IRAQ-NEWS - September 24-25, 2002

[G.Lange]

IRAQ-NEWS - September 24-25, 2002

U.N. Inspection Team 'Ready To Go'

By Nicholas Kralev, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, September 24, 2002

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. inspection team that dismantled most of
Iraq's nuclear-weapons program in the 1990s said yesterday it was
ready to resume its work under the old conditions and, barring a red
light from the Security Council, planned to return to Baghdad as early
as Oct. 15.

Officials at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), which created its Iraq Action Team after the 1991 Gulf war,
said the numerous existing U.N. resolutions demanding Baghdad's
cooperation provided it with sufficient mandate to send the inspectors
back without a new resolution.

"We have an existing mandate to do inspections, which were interrupted
in 1998, but Iraq's recent invitation has opened the door to go back in,
and we are planning to do so," one senior IAEA official said. "We can
resume under the existing resolutions or under the terms of a new one;
either way, we are ready to go."

The Bush administration, however, has made it clear that it strongly
objects to the inspectors' return unless the Security Council adopts
a new, toughly worded resolution whose requirements most likely would
be difficult for Iraq to satisfy. The council is expected to discuss
the draft document this week.

The Oct. 15 date appeared last week in an internal U.N. timeline
circulated by Hans Blix, chief of the organization's arm in charge of
Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities. An IAEA advance
party would arrive in Baghdad that day for "preparatory work," but
"some early inspections" are also likely, the document said.

"We are going in well-prepared, with a plan, and we never take anything
at face value," said Jacques Baute, the Iraq Action Team's leader. "We
are thorough and suspicious. We expect that the Iraqis have learned
lessons from the 1990s and will do things differently. But we will try
a few new things as well."

Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said the first group to
return to Baghdad would include a half-dozen Iraq Action Team members
and about a dozen representatives from Mr. Blix's commission in New
York. The two groups would fly to Bahrain separately and then take a
charter flight to Iraq together. It could take up to six weeks for
full inspections to begin, he said.

"We could be learning things from day one, and the level of cooperation
the Iraqis give us on logistical and other practical matters would
be an important factor," Mr. Gwozdecky said. "We have new technology
that would allow us, for example, to sniff around metals and find out
whether they have been involved in nuclear applications."

But the plans to proceed with the October trip would be jeopardized if
Iraqi officials, during a planned meeting in Vienna on Monday, do not
"demonstrate that they will provide enough information" to the
inspectors.

The IAEA team was forced to leave Baghdad in December 1998, along with
members of the U.N. Special Commission for disarming Iraq, known as
Unscom, the predecessor of Mr. Blix's organization. Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein expelled the inspectors just before joint U.S.-British
military strikes.

Former Unscom members, including its chairman, Richard Butler,
repeatedly complained about a lack of full access to various
facilities and ill relations with the Iraqis. Baghdad, in turn,
accused the commission of spying for the United States.

Things were much different for the IAEA team, which never faced
espionage charges, Mr. Gwozdecky said. By 1995, the nuclear specialists
achieved "better cooperation" with Baghdad and maintained it until late
1998, he said. He explained that the team would inform the Iraqis the
night before an inspection but would keep the location secret until
vehicles headed to a specific site.

"That allowed us to neutralize Iraq's nuclear-weapons capabilities, and
we were confident we hadn't missed any major component of the program,"
he said. "Of course, you can't eliminate hundreds of Iraqi scientists
and their skills."

Since the inspectors were satisfied with the working conditions and
their accomplishments, they were happy to continue from where they
stopped nearly four years ago, Mr. Gwozdecky said. He dismissed regular
claims in the West that all inspections in Iraq so far have proved
ineffective.

"At the end of the day, we obtained good results in terms of disarming
their nuclear program. That message somehow got lost amid the constant
refrain about the ineffectiveness of inspections," he said.

In contrast to the Bush administration's assertion that sending the
inspectors back to Iraq would achieve little and only waste precious
time, IAEA officials say their specialists would be able to detect
traces of nuclear activity.

They also noted that in any future inspections they would "jealously
guard" the agency's reputation and independence - a hint it would
object to any attempts to politicize its work.

"We are a technical organization, and we are trying to provide
authoritative and substantive information to the United Nations,"
Mr. Gwozdecky said. "We are a neutral third party."

President Bush and other U.S. officials have cited two IAEA reports
as evidence of Saddam's continued efforts to develop weapons of mass
destruction: one based on satellite images showing new buildings and
another stating that the Iraqi leader is six months away from acquiring
a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Gwozdecky said such reports do not exist. The IAEA's specialists
have seen new buildings, including at sites previously used by Iraq
for nuclear activities, but there is "no solid evidence of what's
happening in those buildings," he said.

"We use commercially available technology," he said, "and even the
best technology doesn't tell you what's underneath that roof."

* * *

Iraq Calls British Report 'Baseless'

By SAMEER N YACOUB

BAGHDAD, Iraq 09/24/2002 (AP) Iraq branded as baseless British
allegations Tuesday that President Saddam Hussein is pursuing
weapons of mass destruction "The British prime minister is serving
the campaign of lies led by Zionists against Iraq," Iraqi Culture
Minister Hammed Youssef Hammadi told reporters during the opening
of a painting exhibition in Baghdad.

According to the dossier, Iraq has military plans for the use of
chemical and biological weapons, and has tried to acquire uranium
from Africa. It also said the country has extended the range of
its ballistic missiles.

"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he
(Saddam) has made progress on (weapons of mass destruction), and
that he has to be stopped," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said
in an introduction to the dossier.

Blair has been a key backer of the United States, which accuses Iraq
of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists
and has said Saddam should be toppled.

Hammadi called the British claims "totally baseless."

Also Tuesday, Saddam sent Foreign Minister Naji Sabri to meet with
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and deliver a message from him.

Egypt's Middle East News Agency did not describe the message handed
over during the private meeting between Mubarak and Sabri in Cairo.
Neither man spoke to reporters afterward.

Mubarak, a close U.S. ally, has joined other Arab leaders in warning
that a U.S. strike on Iraq could destabilize the region.

Egypt, which fought alongside the United States in the 1991 Gulf
War that forced Iraq out of Kuwait, has said it would support a
U.S. strike on Iraq if it were done under U.N. auspices.

Egypt also had pleaded with Iraq to permit U.N. weapons inspectors
in order to defuse the crisis.

On. Sept. 16, Iraq sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
agreeing to accept inspectors without conditions. But the United
States is skeptical Iraq will keep that promise. Annan said at the
United Nations Monday that he has not heard anything from Iraq since
the letter was delivered.

Arriving in Cairo Monday night, Sabri, speaking to reporters at Cairo
airport, accused the United States of seeking not to ensure his country
is free of weapons of mass destruction but to "realize aggressive
intentions, which only benefit Israel."

Iraq, in an attempt to rally regional support, has portrayed itself
as the only Arab country willing to stand up to Israel and the United
States.

The United Nations imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq after its 1990
invasion of Kuwait. The sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N.
inspectors certify that the country's weapons of mass destruction
have been destroyed.

* * *

Australia In "Contingency Planning" For Role In Attack On Iraq

Radio Australia, BBC Monitoring Service, Melbourne, 24 Sep 02

Australia has drawn up plans for a military contribution to a United
States attack on Iraq. Defence Minister Robert Hill says Australia
has had talks with the United States about America's options for
action against Iraq. Senator Hill says Australia is looking at the
what-if issues involved in a possible US request for a contribution.

[Hill] We ask ourselves the what-if questions, that's what defence
departments constantly, constantly do, and there's obviously a
background out there of the United States telling the world that
it's unable to continue to accept the threat the Saddam Husayn poses.
So certainly the what-if scenarios are played out. We think that's
sort of normal contingency planning.

* * *

Ukraine Rejects U.S. Allegations Of Iraq Anti-Stealth Radar Sales

Kiev 09/24/2002 (dpa) - Ukraine denied U.S. allegations on Tuesday
that the former Soviet republic sold advanced anti-aircraft radars
to Saddam Hussein, the Interfax news agency reported.

President Leonid Kuchma's office released the statement in response
to Washington's cancellation of some 55 million dollars in foreign
aid to Ukraine on Monday.

Ukraine was open to U.S. inspections, had nothing to hide, and had
provided Iraq "neither weapons nor military technologies", the
statement said.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko last Friday accused the
U.S. of attempting to depict the Iraqi leader as a regional danger,
rather than base their allegations on facts.

Ukrainian opposition politicians claim President Kuchma conspired in
2000, with former national weapons export company boss Valery Malev,
to sell Iraq four Kolchuga radar systems valued at 100 million dollars
specifically designed to defeat U.S. Stealth aircraft technologies.

Former Kuchma bodyguard Mykola Melnichenko in early 2002 made public
an audio tape of Kuchma and Malev discussing the sale, which would
have violated U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

Allegations Kuchma illegally sold weapons to Iraq have been a staple
of Ukrainian anti-government rhetoric for the past six months. Malev
died in a car crash shortly after the Melnichenko tape became public
knowledge.

Kuchma has repeatedly denied the charge, claiming Melnichenko's tapes
are fabricated and the allegations against him manufactured by his
domestic opponents for political gain.

U.S. officials on Monday said the decision to reduce aid to Ukraine
was taken after an FBI review of the Melnichenko tapes along with other
information gathered by U.S. intelligence services, according to the
New York Times.

Ukraine comes after Israel and Egypt as one of America's top aid
recipients. Last year Ukraine received some 230 million dollars
in foreign aid. Most of the money went to programmes run by western
organisations aimed at developing Ukrainian democracy or improving
security at Ukrainian nuclear plants.

Besides traditional foreign aid subject to Congressional approval,
the Bush administration has spent an estimated 200 million dollars
of Pentagon funds helping Ukraine rid itself of nuclear missiles
and long-range bombers under a threat-reduction agreement.
dpa sbk bg

* * *

US Delays Negotiations Over Iraq Resolution

By Carola Hoyos at the United Nations and Richard Wolffe in,
Washington,

The Financial Times, Sep 24, 2002

The US yesterday delayed negotiations on a United Nations resolution
calling on Iraq to accept weapons inspectors and to comply with a
host of other demands.

Diplomats said yesterday that Iraq's refusal to accept a new resolution
had "muddied the water" and given the hawks in Washington a stronger
voice, raising Washington's demands.

The Bush administration continues to send out mixed messages on its
approach to the return of weapons inspectors in Iraq. While Colin
Powell, secretary of state, insists that Iraq must impose no
restrictions, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, said last week that
inspections could never work with the current Iraqi regime in power.
At the White House, national security officials are determined to
assess the conditions for the return of inspectors before supporting
or ruling out inspections.

US President George W. Bush yesterday said he wanted a resolution that
would "hold this man to account", suggesting that the US was determined
to press for language that authorises the use of force if the Iraqi
regime fails to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction voluntarily.
He said Mr Hussein had treated the Security Council as "a paper tiger".
"Either you can become an organisation which is nothing but a debating
society, or you can be an organisation which is robust enough and strong
enough to help keep the peace," Mr Bush said.

UN diplomats still believe the US will seek a resolution that would
give Washington some degree of political cover if it decides to
overthrow the current regime in Baghdad using military force. But
Russian and French acceptance of a resolution that sets the bar for
Iraq compliance high and threatens consequences if Baghdad does not
comply, is still unforthcoming.

"The stronger the text France and Russia accept, the less likely is
[US] unilateral action. Soft and wishy-washy isn't going to create
great faith in inspectors being able to do the job," said one
diplomat.

Last week, discussions between President Bush, Mr Powell and Igor
Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, and Sergei Ivanov, its defence
minister, failed to yield agreement on the issue.

Nevertheless, Sergei Ivanov said yesterday that Russia would not stand
in the way of a new UN resolution, Russian agencies reported.

* * *

On Iraq Action, U.S. Is Keeping Nato Sidelined

By Bradley Graham and Robert G. Kaiser, The Washington Post, Tuesday,

September 24, 2002

WARSAW - As eager as the Bush administration is to find international
backing for possible military action against Iraq, one place it isn't
looking for military support is NATO.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has come here this week for an
informal meeting with his NATO counterparts and plans to brief them
Tuesday on the Iraqi threat. He and other administration officials
have been sounding out allies individually about their readiness to
contribute to a war against Iraq.

But the idea of the United States' principal military alliance playing
a part has not been pursued by senior U.S. officials.

"It hasn't crossed my mind; we've not proposed it," Rumsfeld told
reporters en route to Warsaw. Rumsfeld knows the alliance well,
having served as the U.S. ambassador to NATO's headquarters in
Brussels in 1973-74.

The prospect of NATO again being sidelined in an important military
operation -- as it was in Afghanistan -- has led to questions on both
sides of the Atlantic about the alliance's relevance in the age of
terrorism. The Europeans increasingly worry that the United States is
prepared to conduct major operations largely on its own, or with the
support of looser or smaller ad hoc coalitions.

Part of the reason NATO isn't involved is politics: It can be no easy
task to build consensus in the 19-country group for controversial U.S.
initiatives outside Europe.

How difficult this would be was demonstrated in recent weeks by Gerhard
Schroeder, the German chancellor, who in his successful reelection
campaign made a big issue of his opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Similar U.S.-European disagreements could easily recur in the years
ahead.

There is also a practical reason for NATO's apparent irrelevance in the
Iraq showdown: the growing gap in capabilities between the armed forces
of the United States and those of Europe. Rumsfeld's main message here
is that if the alliance is ever to join the fight against new threats,
it needs to acquire new capabilities and streamline its command
structure.

The issue, Rumsfeld said, is "seeing if we can have more of our
capabilities available in days or weeks rather than months or years.
If we can have a larger fraction of our capabilities agile and able
to get in and out of places and move around in places with a smaller
footprint. This is something that NATO countries are perfectly capable
of doing if they decided to do it."

This goal is a familiar one, but it has acquired new urgency in the
wake of the U.S.-led global war on terrorism. Alliance proponents are
encouraged by one NATO achievement this year: Defense ministers agreed
in June to develop a fresh initiative to improve forces for missions
outside Europe. The action put the alliance on record as endorsing --
at least rhetorically -- operations beyond its traditional borders.
That resolved with remarkably little debate or rancor a controversy
that had raged in U.S.-European defense circles for more than a decade.

"What you've had since September 11 is a real shift that put to bed the
NATO in-area, out-of-area debate," a senior White House official said,
using the NATO jargon for in the European area or beyond it. "It's
terribly significant."

NATO officials contend that the alliance has not been sitting out the
fight entirely. To relieve some of the burden on the U.S. Air Force for
patrolling American skies, NATO lent several AWACS surveillance planes
to the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And while NATO
is not formally involved in Afghanistan, all alliance members except
Iceland have sent troops there.

But for NATO to be able to respond rapidly and forcefully to
contingencies outside Europe, U.S. and European officials say,
alliance members will need to improve their ability to do several
things foremost: transport forces, strike with precision weapons,
communicate securely, and protect against chemical, biological and
nuclear attack. They also will need to streamline a command structure
that is still largely rooted in the Cold War.

"An example is the number of regional commands that NATO has in the
Atlantic," a Pentagon official said, citing six. "There is no more
submarine threat or threat to lines of communication across the
Atlantic between the United States and Europe to justify that number
of commands."

NATO has some recent experience in trying to modernize, most of it
discouraging. Under a Defense Capabilities Initiative, approved three
years ago, NATO members committed to 58 areas of improvement. But
the initiative overwhelmed European defense budgets, which have been
declining, and sputtered to a halt last year, meeting only about half
the goals.

Under the new plan being promoted by the United States, alliance members
would commit to a much shorter list of about a dozen items and a much
shorter time frame of about two years to achieve the goals. To focus
the effort, Rumsfeld also is proposing this week the creation of a
NATO force for responding rapidly to conflicts outside the alliance's
borders.

The force would consist of roughly 20,000 U.S., Canadian and European
combat and support troops, including ground, air and maritime elements.
It would not be set up in time for a potential campaign in Iraq, but
the plan is to have it ready within two or three years to handle a
range of missions, from evacuations to all-out war.

U.S. officials hope to win formal approval of the initiative at a
meeting in November of NATO heads of state in Prague.

* * *

Oil Jumps As Iraq Shifts Policy On UN

By Ivar Simensen, The Financial Times, Sep 24, 2002

Oil prices jumped to one-year highs yesterday as the fear of an
attack on Baghdad increased after Iraq said it would not accept
any new resolutions from the United Nations.

The statement marked a shift in policy from last week when Baghdad
officials said it would allow UN weapons inspectors to return
"without conditions".

The UK and US governments have made it clear that UN inspectors must
gain full access to all facilities in Iraq and that attempts by
president Saddam Hussein to avoid this could be a pretext for military
action.

Renewed tension in the Middle East over the weekend also supported
prices, after Israeli armed forces demolished most of Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat's headquarters following last week's suicide
bombings.

Analysts said the tension was likely to increase hostility among Arabs
to the US, Israel's prime ally, which again would raise the possibility
that many of the Arab oil producers might not increase production in
case of a shortage of oil caused by an attack on Iraq.

Elsewhere, Mexico's state-owned oil company evacuated more than 8,000
workers from drilling platforms over the weekend after the Isidore
hurricane hit the Gulf of Mexico. The hurricane could disrupt
operations and transport in the region this week.

The Brent crude contract surged 70 cents to close at $29.13 per
barrel in London, its highest in a year, and in New York, West Texas
Intermediate rose 87 cents to close at $30.71 a barrel, a 19-month
high.

Gold remained firm as the equity markets extended last week's losses.
London spot gold fixed at $322.50 per troy ounce, little changed from
Friday's $322.30 fix.

* * *

Iraq Tensions Give Wall St Another Shake

By Andrei Postelnicu in New York, FT.com site, Sep 24, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite closed at a six-year low while the Dow rebounded
only modestly yesterday, as heightened war tensions with Iraq rattled
markets already shaken by an increasingly grim profits outlook.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 113.87 lower at 7,872.15. The
broader S&P 500 index fell 11.69 to 833.70 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq
Composite tumbled 33.16 to 1,184.93 on a 35.02 point fall.

A lengthening string of US companies are warning investors of lower
numbers for the third quarter and the year.

"Companies either continue to miss numbers or guidance is on the soft
side, things are looking spotty and Iraq's rejection of UN resolution
this weekend adds to geopolitical risk," said Jeffrey Applegate, chief
market strategist at Lehman Brothers.

A week after giving in to pressure to admit weapons inspectors, the
Baghdad regime said it would reject a new UN resolution being drafted
by US diplomats.

Among broad selling on the Dow, Alcoa fell 3.8 per cent to $20.31
after analysts at Prudential cut target prices for the stock due
to excess capacity concerns.

Wal-Mart said September sales would be at the lower end of previously
announced expectations, triggering a sell-off in retail shares. Shares
in the Dow-component stock were off 3.8 per cent to $52.60.

Federated Department Stores lost 3.7 per cent to $33.50 after it said
September sales at stores open at least a year would fall below
forecasts.

JDS Uniphase, the fibre optics company, joined a growing number of
companies warning profits would fall short of previous forecasts.
Shares were off 11 per cent at $1.89.

Shares in Microsoft lost 4.6 per cent to $45.24 after Steve Ballmer,
chief executive officer of the world's largest software group, offered
a grim view of business conditions in Europe.

Bucking the negative momentum was Dole Food, a produce distributor and
processing company, whose shares jumped 18.4 per cent to $29 after news
of a management buyout.

In economic news, the index of leading economic indicators from the
Conference Board fell for a third consecutive month to its lowest
level this year.

Toronto closed lower, as the latest earnings warnings dashed hopes for
a rebound in corporate profits.

The S&P/TSX Composite Index fell 121.95 to 6,080.08.

Nortel Networks was downgraded by Lehman Brothers and fell 14 per cent
to close at C$1.05, its lowest since being listed in 1974.

JDS Uniphase fell 12 per cent to C$3.36. JDS shares are not included
on the benchmark index but have great bearing on sentiment.

* * *

Dishonesty Of This So-called Dossier

by Robert Fisk

September 25, 2002

<http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=336404>

Tony Blair's "dossier" on Iraq is a shocking document. Reading it can
only fill a decent human being with shame and outrage. Its pages are
final proof -- if the contents are true -- that a massive crime against
humanity has been committed in Iraq. For if the details of Saddam's
building of weapons of mass destruction are correct -- and I will come
to the "ifs" and "buts" and "coulds" later -- it means that our massive,
obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other
words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us -- for nothing.

Let's go back to 12 May 1996. Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary
of State, had told us that sanctions worked and prevented Saddam from
rebuilding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Our Tory government
agreed, and Tony Blair faithfully toed the line. But on 12 May, Mrs
Albright appeared on CBS television. Leslie Stahl, the interviewer,
asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean,
that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth
it?" To the world's astonishment, Mrs Albright replied: "I think this
is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

Now we know -- if Mr Blair is telling us the truth -- that the price
was not worth it. The price was paid in the lives of hundreds of
thousands of children. But it wasn't worth a dime. The Blair "dossier"
tells us that, despite sanctions, Saddam was able to go on building
weapons of mass destruction. All that nonsense about dual-use
technology, the ban on children's pencils -- because lead could have
a military use -- and our refusal to allow Iraq to import equipment
to restore the water-treatment plants that we bombed in the Gulf War,
was a sham.

This terrible conclusion is the only moral one to be drawn from the
16 pages that supposedly detail the chemical, biological and nuclear
horrors that the Beast of Baghdad has in store for us. It's difficult,
reading the full report, to know whether to laugh or cry. The degree
of deceit and duplicity in its production speaks of the trickery that
informs the Blair government and its treatment of MPs.

There are a few titbits that ring true. The new ammonium perchlorate
plant illegally supplied by an Indian company -- which breached those
wonderful UN sanctions, of course -- is a frightening little detail.
So is the new rocket test stand at the al-Rafah plant. But this
material is so swamped in trickery and knavery that its inclusion
becomes worthless.

Here is one example of the dishonesty of this "dossier". On page 45,
we are told -- in a long chapter about Saddam's human rights abuses --
that "on March 1st, 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, riots (sic)
broke out in the southern city of Basra, spreading quickly to other
cities in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. The regime responded by killing
thousands". What's wrong with this paragraph is the lie is in the use
of the word "riots". These were not riots. They were part of a mass
rebellion specifically called for by President Bush Jnr's father and by
a CIA radio station in Saudi Arabia. The Shia Muslims of Iraq obeyed
Mr Bush Snr's appeal. And were then left to their fate by the Americans
and British, who they had been given every reason to believe would come
to their help. No wonder they died in their thousands. But that's not
what the Blair "dossier" tells us.

And anyone reading the weasel words of doubt that are insinuated
throughout this text can only have profound concern about the basis
for which Britain is to go to war. The Iraqi weapon programme "is
almost certainly" seeking to enrich uranium. It "appears" that Iraq
is attempting to acquire a magnet production line. There is evidence
that Iraq has tried to acquire specialised aluminium tubes (used in
the enrichment of uranium) but "there is no definitive intelligence"
that it is destined for a nuclear programme. "If" Iraq obtained fissile
material, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons in one or two years. It
is "difficult to judge" whether al-Hussein missiles could be available
for use. Efforts to regenerate the Iraqi missile programme "probably"
began in 1995. And so the "dossier" goes on.

Now maybe Saddam has restarted his WMD programme. Let's all say it
out loud, 20 times: Saddam is a brutal, wicked tyrant. But are "almost
certainly", "appears", "probably" and "if" really the rallying call
to send our grenadiers off to the deserts of Kut-al-Amara?

There is high praise for UN weapons inspectors. And there is more
trickery in the relevant chapter. It quotes Dr Hans Blix, the executive
chairman of the UN inspection commission, as saying that in the absence
of (post-1998) inspections, it is impossible to verify Iraqi disarmament
compliance. But on 18 August this year, the very same Dr Blix told
Associated Press that he couldn't say with certainty that Baghdad
possessed WMDs. This quotation is excised from the Blair "dossier", of
course.

So there it is. If these pages of trickery are based on "probably"
and "if", we have no business going to war. If they are all true, we
murdered half a million Iraqi children. How's that for a war crime?

* * *

Hello all, here's a brilliant paper written by Mr Hans von Sponeck,
presented in Brussels on the 25 September 2002 at the European
Colloquium. Dirk Adriaensens

IRAQ - Four Questions, Four Answers by Hans C. von Sponeck UN
Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1998-2000) at the European
Colloquium Brussels, 25 September 2002
http://www.irak.be/ned/bivv/iraq4questions4answers.htm

Question No. 1: Is there an Imminence of Threat posed by Iraq?

The United States maintains that Iraq poses a threat to its security.
This threat, it is argued, is so serious that a pre-emptive military
strike is required to protect the US and the wider global community.
The UK shares this perception.

The rest of the world, particularly Iraq's neighbours, do not agree
with this assessment. In any case articles 39, 42 and 51 of the UN
Charter are not applicable. None of the 'evidence' the US and the UK
have produced is accepted by the international community as hard core
and unquestionable evidence that Iraq is in possession of or trying
to produce ABC weapons materials.

Attempts to link acts of terrorism involving the 1993 and 2001 WTC,
the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-salaam, the USS Cole in Aden,
the Anthrax cases in the US and collaboration with Al Qaeda to the
Government of Iraq have failed.

A study by the UK International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS), published on 9 September 2002 constitutes a good compendium
of speculation concluding (see p.74) that Iraq "could probably
assemble nuclear weapons", "probably resumed biological growth media",
"probably retained chemical agent such as mustard gas and precursors",
"probably retained a small force of ballistic missiles with ranges up
to 650 km, such as the al Hussein missiles."

In its introduction the IISS study re-assures that its purpose is to
describe these (WMD) issues "accurately and fairly". Its conclusions
(see p.73) unfortunately constitute a political statement which amounts
to war-mongering.

The document states inter alia: "A war, if it installs a new government
in Baghdad willing to comply with Iraq's international commitments,
would eliminate Iraq's WMD threat, but at the risk of limited CBW use
(and civilian casualties) during the conflict of overthrow the present
regime."

During a July 2002 visit to Iraq, the Government of Iraq gave me the
permission to visit two sites of my choice, Al Dora at the outskirts
of Baghdad and Al Fallujah III, which western intelligence agencies
and main stream US and UK media had identified as sites for which
evidence existed that they had been producing biological agents since
the departure of UN arms inspectors in December 1998.

The IISS report points out that at Al Dora "work appears to have
started. The facility has about 25% of its capacity" (see p.30).
For Al Fallujah III it points out that the "plant for processing
castor beans has been destroyed. Its current status is unknown"
(see p.30).

In a document entitled "A decade of Deception and Defiance" handed out
by the US Government on 12 September at the time when US President Bush
was delivering his speech at the UN/GA, it is pointed out that Al Dora
"has an extensive air handling and filtering system" (see p.8) and for
Al Fallujah it states (see p.9) that "(the Government of Iraq) is making
an effort to hide activities at (the) Fallujah plant."

The British Government released its long announced 'dossier' on 24
September 2002. More a review of past WMD programmes than an empirical
analysis of the current situation in Iraq, the dossier is a document
of allegations not of evidence of the seriousness of the current WMD
reality in Iraq. For Al Fallujah, the dossier maintains that "the
castor oil production facility has been rebuild." Al Dora is cited as
a "facility of concern."

My visit to these two sites (accompanied by the ARD German TV) showed
conclusively that Al Dora and Al Fallujah III facilities had been
destroyed (it should be noted that the IISS report acknowledges this
for Al Fallujah III).. What is destroyed can not be a threat.

Conclusions: The evidence offered by the US and UK administration as
well as the IISS assessment of Iraq's WMD status does not support
in any way the contention that an imminent threat emanates from Iraq
justifying a military offensive. The US government promoted mass
hysteria and the psycho war are internationally unacceptable. In
the interest of preventing such a war, the Iraqi Foreign Minister's
statement to the UN/GA that the country is free of WMD and the
agreement by the Iraqi authorities to re-admit unconditionally UN
arms inspectors at this stage should be taken at face value and
UNMOVIC's installation in Baghdad be pursued without delay.

Question No. 2: What explains the present US Government Iraq policy?

There is no simple explanation. The importance of Iraq's sources of
energy, the composition of the Bush II administration and changes in
the political landscape of the Middle East, however, are three major
factors which are part of such an explanation:

a.. Iraq's sources of energy: During the 31 july/1 august hearings
on Iraq in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking
representative of the Republican Party, Senator Richard Lugar (R-In)
stated: " ...we are going to run the oil business. We are going to
run it well, we are going to make money; and it's going to help pay
for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there!"

a.. The Bush II administration: Key policy makers in the administration
of the present US Government had been involved in the Bush I 1991
Gulf War. This may explain why the US Government is taking the Iraq
Liberation Act of the US Congress of October 1998 much more literal
than the Clinton administration did.

The Act calls for 'regime change' in Iraq. The policy of 'containment
within' under President Clinton has become a policy of 'occupation
from outside' under President Bush..

This policy change combined with a missionary fanaticism to spread
their version of 'democracy' and a fatal mix-up of the justified
fight against terrorism and a regime change strategy for governments
considered as too aggressively anti-American are the main ingredients
of the US administration's approach on Iraq.

a.. The political landscape in the Middle East: The severe
deterioration of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the course
of the past twelve months has intensified the cohesion among Arab
governments. Testimony of significant policy changes within the
Arab League became apparent in the final communiqué of the March
2002 Beirut Summit. It concluded with a rejection of a war against
the 'brotherly country Iraq'. Since then all Arab governments
including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have repeated their opposition to
a military confrontation with Iraq. There is strong public resentment,
particularly in Saudi Arabia, to what is perceived as double standards
in dealing with the two major conflicts in the Middle East, the
Palestinian issue and Iraq. It can also no longer be hidden that the
US is on notice that agreements to their military presence in the
Middle East are no longer to be taken for granted. This in turn has
added an element of extreme urgency in introducing changes in the US
Iraq policy.

Conclusions: The Iraq policy of the US administration has little to
do with the return of UN arms inspectors or with a concern for the
suffering of the Iraqi people. It has all to do with a determination
to introduce a regime change in Baghdad. With this objective, the US
enjoys no international support. President Chirac confirmed this when
he stated publicly: "It is not a question of Bush/Blair on one side and
Chirac/Schroeder on the other side, it is Bush/Blair on one side and
all the others on the other side."

Question No. 3: What are the implications for the Iraqi population?

First of all it must be pointed out that the suffering and the trauma
resulting from the intensified confrontation between Iraq and the US/UK
and the prospects of war have been sidelined by politicians and the
media in Europe.. The massive evidence of the toll these developments
and twelve years of economic sanctions have taken among the Iraqi
population is well documented by reputable IGOs and INGOs. The impact
of this reality will be felt long after economic sanctions have been
lifted and the Iraq conflict has ended.

The humanitarian exemption, the oil for food programme has at all
times been underfunded, particularly, in the initial three phases
when the UN/SC had been decided that the oil for export revenue could
not exceed $2.6 billion per phase. Despite this small amount, the UN/SC
insisted that the UNCC had to receive 30% of the oil revenue, funding
which was desperately needed by an undernourished population deprived
from even basic medicines to protect their health.

The total value of what has been received in Iraq between 16 December
1996, the beginning of the oil for food programme and 10 may 2002
amounts to $172 per person/year. One indicator of the state of
impoverishment of the Iraqi population is that 55% of the population
lives below the poverty line. Were the monthly food basket valued at
$25 not given to the population free of charge under the oil for food
programme, some 90% of the population would be forced to live under
the poverty line.

Another dramatic indicator of the ill being of the population relates
to child mortality. UNICEF in its annual State of the Children's report
identified Iraq as the country which showed an increase of 160% in
the mortality rate of children under five for the period 1990 to 1999.
This constitutes the highest recorded increase of all the 188 countries
surveyed. According to the same organisation, female literacy has
slipped to 45% in 1995 while in 1987 Iraq had received from UNESCO
international recognition that it had achieved a literacy level of 80%.
There are other alarming figures published by WHO showing that the
number of youth with mental disorders has more than doubled between
1990 and 1998.

While the US Government accuses Iraq of having violated 16 UN
resolutions, no mention is made that the main responsibility for the
violation of just about all international treaties and conventions
from the UN Charter to the International Covenant of economic, social
and cultural rights, the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the genocide
convention points to the US and British governments (see in this
connection a document of UN/ECOSOC dated 21 June 2000 (GE.00-14092) in
which Prof. Marc Bossuyt, presently judge in the Belgian Supreme Court
and formerly chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission gives evidence
to this effect; see also selected papers on "The Impact on International
Law of a Decade of Measures Against Iraq" published by Oxford University
Press in February 2002).

It must also be stated that the establishment of the two no-fly-zones
is based on no UN mandate and constitutes a serious breach of
international law and UN resolutions which make specific mention of
Iraq's territorial integrity and sovereignty. As the UN designated
Official for Security of UN staff in Iraq, introduced air strike
reports which reflected collected and verified information on damage
to life and property of civilians as a result of US/UK air incursions
and attacks in Iraq. In 1999 my office in Baghdad recorded 132 air
strikes with 144 civilian death and over 300 wounded and civilian
property destroyed. These air strike reports were, when possible,
handed to US and UK officials in New York during various briefing
visits. I was told by representatives of those two governments that I
was violating my mandate in producing such documents and that in any
case all I was doing was to put a UN stamp on Iraqi propaganda. It
is a serious matter that the UN Security Council having a mandated
oversight responsibility has not been able to stop this serious
violation, particularly since US and UK pilots have operated in Iraqi
airspace after Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 under 'enlarged
rules of engagement'. These allow them to use their firing power with
fewer restrictions and consequently with more damage to civilian life
and property.

Should a US war against Iraq take place, particularly the high-tech
war currently contemplated in Washington, there would be significant
civilian casualties and destruction. To prevent this must be a major
challenge for European democracies.

Conclusions: The political battle continues to be played on the backs
of the Iraqi people. Objectionable treatment of people within Iraq can
not provide the justification for a crippling punishment extended by
the UN Security Council to the Iraqi people in the form of economic
sanctions, blocking of humanitarian supplies, regular air attacks and,
possibly military confrontation. Governments who are in possession of
the many accounts from reputable international organisations on the
state of human condition can no longer remain silent regarding the fact
that today the main perpetrators responsible for the suffering of the
Iraqi people are the governments of the US and the UK. This does not
mean that one should negate the concern over the internal human rights
situation. The UN Human Rights Rapporteur must be allowed to continue
his dialogue with the Iraqi authorities in this respect.

Question No. 4: What could be the demands of the international public
conscience against a war on Iraq and for the lifting
of economic sanctions?

The European Colloquium (EC) should convey to the European Parliament
(EP) that the February 2001 hearings on Iraq have failed to contribute
to a credible EU Iraq policy. In the absence of an objective position
on Iraq, The EU had been largely excluded as a contributor to the
international Iraq debate. The EC should point out that this could be
redressed.

Neither the report of the UK International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) dated 9 September 2002 nor the document handed out by
the US Government dated 12 September provides any evidence whatsoever
of the imminence of an international threat posed by the Iraqi
Government that would justify evoking articles 39, 42 or 51 of the
UN Charter. A unilateral military strike by the US against Iraq would
in any case be a grave violation of international law. The EP should
be reminded of this serious fact.

a.. The EC should advise the EP that in case of such a unilateral
attack on Iraq by the US, permission by EU member countries for US
forces to use airfields, harbours and other facilities might be
consistent with NATO statutes but would constitute a breach of
international law. The EP should be requested to convey this to member
governments.

a.. The Brussels meeting of the EC should be concluded by expressing
full support for the UN/Security Council-led arms inspection process.
The EC should emphasize in this context that the Iraq Government
should not be hindered in any way to demonstrate its preparedness
to unconditionally cooperate with UNMOVIC. The EC should furthermore
convey to the UN Secretary General that it considers the protection of
the integrity of the team of UN inspectors as a paramount responsibility
of the chairman of UNMOVIC. Misuse of UNMOVIC for intelligence
operations, as had been the case with UNSCOM, harbours the grave danger
of a confrontation between Iraq and the US. It would undoubtedly be
used by US authorities as an immediate pretext to respond with a
military attack. The EC should convey to the EP that it has profound
responsibility to pass these concerns to member governments and to the
UN.

a.. Comprehensive economic sanctions against the people of Iraq are
entering their 13th year. The human condition identified already in
1991 after the Gulf War as 'apocalyptic' have significantly worsened
since then in both mental and physical terms. The amount of evidence
collected by reputable international organisations about child
mortality, malnutrition, re-emerging diseases, impoverishment,
educational neglect and psychological disorders continues to accumulate
(please see in particular recent reports by UNICEF, CARITAS, Save
The Children/UK). What the international community has seen since May
2002 when UN/SC resolution 1409 introduced so-called 'smart sanctions'
represents, as predicted by individual members of the current UN
Security Council, anything but an improvement. In addition, over $5
billion worth of humanitarian supplies remain on hold-blocked by US/UK
authorities. The oil pricing confrontation created by the US/UK
governments to end the 'illegal' surcharge issue has resulted in a
major shortfall of funding for the present phase XII of the oil for
food programme and seriously endangers the already fragile humanitarian
exemption programme.

The EC should make a strong case in its Brussels' communiqué for the
lifting of economic sanctions once the UN arms inspectors programme is
underway with the full cooperation of the Government of Iraq. The EC
should request the EP to strongly support such an approach in the
interest of ending the suffering of people who have done nothing wrong.

a.. National anti-sanction groups in Europe and elsewhere are
unrelenting in their efforts to bring about justice and conditions
of human dignity for the Iraqi people. The public conscience is alert
and at national levels has helped in shaping political decision making.
In these critical days of international relations, efforts to make
it possible that at times national initiatives can function in an
integrated manner would seem of importance. The ideal would be to
create a European response mechanism that can be used to periodically
react to morally, ethically and legally unacceptable policies and
positions on Iraq maintained by individual members of the United
Nations. Such a mechanism would be particularly significant at this
moment to protest against economic sanctions and to solicit support
against a military attack on Iraq. Protesting would create awareness
that such an attack would lead to another human catastrophe and
endanger the international solidarity in the fight against terrorism.
It would be of immense value in this respect if the EC could agree
on an 'action alert focal point'. Such a focal point would function
as a basis for the strategic issuance of joint statements and the
preparation of integrated actions and lobby work. a.. As a step in
this direction, national associations, whether represented at the
Brussels' meeting or not should be encouraged to forward the final
communiqué and a copy of the open letter to the EP to all the
representative foreign media and other influential bodies on the
ground. The EC should forward these two documents to the President
of the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary General, the Secretary
General of the Arab League, the Holy Sea and the International Court
of Justice. a.. An important first step towards improved cooperation
among different national groups working towards the lifting of
economic sanctions and averting an unjustified war against Iraq would
be the preparation of a master-list of cooperating entities and their
coordinates.

--
.ines.mi.en

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

* * *

U.S. And Britain Drafting Resolution For Iraq Deadline

By PATRICK E. TYLER, The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 - The United States, with Britain's help, is
drafting a United Nations resolution that would give Saddam Hussein
about two months to demonstrate his willingness to cooperate fully
with weapons inspectors and to make new efforts to comply with the
resolutions that ended the Persian Gulf war, administration officials
and United Nations diplomats said today.

But the drafting process is being slowed by the ideological divides
within the Bush administration and between Washington and allied
capitals over the United Nations' role in authorizing the use of
force, some officials asserted today.

A White House official said tonight that the draft was essentially
completed, but that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell needed more
time to consult with leaders of key Security Council nations over
whether they would accept a strongly worded resolution that says
the Security Council endorses the use of force to bring Iraq into
compliance if inspections fail.

"The secretary is going to prepare this one very carefully before he
slaps something on the table," a senior State Department official said.

France remains a critical holdout. President Jacques Chirac said on
Tuesday that France would not oppose discussions on a new resolution,
but would not agree to including a threat of force. France has not
ruled out the possibility of such a threat in a later resolution if
Iraq fails to cooperate with inspectors.

China's position also is uncertain. In Beijing, Prime Minister Zhu
Rongji said, "We request that Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions
without any preconditions." But he added that a decision by the
United States to act outside the United Nations "will lead to severe
consequences."

Russia, while agreeing to discuss a new resolution, also remained
guarded about its position, though Bush administration officials
believe that Mr. Bush will be able to persuade President Vladimir
V. Putin to support the United States or stand aside.

On a day when politics and a sense of war fever seemed to boil over
in Washington, a senior administration official familiar with the
drafting process said, "I personally don't think weapons inspectors
will ever return to Iraq."

He said in an interview that "the president is not going to worry
about the Security Council" because he will have all the authorization
he needs from Congress.

"Once Congress acts, that's the final - that's all that has to happen
in our system," the official said.

This view betrayed the strong feelings within the administration over
how to position the United States on Iraq. But it was not clear whether
the clash of views or reaching a consensus among the five permanent
members of the Security Council was responsible for holding up the
resolution.

The policy pragmatists around Secretary Powell have apparently reached
a compromise with conservatives in the Pentagon and White House on
Iraq, several officials said today. Their strategy has been to work for
the strongest possible resolution, one that would support "a tank or a
squadron of F-15's," as one official said.

Secretary Powell is said to have won the backing of the president's
more conservative advisers for an ironclad resolution through
the United Nations to test Mr. Hussein's willingness to submit to
inspections and the Security Council's willingness to authorize
force if inspections fail.

In return, Secretary Powell has made it clear that he will back the
use of military force if working through the United Nations fails.

He showed his resolve today in an interview with British Broadcasting
Corporation radio.

"The U.S. continues to believe that the best way to disarm Iraq is
through a regime change," he said.

"Pressure has to be maintained on Iraq until the U.N. is satisfied
that he has got rid of these weapons or allowed inspectors in to
make sure of that - that's the only way to do it - and then we'll
see whether or not that's adequate or whether more action is needed."

At the same time, administration officials and members of the Iraqi
opposition are taking steps to convey to Iraq's people that the United
States is serious about removing Mr. Hussein and that the support of
the population could be critical to the success of military operations.

The increased frequency of patrols and bombing missions against Iraqi
targets "reflects an interagency decision to move forward with these
kinds of strikes" both to remove targets "that will eventually have to
be removed anyway," an administration official said, and secondly, so
the population would know "that we are serious."

Mr. Bush is expected to notify Congress in coming days that he
has decided to spend up to $92 million to begin providing "lethal
assistance" in the form of military training and arms to Iraqi
opposition volunteers and Kurdish fighters in Iraq.

The training program, first reported by The Los Angeles Times,
represented a significant policy change that would also signal
to the Iraqi people the American resolve to change the Iraqi
government, State Department officials said.

Iraqi opposition groups have been asked to compile lists of young
men with military experience or detailed knowledge of certain
regions, administration officials said.

One phase of the program would train Iraqi volunteers to help American
forces spot and illuminate targets, gather intelligence and interact
with the Iraqi population.

In an interview today on the PBS program "The NewsHour with Jim
Lehrer," Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice,
said for the first time that the administration had evidence that
Iraq had trained some members of Al Qaeda in the use of chemical
weapons.

Ms. Rice said "there have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials
and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

She added, "We know too that several of the detainees, in particular
some high ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training
to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."

Her office gave no further details.

* * *

Straw Promises Iraq Vote

BBC Wednesday, 25 September 2002

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes Russia, China and France
accept the need for a fresh United Nations resolution about
Iraq.

The UK is locked in talks with America about tabling a draft new UN
resolution aimed at tackling Iraq's alleged build-up of weapons of
mass destruction.

Questioned by the Commons foreign affairs committee, Mr Straw said
he could not "lift the veil" on Security Council negotiations and
would not say whether the planned new resolution would threaten
specific military action or give a deadline for Iraq to disarm.

Speaking after 56 Labour rebels used a technical Commons vote to
oppose the government's stance on Iraq, Mr Straw also said MPs
would get a proper vote on possible military action.

Vote precedents

But he added: "We cannot undertake to put down a motion immediately -
shortly - before military action is commenced if the effect of that
is to give the enemy advance notice of our activities."

That was why a substantive vote on the Gulf War was only taken four
days after military action began, but action against Iraqi weapons
sites in 1998 had been debated 10 months before it was taken, Mr
Straw explained.

Those comments were hailed as a "victory for Parliament" by Donald
Anderson, chairman of the foreign affairs committee.

The foreign secretary said a new UN resolution was not "essential" for
action under international law, but it was desirable.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has said Russia would take part
in consultations about a new resolution.

He emphasised Moscow's hope that the crisis could be resolved by
peaceful means and it was not worth creating a "great propaganda
furore" over the UK's dossier before weapons inspections.

Iran visit

Earlier, Mr Straw said Tony Blair and his ministers shared the
anxieties of the Labour rebels who voiced their opposition to
war with Iraq.

But the threat of force was the best chance of getting a peaceful
resolution to the Iraqi crisis, Mr Straw told BBC Breakfast.

On Wednesday, it was confirmed that Mr Straw is to go to Iran during
a four-day visit to the Gulf next month in a tour the Foreign Office
said was "Iraq related".

A Foreign Office spokesman told BBC News Online: "We have made plain
all along that Saddam Hussein is a threat, not least to those in the
region.

"So discussions will naturally focus on how we deal with that threat."

The extent of the Commons rebellion - which was supported by a number
of MPs from other parties - gave a boost to campaigners as they
announced details of an anti-war rally in London at the weekend.

The organisers - who include Labour rebels George Galloway and Jeremy
Corbyn - claim the demonstration will be one of the biggest in Europe.

President Bush is expected to put the resolution before the UN Security
Council by the end of Thursday.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who has voiced his party's
grave reservations about any military action without UN backing,
stressed the importance of a new resolution.

It had to be set out deadlines for Iraq to give full access to weapons
inspectors and leave open the use of international force if that
becomes that option of last resort, said Mr Kennedy.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell also said that a new UN resolution
on Iraq had to contain a threat of force, because that was the only
way to keep up the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

The UN talks continue a day after the government published its long-
awaited dossier accusing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of continuing to
develop weapons of mass destruction.

Baghdad immediately rubbished it as being full of "half truths and
lies".

In the Commons on Tuesday Tony Blair won cautious support from most
MPs as he said the case for disarming Saddam Hussein was overwhelming.

The Conservatives strongly support Mr Blair's stance, with leader Iain
Duncan Smith saying that after "ten years of second chances" now was
the time to act against Saddam Hussein.

Former cabinet minister Chris Smith was among those who highlighted the
dangers of "go-it-alone" American action.

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
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<

* * * * *