IRAQ-NEWS - November 14, 2002 2/2

[G.Lange]

IRAQ-NEWS - November 14, 2002 2/2

Annan Presses Bush To Avoid A Rush To War

By PATRICK E. TYLER, The New York Times, November 14, 2002

Secretary General Kofi Annan said today that the United States seemed
to have a lower threshold for going to war in Iraq than other nations
on the United Nations Security Council.

After meeting with President Bush, Mr. Annan urged the White House
to be "a bit patient" against any rush toward military action. If
it comes, he added, military action would have to be based on credible
evidence of Iraq's obstruction, and not a "flimsy" excuse to go to war.

Mr. Annan also said Iraq's letter today accepting the terms of last
week's Security Council resolution to send United Nations weapons
inspectors back to Iraq after four years' absence means that the arms
experts can now "begin their work actively" next week.

The secretary general's comments reflected the divergence of views
between the Bush administration and some Security Council nations
over what kind of obstructions would constitute the trigger for
going to war.

Mr. Annan indicated that United Nations inspectors, with tough new
powers under the resolution, are returning for what could be an
indefinite program to inspect former and suspected weapons sites,
to set up surveillance cameras and other monitoring equipment, and
to run down every bit of intelligence on Iraqi efforts to develop
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles that
could be used to hurl them across borders. But he refused to be
drawn into discussing hypothetical details of what might constitute
obstruction.

The position of the Bush administration has trended the other way.
Mr. Bush and his senior aides have emphasized that President Saddam
Hussein is unlikely to confess to years of concealing illicit
stockpiles of weapons, including banned nerve agents and anthrax
spores. Some conservative aides continue to denigrate the United
Nations' role.

In comments today to a British newspaper, The Guardian, Richard N.
Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board and an adviser to the
Pentagon, criticized the choice of Hans Blix to lead the weapons
inspection team because, Mr. Perle said, when Mr. Blix was director
of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he failed to detect
Iraq's nuclear weapons build-up before the gulf war.

Mr. Bush again struck what has been an unrelentingly muscular
tone on Iraq during a meeting today with his Cabinet. "There's
no negotiations with Mr. Saddam Hussein," he said. "Those days
are long gone."

Asked what he would consider a new "material breach" by the Iraqis,
Mr. Bush said: "Zero tolerance. About as plain as I can make it.
We will not tolerate any deception, denial or deceit, period."

Mr. Annan came to Washington to give a series of speeches, but an
aide said he had asked to see Mr. Bush to undertake some "missionary
work" to underscore the political benefits that could accrue both
to Mr. Bush and to the United Nations if they proceed in tandem to
disarm Iraq.

On Sept. 12, Mr. Annan had challenged Mr. Bush to work through the
United Nations in words that were almost as forceful as those Mr.
Bush used to challenge the Security Council to enforce its resolutions
on disarming Iraq.

"I want to thank you, Mr. President," Mr. Annan said to Mr. Bush
today in the presence of reporters. "Nobody knew which way you were
going to go" in confronting Iraq. "I was pleading that we go the
multilateral route. And I think we were all relieved that we did -
you did."

But patience was Mr. Annan's watchword today. During a meeting with
reporters before he went to the White House, he observed that the
United States "does seem to have a lower threshold" for what would
trigger war.

Still, he admonished, "We need to be patient and give the inspectors
time and space to do their work. We should not be seen as rushing the
process and impatiently moving on to the next phase."

The secretary general said he was not troubled by the intensity of
the comments from Mr. Bush and some of his senior advisers.

Mr. Annan said Mr. Bush's uncompromising remarks showed that the
American administration was engaged in a "psychological game" with
Mr. Hussein, one that could be useful in persuading Mr. Hussein to
cooperate unconditionally.

"One has to maintain the pressure," Mr. Annan said. "Quite frankly,
for four years we were not able to get them to agree that we return
to Iraq, but four days after the president's speech to the General
Assembly" Iraq agreed to the return of inspectors without conditions.

Still, a number of Security Council members remain concerned that
Washington was too eager to find a pretext to go to war.

Mr. Annan said any Security Council decision that finds Baghdad
in "material breach" of the resolution must be based on serious
or flagrant attempts to obstruct weapons inspectors. Otherwise, he
said, it would look like a "flimsy or hasty excuse to go to war."

Such a pretext, he said, would draw opposition not only from Security
Council nations, but also from ordinary Americans who have expressed
a desire for Mr. Bush to work with the United Nations in confronting
Iraq.

Neither Mr. Annan nor the State Department spokesman, Richard A.
Boucher, would say whether continued Iraqi attacks on allied
warplanes enforcing no-flight zones in Iraq could be construed
as a "material breach" and a cause for war. "It would probably
take some kind of analysis by the lawyers of the resolution,"
Mr. Boucher said.

Mr. Annan indicated that any event that triggered war would have
to show deliberate calculation on Iraq's part. "Whatever reason we
decide to use military action to go to war, the circumstances must
be seen as reasonable and credible, and not contrived or stretched,"
he said. "And if we do that, there will be general acceptance and
people will understand."

During the long Security Council debates on the resolution, Mr.
Annan said the same nations that were concerned about not granting
an "automatic" trigger for war in the first stage of the Iraq
confrontation - France, Russia and China - "were also worried about
a very low threshold" being set for war. During the debates, he
said, the United States resisted discussing hypothetical conflicts
that might come up and form the basis for claims that Iraq was in
"material breach."

Mr. Annan said that while the United States had clearly reserved
its right to act alone if Iraq does not satisfy Washington's
standard for disarmament, he believed that Mr. Bush had taken note
of "poll after poll" that showed Americans were eager for Mr.
Bush to act with the United Nations.

"Most member states would prefer to see the U.S. not go it alone,"
Mr. Annan said, though he acknowledged that "some in Washington
find that restraining and confining."

"My sense at this stage on the disarmament issue is that everyone
is together," he continued. "The issue is disarmament. Regime change
is not on the agenda," though he acknowledged that Washington could
still undertake a military campaign and then return to the United
Nations for help in "nation building" and "to pick up the pieces."

* * *

Mounting Signs Of Early US Invasion Of Iraq

By Chris Marsden, World Socialist Web Site/wsws.org, 14 November 2002

In the wake of Iraq's formal acceptance Wednesday of the United
Nations Security Council resolution imposing a new weapons inspection
regime, the Bush administration is continuing to prepare a war
against the Arab country, which could begin as early as next month.
Reinforcing this bellicose stance, the Pentagon leaked invasion plans
involving a force of a quarter of a million troops to the New York
Times and Washington Post earlier this week.

The war plan outlines a military offensive that would lead to
thousands, if not tens of thousands of casualties. It is based on
a concept of "rolling war," starting with an air campaign in which
B-1 and B-2 bombers drop satellite-guided bombs on key targets such
as Saddam Hussein's palaces, air defenses, political structures and
military bases. A ground strike would initially focus on the north,
west and south against Iraqi military bases, airstrips and ports, as
opposed to an assault on Baghdad. This would allow the US to effect
an early seizure of Iraq's oil facilities.

The Bush administration has mounted a concerted political offensive
in the days following the United Nations Security Council's unanimous
vote for its resolution on arms inspections. Washington's aim is to
make war inevitable, sooner rather than later.

In order to make the UN resolution palatable to France, Russia, China
and others, it did not specifically refer to a military response, and
laid out a timetable for compliance that could theoretically stretch
to February of 2003. Leading figures in the Bush camp have since made
clear that the resolution gives the US what it wants-a cover for war-
and that Washington does not consider a decision to launch military
action to be subject to Security Council approval.

The timetable laid down by the UN does not require the first report
from inspectors until February 21. By December 8, however, Iraq must
give the UN a full accounting of not only all of its weapons programs,
but also of all civilian chemical, biological and nuclear production
and research activities in the country.

While UN weapons inspectors themselves criticized this deadline as
unrealizable, Bush and his top aides have strongly suggested that
it could provide the trigger for a US invasion.

The scenario that emerges is that Washington will declare any
weapons report issued by Iraq to be false, and begin bombing soon
after. US officials have already said they have prepared their
own list of suspected sites, using reports from previous inspections
and information from intelligence sources and Iraqi defectors, to
compare against Iraq's list.

Both Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice spelled out
a US policy of "zero tolerance" toward any Iraqi "deception." If Iraq
is deemed to have concealed information about its weapons production,
it would be considered in "material breach" of the UN resolution and
subject to military attack, with or without UN endorsement.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell told CNN, "We're not going to wait
until February to see whether Iraq is cooperating or not.... We will
ask the UN to give authorization for all necessary means, and if
the UN is not willing to do that, the United States with like-minded
nations will go and disarm him forcefully."

Interviewed Monday on NBC's morning news program Today, the former
chief arms inspector Richard Butler also stressed that December
8 was viewed as the pivotal day, and implied that military action
would soon follow.

Britain's Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw echoed these statements. Hoon stressed his belief that Iraq
would fail to adequately disclose its weapons arsenal on December
8 or would prove unwilling to cooperate with the stringent conditions
of the new UN weapons inspection regime even earlier. Straw said,
"Saddam has got 30 days to produce a complete disclosure of his
weapons of mass destruction and the means for producing them. We
will know therefore within the next 30 days whether he is serious
about complying."

Washington's push for an early commencement of hostilities confirms
that its demand for weapons inspections was never anything more than
a pretext for war. The last thing the Bush administration wants is
weapons inspections to go forward, for fear they might expose as
false or vastly exaggerated its claims that Iraq has built up a
major arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. The
war cabal in Washington is also concerned that once firmly under
way, the process of weapons inspections could lead to delays and
complications in its drive for the military occupation of Iraq.
It is seeking to abort the UN mission as soon as possible.

The US has already stationed 60,000 troops in or around the Persian
Gulf, and is strengthening its forces every day. The Navy has two
aircraft carriers in the region, and two more are set to arrive.
From a purely military standpoint, February is considered the optimal
time to wage war, because of its longer nights and moderate weather.

Washington is eager to press home its military advantage over its
European rivals. The major oil corporations have spent the past months
scrambling to secure access to Iraqi oil supplies, with Franco-Belgian
TotalFinaElf leading the pack. It plans to invest over $10.5 billion
in two projects that will produce more than one million barrels per
day, and has other projects that would bring its overall investment
to $18.5 billion and increase its oil capacity to three million barrels
per day. Once the US seizes control of Iraq, these contracts will in
all probability be considered void. Washington is intent on sidelining
the European powers: the Pentagon's leaked invasion plans include only
a nominal British military presence of 15,000 troops.

Leaking its military plans serves a number of additional political
and military functions. It cannot be ruled out that at least aspects
of the purported war plans are disinformation designed to mislead
Iraq. Some commentators have noted that before the 1991 Gulf War,
Iraq was encouraged to believe that US forces would mount an amphibious
landing on Kuwait's beaches, as opposed to the lengthy air campaign
that took place, followed by a thrust into Kuwait and Iraq from Saudi
Arabia.

The publication of US war plans is also aimed at encouraging fear and
dissent within Iraq's military, possibly provoking a coup that would
depose Saddam Hussein and thereby eliminate the need for the high
number of casualties that would likely result from hand-to-hand combat
in Baghdad.

Powell has already threatened Iraq's military brass with prosecution
for war crimes should they fight to defend Hussein's regime, while
Bush himself warned on November 7 that if they endangered "the lives
of their own citizens, as well as citizens in the neighborhood, there
will be a consequence." Bush added, "They will be held to account."

Designating a force of 250,000 troops appears to be a victory for
uniformed military commanders, who had opposed the Pentagon civilian
leadership's proposal for a far smaller force. The military brass
is, according to various press reports, highly skeptical of claims
by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others that the conquest
of Iraq could be accomplished with little more effort than the US
occupation of Afghanistan.

There are many indications of dissent within the military over Bush's
war drive against Iraq. Former top commanders, such as Gen. Joseph
Hoar, who headed US forces in the Middle East after the 1991 Persian
Gulf War, and retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, also formerly in
charge of US Mideast forces, have publicly criticized administration
plans for war with Iraq, and some have warned that US forces could
suffer heavy losses.

Just last week, James Webb, Navy secretary during the Reagan
administration, gave a speech at the Naval Postgraduate School in
California denouncing Bush's war plans. Webb was warmly received
when he opposed a US occupation of the country and said, "I don't
think Iraq is that much of a threat."

Such divisions may be a further factor driving the White House to
launch military action sooner rather than later. The longer the
delay, the more time for internal opposition to build.

Another reason for leaking US invasion plans is to prepare public
opinion for heavy civilian casualties. Media reports of the Pentagon
plan dutifully stress the desire of the US to avoid civilian deaths,
while citing reports that Hussein is preparing thousands of volunteers
to make up "martyrs' brigades." The New York Times, for example,
wrote of Baghdad's intention to "purposefully sacrifice" Iraq's
population "to stain an American military victory with civilian
blood." Thus, before a shot is fired, the Iraqi regime is being
blamed for those who will be killed by US bombs and bullets.

* * *

Mexico's Fox Cautions U.S. Against Action On Iraq

PARIS, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Mexican President Vicente Fox, whose
country holds one of the 10 rotating seats on the U.N. Security
Council, cautioned the United States on Thursday against taking
any unilateral military action against Iraq.

Speaking to France's National Assembly, Fox said only the United
Nations Security Council should decide what action to take against
Iraq in the event that it failed to comply with a resolution
requiring it to disarm.

Iraq on Wednesday formally accepted the U.N. resolution, which paves
the way for weapons inspectors to return to the country after a four-
year absence.

"Mexico is convinced the action of one or several countries, without
the backing of the international community, would badly damage the
credibility of the United Nations and restrict its capacity for
action," said Fox, who is on a three-day official visit to France.

"Any potential action against Iraq for failing to respect the
resolutions of the Security Council must be founded on the reports
presented by the inspectors to the secretary general, and through
him to the Security Council," Fox added.

The Iraq crisis has given Fox a rare chance to stand up to his
powerful neighbour, which gobbles up 90 percent of Mexico's exports.

Mexico joined France, Russia and others in pressuring the U.S.
government to make changes in its resolution on Iraqi disarmament,
which was approved unanimously last Friday by the 15-member
Security Council after weeks of wrangling.

Fox is scheduled to meet French President Jacques Chirac late on
Friday. He is also due to hold meetings with Prime Minister Jean-
Pierre Raffarin and Finance Minister Francis Mer.

* * *

Iraq Lays Down New Challenge To UN Inspectors

BY DAVID USBORNE IN NEW YORK, The Independent - United Kingdom;
Nov 14, 2002

AN ADVANCE party of international inspectors will fly to Baghdad
on Monday to begin preparing for an urgent resumption of their
mission to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to
challenge the claim, reiterated yesterday, that it is "clean" and
has no such arsenal.

The team, headed by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, and by
Mohamed al- Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, will leave for a staging base in Cyprus tomorrow and fly
to Baghdad after the weekend. The team will about 25-strong.

Iraq said last night it was unconditionally accepting a UN resolution
passed on Friday giving it a final chance to disarm and giving Mr Blix
45 days to resume inspections.

By that date, Mr Blix will have about 100 inspectors on the ground.
The task for the advance team will be to reopen and re-equip offices
for the inspectors in Baghdad that were abandoned four years ago when
the previous UN inspectors pulled out.

There was some cheer at UN headquarters that Iraq had bowed to the
resolution two days before a deadline imposed last week, and done
so without setting conditions. But there was alarm that the Iraqi
ambassador in New York, Mohammed al-Douri, simultaneously insisted
that Iraq retained no banned weapons.

Under the terms of the resolution, Iraq must submit within 30 days -
by 8 December - a declaration laying out for inspectors the true extent
of its weapons programmes. Washington and London are unlikely to accept
any contention by Iraq that it is indeed clean of such programmes.

The American and British governments insist they have ample evidence
to the contrary. A long report issued by Britain two months ago argues
that Iraq has been striving to rebuild its arsenal of biological and
chemical weapons and is also working to develop nuclear warheads.

The stage may be set, officials warned, for a crisis on 8 December,
therefore, even before the inspections proper have got under way.

What would follow in the event of a flat-out denial by Iraq was
expected to dominate discussions between President George Bush
and Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, at the White House last
night. The United Nations remains anxious lest Mr Bush decides to
act unilaterally at the first sign of Iraqi non-co-operation. An
empty declaration on 8 December could be the trigger.

Terry Taylor, a former weapons inspector, said: "The next red
flag will be the declaration that Iraq is required to make. If the
declaration is a nil declaration, I am not certain that Washington
will accept that as credible."

The question at the UN is this: who will be the judge of the validity
of Iraq's declaration on 8 December, and, further along the line, of
the sincerity of Iraq's co-operation with inspectors? Will it be Mr
Blix, as countries such as Russia and France desire, or Mr Bush and
Tony Blair?

Mr Blix, meanwhile, has indicated that he will begin inspections before
the 45-day deadline if he can. But there is much to do beforehand.
While the inspectors will regain their old HQ in the Canal Hotel
building on the outskirts of Baghdad, they must fill it with new
computers. Jeeps still parked outside must be fired up and helicopters
have to be flown in. A large volume of state-of-the-art detection
technology acquired by the UN over recent months - which, officials
hope, should make inspections far more penetrative than in the past -
must be delivered to Iraq. This includes monitors to uncover suspicious
substances, sophisticated laser sensors, cameras and telecommunication
kits.

* * *

Wall Street Bounces Back On Iraq News

By John Labate in New York, Financial Times; Nov 14, 2002

Wall Street erased early losses and moved higher by mid-afternoon,
lifted by news that Iraq had accepted the United Nations Security
Council's resolution for weapons inspections.

In a volatile morning, stocks had opened lower and stayed in negative
territory during most of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's
closely-watched testimony before Congress.

However, traders agreed the late morning report that an Iraqi
breakthrough had been reached was responsible for sending stocks
higher.

By mid-afternoon stocks were well off their best levels but the tone
remained positive.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 29.27 to 8,415.27 while the
broader S&P 500 index was up 1.51 to 884.46.

On Tuesday a rally in technology shares boosted the Nasdaq Composite,
and yesterday, technology stocks again led the market higher. The
Nasdaq was 10.63 higher at 1,360.19.

"After the Iraqi news we had some short-covering and then a rally,"
said Larry Wachtel, market analyst at Prudential Securities.

Investors had apparently responded to the agreement because it
suggested that war with Iraq was not imminent and that there was
some chance the standoff might be resolved peacefully.

Another factor driving buying is an ongoing rotation out of safe,
defensive stocks and into beaten-down technology stocks. "I think
there is some money that is seeking out the premise that there
could be a capital expenditure uptick some time next year," said
Mr Wachtel.

Telecommunication and semiconductor shares have risen strongly in
recent weeks.

Hewlett-Packard led the Dow higher with a 4.7 per cent gain to $16.23.
Philip Morris, which tumbled more than 13 per cent on Tuesday after
the company backed away from earlier profit forecasts for next year,
was 1.7 per cent higher to $37.67.

Citigroup shares were a drag on the Dow, down 3.6 per cent to $35.08
after a report in the Wall Street Journal about fresh evidence from
the investigation into whether of former Citigroup analyst Jack Grubman
into whether he was pressured into changing a stock rating by chief
executive Sanford Weill. Mr Weill denied putting pressure on Mr Grubman
to change his rating.

Schering-Plough fell 3.2 per cent to $20.85 after the company said
it had received two subpoenas from federal investigators involving
a probe into its sales and marketing practices.

Sears Roebuck slid 9.7 per cent to $20.50 after Goldman Sachs lowered
its rating to "underperform". Nordstrom tumbled 14 per cent to $18.96
after it cut its third quarter earnings view. Gen-Probe shares surged
9 per cent to $20.83 after the company reported third quarter net
income of 19 cents per share.

In his testimony, Mr Greenspan outlined the continued weakness in
economic activity that led the Federal Reserve to lower short-term
interest rates last week by 50 basis points to a four decade 40-year
low of 1.25 per cent. "While the economy is softening or stagnant
there is no evidence that it is accelerating on the downside," Mr
Greenspan added.

* * *

Oil Edges Higher After Sharp Iraq-Led Fall

LONDON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Oil prices firmed on Thursday, shell-
shocked after a drop to eight month lows on Iraq's acceptance of
new United Nations weapons inspections.

International benchmark Brent crude oil was 21 cents higher at $22.91
a barrel, having slumped by over a dollar on Wednesday after Iraq's
letter of acceptance was delivered to the U.N., easing fears of an
imminent assault by the United States against the oil producer.

U.S. crude futures traded on an after-hours electronic system were 22
cents up at $25.41.

U.S. President George Bush warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein he
would be judged by his actions, not his words.

"If he chooses not to disarm, we will disarm him. That should be clear
to Saddam Hussein and everybody else."

Any U.S. intervention in Iraq could near double the price of crude oil,
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday.

Speaking in Colombia, the leader of the world's fifth largest oil-
producer said: "An Iraq war could push the oil price over $40,
according to certain scenarios we have been evaluating in OPEC."

Traders' fears a war would cause disruption throughout the oil-rich
Middle-East helped oil hit $30 a barrel in September, but the price
has since deflated as increased production from OPEC members has
reached the market.

OPEC in October pumped 3.21 million barrels per day above its self-
imposed 21.7 million bpd production ceiling, according to a Reuters
survey.

The cartel will meet on December 12 in Vienna to review production.

Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez has said the group would act
to support prices if crude continues to fall.

Dealers are also awaiting Thursday's U.S. Department of Energy data
on crude oil stocks in the United States.

Traders will compare the figures with Tuesday's American Petroleum
Institute (API) data, which showed a surprise decline in U.S. oil
stores.

Differences between the two bodies in accounting for oil in transit
mean the official figures are expected to show stocks down by between
three and four million barrels.

The API figures showed a 7.2 million-barrel fall in U.S. crude stocks
in October, partly down to an earthquake in Alaska which disrupted
the oil pipeline there.

* * *

Diary by Kathy Kelly

November 4, 2002

Perspectives

Seeing our friend, Sattar, helped me put my own frustration into
perspective. His good-natured decency is legendary amongst Voices
in the Wilderness and other delegations that visit Iraq. He and
his brothers have safely driven us round trip from Amman to Baghdad,
and between Baghdad and other cities, in over 100 journeys over the
past six years. By now, understandably, Sattar hates driving. And
yet I've never seen him indulge in a sour mood. He's a well-trained
civil engineer, fluent in English, capable, likeable, and utterly
trustworthy. More than a decade of underserved punishments that daily
humiliate him and his family hasn't diminished his resolve to make
the best of harsh, disappointing circumstances. Today, he told me
briefly about something that had made him particularly happy. A
neighbor of his, a retired teacher, is completely blind. An entire
wall of the man's home had crumbled and if the wall wasn't rebuilt
the house would become uninhabitable. Sattar and two of his friends
decided to put their skills to work. Sattar paid for the bricks and
the cement out of his own meager earnings. The crew worked steadily
for two days to erect a new wall and refused any payment. I'm quite
sure Sattar and his friends will continue looking out for this family.
"To give and not count the cost," -it's an enviable accounting system.

Criminal Acts

Seeing Moayed each day has made me wish I could master more Arabic.
We try to communicate with gestures and smiles, but the exchanges are
maddeningly limited. Today, Moayed managed to tell me what is weighing
on his mind every day. His baby is near death. The infant needs heart
surgery and Moayed has "no falous," - no money. I hated telling him
that we can't help him. His brave smile crumbled in a raw mixture of
pain, disappointment and resignation. Nearly every one of Moayed's co-
workers has a needy loved one whose health requires amounts of "falous"
many times greater than the income they earn working double shifts
at local hotels. If we help Moayed, we'll raise the hopes of dozens
more people, and ultimately cause terrific envy, mistrust, and
disappointment.

When President Bush first approached the UN to seek support for US
plans to "disarm Iraq," he used a line earlier delivered by Mr. Paul
Wolfewitz which justified the US insistence on a right to attack
Iraq by observing that Iraq's president would watch security services
torture children in front of their parents. In hospitals across this
country, I and many others have watched children dying in pain in
front of their parents. I have held many such children in my arms
and have tried to comfort their mothers with the hope that we were
working to end the US/UN economic embargo that was causing their
deaths.

When bombs fall on cities and villages, children are tortured in the
presence of their parents. When families flee from war and end up in
refugee camps, thousands of children suffer and die in the arms of
their parents.

Looking at Moayed today, I can only agree with President Bush. It is a
crime against humanity to knowingly and deliberately torture children
in the presence of their parents. We have seen the truth of bombings
and of economic sanctions, and that is why we passionately oppose the
coming war against the families of Iraq.

But our passions and hopes do little, just now, to comfort Moayed, his
wife, or his child.

And I don't know how to greet him, tomorrow.

Infrastructures

Since my last visit to Basra's Jumurriyah district, in June of 2002, I
can spot at least one improvement. Curbs have been built on both sides
of one unpaved street. Almost every other aspect of Jumurriyah's
infrastructure is in disrepair, but the curbs will help keep raw sewage
from flowing into homes, a welcome change.

Not so far from here, on US carriers and in US bases under construction
in nearby countries, enormous investments pour into developing
infrastructures to support US troop buildups in the region. Troops must
be housed, fed, supplied with clean water and electricity, and equipped
with state of the art military gear. Sewage and sanitation systems must
function properly to prevent outbreaks of disease amongst the troops.
And the everyday work of identifying targets, coordinating assaults,
safeguarding the troops, building communication systems, ..all of this
work must be accomplished on time for a possible war. Money should not
be an obstacle, and certainly there won't be any UN Resolutions to run
interference.

Last week, while in Basra, I visited most of the homes along the
newly curbed street in the Jumurriyah neighborhood. Mothers whom I've
regarded as being among the strongest women in the world showed sheer
alarm as they spoke about the war they believe is both imminent and
inevitable. Where will they run? Where can they hide? How can they
protect their children? They are frightened of being on the front lines
of a full scale attack. Even the sound of a warplane flying overhead
triggers memories of 1991 which, in the case of one young mother causes
what she describes as a "psychological collapse.."

While these mothers try to adjust to constant anxiety, focusing on
everyday tasks and maintaining at least a semblance of normalcy, the
warlords exercise calm pragmatism as they meticulously refine plans
to attack Iraq. Families quiver in Jumurriyah. Is the street where I
visit, one lined with impoverished yet utterly hospitable dwellings,
and a curb which took years to build, in the -- crosshairs of the
world's largest firing squad?

Imagining survival

Amal, her husband, and their three small children rent a decrepit home
in Baghdad. She tries futilely to dig her way out of debt by selling
the paintings she creates after the children go to bed. She stays up
through much of the night, painting traditional scenes with dwindling
supplies of oil paint.. I timidly asked her what she anticipates if
an attack comes. She is very definite. She will hire a taxi, pack what
belongings she can, and flee to the north where she hopes to rent a
home in the countryside, away from the many targets she believes will
be hit in her neighborhood in Baghdad. What are the odds that this
imagined empty home awaits her? When was the last time she traveled
north of Baghdad? How many boxes of provisions can she load onto a
taxi? How will she find water and fuel? It would be cruel and pointless
to pummel her with these questions. Her imaginative drawings have
sustained her family for over a year. Maybe, just maybe, her bold hopes
will help them survive the next year.

------------------

Resolution for Whom? by Sue Mackley

November 8, 2002

I was on my way to post my typically out of date journal entry for
the 2nd of November, now on the 8th, and in the lobby of the hotel
in Amman, a friend Naseem stops me an asks me to read aloud what has
come up as a message on his cell phone. It's a wire story from the
Associated Press, the UN Security Council has voted unanimously to
accept the latest US/UK resolution on Iraq. am stunned. He and I
discuss what terrible news this is for Iraq, for its neighbor Jordan,
even for the citizens of America.

Bought off? Bribed? What makes a government do an about face, except
perhaps to salute Donald Rumsfeld, or better yet kiss his arse. I wish
I were a political cartoonist because I would sketch one right now of
the foreign ambassadors to the UN sitting around at the UN cafeteria in
New York having tea, and asking one another, "so what did the US offer
you?"

I'll pick up this journal again when I am back. It's more important
than ever to keep people thinking about the faces of Iraq, the history,
the culture and customs, the music, the life, and the stories. I might
even ease up on the political commentary. No, I won't.

I think I can stop crying long enough for one anecdote. On my way
across the Iraqi border in the wee hours of the morning I was escorted
into a small room with a woman border official. I showed here a letter
in English and Arabic that explains what Voices/Iraq Peace Team are
doing in Iraq. That we are Americans against the sanctions, against
war. She whispers, "thank you." Repeats it as she looks through my
computer case for about 1.5 seconds, and says it again as she smiles
and puts a fresh pomegranate in my shoulder bag as a gift.

To read more of Sue's diaries and some great pictures, visit
http://www.viewfromiraq.org

------------------

Depleted Uranium: Sobering Visit to the General Hospital in Basra
by Sue Mackley

Dr. Ali Jawad, Head of Oncology at the General Hospital in Basra,
explained the staggering statistics on cancer increase, said to
be attributable to the US military's use of Depleted Uranium (DU).
DU is a bi-product of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and fuel
for nuclear power reactors, and is given away free to weapons
manufacturers. It is used in warfare because of the density of the
metal allowing it to pierce armor. Artillery penetrators and machine
gun bullets made of DU were introduced in the Gulf War, and some 300
tons of the material was used. On impact the metal burns fiercely
and is transformed in fine particles that permeate the air and
contaminate soil and water. Toxic metal penetrates the body through
the lungs or is digested.

The hospital has 600 patient visits a month, and 70-80 new patients
each month. Cancer mortality in Basra has increased from 34 in 1988
to 603 in 2001, an 18 fold increase in 13 years. The mortality rates
are compounded by a severe lack of cancer drugs in the country. The
US/UN economic sanctions have never prohibited medicines, but the
supply pipeline is horribly slow and hindered by UN bureaucracy, as
all must be approved by the 661 resolution committee in New York. The
cost of these drugs is prohibitive, not only to the hospitals, but
like all medicines to the vulnerable people in need of them. A health
care system that in the 1980's rivaled that of the system in Europe
has been almost entirely incapacitated by the sanctions.

According to a document produced by the UN's High Commission for
Refugees - as well as others by the World Health Organization-" the
socio-economic conditions in Iraq have sharply deteriorated because
of the continuing sanctions; virtually all sectors are affected, and
there is a near collapse of vital services in the key sectors of
health."

Dr. Jawad has studied 50 families with more than 2 members affected
by cancer, some large families have 6 or 7 cases. A colleague Dr.
Mazen, has seven in his family, including the most recent case, his
sister. She came in for an MRI and it was determined she had brain
cancer.

He has seen young lung cancer victims, ages 24 and 30, neither were
smokers.. Occurrences of diseases without a cause such a renal failure
that can be attributed to metal toxification, potentially uranium. The
kidney is the organ most sensitive to DU toxicity. It's important to
point out that in addition to the horrors of DU, metal toxicity can
occur from TNT or other weapons used in warfare, by the same process:
contamination of the soil and water supply.

It's a very rare medical phenomenon to see patients with two different
types of cancers. These asynchronous cancers are not caused by the
spread of one cancer, but are completely different organisms, such as
a patient having both stomach cancer and leukemia. He believes this
suggests contamination.

[I do not address here the vast problem in southern Iraq of congenital
defects in children and gross deformities such as children born with
no heads or extra arms. It is a grave crisis here but I did not have
the chance to visit the children's hospital in Basra. I also wish to
forego providing any grotesque photos, as is usually the norm when
presenting material about DU.]

On January 26, 1991, 2 missiles hit the garden directly outside the
hospital. Another dozen hit the surrounding area. One of Dr. Jawad's
friends was in the south wing on duty and the ceiling collapsed on
top of him. Chaos ensued, as the electricity was out, therefore the
elevators didn't work and patients needed to be evacuated.

When asked what sort of preparations were under way due to the recent
threats by the Bush administration, Dr Jawad replied, "What can we do?"

In the years that followed many of the doctors on duty that day
contracted cancer. Five of the women contracted breast cancer, and
two have died. One other male doctor recently died of testicular
cancer, and there were more.

Dr. Jawad decided to see two of his patients, and I anticipated it was
going to become very uncomfortable, looking them in the eye, knowing
its very likely the US military's use of DU responsible for their
condition and further their lack of treatment. The second shows us the
cancerous lumps on his chest. I had to leave the room. The New Nuclear
Weapon

Of the 600,000 troops stationed in the Gulf War, some 100,000 became
chronically ill with what is known as Gulf War Syndrome. These soldiers
were exposed without their knowledge. They have developed similar
cancer rates to that of the Iraqis and the male troops are two times
more likely to have children with birth defects, and female troops
three times more likely.

In 1999, DU was used in the US/NATO bombings in the former Yugoslavia.
One year later European troops began contracting cancer at increased
rates. This caused a political uproar in the EU and they demanded an
investigation.

When radiation was detected in Afghanistan after the war there in
2001, Donald Rumsfeld claimed the DU warheads belonged to Al Queda.
He didn't explain how they could have launched them without planes.

One must assume that soldiers are disposable to the Pentagon since
it has no qualms in exposing its own troops to DU. Not to mention the
innocent civilians of other countries in which we wage war. Moreover,
they has test-fired these deadly toxic weapons at US bases in Okinawa,
Japan; Vieques, Puerto Rico; and South Korea, not to mention in over
25 domestic sites including the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland.

Although the Pentagon has admitted finally to using DU, they still
claim no link to cancer. In a weak attempt to express concern over
their crimes of war, last week they announced they were to double
the amount of research spending in 2004.

Can we stop the use of highly toxic and radioactive materials by the
US in warfare? These are certainly unconventional weapons. How many
more conventions, treaties, and laws can the US violate? How many more
lives will be taken, families devastated? And will they attempt to use
it again when they wage their seemingly inevitable attack on an already
ravaged Iraq? Today I read that the US military is already taking
practice runs, dropping "bunker-busting" bombs, weapons designed to
penetrate concrete and rock. For the sake of humanity can only pray
these bombs aren't made from Delpeted Uranium.

The half-life of DU or Uranium 238 is 4.5 Billion years. This is
roughly the age of the earth. So in trillions of years the world the
Bush administration has decided to dominate will finally be free of
the waste they left behind conquering it.

To read more of Sue's diaries and some great pictures, visit
http://www.viewfromiraq.org

-------------------------------------------------<BR>
*** Iraq Action Coalition Discussion Forum ***<BR>
-----------------------------------------------</tt>
--
.ines.mi.en

---- provided by infoPool News Service ----
--- mailto:news...@ines-newsline.de ---

http://www.babylon-festival.net/
http://www.uruklink.net/iraqdaily/
http://www.giv-archiv.de/2002/Januar/020131GI.007
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<
>> Further Informations about Iraq and Palestine:
>> GIV-Archiv: http://www.giv-archiv.de http://www.giv-seiten.de.tt
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.irak.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv-archiv.de/index.html
>> http://soziales.freepage.de/irak/index.htm
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<

* * * * *