, Perle sometimes reminds reporters that he is a registered Democrat — even though he has been associated with Republican administrations and candidates for two decades. But some background investigation into the man who served as an assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration and was known as the “Prince of Darkness,” reveals some puzzling and disturbing facts. Serving as a staffer for Senator Henry Jackson he helped the senator manage détente talks with the Soviets by tying trade benefits to the rights of Soviet Jews to immigrate to Israel. That was the first step on a path that Perle made for himself in order to establish his parallel agenda. After he resigned as assistant secretary of defense in 1987, he wrote a novel, ‘Hard Line’.

In the novel, Perle explained the methods he used to acquire so much clout. “Knowledge was power. The more you knew, the more you could use what you knew to expand your empire or advance your political agenda — or both,” he wrote. It was a “surrogate war” “Since turf wars and ideological battles between the principals on such a high level attracted unwanted publicity, assistant secretaries did the fighting. Urbane guerillas in dark suits, they fought not with AK-47’s but with memos, position papers, talking points, and new leaks.”

Fifteen years later, after leaving office to cash in on a number of private sector positions, Perle is playing his old game, articulating another surrogate war by voicing what such fellow hawks as Paul Wolfowitz cannot because of political limitations. “Basically, Perle is serving as the ventriloquist’s dummy and is making the administration’s case publicly but in a deniable fashion,” says John Pike, a defense policy specialist and a known adversary of Perle. “Donald Rumsfeld adamantly refuses to talk about blowing up Iraq. Richard Perle talks about very little else.”

Republican Party insiders believe that their party is now split in two, one side led by Brent Scowcroft and the other by Perle. Former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the US war on terrorism should remain just that — a counter-terrorism initiative. A strike on Iraq “would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken,” Scowcroft stated. A Bush Sr. administration member, Lawrence Eagleburger, added that Perle and Wolfowitz were “devious’ because of their efforts to convince the president to go to war against Iraq.

It is an odd battle — Scowcroft, a national security adviser twice, fighting a serious battle against a man who has never held a premium Washington Post. But never go against a man with a devious agenda, even one who has just come out of retirement. Perle gets high marks for consistency and for prescience; in a 1985 memo to Weinberger, he warned, “There is a body of evidence indicating that Iraq continues to actively pursue an interest in nuclear weapons.”

Since September 11, Perle’s message has not changed: Sept. 11 has “nothing to do” with the reasons why the United States should strike Saddam. So the minor links provided by the administration to establish Saddam’s connections with Al-Qaeda are immaterial. “What is relevant here is that he hates the United States,” Perle told the American Spectator last autumn. “He has weapons of mass destruction. He has used them against his own people and would not hesitate to use them against us.”

A man who is serving on various boards with Netanyahu, the disgraced Israeli Foreign Minister and who served as a board member of the Jerusalem Post, the famous Israeli newspaper, will never admit to the dangers of Israel’s possessing weapons of mass destruction, will never admit to the murder and ethnic cleansing, which is regularly committed by the butcher Sharon and the bloodthirsty criminal gangsters in his Cabinet. Israel, a country led by a criminal, supported by a militia, possesses the most dangerous — and the largest number of — weapons of mass destruction in the region. That is a fact that needs to be addressed. But Perle and his gang have been selling a sugar-coated fantasy that if Saddam goes, chocolate will rain from the heavens and the oceans will turn to candy and the whole world will join hands, eat lox and buy coke and a smile. Oy vey!! That kind of silly childish image belongs to amusement parks and comic books — never to be used to justify a deadly pre-emptive war. “Trust me,” Perle said when The Nation’s David Corn asked for evidence of Saddam immediate threat to the United States. As an old cold warrior, Perle should know better.

Trust, but verify. That is the problem Mr. Perle. You are not trustworthy. In reality the great America must not allow its conscience to be hijacked by zealots with hidden agendas. The land of the free, the land of the belief that all men are created equal by constitutional decree should provide that same right to the entire globe: Freedom.

Sharon is no different from Saddam! Let justice be applied equally equally to both of them and do not differentiate; only then will America acquire the global support it seeks for its war effort.

(Hussein Shobokshi is a Saudi businessman based in Jeddah.)

The U.S. Will Not Release Vital Evidence Against Iraq

By Firas Al-Atraqchi, Scoop,

On December 19, UNMOVIC head Hans Blix declared that Iraq's final, all-inclusive weapons report had "obvious and serious omissions". A mere few minutes later, the Bush administration declared that Iraq was in "material breach due to material omissions", but stopped short of calling for war. Many 'experts' claimed that the U.S. was giving Iraq one, last chance. Some even accused the White House of soft-pedaling.

In the past few weeks, the U.S. public, the Iraqi government, and world public opinion at large has called on the U.S. to release the evidence it claims to have implicating Iraqi duplicity.

That call was further buoyed on December 20 (and again on January 10, 2003) by Blix and IAEA head Baradei who implored the U.S. to share its so-called evidence with UNMOVIC to empower the U.N. inspectors in their weapons hunt in Iraq.

The media has even begun to question whether the Bush administration has any such evidence, and is looking for a Cuban Missile Crisis smoking gun to make the case to the American people.

By mid-January 2003, the U.S., and the U.K. for that matter, had not released vital information. Although technical information was passed on to UNMOVIC, more substantial data has not been forthcoming. Several suspect sites both the U.S. and U.K. has indicated were areas of illicit weapons activity turned up empty when UNMOVIC investigated them.

Phil Donahue, Chris Matthews, and Michael Coren, have joined the chorus of U.S. military personnel (MSNBC and TIME Magazine report that one in three top U.S. generals do not favor current moves towards military conflict citing lack of visible evidence) in asking for evidence first, military action later.

They will likely have a long wait; should the U.S. possess such evidence, it is likely never to release it. An examination of current U.S. moves in the U.N. Security Council and the relationship between Iraq and the U.S. during the 1980s will provide telling reasons.

By now, most of the viewing public, thanks in no part to western media, is well aware that it was general U.S. government policy to support and arm Iraq during the 1980s. Iraqi scientists were given free rein in major research and development facilities throughout the U.S. and were often privy to classified chemical weapons research. U.S. firms, with the blessing of the Reagan administration, supplied Iraq with anthrax spores, as well as the capacity to further develop its bio-chemical capabilities.

Why was the U.S. so supportive of an Iraq it now claims is, and was, run by a "brutal regime that gasses its own people and torture thousands"? One word: Revenge. The U.S. wanted to teach the new Islamic Republic of Iran a lesson it would never forget for daring to overthrow the Shah and take hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. As a result, the U.S. played deep distrust between Iraq and Iran and the obvious Shatt-el-Arab waterway dispute to propel the two nations into a war.

So blind was the call for revenge that the U.S. provided intelligence, logistical, and other support to Iraq in hopes of punishing the upstart Islamists in Iran.

In 1982, however, the tide began to turn against Iraq, when Iraqi forces made a classical military blunder: they were content with occupying all of western Iran rather than pursue what was left of the ramshackle Iranian army and militias and destroy them. The latter regrouped, rearmed, revitalized and tossed the Iraqis out of Iran bringing the war to Iraqi territory.

This was a worrisome time for the Reagan administration; instead of bearing the brunt of an 'Iraqi punishment', it now began to look as if Iran would occupy all of Iraq, stretch into Alawite Syria, unite with Shiite Hezbollah, and create a new Shiite Perso-Arab Empire that would wreak havoc on U.S. and Israeli interests in the region.

The decision was made to support Iraq as much as possible, without appearing to support Iraq.

When Iraq began a massive military campaign and used arms provided by the U.S. to curb Kurdish dissent, the voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent.

When Iraq gassed the overwhelming Iranian human tidal wave of soldiers (a tactic gleaned from the Korean War - some Iranian soldiers were barely armed), the voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent.

When Iran gassed Iraqi soldiers and both countries tortured each other's POWs, the voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent.

So strong was support for Iraq in the late 1980s that the U.S. renewed full diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1986, and helped temper the storm after an Iraqi fighter plane nearly sunk the U.S.S. Stark with an Exocet missile in 1987, killing 37 U.S. naval personnel.

The voices of reason and morality we hear today were ominously silent.

Iraq's Knight Takes Queen

When Iraq handed UNMOVIC its 12,200-page report on weapons research and procurement, it knew fully well that the U.S. would seize the document from the U.N. and proceed to censor it. Why the censorship? Weapons proliferation, we are told. While that is partially true, Iraq hinted early on that its massive document would list each and every government, private, as well as public, firm and/or institution that helped Iraq in its 30-year weapons program.

The U.S. had to remove the document from the hands of the international community because it contained vital information that could undermine the current administration. The other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council did not object much to this U.S. move because they knew that their names and their firms also helped arm Iraq.

This was Iraq's last, desperate strategy to ward off war, or at least delay it as long as possible. It listed names of individuals and organizations that would come under intensive public scrutiny and embarrassment should the contents of the document be made public.

Several prominent U.S. firms and universities are complicit, and, in particular, several high-ranking U.S. officials who were members of the Reagan administration and went on to become national leaders themselves. The point man? George Bush Sr., former head of the CIA, Vice-President under Ronald Reagan, and President of the U.S. during the Gulf War.

How does the current Bush administration know Iraq may or may not be lying? They have in their possession documents detailing all sales and support given to the Iraqis in the bio-chemical weapons domain. They have invoices and spreadsheets of everything that was shipped from various U.S. departments and federal institutions to Iraq directly, and indirectly (through U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia). However, these documents also have the final approval of the CIA, who, under George Bush Sr., encouraged ties with Iraq. Does it not seem the least bit ironic that the U.S. was funneling bio-chemical information to Iraq up until 1990, the year Iraq invaded Kuwait?

The German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung has claimed that it has obtained a copy of the Iraq document and will soon publish a list of these suppliers. The list purportedly includes Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating, the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture. According to Democracynow.org ( http://www.democracynow.org/Zumach.htm or Scoop: The Companies That Armed Iraq With WMDs) "U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia trained traveling Iraqi nuclear scientists and gave non-fissile material for construction of a nuclear bomb."

If this list of arms suppliers (and supporters) to Iraq were released to the public, scandal would rock the White House. In a timeframe that has seen the Enron scandal, and may yet see Vice-President Dick Cheney questioned by the SEC over Halliburton, George Dubya would likely see his re-election hopes buried.

As a result, the non-permanent members of the Security Council received a meager 3,000-page abridged version of the original 12,200 pages. The list of legal and illegal support afforded to Iraq in the past 30 years was not included in the abridged version.

Twelve rusted pipes

By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org

My head turned when I heard on the radio that a number of chemical warheads had been discovered in Iraq, the words "chemical warheads" evoking powerful suggestions and images. Shortly after first reports, one of Mr. Bush's spokespeople termed it "significant." Within a day, restraint was thrown to the wind, and Mr. Bush claimed the find was solid "proof" of Iraq's refusal to cooperate with arms inspectors.

I found a picture on the Internet of the U.N. inspectors in chemical-protective suits with their discovery spread on the ground in front of them. The "chemical warheads" resembled twelve rusted, 8-inch pipes, exactly the kind of junk you could find strewn in yards piled with corroded '49 Ford transmissions, World War II relics, winches, and bedsprings on countless rural roads across America.

The "warheads" are the remains of 122mm Katyusha-style rockets (the same type of inaccurate and relatively ineffective small rockets used sporadically against northern Israel during the bloody occupation of Lebanon) that had been designed to deliver chemical weapons.

Of course, if you've been conditioned by Monty Python performances like former Secretary of Defense Cohen holding up a 5-pound bag of sugar on national television and asserting its volume represented all that was necessary to wipe out a country, you might still be concerned. His presentation came around the time when the seemingly custom-minted expression "weapons of mass destruction" was introduced to blur the immense differences between chemical/biological weapons and nuclear ones.

To put the "warhead" discovery into perspective, some 20,000 such munitions were surrendered by Iraq after Desert Storm a dozen years ago. I have no idea how many artillery rounds and rockets, of 122mm and greater size, were fired by U.S. forces during that brief war, but a hundred thousand is likely a modest estimate.

The American munitions weren't loaded with chemicals, but in their accuracy and destructive power plus the hideous aftereffects of tons of vaporized uranium left for civilians to breathe, they likely were far more lethal than the Iraqi rockets of twelve years ago could ever have been. I say this because such rockets have a very limited range and very poor accuracy. The chemicals they contain also are subject to such untoward events as sudden wind shifts blowing the stuff back onto your own troops. Moreover, any modern army is equipped to avoid contact with such material.

Even in mint condition and in the substantial numbers of pre-Desert Storm days, such rockets represent a very limited threat. Any army general would trade them all for one American W-88 thermonuclear warhead with its guaranteed ability to obliterate instantly a city or an army and render a large area uninhabitable for weeks.

But of course, these weren't 20,000 new munitions; they were twelve rusted remnants containing nothing -- threatening stuff indeed.

Iraq has experienced two furious conflicts over the last two decades. Undoubtedly, there is tons of rusted war materiel scattered over the landscape, stuff that no one has records of or cares about. And Iraqis do have other things to occupy them, things like sheer survival under America's horrific embargo and with much of their country's basic infrastructure still in ruins.

Whether Bush's statements reflect careless, offhand remarks or deliberate misrepresentations, they starkly highlight why he is neither trusted nor believed by millions of thoughtful people around the world. At his level of responsibility, and with the gravest consequences of war hinging on his words, it is reprehensible of him to twist language so that rusted pipes become proof of vast destructive plots.

Not long after the pipes' discovery, there were revelations in London's Daily Telegraph and Times that three thousand pages of documents dealing with nuclear weapons had been found in the home of an Iraqi scientist.

This information, probably leaked to re-focus public concern after the rusted-pipe caper, made attention-getting headlines, but the details proved rather pathetic reading. As it turned out, the documents concern the project for producing fissile material that the entire world knows existed before Desert Storm, a costly project that according to Mr. Scott Ritter, former chief arms inspector, was destroyed by his technicians.

It does seem that Mr. Bush is willing to grab at any flimsy argument for war, and Britain's Mr. Blair -- the leak to the British papers almost certainly coming from his government -- is never far behind in making sweeping claims that he cannot support.

When I think of the situation in Iraq, I have the painful image of a huge scab that has just barely closed over a terrible, bloody wound. Mr. Bush keeps telling us that rather than let the doctors keep the wound under examination, he wants to rip away the massive scab and slash still more deeply into the remaining flesh to make sure there is no infection.

Well, I have about the same trust in Mr. Bush as surgeon as I do as statesman. Let Mr. Blix's experts carry on with inspections, and let the man who sniggered at souls waiting on death row keep his mouth closed until the full evidence is in.

John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org

How oil plays a role in an invasion of Iraq
By Ash Pulcifer
YellowTimes.org

Most people are aware that oil will play a role in the Bush administration's possible invasion of Iraq, but many do not quite understand how. The common assumption is that the U.S. military will somehow "steal" Iraq's oil. This is simply not the case.

The reason that oil plays a part in any future conflict with Iraq has to do with the amount of oil available on the free market. On the free market, whenever there is an increase in supply of a product, the price of that product generally decreases. Such is the hope of the Bush administration with regard to the price of oil should they remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Currently, Iraq is allowed to export some 2 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), which finds its way into the global marketplace; shortly after the Gulf War, Iraq's oil exports were restricted as part of the United Nations oil-for-food program. Before the Gulf War began, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million bpd, meaning at least another 1.5 billion barrels of oil were being released into the global marketplace each day as compared with 2 million bpd now. If Iraq were to once again rise to that level of exports, there would be more oil supply in the global market and this would cause a drop in oil prices.

The only way for Iraq to once again export 3.5 million bpd will be for the United Nations sanctions to end. Once the sanctions end, Iraq will be able to export oil at their full capacity as they did before the Gulf War. Because the United States and Britain believe strongly that the sanctions should remain in place until Saddam Hussein is removed from power, they have looked for other solutions to solve this problem of high oil prices. The Bush administration decided the sanctions were not succeeding in removing Hussein and it was time they just removed him themselves, putting their own friendly government into power and thus putting an end to the need for sanctions.

This is one of the central ideas behind the Bush administration's wish for "regime change." High oil prices damage the economies of countries that are dependent on foreign oil, such as the United States. If oil prices were to dramatically drop, it would be as if a great weight had been lifted off the chest of the U.S. economy, possibly leading to a global economic upturn. The positive result of "regime change" in Iraq to the U.S. economy cannot be underestimated.

See, the Bush administration has far loftier goals in mind when it comes to Iraq. Maybe it's because the central thinkers in the administration were at onetime involved in the oil industry: President Bush was a senior executive in Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration oil company from 1978-1984, and the senior executive of the Harken oil company from 1986-1990; Vice President Cheney was the chief executive of the Halliburton oil company from 1995-2000; and National Security Advisor Rice was a senior executive with the Chevron oil company from 1991-2000. So this administration knows its oil. And because of that, they quite ambitiously say, "Why not increase Iraq's oil capacity to a level higher than ever before, thus adding even more supply to the oil market?"

And that is what they intend to do. The new government that the U.S. installs will want to increase production because that will result in more exports and thus more money for the Iraqi economy. But the only way to increase production is to incorporate western technology into oil drilling practices. That's where the American oil companies come in. The American oil companies will be needed to rebuild and update Iraq's oil infrastructure in order to increase their oil output. This is why American oil companies are hoping that the war in Iraq will materialize. As we have seen, they have well placed friends in the administration and just might get what they want.

It is estimated by energy analysts that with the assistance of U.S. oil technology, Iraq will be able to increase production to 5 million bpd. That is at least three million more barrels per day than they are exporting now. This will provide more supply to the oil market depressing oil prices, thus providing a relief to the U.S. economy.

There's no need to take my word for it. Bush's former top economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, stated last fall: "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." Couldn't be put simpler than that. Economists predict that after a successful Iraq invasion, the price of oil will drop from the current $30 - $34 a barrel to $15 to $20 a barrel; possibly a 50 percent decrease. The effects of this on the U.S. economy, which is heavily dependent on oil, will be dramatic.

Of course, all of this will only become possible should the war in Iraq be a successful military and political operation. There are plenty of problems that can arise in the prosecution of the war that could cause an opposite effect, drastically increasing oil prices due to any instability in oil output from the Middle East. With the current crisis in Venezuela, a major exporter of oil to the United States, the Bush administration won't have that much leeway in avoiding an economic disaster should their plans backfire.

[Ash Pulcifer, a lifelong activist for international human rights, lives in the United States. Ash finds it unacceptable that the world often turns its back to those less fortunate members of our species who are forced to endure poverty and civil strife.]

Ash Pulcifer encourages your comments: apulcifer@YellowTimes.org

An open letter to President Bush: It's not too late to be Pro Life and Pro Peace

By Mohammed Khodr

1/23/03

Nations have learned a valuable lesson these days from America's handling of North Korea and it's silence on Israel's daily murder of Palestinian civilians.

Now to Iraq's Suffering and Death away from America's Humanity Gene: TELEVISION.

For good ratings our anchormen travel to the latest American 'hot spot du jour" to better "inform" the American public why their children will die and why are their taxes being spent on killing rather than on protecting life at home and abroad.

Peter Jennings in Iraq this week is the latest media showcase of such a travesty, given that the networks have practically placed sanctions on international news unless Israel's or American lives or interests are in danger.

So what of our network coverage from Iraq? So far Mr. Jennings, by the far the most experienced anchorman on the world stage and the one who's actually lived in the Middle East for a few years, has deliberately avoided showing the long suffering, hunger, and death of Iraqi's on World News Tonight limiting the minutes to showcasing his warm cover jacked and brief interviews with men of weapons. For him to travel at much expense to Iraq then not show the humanity and consequence of war and sanctions is shameful, outrageous but perfectly understandable. The military-industrial-media complex wants war, thus given his ten million dollar salary, he would be a fool to be a man of principle and integrity when our own government sells its soul for a few dollars more.

Mr. Jennings has interviewed Hans Blix, Al Baradiey, Al Saadi, plus a brief human cover up story of an Iraqi music man. Thus the concentration has been mainly on war and death or music.

Iraq has been at war of it's "encouraged" making for 23 years---Iraq:Iran war; Bush Sr.'s "aggression will not stand" Gulf War, 12 years of the most devastating sanctions in recent history resulting conservatively in 1.7 million Iraqi deaths, 4,500 children dying each month, a total destruction of all of Iraq's infrastructure such as water, electricity, sewer plants, bridges, roads, hospitals, and so on, and now it's Jr.'s turn to finish "Dad's business", suck the oil out of Iraq's life and ensure Israel's total dominance in the region militarily and more importantly economically. Today it's either you're with us or against on "war on terrorism"; tomorrow it's "you'll either buy from us at our price or else"; or "you'll give us what we want or else"; or "get out of power or else"; or lastly "you'll become a Baptist or else".

In any case "human interest" stories as they're called are not of interest to ABC and Mr. Jennings. Why show any Iraqi suffering lest an American have a change of heart since obviously our minds and hearts are not our own but are the "TOYS R US' of our mass media "Telecommunications Act" of indoctrinate then poll for regurgitated parroted information. Hence 82% of Americans support killing the "demonized" Muslim embodied in Saddam's ugly face after tens of Satanic Saddam stories.

Our civilization and its journey now is planned and led by makers of commercial "sound bytes" who encourage us to buy a toothpaste, vote for the good looking candidate, or nuke a nation.

Why the fear of showing death, injury, suffering, destruction in Iraq? The same reason 62 stores being destroyed by Sharon yesterday in the West Bank are not shown, the same reason the UN investigation team for Jenin was stomped, the same reason Sharon will get $14 Billion in outright grants while both Democrats and Republicans talk of the importance of budget cuts in times of crisis, the same reason Bush wants the U.N. to do its job, become relevant, impose its will, have some backbone in the face of Iraqi "aggression" and yet Bush and every American politicians melts into cowardly putty when Israel and Sharon scoff at 90 UN Resolutions, scoff at the "Quartet", scoff at the "biased" European Union, even scoff at Bush's timid attempt at intimidating Sharon: what is the reason you ask for such media complicity in the Bush Crusade against the wishes of most of his citizens and the world?

I know it'll be hard for most Americans to even begin to contemplate the answer after 55 years of repetitious, monotonous, single issue campaign of ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL FIRST. It's Israel, stupid. It's always been Israel, and it will always be Israel until America finds the backbone to impose a fair and just peace for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--fair being that Palestinians will get less than one fifth of their original land divided into two impoverished water deprived regions, that's the fairness we're avoiding out of fear.

This powerful nation and alleged "strong" President can single-handedly and boldly impose its will on the world, except for one small foreign nation of 5 million Jews: ISRAEL.

Hence Sharon, the 'Man of Peace' can murder civilians at will in self-defense and proclaim without any shame or fear: 'WE CONTROL AMERICA".

President Bush has learned Israel's political lessons well---with SPIN, you can LIE, ANNEX, AND MURDER "S.L.A.M."--from his "belligerent draft dodgers" as Ralph Nader calls them: CHENEY, RUMSFELD, WOLFOWITZ, PERLE, ABRAMS, and now please add the Yiddish speaking POWELL who turned out to be a Foggy Mind at Foggy Bottom knowing where his bread is buttered.

America will never again know peace, prosperity, or security abroad after an unjustified war by the history's most powerful nuclear nation against a decimated third world Iraq, the nation of Hammurabi and the Prophet Abraham, peace be upon him. Americans have begun to die, businesses are being impacted, and boycotts of American goods are spreading from Canada, Europe, the Muslim world, to Australia.

President Bush's Memoir will be titled: "HOW TO PLEASE ISRAEL AND LOSE THE WORLD."

Mr. Bush, you asked a question post 9-11: "Why do they hate us?" I'm almost certain that this question as all "smart cliches" that emanate from our politicians was given to you as was the case with the "Axis of Evil".

Here's an answer from a patriotic American, Mr. President, albeit a "Muslim", your conservative movement's "pariah du jour' after Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

WHY DO THEY HATE US?

ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL

WHY DO WE HATE THEM?

ISRAEL, ISRAEL'S SUPPORTIVE MEDIA, ISRAEL'S CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTS/ZIONISTS

AND

WE CAN'T STAND THE FACT THAT SOME DIRTY DUST COVERED, MUSLIM WITH A TURBAN ON HIS HEAD CONTROLS 60% OF "OUR" OIL

Hence my nation, our nation, a nation in love with its "ideal, romantic" self of being good hearted, generous, full of freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, democracy, and rule of law has transformed itself post World War II from an isolated, inner looking nation after its own interest into a nation subservient to the will of Israel, it's military-industrial-media greed, the fanatic religious right who either hate the world and want them converted or dead or so love the Jews they want them dead to bring back Christ, and the inexplicable shredding of our Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Judicial system by a devout Pentecostal Fundamentalist who thinks the God of Islam demands His followers blow themselves up. Perhaps, Mr. Bush, since you support diversity so much you could appoint an American Muslim in your administration instead of all the Pro-Israelites and felons who dominate our foreign policy and national security apparatus.

We're a nation needing "days of the year" to remind us of our humanity. You Mr. President, as you did this week, recalled Martin Luther King's Birthday and visited a photo op church just days after saying you oppose Affirmative Action for former children of slaves. The issue of Affirmative Action and the University of Michigan focuses too late on our students, it focuses at the college level where minority students who've endured 12 years of subpar education in substandard schools, old books, and untrained teachers can't enter colleges without an "affirming hand". This nation must focus on the early child as a priority putting our funds and resources from the beginning for all of America's children whereby when they do reach college they are on a level playing field and there will be no need for the distracting issue of Affirmative Action. Do you think the $14 Billion dollars (total of $90 Billion this year) you're handing out to Israel could be used for school infrastructure for inner city schools?

Mr. President, with the help of Mr. Powell and the "Veteran Sensitive" Mr. Rumsfeld who's pushing for Billions for Israel's Veterans yet slams our "draftees" and cuts benefits to our own Veterans, and the help of our Networks, Newspapers such as the Post and NYTimes who actually set our "intellectual agenda du jour", you will and can destroy Iraq, get cheap oil, please Israel, and win a reelection landslide:

BUT, Mr. President, mark my word. America will be isolated, Americans and American businesses will die, and civil conflicts will erupt in many places around the world and thanks to you, Israel, and its media supporters, the United Nations will as you say close shop and become "irrelevant".

You're legacy, Mr. President of 'COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM" will be:

"PRO-LIFE AT HOME, PRO-DEATH ABROAD."

It's not too late to be Pro Life and Pro Peace for all people while ensuring that not only America's security but the sanctity of all life is secured not just the American fetus.

God bless you, Mr. President, should you find the courage to break out of the "think tank/Media' mentality of Washington D.C. and decide with true courage and honor that America's aims can and will be achieved peacefully. The entire world now Mr. President is not only sensitized to Iraq but to Israel's undue influence on our nation. Israel is either "with our interests or against us", but it must not demand the lives of our soldiers, our billions, and our vetoes and slaps the face of the Statue of Liberty and the White House at the same time.

Now do you understand why Mr. Jennings, Brokaw, Rather will not show us the human face of Iraq's suffering and devastation. They fear our own humanity demanding peace when they all want WAR.

A Proud American Muslim

Mohamed Khodr MD

No effort should be spared to prevent conflict in Gulf

The Daily Star, 1/23/03

The US and British governments are almost completely alone in their position that a war can be launched against Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. Russia, France and Germany are appalled at the speed with which events are proceeding. Turkey and many other US allies in the Islamic world are deeply concerned that a conflict will create far more problems than it solves. The United Nations inspectors charged with investigating Iraq’s arsenal say it is far too early to make a definitive judgment. And still George W. Bush and his sidekick, Tony Blair, insist that hostilities are justified.
Iraq’s neighbors are not fond of Saddam Hussein, but even though some of them are tiny countries with almost no capacity to defend themselves, they have little fear of Baghdad. They know Iraq is prostrate, that its population is exhausted. In short, they know that despite Saddam’s grandiose rhetoric and ornery nature, he has no appetite for adventurism.
Bush and Blair know all of this, too, which is why the forces being built up in the Gulf region are a pale shadow of the massive juggernaut assembled before the 1991 Gulf War. They understand that 12 years of brutal sanctions have so depleted Iraq’s people and flattened its economy that Saddam is incapable of mounting a proper defense, let alone an offensive.
So who or what is it that Iraq threatens so perilously as to justify a “pre-emptive” war? What terrible fate can only be avoided by killing countless Iraqi civilians, plunging the region into chaos, and further impoverishing Iraq’s neighbors? Whose interests will be sacrificed unless Bush and Blair get their way by invading and occupying Iraq?
The fact of the matter is that Iraq poses almost no threat to its immediate neighbors, still less to distant powers like America and Britain. Persistent claims that Iraqi intelligence had dealings with the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States have been thoroughly discredited.
Washington and London propose a military campaign against a whole country designed primarily to unseat one man. That will remove Saddam’s incentive to stay his hand by taking away the only reason he has left to behave cautiously: self-preservation. A war touted as the only way to save the region from weapons of mass destruction might well be the only thing that guarantees their use because it forces Saddam into a corner and leads him to lash out with whatever meager armaments remain at his disposal.
It is still not too late to keep a war from breaking out. Thursday’s summit in Istanbul should leave no stone unturned in its search for a mechanism that keeps the peace. If the United States and Britain cannot be dissuaded from throwing their weight around, perhaps Saddam can be convinced to step down. Many scenarios exist that would be better than armed conflict, and Iraq’s neighbors have a duty to find one that is acceptable to all concerned.

Bahrain: A brawl begets a backlash

By Abdulhadi Khalaf

The Daily Star, 1/23/03

The year 2003 did not start auspiciously for Bahrain or its king, Sheikh Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa.
New Year’s Eve witnessed what local media described as “the most serious riots in the country” since the launch of political reforms by Sheikh Hamad after he assumed power in March 1999. Within a couple of hours, some 800 police were called out to deal with an estimated 1,000 youths who had congregated either as rioters or spectators. Eyewitnesses reported the whole thing started as a brawl among loitering small bands of youths, and could have been contained by the small police force that was present.
The police managed to restore order and arrested a number of youngsters. When the authorities released the identities of the first batch of 40 alleged “saboteurs,” some of whom were from Saudi Arabia and Oman, it became clear that all were under 25 years old and some were as young as 15. It was also understood that more arrests would be made with the help of pictures taken of the unmasked agitated youth by TV cameras and media photographers.
The entire affair could have ended there and then. But it did not.
The Interior Ministry announced a “generous reward” for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those who took part in the riots. It also set up a special office to receive tip-offs from the public that might assist police inquiries.
An op-ed in Manama’s Gulf Daily News told of rumors that “the riots were initiated by political groups unhappy with the reforms in Bahrain and which apparently see destruction as the quickest route to change.” This theme was echoed by a number of commentators in the government-controlled media. One voiced dismay that this is the gratitude the country’s leadership gets for “its willingness to listen” and for its promise “to walk the road of change in partnership with the people, but at a measured pace.” Another urged readers to learn from “the Brixton tragedy in London and the Rodney King rioting in Los Angeles,” proclaiming “law and order cannot and will not be held to ransom by a few trying to destroy the civilized fabric and economic structure” of Bahrain.
Only a day after the riots, Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman branded those involved “saboteurs” and warned they would face the full force of the law, as there is “no place for such people in Bahraini society.”
Interior Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Khalifa bin Hamad, who has held his portfolio since 1973, raised the stakes further by declaring the youngsters’ behavior “a crime against the nation and its people.” The riots, he said, were organized and deliberate acts by people intent on causing “chaos and harm to the security and stability which the country enjoys.”
Such attitudes were echoed by several senior members of the ruling family known for their conservative and anti-reform views, and by a number of local media commentators who decried lawlessness among the population, the laxity of the authorities, and the absence of pre-emptive measures. Some even blamed the riots on the abrogation of the state security law by Sheikh Hamad before he declared himself king in February last year.
Human rights groups were sufficiently alarmed to appeal to the authorities to “handle the issue with wisdom and transparency,” and not allow the riots to have a negative impact on democratic reforms or provoke “measures that would undermine human rights” and the gains made by the Bahraini people under the reform program.
Opposition groups were also quick to dissociate themselves from the New Year’s Eve brawls, while calling for the root causes of the disturbances and the underlying social conditions to be investigated. Some demanded action to deal with the acute problems felt by young Bahrainis, including unemployment (which currently stands at 15 percent), discrimination, poverty, powerlessness and the lack of meaningful organized activities beyond football.
Like the rest of the Arab region, Bahrain is a young country, with nearly half its native population under 21. Yet the government agency responsible for youth affairs is allocated less than a million Bahraini dinars ($2.65 million) annually from a total budget of 675 million dinars (while combined defense and security expenditure exceeded 231 million dinars, or 34 percent of the state budget, in 2002).
While his uncle and cousins were promising crackdowns and accusing opposition groups of instigating the “riots,” Sheikh Hamad was left with the task of mopping up the mess.
First, he flew to Riyadh, where he publicly apologized to King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah and the Saudi people for the distress caused to those Saudis caught up in the New Year rioting in Bahrain.
Second, he ordered the government to compensate victims for their losses, reversing an earlier decision.
More significantly, he sought to put an end to speculation that the riots were organized by political opposition groups or had a sectarian character. He wisely commanded “all concerned” not to inflate the New Year’s Eve disturbances into more than what they were.
For all the prudence shown by Sheikh Hamad, the aftermath of that noisy Dec. 31 has shown Bahrainis how fragile the political reform process is, and how fractious the relationship between his camp within the ruling family and that of his uncle, the prime minister. Their two-year-old co-habitation is becoming counterproductive, even dangerous. The king may have saved the day for now, but Sheikh Khalifa, with over 30 years’ experience at the helm, can show him and his supporters that introducing political reforms is not just a matter of will.

Abdulhadi Khalaf is a Bahraini academic who teaches Sociology of Development at the University of Lund, Sweden.

America’s push for Arab ‘democracy’

By Fahed Fanek

The Daily Star, 1/23/03

The United States under George W. Bush is publicly planning to launch a second war with Iraq, in defiance of Arab and world opinion. Yet despite widespread opposition, the hard-line resolution (1441) America proposed to the UN Security Council was passed unanimously (with the endorsement of even the sole Arab member, Syria). How can this irony be explained?
The alternative America put forward incase the Security Council rejected 1441 was all-out war. Bush was determined to attack and invade Iraq even if America had to do it unilaterally. It was this fact that explained the unanimity in the Security Council. Council members voted for 1441 not because they were satisfied with the harsh language it was couched in, but because it was the only alternative to an American nuclear war on Iraq.
The world realized that the resolution was drafted in a way that would leave Iraq with no option but to reject it, thus giving the US the pretext it was looking for to respond militarily. That’s why America was surprised and frankly irritated by Iraq’s rapid acceptance of the resolution and its expressions of readiness to cooperate with UN inspectors.
It was obvious that Iraq had learned its lesson, and had decided to undermine America’s plans by diplomatic means. This was in stark contrast to the situation in 1990, when the elder Bush presented the Iraqis with one peace offer after another but not before being assured by his advisers that Saddam Hussein would reject them, thus giving the impression that Iraq was intent on confrontation.
There is no doubt that Resolution 1441 delayed military action against Iraq. There is even a small hope that it might succeed in putting it off altogether. Yet the resolution caused another war to break out in Washington, one that is still raging. This war is between moderate administration officials led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and hard-liners guided by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.
The main difference between these two camps is one of style rather than substance. While the hard-liners want a quick war under any excuse, the so-called moderates though not objecting to the aims of military action want to achieve them with international cover and in the company of as many allies as possible.
In fact, some analysts believe Resolution 1441 made war even more likely than if the situation had progressed according to how the hard-liners preferred. In the latter case, a military attack would have been seen by the civilized world as naked aggression, and would have attracted fierce criticism.
It is fair to say that Powell is the only US official tolerated by the international community. That is why it is said that while Bush needs Powell, the latter does not need the president. Nevertheless, the secretary of state is almost isolated within the administration a situation he has tried to remedy by drawing closer to Bush in an attempt to gain his backing against the “Gang of Four” (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz).
Administration hawks are already trying to prepare a blueprint for a post-Saddam Iraq. This blueprint is supposed to be part of a world domination plan that would make the US the greatest empire known to man. But Powell has another plan that, while less ambitious than that of his rivals, is independent of whether war breaks out or not. This is his plan to promote democracy in the Arab world, and trying to address the oppressed Arab peoples instead of talking to their regimes. It seems that America has arrived at the conclusion that these regimes no longer serve its objectives at the forefront of which is eradicating terrorism.
Arab rulers richly deserve what America is doing to them, for they have shut their eyes and ears for far too long to their peoples’ demands for more democracy. Instead of opening up to their people, Arab rulers have doggedly clung to “national specificity,” a.k.a. dictatorship. What are they going to do now that America has ordered them to democratize voluntarily if possible, but forcibly if necessary?
This concerns all Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan (the only two Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel), which are more democratic and closer to the US than others. Yet these qualities will not exclude them from being subjected to US pressure planned to impose democracy on the Arab world.
Democratization has become an American demand to be achieved by force. This demand is seen by the US as part of the “war on terror,” which the Americans believe is a natural result of isolation, authoritarianism, backwardness, poverty, unemployment and school curricula that “sow the seeds of hate and prejudice in young Arab minds,” according to US commentators.
It would have been more honorable for Arab rulers to correctly read the direction the world was going and decide to adopt democracy voluntarily, as the late King Hussein did in 1989. Yet they chose to sit it out in their palaces and not budge an inch. The winds of change that swept the world in the early 1990s thus stopped at the gates of the Arab world.
In the last 10 years, moreover, the Arab world has been moving away from democracy. Oppressive states became even more so, while half-democracies either stayed where they were or actually regressed because of the absence of effective social forces that would have protected democracy and forced governments not to go back on their promises.
Many believe Washington is insincere in its calls for democracy in the Arab world, for the simple reason that present Arab rulers are more pliable and thus better for America than those who would come to power through fair elections. Nevertheless, democracy remains a powerful tool with which to pressure Arab regimes that have the temerity not to support America in its intended war on Iraq.
Up to now, the lack of democracy and the absence of public liberties were necessary for the stability of Arab regimes against domestic opposition. However, now democracy is going to become essential for the stability of all countries besides protecting these countries from direct foreign intervention.
It remains to be seen whether Arab rulers are going to understand the implications of this new era, or whether they will continue down a dead-end street.

Fahed Fanek is a Jordanian economic and media consultant.

Pronouncements aside, no miracles expected from Istanbul

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 1/23/03

The Istanbul conference aimed at preventing a US war on Iraq is greeted with more hope than expectation by Arab press commentators. Although everyone supports the gathering’s declared objective, questions abound as to how the participants the foreign ministers of Turkey, Iran Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan propose to pursue it in practice.
The UAE daily Al-Khaleej writes that “most” of them have signaled clearly that they won’t be considering “the proposal that America has been foisting on various meetings and agendas namely, to call on President Saddam Hussein to resign as a substitute (for the time being) to war.”
“But what can the six countries do?” it asks. How can they “perform the miracle of deterring the aggression, for which the deployment (including weapons of mass destruction) is proceeding apace as if it were to be launched tomorrow?” And do they have the capacity to influence the Americans at all?
“Avoiding or rather preventing war is an Arab and Muslim duty and warranted an Arab or Islamic summit before now” so as to combine regional war-prevention efforts with those of all other countries that “genuinely” object to US unilateralism and warmongering, the Sharjah-based paper says. “The Istanbul meeting comes at a highly delicate juncture, and although this move is belated, the hope is that it can indeed rise to the challenge. For the disaster America is preparing in the region will hurt everyone, whatever bribes and inducements Washington may offer this side or that.”
Egyptian analyst Mohammed Assaeed Idriss argues that a “regional solution” to the Iraq crisis can only emerge from the Istanbul meeting if the four Arab participants go into it united behind a common position.
He suggests in Al-Khaleej that this should reflect four priorities:
(1) To oppose an invasion of Iraq, “not just with a verbal ‘no,’ but one accompanied by tasks and actions that actually obstruct the American military drive.” The US would “think 1,000 times before launching a war if it found itself facing a solid wall of regional opposition.”
(2) To prevent Iraq being partitioned or falling under US military occupation should the Americans wage war.
(3) To reject any “fiddling with the political map” of the countries of the region or US meddling in their internal affairs.
(4) To “strongly and decisively confront any Israeli attempt to exploit a war on Iraq to make gains at the expense of the Palestinian people’s rights.”
It will be hard to commit the regional conference to these priorities if the four Arab participants do not firmly and “passionately” subscribe to them from the outset, says Idriss, “and then comes their role in persuading Iran and Turkey of them.”
Jordanian commentator Bassam Haddadeen suggests that the Istanbul conference is being driven chiefly by domestic political considerations in Turkey. He remarks in the Amman daily Ad-Dustour that Turkey’s hosting of the gathering proves “the Arabs are incapable of dealing with the Iraq issue, and it is bigger than them.”
Arab states have held innumerable bilateral consultations on Iraq, “emerging from each to emphasize the need to spare Iraq a military blitz, but without telling us ‘how’ other than via full Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions,” he observes.
The Arab countries that are hosting US forces in readiness for an attack, and those that are not providing logistical support to the pending invasion, recite the same mantra, he continues. Even those “terrified about the consequences of war on Iraq for their regimes” are not behaving or talking in a different way.
Haddadeen writes that only Turkey, whose newly elected government is reluctant to comply with all America’s demands for facilities and assistance, “needs more pretexts and grounds for justifying its policy of cooperating with the US within the limits allowed by domestic Turkish balances.”
With the pro-American Turkish Army pushing the government one way and public opinion pulling in the opposite direction, it needs to strike a balance. To help it do so, it is invoking the Arab states’ “impotence” and the posture of “positive neutrality” struck by Iran, which is “more of a help than a hindrance” to US invasion plans. That way “it can tell its people that we and the Arabs, whose cause it is, take the same position and are coordinating our efforts, while telling the US and the generals in Turkey: Excuse us if we don’t submit to all your demands.”
These are the “real motives” behind the invitation to Iraq’s neighbors to come to Istanbul, he writes. If the participants put pressure on anyone it will be on the Iraqi side, and if they consider any measures to prevent war they will be “peaceful mechanisms for achieving America’s war aims,” such as the idea of getting the Iraqi leadership to step down and go into exile.
The meeting is therefore unlikely to come up with anything other than “a statement that speaks of the need to prevent war (without telling us how), demands Iraqi compliance and upholds the role of the UN.” The Turkish government thereby hopes to appease both the Turkish people and the US administration.
Haddadeen says this is likely to prove an “extra embarrassment” for Syria, which has been opposing US policy more loudly than the others (notwithstanding its vote in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 1441).
“But all the players are perfectly aware of the rules,” which is why the meeting was downgraded from summit to foreign-minister level, he adds. They will meet for a few hours before issuing a pre-agreed statement, “and we will continue watching aircraft carriers arriving in the region on television, while preparations for war continue in Turkish and Arab bases, and the theater of the absurd keeps on staging episodes of a drama in which all the players’ roles have been exposed, and the ending has become known: We wake up to the news of war.”
Pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi warns that if the US goes to war it can expect an upsurge in attacks on American personnel in the region, such as the latest incident in Kuwait, in which a civilian contractor working for the Pentagon was killed.
This was the third attack of its kind in two months in the most pro-American of all the Gulf Arab states, the paper says. It indicates that opposition is continuing to grow among young Kuwaiti Islamists to the US military presence in the emirate and to the impending invasion of Iraq. The paper recalls that an opinion poll conducted by a Kuwaiti newspaper last year showed that 75 percent of Kuwaitis were sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, reflecting how dramatically attitudes have changed in a country which the Americans assume remains “indebted and grateful” to them for ejecting Iraqi occupation forces in 1991.
As Al-Quds al-Arabi sees it, this is further evidence that the great rift that divided the Arab world back then no longer exists. It has become “unmistakable” that the Gulf War was not aimed at liberating Kuwait but at establishing a permanent US military presence in the Gulf. The paper also comments that since the earlier spate of attacks in Kuwait, draconian security measures have been enforced to protect US personnel in the emirate. The ease and accuracy with which the latest attackers struck must therefore be particularly troubling to US commanders.
“What happened in Kuwait yesterday was a message to the hawks in the US administration who are beating the drums of war against Iraq and the Arab and Muslim nations,” Al-Quds al-Arabi says. “Its gist is that this kind of bloody rejection of American military presence and planned aggression could swell and turn into broad resistance once the first missile falls on Baghdad and kills the first Iraqi child. The Arab regimes may be capitulating, terrified by the American hordes, but it seems that the Arab peoples have other ideas.”
Other Arab newspapers look ahead to the new round of intra-Palestinian talks opening in Cairo, which had earlier seemed as though they might be postponed or cancelled because of objections voiced by Islamist groups at the Egyptian government’s failure to invite some Syrian-backed factions. With that problem reportedly overcome, Egyptian semi-official daily Al-Ahram, marks the gathering with a front-page editorial appealing to the factions to agree on a common strategy for the future and hinting that it should entail a cessation of armed resistance to the Israeli occupation.
Editor in chief Ibrahim Nafie strongly denies, however, that Egypt is trying to dictate terms to the 10 factions taking part. He says it was indeed on Egypt’s initiative that they were invited to Cairo to continue the dialogue they had begun earlier in occupied Palestine, aimed at reaching agreement on how to “manage the conflict with Israel.” But there is no truth whatsoever to media reports that Cairo is “putting pressure” on the factions or treating them as an “alternative” to the Palestinian Authority (PA), or that the dialogue between them aims at stifling the Palestinian intifada.
However, Nafie goes on to stress the distinction between “armed resistance,” including suicide attacks, and “civil disobedience and peaceful resistance.”
Different forms of resistance are appropriate to different circumstances, he argues, and changing conditions require a transformation in the methods employed to pursue the goal of national liberation.
Nafie argues that Israel’s government is keen to see the Palestinian national dialogue end in failure, because its success would pave the way for “calming” the situation on the ground as a prelude to proceeding with “reform and negotiations.” This would make it impossible for the Israeli government to continue invoking Palestinian “terrorism” as a pretext for avoiding the peace table.
Nafie concedes that the absence of a “political horizon” makes it harder for the intra-Palestinian dialogue to succeed, as does the fact that there is “no Israeli partner with whom peace can be made” at present. But he argues that this should make it the Palestinians’ “first priority” to “support the dialogue with the aim of reaching a common agenda for Palestinian national action,” which in turn “might, with the passage of time, improve the Palestinian cause’s international standing.”
But a columnist in the Qatari daily Al-Sharq doubts that the Egyptians will achieve their central aim of persuading Hamas and other groups engaged in resistance to the occupation to halt suicide attacks and other military operations.
George al-Masri argues that Israel’s relentless and ever-intensifying offensive against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip rules out any prospect of Hamas agreeing to even a temporary cessation of suicide attacks.
He says that the movement has been stepping up such bombings, which are Israel’s main security headache and its principal reason for squeezing the PA, as well as mortar attacks and shootings against Israeli troops and settlers.
Masri believes that sustaining armed resistance is central to Hamas’ “legitimacy” among the Palestinian public and crucial to its ongoing efforts to maximize its political influence. It was only when the Muslim Brotherhood decided to establish Hamas and take up the armed struggle that it gained any sizeable following among Palestinians, he says, and its ability to outperform the other factions militarily is key to its growing popularity. Other factors helped, such as the increasing social conservatism of Palestinian society since the mid-1980s, and the Islamists’ independent and ample sources of funding, which among other things enabled them to set up a network of schools, clinics and social services superior to the PA’s.
Hamas, which formulates its policies carefully and deliberately, takes a long-term view of things, Masri writes. And its outlook has been reinforced by the Oslo Accords, whose lopsidedness made an equitable settlement impossible and invited the conclusion that the weak Palestinian side must first strive to gradually rectify the imbalance of power.

Preparing the public

Jordan Times, 1/23/03

THERE IS growing consensus across the world that a US-led war against Iraq could be imminent despite the strong opposition to the war option by most capitals including Paris, Moscow and Berlin. Even massive anti-war demonstrations in several countries appear to be ineffective in stopping the march towards military confrontation. The argument that UN weapons inspections need to be given more time to conclude their mission in Iraq seems to be gaining ground. But it could be viewed as a time-gaining tactic for the deployment of more US and British forces in the region.

The current flurry of diplomatic activity could be considered encouraging: Many governments, including Jordan, are exploring all possible means to avert a disaster.

A regional conference devoted to appraise prospects for a peaceful resolution of the standoff takes place today in Turkey, and is widely expected to result in the drafting of two messages, one for the Iraqi leadership, and one for the UN Security Council.

Needless to say, both messages will stress the need to do anything to favour the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 through peaceful means.

Still, as recently as last Thursday, His Majesty King Abdullah cautioned that the chances of averting the war have "become slim."

So, right now, Jordan must hope for the best and prepare for the worst. This means strengthening its defences against all eventualities and preparing itself for all sorts of humanitarian crises that could develop with the outbreak of war on neighbouring Iraq. Geographic proximity to the stage of conflict makes it incumbent on Jordan to secure and install sophisticated defence mechanisms including an anti-missile system to protect the country against any incoming or overflying military weapon or hostile aircraft. The news that Jordan is moving swiftly to purchase an anti-missile system was reassuring. The country's defences, however, do not stop at that. Jordan and its people need to be prepared for all eventualities. The government has assured the people that it is well-prepared to meet fuel shortages if the flow of Iraqi oil is interrupted.

Civil defence authorities, however, should also educate the public on how to deal with dangers that emanate from a war in our midst. All Jordanians by now certainly appreciate the eventuality of a military conflict. Many are even stoic about it. The government and the security authorities can do much to prepare the people for all sorts of scenarios.

Civil defence drills in schools, hospitals, factories and other public places were conducted during the 1991 Gulf War. There can be no harm in testing all sorts of civil defence systems even if war does not break out. Most countries conduct such measures regularly. Perhaps an ad hoc interdisciplinary agency can now be established for this purpose. As the saying goes, don't put off till tomorrow what can be done today.

'Peace, no war'

By Michael Jansen

Jordan Times, 1/23/03

BAGHDAD — It has become all too clear to journalists and diplomats on duty here and the citizens of this great city that the weapons inspection effort is a cruel hoax which the US is using to distract the world's attention from its massive military buildup in the Gulf. The aim of this charade is to create the false impression, as far as world public opinion is concerned, that Iraq is a violator of UN resolutions, a manufacturer of “terror” weapons, an ally of Osama Ben Laden and a country which must be attacked, invaded and occupied for its own good and for the security of the world.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Weapons inspectors here on the ground and their chiefs, Hans Blix in New York and Mohammad Al Baradei in Vienna, know this but persist with the task at hand because they have no choice: They are “the servants of the Security Council” and the US dominates the council.

The inspectors have seen “a lot, resolved many issues, and got reasonably good cooperation” from the Iraqi government, a source within the inspectorate revealed. This assessment runs exactly counter to US charges that Iraq is not cooperating and is not prepared to document its programmes properly.

The technical report on nuclear capabilities was finished last weekend, he said, and sent off to headquarters to Blix and Al Baradei so they can draft the interim report which also includes chemical and biological capabilities. The presentation is set for Jan. 27. However, the source observed: “The press and George Bush don't seem to realise that negative findings are still findings. If the CIA says a building is a nuclear facility, and you visit it, and it is not a nuclear facility, then you `found something'. Didn't you?”

He said the inspectors had carried out “dozens of such tasks and ... have lots of findings.... Inspectors go places more than any other thing. With no reactor and centrifuge plant [they] are down to trying to catch a machining operation or a computer in some lab doing centrifuge calculations. I doubt if [the Iraqis] are doing it at Tuwaitha [a major facility in the nuclear programme], or some other well known place (if they are doing it at all!).” The weapons inspectors' job, the source said, “involves convincing other people I am doing my job” which “is not that easy”. Particularly if the inspectors believe it is pointless.

Authoritative diplomatic sources predict that war will come during the next few weeks. The object will be to “take out” the governmental, party and military structures. There will be a massive blitz on Baghdad, knocking out communications, power, strategic infrastructure and bottling up its citizens in the city. The war is expected to last two weeks. The US will try out its new “microwave” weaponry — which targets communications — for the first time and deploy a relatively small number of shock troops to effect the occupation of the country.

Margaret Hassan, a British woman of Irish descent who heads the local programme of CARE International, said that a new war would deepen the ongoing disaster in Iraq. “People are now living a crisis, most have no cushion to live on, all their resources have been spent. According to the World Food Programme, 40 per cent of the population depends on rations for food and as a source of income.” People in dire need sell a portion of their ration in order to get the 250 Iraqi dinars ($0.11) per recipient they need to pay to the distributor to cover his costs. For a household of ten people, this means $1.10. For them this is an “impossible” sum unless they can sell part of their ration of flour, rice, oil, pulses, powdered milk, soap powder and a bar of soap.

They also sell portions in order to buy fresh fruit, vegetables and meat.

Hassan, who married an Iraqi and moved to Baghdad in 1972, said that the society's “traditional coping mechanisms” had been exploited to the full, leaving millions destitute. “The women sold their gold jewellery long ago to maintain their standard of living at the 1991 level.” Once that was gone, their standard of living began to fall to the point that they live from hand to mouth. She recently visited a schoolteacher whose three-room house had no furniture because everything had been sold. The eldest child had to quit primary school because there was no money to clothe her.

In another family Hassan knows in a fairly prosperous town, the girl wears a pair of shoes to school during the morning shift and a boy wears the same shoes in the afternoon.

“Iraq was once a leader in education in the Arab world, now it is behind the rest,” Hassan observed. She said a photocopy of a standard medical text costs 60,000 Iraqi dinars ($27). A doctor's white coat is 10,000 Iraqi dinars ($4.50). But a doctor's salary at a government hospital, with bonuses, is only 22,000 Iraqi dinars ($10). Without bonuses, a doctor's monthly pay shrinks to 3,500 Iraqi dinars ($1.60), the cost of sending four e-mails and browsing for an hour at an Internet centre.

“Iraq may have the Internet,” she remarked, “but very few people can afford it.” She observed that in 1990, the Iraqi dinar was worth $3, so a salary of 3,500 Iraqi dinars a month amounted to a handsome $10,500. “Iraqis used to travel and live comfortably,” she said. “Now they cannot even emigrate. The only countries which accept bearers of Iraqi passports are Libya and Yemen. The situation of the people here compares with that of the most disadvantaged in Africa.”

Just imagine what happens if there is war. In 1991, 200,000 Iraqis died during the onslaught. This time, at least 100,000 could be killed outright and 400,000 could die as a result of the loss of the little income they now receive.

Zena, 8, and Zeina, 6, the daughters of the manager-owner of my hotel sent me drawings today of a boy and a girl with balloons walking across grass and calling for “peace, no war”.

The base of European peace,

Gulf News, 23-01-2003
-

The close working alliance between France and Germany has been at the heart of the success of the European Union. When these two countries have agreed on a particular course of action, then the rest of the member states have had to take it seriously at the very least, if not simply fall into line behind them. But now this leadership of the European venture is beginning to look less sure-footed.

Forty years ago yesterday, French President Charles De Gaulle and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the Elysee Treaty, which formalised their intention to foster cooperation between the two nations. At the time, the two states were the largest in a European Community of six nations, and what they decided between themselves would happen. This bilateral understanding has been at the core of the EU ever since, despite occasional strains, and has been the root of its success.

But now the EU is planning to expand from 15 states to 25, which will change the decision making process profoundly. A Franco-German agreement on an issue will still be essential to take an issue forward, but it will not be enough to make it happen. A much broader consensus will also be needed from amongst the wider membership.

This major change in attitude comes at the same time that the more nationally minded France is at odds with the more federal Germany. The constitutional debate on how to restructure Europe revolves around either giving more power to the member states through the European Council, or to the European institutions such as the Commission and European Parliament. The present Franco-German plan, which is to be reviewed next week, is a mixture of both directions, and will help institutionalise a clash between the two directions, personified by inventing both an elected President of the Council and of the Commission. However, such a clash is all part of the discussion over development. While not the perfect answer, it shows that the EU is still continuing to develop and grow, bringing prosperity and peace to its members.

Stance against war

Gulf News
23-01-2003
-

After months of doubt and hesitation on the part of Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has now unequivocally announced he will not support an Iraq war resolution in the UN Security Council. While this position is likely to displease American President George W. Bush, it will doubtless please Jacques Chirac of France, who has increasingly poured doubt upon the idea of going to war against Iraq. With France being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the position of Germany colours the issue somewhat differently and could reinforce France's stance, even that of Russia, another permanent member, who has all along with China and France, claimed that diplomacy must be exhausted before thoughts of war are discussed.

Doubtless, Germany's clear stance on the issue will cause yet more concern to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is having a tough time persuading his own party, let alone the British public, of the necessity of war on Iraq. Perhaps now, with Germany's declaration, a clear European stance may be formulated, one that most people aver, namely peace.

Pakistan needs to redefine institutions
By Farhan Bokhari, Gulf News, 23-01-2003

As the war drums beat loud over the region surrounding Pakistan and Washington remains perilously close to a new war on Iraq, there are indeed fresh questions over Pakistan's future. For many within the country as well as those outside looking at Pakistan closely, there's the concern over a fallout in the shape of a new anti-Western backlash, capable of taking many shapes and forms.

In the past several months, events such as the fallout from a controversial presidential referendum to the conduct of national elections amid charges of manipulation by the opposition parties, have all come together to compound the outlook for an economy which is seen by many Pakistanis as largely moribund and heading for few upturns in the near future.

The grim economy for the Pakistani outlook despite claims of "sub acha" (all is well) by the country's top leaders is yet another fine example of how the leadership, which loses no opportunity in claiming success for its so-called policies of "good governance", may well be standing at odds from its people.

The gap between official claims and the day to day reality provides yet another piece of evidence that if traditionally Islamabad has remained distant from mainstream Pakistan - thanks to the legacy of flawed policies which have remained detached from the daily lives of ordinary folks - that distance has probably increased in the past few years.

Ironically though, seldom before has Pakistan been in the enviable position of presiding over some of the healthiest signs emerging over a portion of its economic outlook. The build-up of liquid foreign currency reserves and the fast inflow of remittances from its expatriates worldwide, even if largely driven by events following the New York terrorist attacks, has for now at least rid the country from the prospect of a recurring balance of payment crisis.

The improved outlook provides ample room for relief in celebrating the break from a past legacy when successive governments, driven by spendthrift leaders, eventually confronted with difficult cash shortfalls, had to go touring outside the country with a begging bowl. Much to the discredit of that unfortunate past, few countries in the world so ceremoniously celebrated becoming increasingly indebted as Pakistan, despite the acceptance of stringent conditions and some of the highest interest rates on otherwise short term borrowings.

But emerging from the morass of unendingly frequent balance of payment crisis, for many Pakistanis the ultimate question is, if they are indeed now better off than before. In a country led by an élite which has traditionally remained distant from the reality of the lives of ordinary citizens, there's all the more reason to vociferously question the improvement in macro indicators which have so far failed to trickle down to the micro level.

For most Pakistanis, faced with rising unemployment, widening poverty and modest investment levels that remain at the centre of new economic opportunities, are indeed the true litmus test of the country's present day position. Such a bleak outlook stands in sharp contrast to trends widely publicised by the government - such as significant improvements in the performance of the Karachi stock exchange. Though Karachi's stocks have appreciated with the highest margin by comparison to any other stock market in the past year, the beneficiaries of such a rise are far too few in numbers to make a profound difference for Pakistanis.

Ultimately, getting the basics right is going to be more about turning around the lives of mainstream Pakistanis than the élite, or more importantly understanding the significance of a larger middle class and discernible change for the better in the lives of the poor, rather than accounts of increasing enrichment of the rich. But redefining Pakistan's economic direction remains a challenge for policy makers. Many of them are locked so closely to events, such as the periodic visits by IMF delegations, that there are compelling questions over their capacity to wean themselves away from a consistent reliance upon international financial institutions.

Pakistan's misfortune, however, is that the challenges it faces today are hardly those which could be solved by the community of international financial institutions. Just as Pakistan's newly emerging political outlook is in danger of eventually ending in tears with the credibility of the new parliamentary order already in tatters, there's every chance that the economic outlook may end up similarly landing itself in tears.

To build a new success story for Pakistan, redefining the economic imperatives must be driven by three important factors that must be central to launching the country in to a new beginning.

First, redefining the role of government comprehensively with the intention of tearing down dysfunctional parts to create new governing entities has never been as pressing a challenge as it is today. The popular perception that the devolution plan overseen by General Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler, has so far brought little joy to Pakistan, holds true more today than at any other moment since the initiative was first launched. While the devolution of administrative structures is sought, the return of traditional political families to the parliament speaks volumes over the failure of the so called National Reconstruction Bureau, charged with conceiving the plan.

With a larger than life and post colonial military led bureaucracy overseeing Pakistan, the challenges for the economy only promise to become even more profound. Unless the structures of government are re-created, beginning first with the tearing down of large chunks of fat in the form of redundant ministries and associated bodies, a bureaucratic stranglehold on the economy is likely to remain intact. Eventually, a government which cannot be the change leader in a country where change is overdue, is only capable of managing periodic crises, each time eroding its own capacity to create a new economic order.

Second, Pakistan's reliance on international financial institutions (IFIs), be it the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or indeed the Asian development bank, only assures what could best be characterised as a half-hearted approach to the challenge of rebuilding the economy. If the '80s became an era of so-called democratic change across the world with historical events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the '90s brought together a succession of economic crises spanning the developed and the developing world.

The turmoil across the world markets and the fragility of financial systems only too well exposed the gaps in economic structures as conceived under the world's leading IFIs. But if economic medicines from the likes of the IMF failed, countries were left with the challenge of prioritising economic needs and responses. In Pakistan's case, years after the first bit of turmoil which hit the global financial markets, the need to redefine policies and priorities still remains an unaccomplished challenge. Can Pakistan's economic future be secured by the country consistently following the lead from the community of IFIs without thinking hard in terms of putting together a new strategy? Tragically, the answer to that question must be an obvious "no".

Finally, Pakistan remains a state where patronage in many forms has become the driver behind the daily lives of the relatively more influential. The largely unprofitable public sector companies are fine examples of the extent to which businesses which have been propped up by artificial means, all in the name of preventing further unemployment, have ultimately become major liabilities. In supporting the financial needs of such loss making companies, the extent to which genuine borrowers from the private sector are crowded out, all due to the large borrowings by the public sector, often remains an easily ignored issue. Ultimately, the fat surrounding the government must be removed for the economy to begin turning around.

Understanding the warhead incident
By George S. Hishmeh, Gulf News, | 23-01-2003
-

The hullabaloo over Iraq's empty chemical warheads, 11 of which were detected on an ammunition dump last week and four others were voluntarily reported by the Iraqis last Sunday, may be an honest oversight or a calculated risk which, if so, is deplorable.

Whatever, this brings to mind an episode related by Paul Findley, the former Republican Congressman from Illinois in his outstanding book, They Dare to Speak after he lost in 1982 his seat in the House of Representatives which he had held for 22 years because he would not succumb to the dictates of the pro-Israeli lobby.

He wrote that after the 1973 October war, Israel sustained heavy losses in weapons of all kinds, especially tanks. "It looked to the United States for the quickest possible re-supply. Henry Kissinger was their avenue. Richard Nixon was entangled in the Watergate controversy and soon to leave the presidency, but under his authority the government agreed to deliver substantial quantities of tanks to Israel."

Congressmen Findley continued: "Tanks were to be taken from the inventory of U.S. military units on active duty, reserve units, even straight off production lines. Nothing was held back in the effort to bring Israeli forces back to desired strength as quickly as possible.

"Israel wanted only the latest-model tanks equipped with 105-millimetre guns. But a sufficient number could not be found even by stripping U.S. forces. The Pentagon met the problem by filling part of the order with an earlier model fitted with 90-millimetre guns. When these arrived, the Israelis grumbled about having to take "second-hand junk." Then they discovered they had no ammunition of the right size and sent an urgent appeal for a supply of 90-millimetre rounds."

The Defence Department insisted it had none. Thomas Pianka, an officer then serving at the Pentagon with the Intern-ational Security Agency, told Findley: We made an honest effort to find the ammunition. We checked everywhere. We checked through all the services – army, navy, marines. We couldn't find any 90-millimetre ammunition at all."

After Israel was told the "bad news," they responded with a "surprising" message: "Yes, you do. There are 15,000 rounds in the Marine Corps supply depot in Hawaii." Pinka recalled: "We looked in Hawaii and, sure enough, there they were. The Israelis had found a U.S. supply of 90-millimetre ammunition we couldn't find ourselves."

Another episode was reported by the late Richard Helms, director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. He recalled to Findley an occasion when an Israeli arms request had been filed with the wrong items. "Israeli officials resubmitted the request complete with all the supposedly top-secret code numbers and a note to Helms that said the Pentagon perhaps had not understood exactly which items were needed." Findley wrote. "It was a way for them to show me that they knew exactly what they wanted," Helms told Findley, who added, "Helms believes that during this period no important secret was kept from Israel."

If the U.S. Department of Defence can admit to poor record-keeping, or make mistakes filling an