IPRI :: Islamabad Policy Research Institute

The United States has built up a potent strike force in the Gulf. Over 300 combat aircraft are available, together with several warships armed with cruise missiles. Britain, Washington's staunchest ally, also has an aircraft carrier in the region. All the signals point to a sustained attack against Iraqi installations should no diplomatic compromise be found. But as our Defence Correspondent Jonathan Marcus explains, this may be no more productive than diplomacy in forcing President Saddam Hussein to back down.
The Americans are making it clear that this time things will be different. They are not contemplating isolated attacks against Iraq, but a sustained air campaign, perhaps over several days, to cause so much damage to Iraq's military infrastructure that it would force Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, to open up all his suspected weapons sites to UN teams.

But it is far from clear if the United States has the political will to pursue such a course. And it is also far from certain that it would have the desired effect.

There is no doubt that the Americans can carry out their threat and that Iraq has only a limited ability to defend itself. Its air defence system is still substantial, but lacks the sophistication and flexibility that it once had.

The United States is likely to use cruise missiles launched from warships, submarines and giant B-52 bombers. And Iraqi air defence sites and command centres will be an early target to ensure the safety of US pilots.

The Americans would clearly hope to hit some of the suspected weapons sites, together with Republican Guard installations - the main prop of Saddam Hussein's regime. Given the proximity of many of these potential targets to populated areas, there is a considerable risk of civilian casualties, however effective the targeting.

But the real problem for the Americans is to decide when to call a halt to any operation. Bombing alone cannot eradicate Iraq's weapons programmes.

Long-term monitoring is essential. And once the smoke has cleared, the Iraqi government's permission will be as necessary as ever, if the weapons inspectors are to resume their task.

This latest crisis, just like the one that erupted in October of last year, was prompted by Iraqi opposition to the participation of US nationals in the UN inspection teams. Iraq regards Washington with suspicion and hostility and sees its involvement in the inspection regime as merely a means of spying on Iraq's strategic secrets.

Of course, the terms under which the Gulf War ended mean that - at least in the field of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry - Iraq is not allowed to have any strategic secrets.

And until it gives a full and credible account of its activities, UN imposed economic sanctions will continue. The real issue in this crisis is not the composition of the inspection teams, but the future of the inspection regime itself.

The UN Security Council as a whole insists that Iraq must honour its commitments. But this crisis is complex. It illustrates the difficulties of the post-Cold War world; the competing interests, commercial and strategic; the problematic nature of US leadership; and the reluctance of many of its closest allies to be drawn, passively in Washington's wake. It also shows the difficulty of matching means to ends. Economic sanctions cause untold suffering among the Iraqi people, while leaving the regime's leaders untouched.

Saddam Hussein senses that America's allies are growing weary of the whole thing. Many, like Iraq itself, would like more normal relations. At the end of the Gulf War the United States chose not to challenge Saddam Hussein's leadership in Iraq. Having made that decision, this latest crisis was probably inevitable.

Biological and chemical warfare - modern-day threat

Since ancient times when dead animals were used to foul the water supplies of their enemies, disease has been used as a weapon.

Some scholars have even suggested that the Black Death which swept Europe between 1347 and 1351 originated after the Tartars besieged the walled city of Kuffa catapulted plague-infested bodies into the city.

But this century biological and chemical warfare has reached new heights of ingenuity.

On April 22, 1915, the Germans used poison gas for the first time at Ypres in Belgium. By 1918, one in four shells on the western front was a gas shell, and its use resulting in more than one million casualties and more than 100,000 deaths.

Japan reportedly used plague and other bacteria in the war against China in the 1930s and 1940s.

More recently, there is evidence Iraq used chemical weapons extensively during the Iran-Iraq war between 1983 and 1988 and subsequently against the Kurds.

Now that most countries have agreed to destroy military stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the biggest remaining threat is terrorism.

The series of Sarin gas attacks made on the Tokyo subway system by a cult in March 1995 that killed a dozen people and injured thousands brought the use of chemical and biological weapons to international attention.

In 1984, a safehouse belonging to the German Red Army Faction, a militant group, was reportedly uncovered in Paris, France. Inside the safehouse an improvised laboratory was said to have been found containing flasks of deadly botulism toxin.

The bomb that damaged the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 reportedly also contained cyanide, but the chemical apparently evaporated in the explosion.

In 1994 two members of a religious cult in Oregon successfully used salmonella to poison the salad bars of local restaurants in an attempt to affect the outcome of local elections.

More than 700 people were believed to be affected, though none were apparently killed, and the reason for the outbreak was not uncovered for a year.

Although several countries are suspected to retain some chemical or biological weapons capabilities, nearly all have formally agreed to renounce their military use.

Even as early as ancient times, the Greeks and Romans condemned the use of poison as a violation of the rules of war, though they continued to use it.

After World War I, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 outlawed the use of both chemical and biological weapons in war, but countries were unable to agree on a treaty to ban stockpiles.

In 1956 Marshal Zhukov announced to the Soviet Congress that chemical and biological warfare weapons would be used as weapons of mass destruction in future wars.

This caused the US to renew its own programmes, but in 1969, US President Nixon ordered the termination of all research on biological warfare and the disarmament of all such weapons.

It was not until January 1975 that the US, USSR and China joined other nations - including Iraq - in signing the Biological Weapons Convention.

This outlawed the production, stockpiling and use of biological weapons. In July 1995, however, Iraq admitted that it had tried to build up stocks of biological weapons after UN inspectors found large amounts of anthrax, botulinum and other toxins.

In January 1993 a ban on the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons - The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by 130 countries.

Iraq has yet to sign this ban, however, and of the 165 countries which have now signed, 62 have yet to ratify the agreement.

The current Gulf crisis stems from UN Security Council resolution 687, which calls for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

A major study of Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons is expected to show that he does have significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons, and could produce nuclear warheads with the assistance of other countries.

The report, published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, will be released later this morning.

It comes as Tony Blair is expected to call for the United Nations to impose a deadline on Iraq - to allow weapons inspectors in, or risk attack.

Just what sort of weapons does Saddam Hussein possess? the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies' report should provide as accurate a guide as possible to his military might.

 IRAQI WEAPONS ARSENAL: UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn in December 1998 and have not been allowed back since.

 BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: But it is thought that Iraq currently has thousands of litres of anthrax, botulinan and other biological agents...

 BALLISTIC WEAPONS: Iraq probably retains a dozen ballistic missiles with a range of six-hundred and fifty kilometres - capable of hitting Iran, Turkey and Israel.

 NUCLEAR WEAPONS: One of the major concerns is that Saddam may be developing nuclear weapons. It's thought it would take several years for him to build a bomb , but he could have one within months if he gets supplies from a foreign source.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has carried out its study using the data available on Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of conventional as well as chemical and biological weapons.

With pressure mounting on Tony Blair and George Bush to publish their own dossiers, the document is likely to add to the debate about possible military action.

On Sunday the prime minister returned from a meeting with the US president resolute on taking action over Iraq, but facing mounting opposition at home.

Former senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, told politicians in Baghdad that their country is not a threat to the rest of the world and military action against it would be unjustified.

Whether the IISS assessment will say anything new is not clear, as it follows a great deal of information published in recent years about Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In Washington the well regarded Centre for Strategic and International Studies updated its own assessment just three months ago.

It concluded that Iraq almost certainly possessed large quantities of biological and chemical agents and could easily produce more.

It said Iraq would need at least five years and significant foreign assistance to construct a nuclear weapon, but that it could do so much more quickly if it could find enough nuclear material abroad.

Monday's document, from the IISS, is unlikely to paint a very different picture.

But a timely summary of Iraq's capabilities will be seized upon by those who argue that it poses a threat which cannot be ignored.

Returning from Camp David, Mr Blair said he and the president had developed a "shared strategy" based on a determination that the country's weapons of mass destruction must be destroyed.

On Tuesday he will use a speech to the Trades Union Congress to push for action.

Mr Blair will say that while the United Nations should deal with the issue, Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to flout its resolutions "year after year, after year".

The prime minister is also planning to brief senior MPs over the coming weeks but many Labour politicians are yet to be convinced of the case for military action.

Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, called for an emergency parliamentary debate.

He added that nothing Mr Blair had said so far had convinced him that a pre-emptive strike was necessary.

President Bush is due to address the United Nations on Thursday in a speech US officials say will demand fast, decisive action from the international body.

Both the US and UK governments say they have proof Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and the potential for a nuclear capability.

He is due to visit Moscow in the next few weeks to brief Russian premier Vladimir Putin who has already said he has "serious doubts" about military action against Iraq.

9 September 2002, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/2245631.stm

Bush issues ultimatum to Iraq

Iraq is a "grave and gathering danger", President Bush has told world leaders in a keynote speech at the United Nations.

He told the General Assembly that the United States wanted to work through the Security Council - but warned that military action would be unavoidable if Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions.

"The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. A regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."

Iraq has dismissed Mr Bush's speech, warning that a US attack would start "an uncontrollable fire".

Mr Bush said Saddam Hussein had proved his contempt for the United Nations and listed all the UN resolutions he considered Iraq to have ignored or broken.

"By his cruelties... Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself," he said.

"Are UN resolutions to be honoured and enforced or cast aside without consequence?" he asked.

He said that should Iraq acquire fissile material, "it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year".

He accused Saddam Hussein of allowing members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to be based in Iraq.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally foreswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material," he said.

Mr Bush's speech brought a mixed reaction around the world. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said it was "a defining moment for the United Nations".

"No-one who heard President Bush's speech could be in any doubt... about the urgency of dealing with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein," he said.

But US Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle said a number of questions still had to be answered before Congress voted to back military action against Iraq.

He said many members of Congress wanted to see the reaction of the international community before authorising use of US forces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai told ABC TV he was worried that US involvement in Iraq could switch attention away from efforts to eradicate the Taleban and al-Qaeda in his country and to rebuild its infrastructure.

He said he wanted a better life for the Iraqi people but said any American action should be done with the support of the Arab world.

Iraqi satellite television warned: "An aggression [against Iraq] would start an uncontrollable fire and the United States too will pay a [heavy] price because Iraq is no easy prey as the American adventurers imagine."

However, there was no mention of whether UN weapons inspectors would be allowed to return.

Before the UN meeting, Foreign Minister Naji Sabri warned that his countrymen would use all means, even "kitchen knives", to repel an American invasion.

The US is to send high-level delegations in the next few days to Russia, China and France in an attempt to persuade the Security Council members to support a resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq if weapons inspectors are not allowed back in.

The BBC's Justin Webb, at the UN, says Mr Bush is giving the multilateral approach a chance - but is prepared to act alone if it does not work.

Speaking before President Bush, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan acknowledged that Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions and urged the country to end its recalcitrance "for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order".

"If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities," he said.

Mr Bush's address came as US Central Command - which oversees the war in Afghanistan and army operations in south-west Asia - announced plans to send 600 of its headquarters' staff to the Gulf state of Qatar, near Iraq, for a training exercise in November.

To back up the president's speech, the Bush administration released a 22-page document recording what it said was "Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations" on Thursday.

BAGHDAD - A US ultimatum to disarm or face war failed this weekend to sway Baghdad, which stands steadfastly against UN weapons inspections unless tied to the lifting of the hated sanctions regime.

President George Bush on Saturday drew up a list of 16 UN resolutions with which Iraq had failed to comply and demanded the world body "show some backbone" or become irrelevant.

Iraq hit back, accusing Bush of shame-faced lying to win international support for an early attack.

"We are preparing for the worst, to resist the attack and to protect ourselves and our people," Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said Saturday night.

Aziz denied once again that Iraq possessed or sought to develop weapons of mass destruction as Bush charges.

"The target for Bush and his administration is not weapons of mass destruction, rather he and Blair intend to attack Iraq using any excuse," Aziz said.

The message to Baghdad from Washington and London, which seek to oust the regime, was, Aziz said, "You are condemned whatever you do."

"The Iraqis may agree to the return of weapons inspectors at the last minute, but this time there is a risk it will be too late," the diplomat warned.

"No new offer from Iraq has a chance of succeeding, apart from agreement to the immediate and unconditional return of inspectors," he added.

Bush's speech to the United Nations on Thursday did not specifically mention weapons inspections, halted in 1998, and considered a waste of time by some senior figures in the US administration.

But the US president has called on the world body to shoulder its responsibilities.

"The UN will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out," Bush said.

In London, Washington's closest ally, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also sought to step up the pressure telling the Security Council to warn President Saddam Hussein that his regime must go unless the weapons issue is settled.

"Either he deals with those weapons of mass destruction or his regime will have to end. But the choice is his, and he hasn't got much time to make up his mind," said Straw.

However, so far even the public determination of France and Russia, Iraq's traditional supporters on the security council, to see weapons inspectors back at work, has not moved Saddam, who demands an end to the embargo imposed in 1990 for invading Kuwait.

France has warned Iraq not to think it can divide the international community and Russia pointed out that it will only sign a multi-billion dollar economic deal with Baghdad after the return of inspectors.

The deadlock looks unbreakable and the countdown to war inevitable unless, as Aziz has said, "a magic formula" can be found by Kofi Annan.

"When I met with Mr. Annan in Johannesburg (on the sidelines of the Earth Summit), I told him 'please find a formula, find the magic formula to reach a conclusion so that we can avoid the war on the one hand and we can also head towards a peaceful future with the lifting of sanctions, with the normalisation of our relations with the US, the UK and whoever wants to have normal relations with Iraq'," Aziz said.

US demands total impunity on war crimes

With the Bush administration gearing up for a “preemptive” war against Iraq, Washington this week dispatched a senior US diplomat, Marisa Lino, to Europe to demand that the governments of the European Union (EU) agree to a blanket exemption of all US citizens from the jurisdiction of the newly formed International Criminal Court.

In May, the US formally rejected the treaty establishing the ICC, the first permanent international institution dedicated to trying cases of genocide, war crimes and other human rights abuses. Now it is insisting that governments around the world sign bilateral treaties agreeing not to turn over any American citizens in the event that they are indicted by prosecutors at the court.

With the more impoverished and former colonial countries, Washington has threatened to cut off aid unless agreements are signed. As far as the regimes in Eastern Europe, it has threatened to block their membership in NATO. Already sharp tensions between the US and its Western European allies were exacerbated last month when Washington succeeded in signing a treaty with Romania before the EU was able to cobble together a common position on the US ultimatum.

That position, agreed to in late September, granted extensive immunity to American citizens from prosecution before the court. It allowed every member state within the EU to sign agreements with Washington exempting all US soldiers and diplomats serving abroad from the court’s jurisdiction. The Bush administration had publicly pitched its opposition to the treaty as a defense of US soldiers serving in “peacekeeping operations” from the threat of “politically motivated” prosecutions.

While the EU decision provoked sharp criticism from human rights groups and supporters of the court, who warned that it would severely undermine the new institution, the cave-in by the European powers—led by Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair—did not go far enough to satisfy Washington.

Lino, the former US ambassador to Albania, is now assigned full-time to scuttling the ICC. She is demanding that the EU widen the immunity to include all US citizens, whether they are serving in the military or government or not, and whether they are abroad or in the US. In short, she is demanding that the European governments provide a full guarantee that no US citizen would ever be turned over to the court for any reason whatsoever.

The Bush administration is not so much concerned that US soldiers will be dragged before the court, as it is worried that Bush himself, his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Richard Cheney and others at the top of his administration could face indictments.

Concern over potential international legal action against leading American officials has grown over the past several years, partly in response to multiple attempts by courts in Europe and Latin America to charge or question former secretary of state Henry Kissinger in connection with the CIA-organized coup in Chile in 1973 and the subsequent wave of US-backed repression that claimed tens of thousands of lives throughout South America’s Southern Cone.

The statutes founding the ICC specifically rule out its adjudication of atrocities committed before the court’s formation. Some legal analysts, however, have argued that Kissinger could still be tried because of the nature of the crimes committed by the Latin American dictatorships that he helped bring to power. Many of their victims were abducted by military and police squads and subsequently “disappeared,” with no accounting to this day for their deaths. Since their cases remain unresolved, there is a possibility that fresh charges could be laid.

The Bush administration is particularly anxious to get immunity agreements signed before it launches its war against Iraq. John R. Bolton, the US undersecretary for arms control and international security, flew to London and Paris last week to put further pressure on the European governments.

The timing and the nature of the US campaign of diplomatic intimidation underscores a crucial motive behind the Bush administration’s repudiation of the ICC. Top US officials are fully conscious that they are preparing actions against the people of Iraq that would be prosecutable before the court.

In reality, the court’s rules, crafted at a United Nations-sponsored conference in Rome in 1998, provide ample assurance that no leader of a major power, nor, for that matter, any US soldier charged with atrocities overseas, would ever be placed in the ICC’s dock. In particular, the court’s rules bar it from prosecuting any one charged with war crimes if their government is conducting its own investigation, even if such a probe does not result in charges.

Despite the extreme improbability of a UN-sponsored institution attempting to bring American officials to justice, the Bush administration is not taking any chances. The war that Washington is preparing against Iraq fits the definition of war crime too well.

First and foremost, under its announced doctrine of “preemptive” attack, the Bush administration is planning an unprovoked war of aggression, a recognized war crime and the principal charge leveled against Germany’s Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

Moreover, the type of war the US is preparing will, without question, involve the slaughter of unarmed Iraqi civilians. The American military’s own “weapons of mass destruction,” from cruise missiles, to fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs and napalm will all be brought into play against a relatively defenseless and already war-devastated nation.

As part of its plans for “regime change,” the US government is already advancing plans for a war crimes tribunal against Saddam Hussein and other senior leaders of Iraq’s Baathist regime. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer indicated this week that the Bush administration would seek the creation of a special international tribunal. Asked why Washington did not sign on to the ICC and use that body to conduct such a trial, Fleischer declared that the international court “has nothing to do with” the US proposal for trying the Iraqi president. “What worked for Serbia, will work again,” he added.

In other words, Washington will seek another “ad-hoc” tribunal like the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), set up for the purpose of trying Slobodan Milosevic and other Serb officials. A politically motivated indictment of Milosevic was issued as a means of justifying a 79-day US-led NATO air war against Serbia that left thousands dead and much of the industrial and social infrastructure of the former Yugoslavia in ruins.

No doubt, a similar indictment is forthcoming against Saddam Hussein. It will recapitulate the charges repeated again and again by Bush and his administration about the Iraqi regime’s use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war 20 years ago and in its suppression of the Kurds.

It is also certain that if another ad hoc court is formed, its mandate will ensure that the former members of the Reagan administration who supplied the Iraqi regime with biological weapons materials and provided intelligence to the Iraqi military that aided them in making their attacks on the Iranians will not be tried as accomplices.

The main purpose of such a court would be to dispense the “justice” of the victor against the vanquished, legitimizing a US conquest of Iraq, while ensuring that no precedent is established that could be used to hold the US itself accountable to universally accepted standards of international conduct.

The repudiation of the International Criminal Court is only the latest chapter of Washington’s refusal to subordinate itself to international law. In 1984, when the International Court of Justice—a body that is supposed to settle conflicts between UN member states—found the US in violation of international law for mining Nicaraguan harbors, the Reagan administration simply rejected its authority.

Now, Washington is preparing to launch an invasion of Iraq in the name of enforcing United Nations resolutions, even as it seeks to sabotage the international court formed by the UN with the ostensible purpose of preventing crimes against humanity. This apparent contradiction merely exposes the criminal and predatory nature of the Bush administration’s war aims.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/icc-o12.shtmll

Bush at the United Nations

Ultimatum for Iraq

Views from Beirut, Warsaw, Lima, Santiago, Milan, Sofia, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Oslo, Karachi, Istanbul, London, and New Delhi

Beirut An-Nahar (independent), Sept. 15: The American president’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly weakens the position of the Arab and European countries that explicitly rejected a military operation against Iraq, as the speech allows for a return to “international legitimacy” by making any attack on Iraq dependent on Security Council approval....It might be important for the Iraqi president to realize at this stage that he will not receive any Arab support beyond speeches.

Warsaw Rzeczpospolita (centrist), Sept. 13: Today the U.N. has a last chance of proving that it can stand guard over world peace and security. For 11 years, Saddam Hussein’s regime has been leading the international community by the nose....If the U.N. is unsuccessful in solving the Iraqi problem now, then the sense of maintaining an organization that serves only to issue unsuccessful resolutions comes into question.

Lima El Comercio (centrist), Sept. 13: By going after Iraq as a rebel nation, President George W. Bush has put himself under the microscope of the system created to preserve peace....If we are looking for mechanisms to force Iraq to submit to U.N. resolutions, the U.N. must also stop any unilateral decision by the United States. —Juan Zegarra Salas

Santiago La Tercera (conservative), Sept. 13: Only [the U.N. mechanisms] permit coercive measures against a member state. In effect, they are the best defense for the weak countries in the face of any act of arrogance or imperialism on the part of the big powers.

Milan Corriere Della Sera (centrist), Sept. 13: We were waiting for an ultimatum to Saddam, but the one that was pronounced yesterday by George W. Bush is, in fact, an ultimatum to the U.N.....If the U.N. avoids facing the problem...it will be the U.N. and not the United States that loses legitimacy.
—Franco Venturini

Sofia Dnevnik (conservative), Sept. 12: Iraq may once again try to trick the international community by declaring at the last minute its willingness to accept U.N. arms inspectors. Thus military intervention could be presented as aggression....It would be no surprise if it all ended with a repetition of the precedent of the operation against Yugoslavia, when old but unimplemented resolutions did the job. After all, Saddam is no more acceptable than Slobodan Milosevic.

Jerusalem Al-Quds (pro-Palestinian Authority), Sept. 13: When Bush stood in front of the U.N. to talk about Iraq, he didn’t do so as the president of a member nation...but he spoke in such rhetoric of power that it signaled in no uncertain terms the ability of the United States to usurp the U.N.’s role.

Tokyo Asahi Shimbun (left-wing), Sept. 14: It is good that the United States has begun listening to global opinion. However, we regret that it is still evident that the United States places top priority on overthrowing the present Iraqi administration....What we want is not war. We want a resumption of inspections....The U.N. should strive to achieve a peaceful resolution, as its reputation is on the line.

Johannesburg Business Day (business-oriented), Sept. 13: This is the diplomatic break the world has been waiting for. It must be grasped....We must support what is right, and Bush did the right thing yesterday....Bush has now done enough to take key U.S. allies with him should the U.N. efforts fail.

Oslo Verdens Gang (independent), Sept. 13: Force is probably the only language Saddam Hussein understands. In that case, members of the Security Council, Norway included, must not leave the slightest doubt that they are prepared to use force to back up
the demands. This can be decisive in the high-level political game now being played.

Karachi Daily Jang (pro-government), Sept. 15: [Bush’s] speech was a declaration of the new prevailing world order, Might Is Right....Bush’s declaration to overthrow Saddam....is intervention in the internal affairs of a country and an open violation of the U.N. Charter that gives sanctity to people’s right of sovereignty....It will lead the world toward instability and ultimate destruction on a wide scale and range.

Istanbul Sabah (independent), Sept. 14: The Bush administration, in a way, has attempted to bribe Turkey economically in recent weeks to facilitate the use of her [military] bases for an attack on Iraq. It is true, Saddam is terrifying, a cruel dictator. But who created him? In the past, the Pentagon fed him with information so that he would attack Iran and kill many Iranians.

London The Sunday Times (conservative), Sept. 15: Blair’s own warlike speeches over the last few weeks about the dangers to the civilized world from dictatorial regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein might have mesmerized his master at the White House, but have certainly not convinced the vast majority of the British people or their elected representatives....The two Bs’ insistence on fighting terror and evil is just a fig leaf for their moral nudity. Like in Afghanistan, the fear is that the West will lose its oil supplies.

Christchurch The Press (conservative), Sept. 14: Even as [Bush] calls for a collective U.N. solution to the problem posed by Iraq, he makes it clear that the certain alternative is still unilateral action by the United States....The suspicion will be that he wants the U.N. to deliver an ultimatum, which Saddam could never accept—justifying an end by Mr. Bush to his presidential father’s unfinished business.

Madrid El Paํs (liberal), Sept. 13: George Bush gave an opportunity to the U.N. to act “decisively” against Iraq....But he made it clear that if the U.N. fails to act, the United States will take care of the issue....It’s a positive step on the part of an administration that lately has steered completely toward unilateralism.

Mexico City El Universal (conservative), Sept. 15: It’s necessary to place George W. Bush’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly in historic context. If we manage to do that, we’ll see that it is more rational than we might expect. Anyway, Hussein is in a difficult situation. And one has to be at least somewhat happy about that. That miserable dictator launched gases against the Kurd population and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
—Eduardo Valle

Jerusalem The Jerusalem Post (conservative, English-language), Sept. 13: In the 1930s, democratic Europe chose appeasement and paved the way for war and the Holocaust. Now President Bush has challenged the international community to break the cycle of petty gamesmanship and grasp the final opportunity to regain some moral legitimacy.

Dakar Sud Quotidien (independent), Sept. 15: Has Bush got a foreign policy? Or is he simply confused, powerful, and ignorant? Whatever the case, with the effect of his decision on the life of every citizen of this planet, it is high time we asked this question before he draws us into an imminent war with consequences no one can predict. Unable to find Bin Laden...Bush is ready to carry on his father’s vendetta.
—Saphie Ly

New Delhi The Times of India (conservative), Sept. 14: Mr. Hussein is undoubtedly no angel, but he hardly belongs to the same league as Al-Qaeda, which is regrouping, not in Iraq, but elsewhere....In the days to come, the unexplained shift from Osama to Saddam is likely to attract as much attention as the questionable legality of the expected U.S. military action in Iraq.

November 2002, World Press Review Vol. 49 No. 11 http://www.worldpress.org/article_model.cfm?article_id=870&dont=yes

United Nations -- The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution November 8 strengthening the weapons inspection regime for Iraq and giving Baghdad, in the words of the resolution, "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."

The resolution, number 1441, establishes an enhanced inspection regime for Iraq's disarmament, which will be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

All 15 council members voted for the resolution: permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and non-permanent members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria.

The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days.

It gives UNMOVIC and IAEA, among other things, unrestricted rights of entry and travel into and throughout Iraq; provides for U.N. security for the inspectors; gives the inspectors the right to freeze sites and declare exclusion zones; and gives them the right to conduct interviews, either inside or outside the country, without the presence of Iraqi officials. Most importantly, it gives the inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq, including so-called presidential sites.

The resolution directs Hans Blix, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, and Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, to "report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations." The council will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security," it says.

Finally, it warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution.

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by reCommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

United Nations Monitoring, Verification And Inspection Commission
The Executive Chairman

During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraq's acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.

During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.

In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed "sensitive sites" in the past. As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.

We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.

Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.

The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.

(a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed;

(b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis;

(d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at Inspectors' request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.).

NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.

Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.

Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.

Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.

On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation.

On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.

As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez-Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraq's national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.

Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraq's co-operation in all respect.

Hans Blix
Executive Chairman
United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission

Iraq 'accepts UN resolution'

Iraq says it has accepted the terms of the new UN Security Council resolution calling on the country to disarm - a move that apparently clears the way for the return of weapons inspectors.

Iraq's UN ambassador, Mohammed al-Douri, said he had delivered a letter to the UN Secretary General's office accepting the resolution "without conditions", but insisting that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

"The letter says that Iraq will deal with Security Council resolution 1441 despite its bad contents," Mr al-Douri said.

The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the BBC that Iraq had no choice but to comply.

But he also warned that Iraq must completely comply with the UN weapons inspectors.

"I think Iraq will be making a very great mistake if they think there are fissures in the Security Council of the kind they have exploited in the past," Mr Powell said.

“This time every nation is saying the same thing - co-operate, comply and disarm," he said. "It will be disarmed one way or another."

Britain gave a cautious welcome to the Iraqi announcement, but said Baghdad now had to provide the world with full details of any prohibited arms programmes.

"Iraq has now taken the first step. I welcome that," said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in a statement.

The move appeared to clear the way for UN inspectors to return to Iraq on Monday after a four-year absence, backed by threats of military action from the United States and Britain.

"We are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable," Mr al-Douri said.

"We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with international law as soon as possible."

Iraq had been given until Friday to accept the new UN resolution on disarmament or face "serious consequences".

On Tuesday, Iraq's parliament unanimously rejected the new resolution - although it left the final decision in the hands of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Wednesday's letter, which runs to nearly nine pages, is signed by the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri.

According to an unofficial translation obtained by Reuters, the letter denies that Baghdad has any weapons of mass destruction "whether nuclear, chemical or biological as claimed by evil people."

"The lies and manipulations of the American administration and the British Government will be exposed, while the world will see how truthful and adequate the Iraqis are in what they say and do."

The 15-member UN Security Council unanimously approved the new resolution on Iraq last Friday, after weeks of wrangling among its members. Even Syria voted in favour.

Iraq's apparent acceptance of the resolution's terms came after President George W Bush renewed his warning that the US would take military action to disarm Iraq if it refused to comply.

Mr Bush said on Tuesday that the time for negotiations was over and he repeated that if Saddam Hussein did not act, the US would.

"There's no more time," he said. "There is a zero tolerance policy now. The last 11 years have been a period of time when this guy [Saddam Hussein] tried to deceive the world and we're through with it."

The inspections team, to be headed by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was expected to head for Iraq on Monday.

The new UN resolution lays out firm ground rules for inspections, allowing inspectors to look for evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes anywhere and at any time - including in Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces.

Our correspondent says that despite the leadership's very serious reservations about the resolution, Baghdad knew it had no choice, as it faced a military confrontation with the world's only superpower.

President Bush could announce the formal US response to Iraq's declaration of its weapons programmes in a few days' time, White House officials have said.

In his first public comments on the issue, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said there were problems with the Iraqi document submitted on 7 December.

"We approached it with scepticism and the information I have received so far is that that scepticism is well-founded," Mr Powell said in Washington on Monday.

The Americans have said they will lead a coalition to disarm Iraq by force if it fails to co-operate fully with UN weapons inspectors, who are operating in the country after a four-year absence.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Monday that "it was abundantly plain, from the will of the United Nations, that this was Iraq's last chance to inform the world in an accurate, complete and full way what weapons of mass destruction they possessed".

Mr Powell said Washington's official response on the document would be forthcoming towards the end of this week, after the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix makes his presentation on the 12,000 page document to the Security Council.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says nothing has yet been set in stone, but it looks as if President Bush himself will deliver America's unfavourable verdict on the Iraqi document.

Our correspondent says it's understood that one of the problems that America will highlight is Iraq's failure to account for chemical and biological agents the country still possessed when the last inspectors let in 1998.

Meanwhile, the first samples collected by inspectors in Iraq have arrived at a laboratory in Austria run by the UN nuclear agency, where they will be analysed for any traces of a nuclear weapons programme.

An initial analysis of the eight samples will take two to three weeks, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the Associated Press news agency. Another 20 samples are expected by the weekend.

On a landmark visit to Britain the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, said he was optimistic the Iraq crisis could be resolved peacefully.

However, the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said there were clear differences in "views and emphasis" over Iraq between him and Mr Assad.

The UN Security Council resolution paving the way for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, adopted in November, warns Baghdad of "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with UN disarmament demands.

The IAEA has said it hopes to have screening results from the first samples by the time its director, Mohamed El Baradei, reports to the UN Security Council on 27 January.

UN arms inspectors entered six suspect sites on Monday, including a biomedical institute at Baghdad University - the first visit to an academic facility since inspections resumed three weeks ago.

And for a third day running, Monday saw inspectors visit al-Qa'qaa, a site that was involved in the final design of a nuclear bomb before UN teams dismantled the Iraqi nuclear programme following the 1991 Gulf War.

17 December 2002, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2581017.stm

As weapons inspectors return to Baghdad after a four-year absence, BBC News Online examines key moments in their chequered relationship with Iraq's leadership.

28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

3 May 2002: Unmovic and Iraqi officials hold talks - Mr Annan says they are the first to take place at technical level since December 1998.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

1 August 2002: Iraq says the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is welcome in Baghdad for "technical talks".

12 September 2002: President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly and warns Iraq that military action will be unavoidable if it does not comply with UN resolutions on disarmament.

16 September 2002: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has received a letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.

15 October 2002: Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a referendum on a new presidential term for him.

25 October 2002: US formally proposes a new resolution on disarming Iraq to the UN Security Council.

4 November 2002: Saddam Hussein says Iraq will comply with a new UN resolution as long as it does not serve as an excuse for US military action.

8 November 2002: UN Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution on Iraq's disarmament, warning of "serious consequences" for material breaches.

18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start their mission.

Iraq inspectors start aerial searches

United Nations inspectors have begun using helicopters for the first time in their search for banned weapons in Iraq.

Three UN helicopters left a military airport in Baghdad on Tuesday morning for a phosphate factory 450 kilometres (280 miles) west of the Iraqi capital.

Separately, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said inspectors have found nothing suspicious so far.

" We haven't yet seen any smoking gun "
Mohamed El Baradei IAEA head. Mohamed El Baradei said there was no evidence that Iraq had lied in its declarations on nuclear arms - but added that it was still too early to draw conclusions.

The phosphate factory the inspectors visited on Tuesday processed uranium before the 1991 Gulf War, UN spokesman Hiro Ueki said.

He said that the inspectors had planned to begin using helicopters last week but had to delay the operations for unspecified technical reasons.

Last month, the United States said the inspectors were not being "aggressive" enough and urged them to step up their investigations.

UN teams inspected at least five sites on Tuesday in addition to the phosphate factory.

Speaking at the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, Mr El Baradei said the agency's inspectors on the ground did not have a "smoking gun".

He added: "We're still very much in the process of an inspection and it's too early for us to come to any conclusion."

Earlier, weapons inspectors rejected an accusation by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that they were working as spies.

The US Central Command said Monday's targets were mobile radar stations that had been moved into the zone. Iraq said the targets were civilian.

It was the fourth time since the beginning of the year that planes of the US-UK coalition patrolling a "no-fly zone" in Iraq have struck.

IAEA experts are in Iraq to check for any signs of a prohibited atomic weapons programme.

Other inspectors from the UN Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission (Unmovic), are looking for biological or chemical weapons.

Last month Iraq presented a 12,000-page report on its weapons programmes. Some countries, including the US, have accused Baghdad of lying in that report.

Mr El Baradei and Unmovic chief Hans Blix are expected to give the UN Security Council a full report on Iraq's compliance with disarmament resolutions on 27 January.

The BBC's Rob Watson, in Washington, says the statement presents a potential problem for the US administration, which has been preparing for war.

Though US President George W Bush has always insisted that it is up to Iraq to prove that it is telling the truth - and not for the UN to show it is lying - the absence of concrete evidence will make it harder to convince critics at home and abroad that the use of force is necessary, our correspondent adds.

Mr El Baradei also said the IAEA needed more intelligence from members states about Iraq's alleged atomic programme.

"We've started to get some intelligence, but not as much as we'd like to see," he said.

Iraq inspectors prepare report

United Nations weapons teams have checked another eight suspect sites across Iraq amid fresh allegations that they are Western spies.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz renewed the attack on the inspectors, reiterating Saddam Hussein's contention that they are looking for commercial and military secrets, not banned weapons.

" The aggressors in Washington and London are preparing for a devastating aggression against... the people of Iraq " Tariq Aziz, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister. The chief inspector, Hans Blix, is preparing a further briefing on Iraq's weapons declaration for the Security Council on Thursday.

Military and diplomatic moves are also continuing, with some nations preparing for war while others hope for peace.

The inspectors - now equipped with helicopters to reach sites quickly - conducted surprise inspections at eight sites on Wednesday.

Chemical and biological weapons experts visited four of the sites, including the al-Tareq Public Company in Fallujah, 90 kilometres (55 miles) north-west of Baghdad.

The facility, known as Fallujah II, was allegedly a precursor production facility for chemical weapons.

The factory's chief, Saad Hazem, told reporters the site was a chlorine plant which had been visited six times by the inspectors in recent weeks.

"This is a civilian production facility. There is no military production here," he said.

The other four sites - including three cement factories in southern Iraq - were visited by nuclear and other experts.

Iraq has complied with the work of the inspectors who were sent back after the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution for Baghdad to show it had disarmed or face possible military action.

But there have been complaints that the inspectors have been overly intrusive, culminating in accusations by President Saddam Hussein this week that much of their doing was "pure intelligence work".

Mr Aziz repeated the claim that the inspectors were searching for something other than banned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

"They are searching for other information, information about the Iraqi conventional military capability, information about the Iraqi scientific and industrial capability in the civilian area, and also espionage questions," he told a visiting delegation from South Africa.

But despite the complaints that the inspectors are simply doing groundwork for an American invasion to seize Iraq's oil reserves, officials are continuing to co-operate, a UN spokesman said.

Mr Blix is expected to give further analysis of Iraq's weapons declaration in a closed-door meeting of the Security Council on Thursday.

He has already identified apparent gaps in what Iraq is believed to possess and what it admitted to in the 12,000-page document submitted to the UN as demanded by the Security Council.

Mr Aziz said the United States and Britain wanted war against Iraq, no matter what it did.

"The aggressors in Washington and London are preparing for a devastating aggression against... the people of Iraq and they would like once again to destroy the City of Peace [Baghdad] as they did in 1991," he said.

A European Union mission headed by Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou will visit seven Arab nations in an effort to avert war, it was announced.

Britain's Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, meanwhile, was in Ankara to discuss the possible use of Turkish bases and airspace should there be conflict.

Both Britain and the US have been deploying more troops and resources to the Gulf region.

But UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said again on Wednesday that final decisions on war had not been taken.

The findings of inspectors - to be delivered to the UN both on Thursday and in a report on 27 January - remain crucial though there would still be interpretation of the results by the international community, he told MPs in the House of Commons.

Bush's 'evil axis' comment stirs critics

There is mounting international concern about President George W Bush's grouping together of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil".

Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov of Russia, which sees all three as falling within its sphere of influence, questioned whether there was evidence to label the three an "axis of evil".Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Mr Bush's comments "a big mistake".

"First of all they (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) are very different from each other," she said.

Mr Bush made the comment during his State of the Union speech, claiming the three countries were developing weapons of mass destruction.

But there have been angry responses from the countries themselves, while several allies of the US have expressed fears that it is preparing to open a new front in its war against terrorism. But Mr Bush did get some backing, when Jordan's King Abdullah said he endorsed "tremendously that view and that position".

Nato's Secretary-General Lord Robertson has warned the US it will have to provide evidence to justify any action against Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

Nato gave the US its full support following the 11 September attacks, invoking Article Five of its founding treaty for the first time, which says an attack on one member is an attack on all.

But BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says that Lord Robertson's comments at the World Economic Forum in New York reflect Nato unease at expanding the war on terror.

President Bush maintained his tough stance on Friday, saying "all the three countries I mentioned are now on notice that we intend to take their development of weapons of mass destruction very seriously".

But he did hold out the prospect of talks with North Korea, saying the US would be "more than happy to enter into a dialogue" if the country made a clear statement of its peaceful intentions.

Mr Bush's bellicose remarks about North Korea, Iran and Iraq have raised concerns in Europe that the war on terrorism may spread in terms of geography and nature.

Previously, the targets had been shadowy terrorist groups like al-Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden and their sponsors.

But according to Mr Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the governments of Iran, Iraq and North Korea have now been "put on notice".

Our correspondent says the American attitude is not necessarily in line with those of its allies. South Korea would prefer talks to continue with the North and Iran has been the subject of recent British diplomatic approaches.

The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has said Britain will continue its dialogue with reformists in Iran, while sending what he called "strong messages" to hard-line elements within the government.

Mr Straw was speaking in Washington after holding talks with his American counterpart, Colin Powell.

The European Union also has a policy of engagement with the authorities in Tehran, which the BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says they have no intention of abandoning.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman described Mr Bush's State of the Union address as "little short of a declaration of war".

In a statement from the foreign ministry, Pyongyang said Washington's recent problems were "entirely attributable to the unilateral and self-opinionated foreign policy, political immaturity and moral leprosy of the Bush administration".

The US Central Intelligence Agency has released a report saying that North Korea sold numerous missiles to the Middle East and other areas of tension last year.

According to the report, the hard-line communist state is using the missile trade to fund its nuclear weapons programme.

Iraq, Iran and North Korea - referred to by the Clinton administration as "rogue states" - have been relabelled an "axis of evil" by President George W Bush.

Iraq President Bush's pointed reference to Iraq in his State of the Union address suggests that he intends to take some kind of action against Baghdad before the end of his presidency. Despite years of weapons inspections by the United Nations and international sanctions, Iraq is suspected of still wishing to pursue programmes to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and missile developments.

Analysts suggest the US would need to deploy at least 250,000 troops to seriously threaten Iraq's 383,000-strong army.

Iraqi forces are likely to be more resilient than in the Gulf War if the US objective is the removal of President Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi soldiers are already reported to be digging trenches in preparation, and the country's air defence systems have also been upgraded.

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I’m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that “somebody” was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr’s cry: “That man tried to kill my Daddy.” But it’s still not personal, this war. It’s still necessary. It’s still God’s work. It’s still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the truth about why we’re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, if he’s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes’ notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America’s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us — to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair’s part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can’t. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can’t get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain’s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that’s Britain’s tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair’s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world’s greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant’s head to wave at the boys?

Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it’s a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

“Because otherwise Mr Bush’s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him.”

“And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?”

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also Patriotic”. It was gone by the time he’d finished shopping.

The United States ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, has warned that the window for finding a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis is closing.

Mr Negroponte was speaking as the UN Security Council met in closed session to discuss the recent report by chief weapons inspectors.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday he hoped to win French support for any action against Iraq.

A BBC correspondent at the UN in New York says several of the 15 Security Council members attending Wednesday's meeting seemed unconvinced that the case against Iraq was proven.

"The time for diplomatic action is narrowing. The diplomatic window is closing," Mr Negroponte said.

"We feel that the time for decision-making is fast-approaching. We don't have a specific timetable in mind, but the situation is pressing."

In an interview with the French television station TF1, Mr Powell said "we've got to take action".

"And when the time comes, I hope France will study the situation carefully, and will be in a position to support any action that is required."

France, Russia and China - all permanent veto-wielding members of the Security Council - want weapons inspectors to be given more time.

The UK - also a permanent member - is standing with Washington as it threatens to lead a "coalition of willing countries" against Iraq unless it disarms.

Seven European leaders have given public support for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's stance on Iraq ahead of his summit with US President George W Bush on Friday.

In a joint article in the UK's Times newspaper, the leaders of Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark have joined Mr Blair in appealing for European unity in the drive to disarm Saddam Hussein.

However, none of the seven countries apart from Spain is a member of the UN Security Council whereas France and Germany - who remain sceptical about possible military action - are.

The European Union has said Iraq's disarmament must be handled in the United Nations.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - who denies having weapons of mass destruction - said on Wednesday that Baghdad would "break the neck" of the US if it attacked Iraq.

US defence officials say there are now nearly 90,000 US personnel in and around the Gulf.

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, indirectly acknowledged on Wednesday the presence of some US forces in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

He wouldn't be pressed on where US forces were, but said there were not "significant numbers in northern Iraq".

Mr Powell is to address a special meeting of the Security Council on 5 February, presenting what the US says is new evidence that Iraq has illegal weapons and is harbouring terrorists.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the details of what Mr Powell would say were still being worked out. But he said evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda had been growing daily.

Mr Bush told an audience in Michigan on Wednesday that the US had to deal with Saddam Hussein "before it is too late".

He said he wanted the United Nations "to be something other than an empty debating society".

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr Bush said Iraq had links to terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is due to meet President George W Bush on 31 January to discuss the Iraq crisis.

Both leaders have said that they do not believe Iraq has any intention of disarming in accordance with Security Council resolution 1441 and that they are prepared to launch a military campaign to ensure Iraq does so with or without UN backing.

Adopted on 8 November, resolution 1441 is designed to force Iraq to give up all suspected weapons of mass destruction.

But at any point, the inspectors can decide that their work is being obstructed and make a report to that effect.

Washington and London have already invoked the phrase that could trigger a war, accusing Iraq of being in "material breach" of resolution 1441 in a document detailing what weapons programmes it says it has.

It had been thought that the US and UK would go back to the Security Council to seek authorisation for military action.

This is looking more and more unlikely because France - a permanent member of the Security Council - and Germany - currently on the council - have said they are determined to prevent war in Iraq and that they will work together to achieve this.

In his State of the Union address on 28 January President George W Bush promised to reveal fresh evidence about Iraq's weapons programmes.

The US is planning to ask the UN Security Council to hold a special session on 5 February at which Secretary of State Colin Powell will present this evidence.

The UN weapons inspectors are expected to deliver another assessment of Iraqi co-operation to the Security Council on 14 February.

Military timing: The US has been assembling forces for possible military action in the region.

Military analysts say the expected deployment of 150,000 personnel in and around the Gulf by the second half of February would be enough to launch what the Pentagon calls a rolling start attack, with more reinforcements arriving rapidly after that.

Other analysts say the types of troop deployments announced by the US and UK indicate that a ground war could be launched from about the middle of March.

It is also possible that an air campaign might be launched in advance of the arrival of the full contingent of allied forces.

Washington will have to take into account that a delay beyond the end of January or early February in any decision to go to war would see conditions for allied troops fighting in Iraq begin to become dangerously hot as winter ends and summer approaches.

Temperatures in the Iraqi desert will begin to heat up by March. In July and August, the average temperature is more than 48 C (120 F).

Troops will have to be dressed in chemical protection gear the whole time, which will become extremely hot.

Also, April marks the beginning of Iraq's windy season, when sandstorms could severely reduce air operations.

However, senior officials have warned that the hot weather does not necessarily mean that a military campaign will be put off - it just makes it that much more difficult.

According to reports in the Washington Post newspaper, the Bush administration has set the last week in January as the point when it decides whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant a war against Iraq.

US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair will seek to agree on the plan when they meet at Camp David on Friday.

The British position has hardened up over the past few days to come into line with the American position.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has said for the first time that Iraq is in "material breach" of resolution 1441.

British officials now acknowledge that Mr Blair's call for inspectors to be given "time and space" no longer applies since, in the British view, Iraq is not giving the inspectors the co-operation they need.

On 5 February, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, will present the American case against Iraq to the UN Security Council.

On 14 February, the chief weapons inspectors Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohammed ElBaradei are expected to make a further report.

British officials indicate that there will be no moves to get a second UN resolution to specifically authorise force against Iraq before then.

They say that it would be illogical to act before the inspectors have reported again.

However, if the inspectors say that nothing has changed, the second resolution might well be introduced immediately afterwards.

The UK Government is quietly optimistic that it can get a second resolution passed if Iraq continues to fail the inspectors' tests.

The US and UK are prepared to act without a resolution if they think it necessary.

Whether Iraq will be given a last, last chance and be set a deadline - some have spoken of 1 March - remains to be determined.

In the meantime the troop build-up continues and at some stage, probably in March, the diplomatic course will run out and the military action will begin.

The 5 February presentation will be designed to be the "Colin Powell moment" - comparable to the "Adlai Stevenson moment" in 1962, when photographic evidence showing Soviet missiles in Cuba was displayed.

Some of it is just inference, working out what material has not been properly accounted for.

Eagerly awaited is any hard evidence to back up American and British claims of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Now, both Mr Bush and Mr Blair are making such claims, while both refuse to offer any supporting facts.

The Foreign Office in London says simply that "there have been, and still are, some al-Qaeda operatives in parts of Iraq controlled by Baghdad".

Sceptics about the case for war also point to a weakness in a claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union address.

He said that Iraq had "attempted to purchase high strength aluminium tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production".

In fact, what the chief nuclear inspector Dr ElBaradei reported on 27 January was that these tubes, which Iraq has admitted trying to import illegally, were consistent with the Iraqi claim that they were to be made into 81mm rockets.

Dr ElBaradei said in his written report that "while it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for such use".

Mr Powell cannot afford to be so economical with the truth as Mr Bush if he is to have his moment.

Another claim by Mr Bush that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" is also not quite the whole story.

The government of Niger, named by the US State Department as the country concerned, has said that Iraq did ask for uranium in the 1980s but was refused.

The UK Government dossier on Iraq did not use the word "recently", though it implied that it must have been, and did not support its claim with any evidence.

President George W Bush says he will present fresh evidence to the UN next week about Iraq' s weapons programme, and has vowed to lead a military campaign if the Iraqis do not disarm.

In his State of the Union speech Mr Bush told Congress: "We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding - if Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

He listed a number of banned weapons Iraq had failed to account for and accused President Saddam Hussein of lying to the world.

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb says the address was not quite a declaration of war - but it came close.

The question on everyone's lips was whether or not Mr Bush was preparing his people for war. Our correspondent says the answer seems to be yes.

In the address, the US president also highlighted domestic issues - including the economy, taxes, and healthcare.

Although there are nearly two years to go before the next presidential election, analysts say Mr Bush's performance could be vital in reversing a downward trend in his popularity.

In their response, the opposition Democrats have criticised the president's economic plans - but supported him on Iraq.

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm," Mr Bush said.

"He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.

Mr Bush announced that he would ask the United Nations Security Council to meet on 5 February to consider "Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world".

He said Secretary of State Colin Powell would present intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs, "its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups".

Our diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason said the question now is whether America's evidence about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction turns out to be detailed, new or convincing.

"Most intriguing is whether the Bush administration can give substance to its vague charge of links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda," he said.

"But in any case, the President's speech makes it clearer than ever that he is already in wartime rhetorical mode."

In his hour-long address, Mr Bush touched on a range of foreign and domestic policy issues.

· North Korea's nuclear programme: "America and the world will not be blackmailed."

· Health care: "we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy."

In their response to the speech, the Democrats attacked the president's economic plan.

"We think it's upside down economics," Washington state Governor Gary Locke said on behalf of the minority Democrats.

"It does too little to stimulate the economy now and does too much to weaken our economic future," he said.

The Democrats have opposed President Bush's plan to cut taxes on shareholders' dividends, saying the move would favour the wealthy.

However on Iraq and nuclear proliferation Mr Locke backed the president - although he stressed the need for international consultation.

"We also support the president in working with our allies and the United Nations to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il of North Korea," Mr Locke said.

"We support the president in the course he has followed so far - working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections."

President Bush's promise to produce proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been cautiously welcomed by other key members of the United Nations Security Council.

France and Russia both said they would consider evidence supplied by the United States carefully.

There were words of warning from other states about the State of the Union speech, in which Mr Bush made clear America was ready to act unilaterally if necessary.

"Everybody in the region and in the world knows Iraq has no connection with al-Qaeda," Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said.

Meanwhile, a government spokesman in America's close ally Britain "endorsed wholeheartedly" Mr Bush's message on Iraq.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said he welcomed Mr Bush's pledge to produce evidence at the meeting of the Security Council scheduled for 5 February.

"For several weeks now we have been asking all of those who have particular information... to give this information to the [UN weapons] inspectors," he said.

But, in a reference to his country's long-standing opposition to unilateral military action by the US, he added that "the majority of the world community not only understands this position but shares it".

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also called on the US to give its evidence to the weapons inspectors, but warned against countries acting alone:

"You can only succeed in the fight against international terrorism by strengthening the anti-terrorist coalition."

There was no immediate reaction to Mr Bush's speech from China, which along with America, Russia and France and the UK has a permanent seat on the Security Council and therefore the power of veto.

Kuwait, a key ally for the US in the event of war, appeared to endorse many points in President Bush's speech.

Defence Minister Sheikh Jabir Mubarak al-Hamad al-Sabah said the US leader was right to say that Saddam Hussein was not to be trusted.

"Kuwait has said more than once that we prefer that the decision is international," he added, but "if it isn't, the political leadership will have to consider where our interest lies."

In the breakaway Kurdish region of northern Iraq, a senior member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Latif Rashid, predicted after the US president's speech that war would begin "in a matter of weeks, not months".

In the Gaza Strip, the spiritual leader of the Hamas group, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, accused America of being guided by Israel.

"The battle America is undertaking is designed to allow Israel to remain in the Palestinian homeland," he told Reuters news agency.

Tony Blair travels to Spain on Thursday to complete a week of intense diplomatic activity ahead of crucial talks on the Iraq crisis with President Bush.

Mr Blair's meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar in Madrid, follows telephone discussions with the leaders of France, Italy, Canada, Australia, Turkey and Greece.

In Washington, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said he hopes Britain's prime minister will act as a restraining influence on the US president at Friday's meeting.

Earlier, eight European leaders urged all of Europe to stand united behind America in its tough stance on Iraq.

The premiers, including Mr Blair and those of Spain, Denmark and Italy, wrote in a joint article in The Times: "Our strength lies in unity."

Notable exceptions were France and Germany, both members of the UN Security Council, which may be asked to vote on launching an attack on Iraq.

Among the signatories of the statement, only the UK and Spain are also Security Council members.

In the article, which was also published in the Wall Street Journal, the leaders of the UK, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark say the attacks of 11 September on America "were an attack on us all".

They go on to say this week's UN weapons inspectors' reports have confirmed Iraq's practice of "deception, denial and non-compliance".

"We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed," say the leaders.

The leaders argued the UN's credibility and world stability will suffer if a dictator is allow systematically to violate UN resolutions.

US Defense Secretary Mr Rumsfeld last week dismissed France and Germany as "old Europe" and said the vast majority of EU leaders were "with the United States on this".

Adding a voice of moderation in Washington, Mr Daschle emphasised the importance of Mr Blair's visit.

He said: "I think it's important, however one characterises it, that we do not rush to war, that we take this very, very deliberately and cautiously.

"And I hope he [Mr Blair] will express those words - the need for caution again - when he comes to Washington."

On Wednesday evening, Mr Blair met Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi in Downing Street, adding to his series of phone talks with world leaders this week.

Mr Berlusconi said: "I think we will find incontrovertible evidence against Iraq."

In a phone call on Tuesday, French President Jacques Chirac told Mr Blair nothing justified war at the moment, according to a French spokeswoman.

Downing Street upped its persuasion campaign on Wednesday when it said there was evidence al-Qaeda "operatives" were being sheltered in Iraq.

Mr Blair's official spokesman for the first time explicitly linked al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, which flatly denied the claim.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, speaking on the American ABC television network, challenged the US to produce any evidence of its claims of al-Qaeda links.

Mr Aziz said: "Everybody in the region, everybody in the world knows Iraq has no connection with al-Qaeda."

Mr Blair said that after Iraq had been "dealt with", North Korea would have to be confronted through the UN.

About 100 peace protesters gathered outside Downing Street on Wednesday evening, while more than 200 people attended an anti-war rally in Bristol.

The US economy slowed alarmingly in the final quarter of 2002, growing at an annual rate of just 0.7% due to uncertainty caused by talk of war.

The preliminary result was below analysts' expectations of 1% growth, after the economy grew by 4% in the third quarter.

It will be unwelcome news for President George W Bush - who is threatening a unilateral attack on Iraq - after he proposed $674bn in tax cuts to stimulate the economy ahead of his re-election campaign in 2004.

The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday left its key interest rate at a 41-year low of 1.25%.

The central bank has cut interest rates 12 times since January 2001, with the last reduction coming in November 2002, to kick-start the troubled economy.

Meanwhile, minutes of the Fed's December meeting, released on Thursday, show the policymakers believed they were laying the foundations for recovery by deciding to keep rates on hold.

The central bankers put their faith in improved market conditions, the document suggests.

"The members agreed that, given what was now a quite accommodative policy following the relatively aggressive easing move in November, monetary policy was well positioned to support a strengthening economic expansion in line with their expectations for coming quarters," minutes of the Federal Open Markets Committee's (FOMC) 10 December meeting said.

Meanwhile, Wall Street bond dealers polled by Reuters on Thursday said they expected the Fed to leave interest rates on hold at its next meeting in March.

Looking further ahead, dealers were sharply divided over when the Fed will start to gradually increase interest rates again.

Thursday's GDP figures show overall US growth for 2002 was 2.4% compared with the 0.3% recorded in 2001, during which the economy fell into recession.

The latest data represents the weakest quarterly growth since the third quarter of 2001.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the US economy, rose just 1% in the quarter compare with 4.2% in the previous one, making it the weakest quarter of consumer spending since the first quarter of 1993.

The Department of Commerce's first estimate of quarterly growth always involves assumptions about the final month of the quarter, and revises the figure twice.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is on his way to his key summit with US President George Bush after telling the world to steel itself for disarming Iraq.

Mr Blair used a stopover visit to Madrid for talks with his Spanish counterpart to appeal for unity between Europe and America.

"When we stand together the world is a more secure and more peaceful place," said Mr Blair amid European splits over Iraq. His latest round of intensive diplomacy comes after it was announced 4,500 more UK reservists are to be called up ahead the possible war, making about 6,000 in total.

The UK is ultimately expected to have a military presence totalling around 30,000 personnel in the Gulf.

Mr Blair put on a firm united front with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, with both men stressing Saddam Hussein had a "last chance" to disarm.

Mr Blair said: "It is only a matter of time before these threats come together in a devastating way."

The focus on Iraq did not mean concerns about North Korea's weapons would be dropped, he said, adding that the UN would soon discuss the North Korea situation.

Both men outlined their desire for a second UN resolution on Iraq, with Mr Blair saying such a text had been discussed.

But the UK premier repeated his insistence that an "unreasonable" veto should not be a bar to action.

Earlier, Mr Blair told reporters travelling with him: "We have to stick to the strategy we have laid out, which is very clear.

"There has been plenty of opportunity for Saddam to comply with the weapons inspectors. He has not done so at the moment."

Mr Blair added that he believed the international community would "follow through" if Saddam continues to fail to comply with UN resolutions.

Their comments came as UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix asked for more time, but said there was no evidence of increased cooperation from Iraq.

Its Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, has also flatly denied Downing Street suggestions al-Qaeda "operatives" are being sheltered in Iraq with the regime's knowledge.

Anti-war Labour MP George Galloway told BBC One's Question Time that terror groups in London "would be a much greater danger after we have bombed and burned Iraq".

Mr Galloway is due to be joined by celebrities Jeremy Irons, Corin and Vanessa Redgrave and Bianca Jagger at an anti-war news conference on Friday.

In Washington, the Democratic leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said he hoped Britain's prime minister will act as a restraining influence on the US president at Friday's meeting.

On Thursday Mr Blair was among eight European leaders who have united to back the US stance on Iraq.

Both France and Germany - dubbed "old Europe" by the American defense secretary - are concerned that UN weapons inspectors are not going to be given enough time in Iraq.

French President Jacques Chirac, was one of the many leaders to speak to Mr Blair this week. He told the UK premier on Tuesday that nothing currently justified war, according to a French spokeswoman.

In their newspaper article, the leaders of the UK, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Denmark said the attacks of 11 September on America "were an attack on us all".

They argued this week's UN weapons inspectors' reports confirmed Iraq's practice of "deception, denial and non-compliance".

The article was welcomed by President Bush, who voiced his appreciation for the "statement of solidarity with the United States".

If oil is the question, Iraq is not the answer. Some people say the Iraq crisis has been manufactured to cloak an "oil grab" by the United States and the American oil industry. Others believe that a liberated Iraq will flood the world market with cheap oil and provide a quick fix for concerns about our energy security.

These perspectives, while very different, are based on a fundamental misperception - of both scale and timing. Yes, Iraq is a major oil country, with the world's second largest known reserves. But in terms of production capacity, Iraq represents just three per cent of the world's total. Its oil exports are on the same level as Nigeria's. Even if Iraq doubled its capacity, that could take more than a decade. In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to perhaps five per cent, significant but still in the second tier of oil nations.

But even that scenario assumes that Iraq will welcome foreign investors on a reasonable timetable - and, history tells us, that is not a foregone conclusion. After the 1991 Gulf War, a liberated and grateful Kuwait announced that it would open its oil industry to foreign investment in order to boost production.

Eleven years later, that still has not happened, owing to nationalistic opposition in Kuwait's parliament. While this crisis is focused on overall security - Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - there is a clear energy dimension to the confrontation: the security and stability of the Gulf region, from which flows almost a quarter of the world's oil.

Saddam Hussein's drive to dominate the region is obvious and cannot be dismissed. He invaded Iran in 1980 and then, a decade later, invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. The other Gulf states have no love for him, and with good reason. But it requires several leaps of logic - as well as inattention to developments in the rest of the world's markets, particularly in Russia, the Caspian region and West Africa - to conclude that the current Iraq crisis is all about oil. No US administration would launch so momentous a campaign just to facilitate a handful of oil development contracts and a moderate increase in supply - half a decade from now.

How would a Gulf without Saddam affect the future of Iraqi oil? The discussion now underway in Washington and elsewhere - which takes place under the rubric of "the day after" - is dominated more by the uncertainties and risks than the benefits. The most immediate question involves a possible war, and the resulting damage that it might do to Iraq's output at the very moment when a new regime would desperately need oil revenues to secure its own stability.

There also is much apprehension that Saddam would torch Iraq's oil facilities in a Pyrrhic defeat. That is exactly what Iraqi forces did on their way out of Kuwait in 1991. It took eight months to extinguish the fires in the Kuwaiti oil fields. This time, however, some Iraqi commanders might be loath to obey any such orders, as they would have to answer after the war for their actions.

The next critical issue, when "the day after" arrives, will be the question of authority. Who would be in charge? If there is a temporary military government, either UN- or US-led, it would be preoccupied with establishing firm control over Iraq's weaponry and laying the basis as quickly as possible for a new Iraqi government with broad representation. It would certainly be focused on security, including the oil facilities.

After all, the country earns the bulk of its living by exporting oil. For that reason, a temporary military authority would be keen to see the "new" Iraq maximize its oil earnings. But a military authority is unlikely to want to get much involved in the decision-making about the future of the industry. Rather, it will try to push the responsibility into the hands of a new Iraqi government - or an interim group of technocrats.

A new Iraqi government, for its part, will just as surely want to get its hands on its number one economic resource so that it can generate revenue for reconstruction and development. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It has the means, through oil, to pay for rebuilding the country. At the same time, a new government would also be determined to bolster its sovereignty, legitimacy and nationalist credentials - all of which will be essential requirements for holding the country together. This ensures that Iraq will be a very tough negotiator when it sits down with the oil companies.

It is often assumed in the "it's all about oil" discussions that Iraq would turn over its current 2.8 million barrels per day of production capacity to international companies - that this is the new "prize" up for grabs. But that is another shaky assumption. If the new Iraqi government brings in foreign companies, it will have to split revenue - keeping perhaps 88 cents of every dollar of earnings for itself, with 12 cents or so going to the companies. Why not keep the whole dollar for itself and simply buy what it needs in terms of technology and equipment for the existing fields?

What a post-Saddam government will need is capital - lots of it - for exploration and new production from its currently undeveloped fields. And that is where a new regime is likely to turn to international oil companies. But which ones?

It will have no shortage of suitors. Once things are clear, companies will be eager to get in line to sign contracts with a country that has 11 per cent of the world's proven reserves. (Saudi Arabia, the highest, has 25 per cent; the United States, just two). But they will be very cautious when it comes to spending billions of dollars until they are pretty confident about security and stability - and "stability" applies not only to the new regime but also to the contracts they sign.

Companies from several countries - Russia, France, Italy and China, among others - already hold contracts, but they are not operational because of UN sanctions still in place. Companies without contracts, including the American ones, will have to assess how much time and trouble they are willing to bear.

For the oil companies, the big issue, wherever they operate in the world, is how to manage the range of risks - from the geological to the political. In response, they often work together in consortia and partnerships. This approach hedges their bets, spreads their investments and diversifies their portfolios.

And that is likely to be the outcome for Iraq. The companies with existing contracts will likely team up with other companies - American, European, Canadian, Australian, Japanese - to form new partnerships. Such partnerships would meet the crucial need of a new Iraqi government, which would want to strengthen its position by dealing with a diversified political portfolio of companies representing many different nationalities.

None of this will take place swiftly. It might take a new regime a year or so just to get things organized and begin to negotiate contracts. When it does, it will have to face the deteriorating condition of the Iraqi oil industry. Production capacity has dropped from its peak of 3.5 million barrels a day in 1980, before the Iran-Iraq war, to about 2.8 million barrels per day and falling.

Reservoirs have been damaged by years of mismanagement. The infrastructure - whether wells, pipelines, pumping stations or ports - is in poor shape. Equipment is rusting and malfunctioning. Environmental considerations are widely ignored.

To get back to 3.5 million barrels could take three years or more, at an estimated cost of at least seven billion dollars. This would put Iraq back into the leagues of Norway, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Mexico and Venezuela. Another two million barrels per day would require a major push, and it would still leave Iraq several rungs below the capacity of the Big. Three producers - Saudi Arabia, the United States and Russia. Making that leap to 5.5 million barrels a day would come sometime after 2010 - at a cost of upwards of $20 billion.

As its output increased, Iraq would begin jostling its neighbours for market share. That would not, however, give Iraq enough clout to be an OPEC-buster. It would not have the ability to "flood" the market. Nor the desire. Its intense need for revenues would make it much more interested in oil at $20 or $25 a barrel, rather than at a cut-rate of $10.

By the year 2010, world oil demand, driven by countries such as China and India, could be almost 90 million barrels a day - 17 per cent greater than today. And where will that oil come from? Here is where the picture grows more complex.

One can already see the beginning of a large contest. On one side are Russia and the Caspian countries, primarily Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan; on the other side, the Middle East, including Iraq. Over the last three years, spurred by what has been called "the miracle in the Russian oil fields," Russian output has increased by about 25 per cent, to eight million barrels a day. The race heated up with the recent announcement by four Russian oil companies of their intention to build a new Arctic port to export directly to the United States.

Right now, Russia and the Caspian nations seem to have the edge in this race. All that, however, is subject to change. The outcome will be determined not only by geology and the balancing of opportunity and risk by companies, but also by political and economic stability and by the decisions governments make.

But the prize of this larger race to meet growing world demand is very tangible - by 2010, an additional $100 billion or more a year in oil revenues flowing into national treasuries. After "the day after," Iraq will be in a better position to compete for its share. But it will be only one of several strong contestants.-Dawn/ Washington Post Service.

The morality of war

For the moment the great debate about going to war with Iraq is cast almost exclusively in the dark shades of realpolitik - will it achieve its objective and disarm Iraq once and for all?

Will it lead to the introduction of a pro-western democratic regime? Will it open the way for a realignment of dictatorial Arab regimes that tolerate, even encourage, anti-American feeling? But the morality of war is given very short shrift.

Last month Pope John Paul 11 spoke out, saying war in Iraq "would be a defeat for humanity". Many people, of many different cultures and persuasions often tack to a common standard when it comes to the making of war - at least in principle.

Buddhist teaching asks, "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hateful". Confucianism asks, "Do not to others what you would have them do to you." Hindu teaching says, "This is the sum of duty: do not to others what would cause you pain if done to you." Islam, one of the most pacific of religions, preaches, "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself". Judaism, although it is known for its precept of an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" also talks of "what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow men".

All these admonishments have been pulled part and broken to pieces by the adherents of all religions. The most bellicose of the great faiths is Christianity whose European followers were nearly always at war until finally they were awoken from their folly by the two biggest wars of all time and created in the aftermath the European Union to bind them together. Christ's teaching rejecting an eye for an eye and asking us to "turn the other cheek" has rarely been taken at face value.

What is perhaps extraordinary is that occasionally someone who has been steeped in realpolitik and some of its most bloody compromises should emerge as a spokesman for moral principles being applied to the making of war.

I am thinking of Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of Defence under presidents Kennedy and Johnson and was responsible for many of the decisions that led to the prolongation of the terrible war in Vietnam. One of his closest friends told me, "he bleeds inside for deeds done in Vietnam".

I am sure he does but perhaps no other high official who has commanded a war machine has done more to raise the level of the moral debate. One after the other, over the years, his articles and books have given us insights that have shown that it is possible to be concerned with the security of one's country without the reflex of always preparing for war.

McNamara is convinced there is a way to achieve a radical reduction in the killing of human beings if we think morally, rationally and with empathy towards those we are in conflict with. "Might war - especially Great Power war - be relegated, perhaps like slavery, to a cruel and primitive past?"

This is the total opposite of the way the great scholars of realpolitik and "realism" have argued it, such men as Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is convinced that "there have been no fundamental changes in the nature of international politics since World War 2 military competition between sovereign states will remain the distinguishing feature of international politics."

But are these "realists" in fact unreal in their analysis of our world? Perhaps they are blind to the danger of trying to intimidate, humiliate or coerce a nation whose self-image is that of an important power? We may intimidate them to do what we want in the short run but the memories of the humiliated tend to be long ones.

McNamara is convinced that current US policy which sees China and sometimes Russia as aspiring to challenge and defeat the US as perverse. "It creates enemies where there need not be enemies and it leads to missed opportunities for sustainable peace that may never come again."

It was the great British philosopher Isaiah Berlin who wrote that in addition to knowing the mind of an adversary we need empathy to grasp "the particular vision of the universe which lies at the heart of his thought". McNamara, who sat at Kennedy's right hand during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when the US and the Soviet Union came their closest to nuclear war, believes only Kennedy's empathy of what was going on in Khrushchev's mind saved the world from catastrophe.

We need this empathy with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il today. The US needs to talk to these men face to face at the highest level and see what it is that makes them feel so threatened that they lash out at all around them. It won't solve every problem, but it might avoid the recourse to a murderous and unnecessary war.-Copyright Jonathan Power.

America says it has proof that Saddam Hussein is hiding evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Even if the world is not persuaded by it, war is likely to break out within weeks

MILITARY strategists contend there always has to be some flexibility built into the timetable. And so there is. But for Saddam Hussein, the countdown to war has begun. President George Bush says the Iraqi dictator has only “a matter of weeks” to start actively co-operating with arms inspectors to prove that his country no longer has any programmes connected to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Failure to do that would mean America leading an invasion force to topple him, with or without a new United Nations resolution.

Nevertheless, an attempt will be made to get UN backing for military action. An indication of how successful that might be will come on Tuesday February 4th, when Tony Blair meets the French leader, Jacques Chirac. Britain’s prime minister is Mr Bush’s staunchest ally, but Mr Chirac opposes military action without UN support, and France wields a veto on the UN Security Council, as do Russia and China. Although America and Britain, the two other permanent members, are likely to remain united, Mr Blair faces a political backlash if he takes Britain to war without a new UN resolution.

France, along with several other countries, has demanded to see more evidence of Iraq’s attempts to conceal weapons of mass destruction. On Wednesday February 5th Colin Powell, America’s secretary of state, will present to the Security Council excerpts from American intelligence reports. But Mr Powell admits “there will be no smoking gun”. In an article for the Wall Street Journal, he says he will provide “straightforward, sober and compelling” proof that Iraq is hiding banned weapons. The evidence is said to include spy pictures of Iraqi forces moving weapons material from sites, and recordings of telephone conversations in which Iraqi officials boast about the deception. The reports, say American officials, will also show that Iraq has links to al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation blamed for the September 11th attacks on America. Yet that contention is already proving to be controversial.

Even before it has been presented, Iraq has dismissed America’s evidence as “fabricated space and aerial photos”. Iraq has also appeared to reject conditions put on a return visit to Baghdad by Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yet that visit could still take place at the weekend. The inspectors have been seeking concessions which include allowing interviews to be held with Iraqi scientists in the absence of government minders and letting American spy planes carry out surveillance flights.

Next week, the inspectors will report back to the Security Council. That meeting, scheduled for February 14th, will probably be Saddam's last chance to show that he is coming clean. In his report to the Security Council last month, Mr Blix said Iraq did not appear to have reached a “genuine acceptance” of the disarmament process that was demanded of it. While the inspectors have not found any strong evidence of banned arms activities, plenty of questions remain unanswered. These include the whereabouts of nerve gas, material for biological weapons, more than 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and 6,500 chemical bombs. Mr ElBaradei said his team had found no evidence that Iraq had resumed the nuclear programme it discontinued in the early 1990s, but he wanted several more months to complete the inspection work.

He will not get that long. With some 150,000 soldiers massing in the Gulf region, war does not look to be very far away. Mr Bush continues to maintain that Iraq is “a danger to the world” and that, while a new UN resolution backing military action to depose Saddam would be desirable, America is prepared to go to war without one.

Such a campaign could be launched swiftly, although it is likely that Saddam will be given one final chance to prevent the fighting. That might involve his agreement to go into exile. This idea has been floated by a number of Arab diplomats; Iraq's neighbours are desperate to avoid warfare in the region. American officials, however, think it highly unlikely that Saddam and members of his regime would ever agree to relinquish power and leave Iraq voluntarily. Some of Saddam’s officials have stated publicly that they will fight to the last. In a few weeks, they may have to.

The Economist, 03February 2003
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1562563

Powell issues virtual indictment of Iraq: UN warned against going back on resolutions

US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday issued a virtual indictment of Iraq, telling the UN Security Council to stand behind its resolutions or risk becoming irrelevant.

Stopping short of an ultimatum of war, Mr Powell, in his 90-minute presentation of intelligence material, told the council: "This body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately."

He claimed the United States had witness accounts that Iraq possessed mobile bioweapons laboratories.

"(Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction," Powell said. Expanding on the "irrefutable" evidence against Iraq, he said Baghdad had defied all calls for it to disarm.

He presented tape recordings, satellite photos and statements from informants to support his statement.

The council members, joined by Iraq's UN ambassador, sat around a large table with Powell and listened attentively.

Of the 15 council members, only the United States and Britain have voiced support for an invasion of Iraq.

Iraq's ambassador, Mr Mohammed al Douri, was invited to take a seat at the large circular table to listen to the US secretary of state's presentation and to make remarks afterward.

As he headed into the chamber, he was asked what message he would be delivering. "It's a message for peace," Al Douri said.

President Saddam, in an interview broadcast in London on Tuesday, denied his government had a relationship with the Al Qaeda or had weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech Mr Powell asserted that Iraq "bulldozed and graded to conceal chemical weapons evidence" at the Al Musayyib chemical complex last year, and had a series of cargo vehicles and a decontamination vehicle moving around at the site.

Accusing the Iraqi government of having links with the Al Qaeda, Powell told the council that members of the network had been operating freely in Iraq for more than eight months, and were using Baghdad to coordinate their activities.

He said the Al Qaeda's network in Iraq was headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an aide to Osama bin Laden who sought refuge in that country after escaping from Afghanistan.

The Jordanian government has implicated Mr Zarqawi in the assassination of a US diplomat in October. He has also been named in the plot to make ricin poison that was unearthed in London last month. He is connected with the Ansar-ul-Islam, a Taliban-style group that operates in Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq.

The alleged link between Iraq and the Al Qaeda was part of the highly anticipated presentation laying out what Mr Powell said was evidence that Iraq was developing biological and chemical weapons, and was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons.

China's foreign minister told the security council that it should allow UN arms inspectors in Iraq to carry on with their work.

"We should respect the views of the two [UN inspection) agencies and support the continuation of their work," Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said in his remarks after hearing the US secretary of state present Washington's case.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency "have been working very hard (and) it is their view that now they are not in a position to draw conclusions", he said.

Agencies add: Colin Powell accused President Saddam Hussein of showing nothing but contempt for the United Nations and humanity and said the United States would not allow him to remain in possession of weapons of mass destruction for even a few months longer.

"Saddam Hussein has shown contempt for the will of this council ... and utter contempt for human life," he said, adding: "Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him."

In addition, he alleged, Saddam had threatened Iraqi scientists with death if they divulged information to the inspectors, had ordered officials to hide correspondence on military industrialization and ordered the removal of prohibited weapons from key sites.

"Saddam Hussein and his regime are doing everything they can to make sure the inspectors find absolutely nothing," Powell said. He played two audiotapes of intercepted conversations between Iraqi officials that he said proved Baghdad's intent to deceive the inspectors.

The tapes, he said, were not "isolated incidents, but part and parcel of a policy of evasion and deception decided at the highest levels of the regime".

Mr Powell said proof of Iraq's nuclear ambitions dated back a decade and that in the early 1990s it had undertaken a "massive clandestine nuclear programme", developing sophisticated techniques of gas diffusion, gas centrifuge and laser isotope separation.

"If Saddam had not been stopped, he would have produced a bomb by 1993," he said. He said Baghdad had, between 1999 and 2000, negotiated with companies in India, Romania, Russia and Slovenia to buy magnets and other equipment needed in the production of nuclear weapons.

The secretary of state also said Iraq had the ability to produce the deadly smallpox virus that could be weaponized, maintaining that Baghdad had investigated dozens of biological agents that cause gas gangrene, plague, typhus, tetanus, cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever.

Ten years on from the Gulf War, Iraq is hoping that the West will start paying attention to its contaminated battlefields.
The controversy over depleted uranium ammunition used by Nato in the Balkans has also highlighted growing health problems in Iraq.

Similar weapons were used by the US-led coalition that drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The southern city of Basra near the Kuwait border has suffered the most from a dramatic rise in cancer and birth defects.

Dr Jawad, who works at the Cancer Hospital in Basra, says the rate of cancer has increased nine-fold since the Gulf War.

There are also birth defects not seen in Iraq before, and other diseases associated with exposure to radiation.

The Gulf War was the first time that depleted uranium weapons were used in conflict. DU bullets are cheap and virtually guaranteed to pierce any armour.

The allied forces fired at least 300 tonnes of it, littering the battlefield with residue that could remain radioactive for an immense period of time.

The US has denied there are any links with cancer, but now Baghdad feels it may finally get a hearing because of the Balkans controversy.

Isolating depleted uranium as the sole cause of any illness is difficult because the battlefield was a toxic soup of dangerous pollutants.

Iraq itself still has to account to the UN for an alleged store of chemical and biological weapons.

But it is turning the tables now by making its own demands.
Dr Sami al Arag, a scientist on a government panel studying the war's aftermath, believes that Iraq has the right to compensation.
"The people who have caused this damage to Iraq should be punished," he says. People in Basra live 70km from the old battlefield, but they buy vegetables grown near contaminated areas.
They breath air and drink water that could be polluted with radioactive particles.

The World Health Organisation is planning a study now to assess the risk of depleted uranium on exposed populations.
Dr. Jawad continues to care for his patients, but he's also thinking of his own safety.

"Certainly I am worried about my health and my family and my children, as everybody here in Basra. Nobody is spared, nobody," he said.

People here just want to know why they are getting sick and whether it can be stopped. If the culprit is depleted uranium they are probably out of luck because any clean up would take a very long time and cost a lot of money.

Barbara Plett, 06 February 2003
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/gulfwar7.shtmll

Iran strives to avoid Iraq war

Iran's Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, has said another UN Security Council resolution on Iraq would be "helpful" and has again stressed the importance of avoiding force to settle the crisis.

Dr Kharrazi was speaking after talks in London with his UK counterpart, Jack Straw, and the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

" Sometimes international diplomacy has to be backed by the threat, and if necessary, the use of force"

Mr Straw said the message from the Security Council was that there was still an opportunity to resolve the matter, but that time was running out.

Dr Kharrazi stressed the need for a diplomatic solution and for arms inspectors to be given more time.

A wide gulf still exists between the way Iran and Britain view the current crisis.

Dr Kharrazi said Iran had yet to hear a detailed Iraqi response to the allegations made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation to the Security Council.

He said "political instruments", including the Security Council, could still be applied and that force might not be necessary.

"I think more time should be given to the inspectors to complete their jobs and the Saddam regime should be urged more fully to comply with the resolutions," Dr Kharrazi said.

Mr Straw insisted the issue before the Security Council was not one of more time for the inspectors - or more inspectors - but much, much more co-operation from Baghdad.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his regime were in the dock, he said, and it was for them to prove they no longer had weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Straw said resolution 1441 carried the threat of serious consequences for non-compliance.

" [Is it a] question of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime or a question of the whole Middle East and the Islamic world? "

Kamal Kharrazi

"If we are to ensure the world is governed by law and not by the rule of the jungle, then sometimes international diplomacy has to be backed by the threat, and if necessary, the use of force," Mr Straw said.

Dr Kharrazi said Tehran was still hoping there would be no war, but confirmed that Iran was preparing to receive refugees from Iraq should a conflict erupt.

He said camps should be constructed close to the Iraqi border so that once any war was over, refugees could return to their homeland easily.

In a speech in London on Wednesday night, Dr Kharrazi had warned there could be a "clash of civilisations" if the Iraq crisis were mishandled.

He said there were suspicions in the Islamic world about the real intention behind a war - whether it was a "question of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime or a question of the whole Middle East and the Islamic world?"

CAIRO: Arabs said on Thursday that US Secretary of State Colin Powell's charge sheet against Iraq was unconvincing, but probably started the final countdown to war.

"It is basically a lot of hoopla, but no substance at all," said political commentator Hussein Shobokshi, based in the Saudi port city of Jeddah. "(It) reminds me of pep rallies that they hold before a football game in the (United) States."

Newspapers, analysts and a few Arab officials said the razzmatazz of Powell's address on Wednesday failed to convince a doubtful world that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat which should be eliminated by force if necessary.

"The whole speech was an attempt to present compelling reasons for an attack on Iraq, but these reasons are not in fact compelling," said Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi al-Aridi. "The speech was long on accusations, and short on evidence," said Egyptian political scientist Emad Shahin, adding UN weapons inspectors should now be asked to prove the allegations.

The Iraqi media largely ignored Powell's presentation, which Iraqi officials on Wednesday dismissed as lies. Only one newspaper out of seven leading ones commented on what it called a "great failure and a scandal" because Powell failed to produce evidence about Iraq's alleged banned weapons.

"The time bomb that many were talking about concerning Powell's new evidence about Iraq's weapons did not explode," the official al-Qadissiya newspaper wrote in a front-page editorial. "They were nothing but accusations and fabricated tape recordings," Qadissiya said.

"What he said was a smoke of lies aimed at blackmailing public opinion in order to find an excuse for a US aggression against Iraq," it added. Most Iraqis were not able to watch Powell's presentation because they had no access to international satellite channels. Some residents who listened to it on radios said Washington intended to launch a war against Iraq regardless of whether Iraq possessed banned weapons or not.

Most Arab states, including political heavyweights Egypt and Iraq's neighbour Saudi Arabia, have not yet commented officially on Powell's address at the United Nations, which was shown live on television in many world countries.

But many papers, which tend to reflect official thinking, were not impressed by Washington's attempt to prove Baghdad was flouting international demands to disarm. The English-language Jordan Times dismissed Powell's address as "unconvincing", saying his photographs, tapes and reports from anonymous witnesses were unlikely to change many minds.

"Yet even if we give the United States the benefit of the doubt, these new elements did not amount to convincing evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, or that Iraq presents any real or imminent danger to any party," it said.

LONDON: The United Nations' top arms inspectors on Thursday urged Iraq to show a "drastic change" of attitude and cooperate fully as time runs out to avert a looming war, even as Britain stepped up the deployment of its armed forces to the Gulf.

"We hope that at this late hour Iraq will come to a positive response. If they do not do that, then our reports next Friday to the UN Security Council will not be what we would like them to be," warned chief arms inspector Hans Blix.

He was speaking after he and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei briefed British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London on their search for Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction.

Blix told reporters outside Downing Street: "What has not worked in the inspections process is for the Iraqi side either to present prohibited items for destruction, or present evidence that such items are finished.

"On this point, we do not feel that we have had the response we should." ElBaradei agreed, saying Iraq needs to show a "drastic change" of attitude in cooperating with UN inspectors before their key report to the UN Security Council on February 14.

"The message coming from the Security Council is very clear that Iraq is not cooperating fully, that they need to show drastic change in terms of cooperation," ElBaradei said. "The message also coming from the Security Council is that time is very critical and that we need to show progress in our report which will be due on the 14th of this month," ElBaradei said. "Our mission in Baghdad this weekend is crucial and we hope we will secure full, 100 percent cooperation on the part of Iraq."

The News, 07 February 2003,
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/07-02-2003/main/main3.htm

BAGHDAD: Baghdad on Thursday issued its detailed response to what it calls US "claims and lies without shame" in Colin Powell's indictment of President Saddam Hussain.

The Iraqis continued to insist that they had already dismantled the programmes. The officials promised a more detailed response later on Thursday. "We do not own any banned weapons, nor are we engaged in banned activity, or in deception,'' senior Iraqi official Hossam Mohamed Amin said on Thursday. "The inspectors feel and know that.''

The prime mission here of ElBaradei and chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix will be to resolve practical issues, such as starting U-2 reconnaissance flights to aid inspections. They also want concrete Iraqi evidence to help close gaps in the accounting for old weapons.

The Iraqis must volunteer more information in the UN hunt for prohibited weapons, Ueki said. ``It is impossible for us to inspect every corner of Iraq. It's a very large territory,'' he said. Ueki said Blix and ElBaradei would probably also probe the Iraqis on points _ unspecified _ raised in US Secretary of State Powell's presentation on Iraq to the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

The next pivotal point in the long-running crisis will come when the chief inspectors file update reports February 14 on Iraqi cooperation in their efforts to verify that this country is free of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, as mandated by UN resolutions.

Lt Gen Amer al-Saadi, a presidential adviser and Iraqi point man on UN disarmament issues, said immediately after Powell's address that it was ``a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility and professionalism of the inspection bodies.''

On Wednesday, speaking with Iraqi television, Maj Gen Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison to the inspectors, expanded on the critique of the American presentation. Amin also suggested the tapes Powell presented as telephone and radio intercepts had been faked. ``It's regrettable that a superpower and a foreign minister should resort to these cheap methods in making claims and lies without shame,'' he said.

Meanwhile, Iraq on Thursday denied any links to Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, identified by US Secretary of State Colin Powell as a key member of Al-Qaeda terror network. "We have no links whatsoever with Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi," Iraq's former UN ambassador Said al-Mussawi told a press conference here, adding that Zarqawi was currently in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is no longer under Baghdad's control.

Powell, in a report to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, sought to tie Iraq to international terrorism, claiming that Baghdad currently had firm links with Zarqawi, a man he characterized as a "deadly terrorist." "We have information that Zarqawi is now in the Sulamaniya in the Gayra region of northern Iraq, which is not under central government control," Mussawi said at a press conference called to challenge Powell's accusations.

The News, 07 February 2003
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/07-02-2003/main/main5.htm

MOSCOW: Russia on Thursday said Washington had failed to present any new evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and vowed to work closely with France for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

"There is no reason to change Russia's position," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said upon returning from New York where he heard US Secretary of State Colin Powell's 75-minute report on Iraq. "The first analysis of this information shows that there is no significant new proof," said Ivanov, adding that Moscow saw "no reason yet to use force" against Iraqi President Saddam Hussain's regime. Ivanov said Russia's position finds support not only by the UN Security Council, but in the world as a whole.

His comments came moments after the Kremlin announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac agreed during telephone talks that only diplomacy can resolve the Iraqi crisis. "After discussing the results of the UN Security Council session on Iraq, the two nations' leaders noted that positions of Russia and France correspond, and stand in favor of solving the Iraqi problem through political-diplomatic means," the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin, who will visit Paris on Monday for talks with Chirac, agreed with the French leader that the two sides "must continue to closely cooperate" in their efforts to avert a war, the Kremlin statement said.

Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday said that "war is not inevitable," his office reported. He made the remarks during a meeting the head of the UN Human Rights Commission Sergio Vieira de Mello. The president also set out France's ideas presented at the UN Wednesday "for a substantial reinforcement of the UN inspections," his office said.

The News, 07 February 2003
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/07-02-2003/main/main14.htm

The prosecution case presented by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to finally damn Iraq was considerable in length and exhaustive in sweep, but it was not sufficient to start the bombing of Baghdad. Much more needs to be provided than what was disclosed to convince the sceptics that in the given circumstances a war would be more preferable than abiding with threat of WMDs in unsafe hands. War needs a weightier case to obfuscate the conscience and humanity of nations to prepare them for intentional murder of people.

Mr Colin Powell's exertions produced a corpus of American allegations against Mr Saddam Hussein, not a universally acceptable case. Even if the Iraqi leader was a liar, cheat and whatever else the Bush administration claims, it needs to be proved by incontrovertible evidence that would pass the test of intense scrutiny. Even courts in the US might find it difficult to accept the kind of testimony being provided by the American government at the bar of international opinion. The chief weapons inspector's criterion for licensing war is a "smoking gun". This has yet to be discovered by the inspectors. Mr Powell's speech was designed to overcome the failure of the UN weapons inspectors and produce that evidence from a hat. It was all so easy.

But, ironically this final piece of damning proof is really not meant to convince the international community. US has already made it known that it will attack Iraq, "smoking gun" or no "smoking gun". War, therefore, becomes an inevitability and the diplomatic theatrics at the Security Council are at best an effort to go through the motions of trying to mollify the critics. Mr Powell might as well had not given the "proof" to a tense world and presented a credible case to President Bush for sending the aircraft to attack the country.

It is difficult to see how the Americans expect the world to accept that proof when the UN team of weapon inspectors after months of searching has still not found any credible evidence. If the US Secretary of State had so much information at hand he should have made it available to speed up the work of the inspectors not kept it to himself. Short circuiting their efforts will not help. There is already a growing international demand for giving the inspectors more time to ensure their work is thoroughly conducted. The chance of a possible war in the Middle East is a troublesome prospect for most nations, with all might having to pay a price for it, in big or small measure. Pakistan, like other Islamic states, is opposing the war for a variety of reasons. Apart from its basically immoral aspect, a conflict involving the Americans will have a terrible backlash in the crescent of Islamic states unleashing new forces of contention.

What is the role of Russia in the ongoing Iraq crisis? Like many other countries pinioned between stark policy options, Russia faces a peculiar dilemma in its foreign relations. In other words, how to preserve its friendship and past links with an important Cold war Arab ally in the Middle East, and yet distance itself from its embrace so as not to invite the US censure. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has remarked that while Russia will not support any unilateral US armed attack on Iraq, it will at the same time not openly offer resistance or exercise a negative veto in the UN Security Council resolution that gives a green signal for attack on Iraq. Most likely, Russia may hover and stay at the fringes and avoid taking open sides in the crisis.

At the time of 9/11, Russia had tacitly agreed to US military intervention in Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban regime and start a flushing out campaign of al-Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden. Its own war in Chechnya and the creeping threat of Muslim militancy in the former Central Asian republics were then motivating factors that led to its cooperation with the US. Taliban's removal from power was considered as 'good riddance' by Russia and China; both leery of rise of Islamic radicalism in their own territory and backyards.

A similar situation is now posed in the Gulf, when its old ally, Iraq, happens to be under siege and likely to face imminent US-British military strikes for a 'regime change'. Nations, big or small, view things in the prism of national interests. No friendship in international relations is either permanent, unchangeable or sacrosanct. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the sole surviving superpower; with unchallenged political, military and economic clout. This recognition of hard reality is not lost on many countries, including the Russian Federation.

US military action against Afghanistan in 2001, a country, which had embroiled the Soviets in a protracted war, was tacitly approved by Russia. Presently, Russia sees potential for increased prospects of its oil supplies to the outside world. Besides, offer of US missile defence shield has mollified its opposition, if any. Further, it risks losing bright opportunities of developing Iraqi oil wells in which its major oil companies had signed multibillion dollar agreements. Saddam Hussein in an act of peeve cancelled a major contract of Al-Qarna oil field a few months ago when Russia did not openly condemn US plans on invading Iraq. Moreover, it has stake in Iraq as it does not want to risk losing prospects of arms contracts with Iraq, and nearly seven billion dollars owed from the Soviet era days. So, while Russia opposes any US unilateral military invasion of Iraq, President Putin says that Russian insistence on diplomatic position may soften in case Baghdad hampers the ongoing UN inspections. In a recent statement at Kiev University in Ukraine, he noticeably toughened Russian position on Iraq. Continuing he said that if the latter continued to present problems for UN inspectors, it will have to change its position and agree with the US for tough actions against that country under the new Security Council ruling. Likewise, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov reiterated Putin's message by reminding Iraq of taking note of Chief UN inspector Hans Blix's assessment that Iraq had not fulfilled its commitment to Iraq. At the same time a warning was given to the US not to launch a military action without a new UNSC resolution.

In backstage attempts to avert the war, Russia and India are reportedly assisting the US to find a safe haven for Saddam Hussein in their countries from where Saddam would not be able to pose a future threat. Other countries mentioned are Libya and Mauritania. While US officials have alluded to the possibility of Saddam's voluntary exile the Iraqi government has so far rejected this proposal.

Russia's larger interests in Central Asia, aid and trade concessions with the West and issue of terrorism -- all argue for siding with and not opposing the US at this point in time. The US has somewhat modified its stance by stating that a second UN resolution is 'desirable' but not 'mandatory' to proceed against Iraq. While Germany and France have expressed strong reservations over impending US attack, they could only abstain from voting. France, as a veto wielding power, would not resort to veto.

In the meantime, Bush administration is consulting its allies, viz, UK, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands and some incipient EU entrants from Eastern Europe in the so-called 'Gang of Eight' for a possible attack on Iraq. Russia and most of its former Eastern European allies are economically hard hit and cannot afford to swim against the crescendo of US crusade against Iraq.

Recently, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a dismissive tone called France and Germany as belonging to 'old Europe'. He is obviously trying to refer to the new centres of power that have arisen in Eastern Europe and their dependence on the US. Also, he thinks that French-German opposition is immaterial and that these countries are 'softies' when it comes to time for action.

Meanwhile, Russia and Syria have stated that Iraq should be allowed to present its case at the UNSC after presentation of the so-called fresh evidence by US Secretary of State Colin Powell about clandestine presence and continued production of WMDs.

All in all, if UN inspections are hampered, Russia will most likely vote for war against Iraq. If not, it would prefer to vote against the resolution, or abstain, but will not exercise its veto. A former superpower, it seems, has been tamed by force of compulsions and circumstances.

Sources, foreign intelligence sources, "our sources," defectors, sources, sources, sources. Colin Powell's terror talk to the United Nations Security Council yesterday sounded like one of those government-inspired reports on the front page of The New York Times - where it will most certainly be treated with due reverence in this morning's edition. It was a bit like heating up old soup. Haven't we heard most of this stuff before? Should one trust the man? Powell, I mean, not Saddam.

Certainly we don't trust Saddam but Powell's presentation was a mixture of awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard telephone intercepts a la Samuel Beckett that just might have been some terrifying little proof that Saddam really is conning the UN inspectors again, and some ancient material on the Monster of Baghdad's all too well known record of beastliness. I am still waiting to hear the Arabic for the State Department's translation of "Okay Buddy" and some dinky illustrations of mobile bio-labs whose lorries and railway trucks were in such perfect condition that they suggested the Pentagon didn't have much idea of the dilapidated state of Saddam's army.

It was when we went back to Halabja and human rights abuses and all Saddam's old sins that we started eating the old soup again. Jack Straw may have thought all this "the most powerful and authoritative case" but when we were forced to listen to Iraq's officer corps communicating by phone it was impossible not to ask oneself if Powell had really considered the effect this would have on the outside world. From time to time, the words "Iraq: Failing To Disarm - Denial and Deception" appeared on the giant video screen behind General Powell. Was this a CNN logo, some of us wondered? But no, it was CNN's sister channel, the US Department of State.

Because Colin Powell is supposed to be the good cop to the Bush-Rumsfeld bad cop routine, one wanted to believe him. The Iraqi officer's telephoned order to his subordinate looked as if the Americans had indeed spotted a nasty new little line in Iraqi deception. But a dramatic picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft capable of spraying poison chemicals turned out to be the imaginative work of a Pentagon artist.

And when General Powell started blathering on about "decades'' of contact between Saddam and al-Qaeda, things went wrong for the Secretary of State. Al-Qaeda only came into existence five years ago, since bin Laden - "decades" ago - was working against the Russians for the CIA. And Powell's new version of his President's State of the Union lie - that the "scientists" interviewed by UN inspectors had been Iraqi intelligence agents in disguise - was singularly unimpressive. The UN talked to scientists, the new version went, but they were posing for the real nuclear and bio boys whom the UN wanted to talk to. General Powell said America was sharing its information with the UN inspectors but it was clear yesterday that much of what he had to say about alleged new weapons development had not been given to the UN at the time.

Why wasn't this intelligence information given to the inspectors months ago? Didn't General Powell's beloved UN resolution 1441 demand that all such intelligence information should be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately? Were the Americans, perhaps, not being "pro-active" enough? The worst moment came when General Powell started talking about anthrax and the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York, pathetically holding up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and fraudulently suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 2001 anthrax scare.

One recalled, of course, the same room four decades ago when General Powell's predecessor Adlai Stevenson showed photos of the ships carrying Soviet missiles to Cuba. Alas, today's pictures carried no such authority. And Colin Powell is no Adlai Stevenson.

Robert Fisk, Media Watch, The Independent, 06 February 2003
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/07-02-2003/oped/o6.htm

Iraq’s envoy to Pakistan refused to respond on Thursday to US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s allegation that the Iraqi embassy here was used to maintain links between Baghdad and Al Qaeda.

Ambassador Kadhim Rawi “has no comment” on Powell’s report to the United Nations Security Council, his secretary told reporters.

“From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaeda organization,” Powell told a special meeting of the council on Wednesday as he presented Washington’s case against Baghdad.

Pakistan itself had close ties in that period with the Taliban regime, which harboured Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and his network.

The Taliban had an embassy in Islamabad, which was one of only three foreign governments to have diplomatic relations with the hardline regime. Pakistan dropped its support after the September 11 2001 terror attacks in the US and some months later closed the Taliban’s embassy.

Powell said Iraqi agents were sent to Afghanistan, after bin Laden moved there in the late 1990s, to train Al Qaeda operatives in document forgery and had offered to help develop chemical and biological weapons training.

“Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaeda together, enough so Al Qaeda could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents and enough so that Al Qaeda could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction,” Powell said.

Pakistani foreign ministry officials declined to comment on the allegation, and foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri made no reference to it when he addressed the council later and urged it to let weapons inspectors be the judge of Iraqi compliance with disarmament demands.

“By this ploy they also want to threaten and pressurise Pakistan by saying, ‘Look, we know this and you might have a role in this liaison’,” Ahmed told newsmen.

Musharraf himself said last month “there were chances” that Pakistan would become a target of Western forces after Iraq. “We will have to work on our own to stave off the impending danger,” he was quoted as saying on January 18.

“Nobody will come to our rescue, not even the Islamic world. We will have to depend on our own muscles.”—AFP

President Pervez Musharraf told US President George W. Bush in a telephonic talk that war was "not a good option" to settle the present Iraqi crisis, the Foreign Ministry said on Saturday.

A brief ministry statement said Mr Bush had called General Musharraf on Friday (as already reported in Dawn) to discuss consideration of the Iraqi situation by the UN Security Council, of which Pakistan is currently a non-permanent member.

"The (Pakistani) president emphasized that while it was agreed that (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein had to fully comply with the UN resolutions, war was not a good option," the statement said.

The ministry said President Musharraf also spoke to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah regarding the Iraqi situation, and "both agreed on the need to avoid war and explore all possible avenues for a peaceful settlement of the crisis".

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council on Friday that inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction during their search in Iraq, but he did not rule out the possibiity that they might exist.

In the debate following his speech, Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram called for giving more time to the weapons inspectors - an option Washington opposes.

The first announcement of the Musharraf-Bush conversation was made by the White House on Friday when it said the two leaders had agreed in their telephonic talk on the need for Iraq to "comply completely" with UN disarmament resolutions.

President Bush also "expressed his appreciation for Pakistan's important contribution to the global war on terror and also stressed the importance of seeking peace and stability in South Asia," his spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

National security adviser reveals Washington's frustration over resistance to a possible war; anti-war activists reach Baghdad to act as human shield

WASHINGTON: The United States will soon abandon a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iraq, White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday, revealing Washington's frustration with resistance to a possible war.

"We are in a diplomatic window, but it cannot last very much longer," she told NBC. "It will have to come to an end pretty soon." She said Washington would welcome another UN Security Council resolution on Iraq if it would advance the goal of disarming the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but was determined not to allow Saddam to escape his obligations by splitting the council.

"We don't want a security council resolution that somehow is a delaying tactic," Rice said and added: "The security council cannot continue on this path for much longer. I don't understand how anyone can say the inspections are working," Rice told Fox.

Senator John McCain, a leading lawmaker from Bush's Republican party, echoed Rice's frustration. "There's got to come a time where we say 'enough is enough,' and I think the United States and Britain are at this point," he told Fox.

US officials, meanwhile, declined to indicate their next move, with White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo saying Bush "still hopes for a peaceful resolution, and that is up to Saddam Hussein." Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated the administration was now uncertain it would seek a second resolution to approve use of force against Iraq. But if Iraq has still fails to disarm, Washington is ready "to lead a coalition of nations that would be willing to join the United States in the disarmament," Powell said.

At the same time there was no respite in the global anti-war protests, besides a convoy of anti-war protestors, ready to serve as human shields in the event of an attack on Iraq arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, the spokesman for the group Torben Franck said in London. A separate convoy of protestors is due to arrive in Baghdad on Monday, when 50 volunteers are to fly from London's Heathrow airport to Amman in Jordan. More peace activists are due to fly out of London February 21.

Global anti-war protests on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War, coming after a majority of the UN Security Council backed further inspections in a bid to assure Iraq's disarmament, have left Washington increasingly isolated. More than 400,000 people demonstrated across Australia again on Sunday, after London saw its biggest protest yet, with at least 750,000 filling Hyde Park on Saturday.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard showed no sign on Sunday of wavering in his support for US President George W Bush, saying: "This is not something where you read each opinion poll or you measure the number of people at demonstrations."

His British counterpart Tony Blair again also insisted action must be taken against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started," he said.

Possibly staking his career on the alliance with Washington, Blair added: "I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction."

17 February 2003
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/17-02-2003/main/main1.htm

BRUSSELS: Nato ambassadors continued scratching their heads on Sunday in search of a compromise deal to break their deadlock on the question of extending military support to Turkey.

Declining to underline the nature of the new complications, a source here indicated: "Some snags are hampering the process," adding: "The quest to hammer out a face-saving compromise to end the pernicious political rift continues in Brussels."

The Nato Council and the Nato Defence Planning Committee meetings on Sunday failed to pull the 19-nation alliance out of the quagmire of a dispute over military aid for Turkey ahead of a possible war against Iraq, another source confirmed.

The Nato deadlock has continued for almost four weeks as Germany, France and Belgium had been objecting to the US request for allied military aid to Turkey, which would include early warning aircraft, missile defences and anti-biochemical units, arguing that starting planning now would hamper the search for a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.

Eighteen Nato ambassadors attended the meeting of the Nato Defence Planning Committee. France is not a member of this committee, as Paris left Nato's military command structure in the late 1960s and participates only in political consultations. The Nato council meeting, however, was attended by 19 Ambassadors, as usual.

European political observers were hoping that the Sunday's meeting would help in narrowing the differences in member states on the issue of providing defence to Turkey in view of the proposal tabled by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. No official word on the outcome of the meeting was available till late in the evening.

Earlier, the Belgian prime minister had announced that France and Germany could lift their veto to early assistance for Ankara if "Nato makes clear the aid is strictly for defence and does not make the alliance party to war preparations against Iraq". No agreement could be reached on the Belgian prime minister's compromise proposal, according to a source.

The Nato would continue discussing the issue in another meeting during this week, a source indicated without stipulating any date. "A compromise to end a Nato crisis on protective measures for Turkey in case of a US-led war on Iraq is likely to be agreed during this week", a diplomat in Brussels speculated.

Zia Iqbal Shahid, 17 February 2003
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/17-02-

CAIRO: Arab foreign ministers meeting here on Sunday adopted a resolution rejecting "any (US) aggression against Iraq" and any threats by Baghdad against Kuwait.

Ahead of an emergency summit on Iraq, Arab nations remained split on how to handle the crisis, with some backing more time for UN weapons inspectors and others holding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein solely responsible for averting war.

"The miracle must come from within Iraq, either with the departure of the Iraqi regime, or by means of something happening in Iraq," said Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, without elaborating.

Kuwait has sent its state minister for foreign affairs, Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al-Sabah, to join Arab foreign ministers meeting here in preparation for an emergency summit later this month on the crisis in Iraq.

The state-run Cairo daily Al-Ahram reported on Sunday that the summit would take place on February 27 in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh. Bahrain's King Hamad, in remarks published on Saturday during the Cairo talks, said he had agreed on Friday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to "call on Arab brethren to frankly explain to Iraq the seriousness of the situation." Unless the Arabs "now counsel Iraq, sincerely and in unison, not to misread (US intentions), we fear this (a US-led strike) will recur," said Hamad, who in September cautioned that no one could stop an eventual US attack on Iraq.

The warnings from Kuwait and Bahrain were not surprising, given that both Gulf states have welcomed thousands of US troops, deployed ahead of a possible military strike on Iraq over its alleged weapons programmes. But they came in sharp contrast with dovish statements from Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa, who on Friday lauded a report to the UN Security Council from UN disarmament chiefs as evidence of Iraq's efforts to cooperate.

On the sidelines of the meeting, Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, met Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. Afterward, Papandreou said he told Sabri war can be avoided if Baghdad quickly and "openly and reliably" answers questions posed by chief UN inspectors.

17 February 2003
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2003-daily/17-02-2003/main/main4.htm

WASHINGTON: US President George W Bush said on Tuesday that global anti-war protests and opposition from some allies to a second UN resolution on Iraq would not stall his push to disarm Saddam Hussein by force if necessary.

"War is my last choice, but the risk of doing nothing is even a worse option. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America and we will deal with him," the US leader told reporters.

Asked about weekend demonstrations world-wide which drew millions of protestors against any US-led war on Iraq, Bush said the crowds were wrong about Saddam and that a true leader must sometimes ignore public opinion. "Size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people," he said.

Asked the possible new resolution, Bush said that it would be "useful" but stressed: "We don't need a second resolution. It's clear this guy could even care less about the first." And, prodded on whether any new resolution must include a new ultimatum, the president derided what he said amounted to giving Saddam "another, another, another last chance."

The US leader also expressed optimism that the United States and Turkey will reach agreement on an aid package that would cement Ankara's much-needed support for possible military action against Iraq. "Hopefully, we can come up with an agreement that's satisfactory to both parties. We're still working on it," Bush said after the head of Turkey's ruling party warned Ankara's support hinges on a generous aid package.

The president also expressed support for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who returned from an emergency EU summit on policy towards Baghdad to find his popularity plummeting over support for Washington. "Any time somebody shows courage, when it comes to peace, the people will eventually understand that," he said.

Bush praised another staunch US ally, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who will meet the US leader at his Texas ranch this weekend. "I'm looking forward to having a good meeting with him," he said and added Blair and Aznar "are men of vision. They see the task at hand. And I'm proud to call them allies. We'll work together for the sake of peace."

Earlier, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said Washington was still working with its allies on a new resolution, calling for the enforcement of the UN's demand that Iraq disarm and that the initiative could be unveiled this week. "It could take place as soon as this week, it could be next week," he said. "The timing will be determined as a result of the ongoing conversations within our government and with the allies," as they decide on specific wording. "It's going to be a relatively simple resolution, not very lengthy," Fleischer said and added: "The message
of it is that (UN Security Council resolution) 1441 shall be enforced."

All of Europe -- with the exception of France and Germany -- stands "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States on Iraq, Fleischer said and added "When you look at Europe, with a few exceptions, Germany and France more notably, Europe stands united shoulder to shoulder with the US."

The new text would point out omissions in Iraq's December 8 declaration of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes, he said. It would also quote the finding, reported to the Security Council by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, that Iraq has tested a ballistic missile which exceeds the 150-kilometre limit imposed by the council, he added.

Meanwhile, France, which has a veto in the UN Security Council, has said it supports continued UN inspections in Iraq and that it will oppose such a measure. French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin downplayed the talk that France might use its veto. Raffarin said the veto was a "very strategic element" for France that allows Paris to act independently on the world stage. But he said that the current strategy on dealing with the Iraq crisis "consisted of maintaining the unity of the international community."

"We are not pursuing a course of isolation and blockage," Raffarin said when asked whether France would use its veto power. "To the contrary, we are pursuing a course of unity," he added.

Buoyed by weekend demonstrations around the world that attracted millions of people, the anti-war forces are likely to get another boost at the debate that starts on Tuesday afternoon in which nations that aren't on the 15-member Security Council can express their views on the Iraq crisis.

The debate was scheduled at the request of South Africa, which heads the Non-Aligned Movement of 115 mainly developing nations who are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. More than 40 countries have signed up to speak, and the session is not expected to conclude until Wednesday afternoon, when Washington and London are likely to circulate their proposed resolution.

US military officials and analysts say if the United States charges into war with Iraq, the US forces are expected to unsheathe several new weapons and tactics, including devices still under development. They say the new weapons would target Iraqi armored vehicles, communications networks and the chemical and biological weapons the Bush administration believes Iraq still cradles. "The only time you get realistic feedback on new capabilities is during wartime," said Bob Martinage, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think-tank. "The military will take advantage of that time to test new systems," he said.

Once you're engaged and you have a capability that's almost ready, you'll try it," said Clark Murdock, a former Air Force strategic planner now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "All kinds of things have been invented, particularly in the (classified) world, that will be used. If you use it and it works and no one knows, why talk about it?" One key job for US forces is to smash Iraq's military communications networks, especially those controlling ballistic missiles, analysts said.

The Air Force has so-called "bunker busting" bombs designed to penetrate the concrete shelters that often protect such equipment. But if civilians are nearby, the United States may fire a cruise missile tipped with a high-powered electromagnetic-pulse emitter, which fries the electronics without killing the people," said Andrew Koch of Jane's Information Group.

The weapon's massive power surge is supposed to travel through antennas or power cords to wreck any unshielded electronic appliance within a few hundred meters (yards), according to studies cited by GlobalSecurity.org, a research organization.

Summit urges Iraq to disarm fully, peacefully RUSSELS: Acknowledging anti-war protests across the continent, the 15 European Union leaders agreed on late Monday that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to find and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and declared that a war against Saddam Hussein "should be used only as a last resort."

Gathered here for an emergency summit to help heal deep divisions in Europe over Iraq, the leaders also warned Iraq that "inspections cannot continue indefinitely", saying Saddam must "disarm and cooperate immediately" to avoid the attack threatened by the Bush administration, said an internet edition of the Washington Post.

"Baghdad should have no illusions," a summit statement said. "It must disarm and cooperate immediately and fully. Iraq has a final opportunity to resolve this crisis peacefully. The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last chance."

Despite the warning, the European declaration was marked most by what it did not say: It set no deadline for the inspections to be called off; it did not commit European countries to using force to back up UN resolutions on disarming Iraq; and it did not say Saddam is already in "material breach" of the resolutions.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the US ally most closely aligned with Washington, had sought these elements as part of his effort to narrow the gap between his fellow European Union leaders, who want to give the UN inspectors more time, and a Bush administration that is saying with increasing impatience that time is up. Instead, the statement said Europe wants to disarm Iraq peacefully. And in a bow to the millions of anti-war protesters who took to the streets over the weekend, it said the union is pushing for a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis because "it is clear that this is what the people of Europe want."

The summit's emphasis on more time for inspections and on war "only as a last resort" appeared to be a victory for French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. They came to this summit emboldened by Friday's interim report of the UN weapons inspectors, which noted some new if incomplete signs of Iraqi compliance, and by Saturday's outpouring of protests against war.

Chirac and Blair entered this summit staking out sharply different sides in this very public debate, with Chirac saying again today that it is too early to call for a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq and Blair saying the EU needs to send a message of strength to Saddam. European officials went to great lengths to say their emphasis on finding a peaceful solution to the crisis was prompted by the huge demonstrations, which saw close to a million people marching in London and similar numbers in Rome, Madrid and Barcelona. "These were not only young, politicised people," said Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, the EU's executive body. "This was the whole society that took part in a spontaneous way," he said. He said at another point, "We cannot forget the millions in the streets this weekend, so we are together with a message that Europe is united."

Asked about the message of the mass protests, Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, the summit host, answered simply: "People want peace."

The summit was seen as an attempt to salvage something of a common European policy toward Iraq. The crisis has left the European Union severely split between two camps. On one side are governments like those of Britain, Spain and Italy that actively support the Bush administration view. On the other is the "peace camp" led by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, whose leaders want to avoid a war as long as possible.

Other European countries have kept quiet, but are split between those two positions. Sweden, Finland and Austria generally belong to the peace camp, saying any resort to force must have Security Council backing, while Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal have backed the hard US line against Saddam. The issue had prompted tough words and bitter feelings among Europeans. France formed its own peace axis with Germany and Russia, while Britain and Spain angered others by lining up eight EU and Eastern European leaders to sign a letter backing Bush.

Chirac denounced the Eastern European leaders who signed the letter, saying their decision "is not really responsible behavior." "It is not well brought-up behavior," he told a news conference after the summit. "They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Schroeder also declared a victory of sorts, saying Germany successfully fought a British proposal for language saying "time was running out" for Saddam to disarm. "That was not acceptable to us," Schroeder told reporters. But by backing the final statement, which says war could be a "last resort," Schroeder seemed to compromise on his earlier stance that war would be unacceptable to Germany in any case.

The strong French position, the emboldened position of the peace camp and the new EU statement seem to further complicate the Bush administration's planning for a possible war. European Union candidates lined up on Tuesday behind a common position on Iraq agreed at an emergency EU summit, but defended their right to speak out, in defiance of a vitriolic outburst from French President Jacques Chirac.

Chirac late on Monday lashed out at eastern European candidate nations for their "childish" support of the United States shortly after the 15 member states agreed that they did not rule out force as a last resort to disarm Iraq.

Thirteen EU hopefuls backed the common stand in a meeting called by Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis to brief them on the summit's results. In the new-found spirit of healing divisions on Iraq, a one-page joint declaration by the 13 candidates and the EU referred to the "Our Europe" motto of the EU's Greek presidency. "The input of the 13 has been and will continue to be an invaluable contribution to our common will to resolve the Iraq crisis and support the Middle East peace process," it said. "It is our Europe that can have a strong and united voice on the world scene... it is our Europe that cherishes its strong partnership with the US." But while stressing unity, several nations led by Poland emphasised their right to comment on Iraq after Chirac fired off a riposte to candidate countries who signed letters of support for Washington, saying they should have kept their mouths shut. Chirac warned that the hopefuls could jeopardise their chances of entering the EU by stepping out of line with anti-war feeling in existing member states where referendums must be held to rubber-stamp enlargement.

"That kind of rhetoric leads us to nothing," Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz responded. "There is not much sense in emotionally reacting to somebody's words. Emotions are not the best advisers to politicians," he said, adding: "I don't see contradictions between membership of the EU and a good relationship with the US." Romanian President Ion Iliescu said Chirac's diatribe had been "inappropriate" and "emotional" while British Prime Minister Tony Blair also weighed into the row. "I hope no one is suggesting that they should be anything other than full members of the European Union and entitled to express their views," he said of the candidates.

"I also think that their views are interesting because they're countries with a real sense of history for obvious reasons... They know the value of Europe and America sticking together." The dispute over Iraq has opened a new gulf as the EU plans the largest expansion in its history, welcoming 10 new members from the former communist bloc and the Mediterranean in May 2004. The other three countries which signed on Tuesday's statement -- Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey -- are still knocking on the door. The friction sharpened last week when the candidates learned they had been left off the guest list to the emergency summit at Germany's insistence, being forced to settle instead for the Brussels briefing Tuesday.

ISLAMABAD: President Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday repeated his call for a peaceful settlement to the Iraq crisis during a meeting with a US Senate delegation, an official statement said.

"The president of Pakistan emphasised a peaceful solution, including full compliance by Iraq with relevant UN Security Council resolutions," the statement quoted him as telling the four-member delegation.

Pakistan opposes unilateral action against Iraq and has repeatedly called for a peaceful resolution and insisted Baghdad must comply with UN disarmament demands. Musharraf told US President George W Bush in a telephone call on Friday that "war is not a good option."

The US delegation led by Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, included senior Democratic member Senator Carl Levin, Senator Pat Roberts and Senator John Rockefeller-IV. Musharraf was assisted by Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri. "Both sides expressed satisfaction on the state of US-Pakistan relations," the statement said.

They also discussed ways to strengthen bilateral cooperation in areas including defence, it said. "The Senate delegation was deeply appreciative of the assistance provided by Pakistan in the global war against terrorism. "It underlined the US desire to remain firmly engaged with Pakistan to lay the basis for a long term, enduring and broad-based relationship."

Important regional and international issues also came up for discussion during the meeting including the security situation in South Asia, it added.

George Bush and Tony Blair see Iraq 's leader as a mounting threat that can't be ignored. 'Old Europe' sees him as representing only limited danger. Despite the tough talk, the Bush administration needs its war in Iraq to be authorized by the UN Security Council. That much is a basic requirement for crucial allies ranging from Britain to Turkey, and will be even more important in managing a potentially chaotic post-Saddam Iraq — the proverbial "hard part" of any war, the administration is staying the course with a diplomatic process that could continue into next month. The U.S and Britain are currently working on a new resolution to present to the Security Council, possibly later this week. But reports indicate that this resolution will stop short of authorizing military action, instead repeating the threat of "serious consequences" and possibly issue an ultimatum to Baghdad to meet specific demands in a prescribed time-frame. The diplomatic going may be tougher than ever, however, with last weekend's antiwar demonstrations that drew some 6 million people into the streets of Europe stiffening the spine of the war-wary Security Council members.

He may have meant it somewhat sarcastically, but President Bush revealed the essential problem facing his administration's diplomatic efforts in his comments Tuesday on last weekend's peace marches that drew millions across the world: "Some in the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace," the President said. "I respectfully disagree." Washington's efforts to win UN Security Council backing for war in Iraq are based on demonstrating that Baghdad has failed to comply with disarmament undertakings, but that may not be enough — precisely for the reason cited by Bush: At the heart of the dispute between the camp led by the U.S. and Britain and the group led by France, Russia and Germany is a sharply divergent view of the nature and scale of any threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and therefore also over the appropriate penalties. There is little argument in the Security Council over whether or not Baghdad is in breach of many of its disarmament obligations. But while President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair insist that Saddam is hell-bent on stockpiling non-conventional weapons and will inevitably share them with al-Qaeda, the antiwar Europeans see him less as a rising menace than as an incorrigible nuisance who has nonetheless been left substantially weaker by a decade of containment than he was when his armies were soundly thrashed in the sands of Kuwait. The two camps would easily agree that Iraq has failed to account for that proportion of his prohibited weapons not destroyed by UN inspectors in the early 1990s, but the "old" Europeans are skeptical on Anglo-American claims about an Iraqi nuclear program, and dismissive of Washington's efforts to prove a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. So, while for Blair and Bush the greatest danger is doing nothing about Saddam, their opponents see the remedy of a U.S.-led invasion and occupation as posing far more danger to the region and even, ultimately, the West than any threat currently posed by the regime in Baghdad.

The battle at the UN is not simply about evidence, but on the meaning assigned to such evidence. For example, UN inspectors have established that Iraq's al-Samoud missiles violate the 93-mile limit for Iraqi missiles set by the UN after the Gulf War. But by no more than 30 miles. A "very serious" matter said Blair, but not the sort of violation that was going to persuade the Europeans to support a war.

The Europeans opposing the war know that Saddam has failed to account for some of the chemical and biological weapons stocks he amassed (and, in the case of chemical munitions, used) during the Iran-Iraq war. But they don't tend to see that violation as grounds for war.

The response from Turkey is instructive: Ankara has indicated that it would support a war only if the U.S. coughs up more than $30 billion in financial aid to Turkey, and gets UN authorization to assuage the country's overwhelmingly antiwar public opinion. The Turks have also insisted that the price tag for allowing the U.S. to mount an invasion from their territory includes Turkey's right to protect its own interests in Northern Iraq, where it may be on a collision course with local Kurdish leaders. Turkey is unconvinced by the case for war, but will make practical arrangements to secure its interests once war becomes inevitable.

Key Security Council allies, like Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, may be more convinced of the Bush administration's political case, but they find themselves swimming against the tide of European public opinion and are showing little sign of convincing the antiwar camp. Until now, Washington may have been hoping that the specter of the U.S. rendering the UN irrelevant by acting alone outside of a UN mandate might force the likes of France and Russia to reconsider. But the European antiwar camp appears to be more fearful of the UN becoming irrelevant if it simply rubber-stamps a U.S. policy of which most remain unconvinced. But the question of whether or not the Bush administration gets the nod from the UN Security Council to go to war in Iraq may, right now, depend less on the evidence than on the outcome of the political debate that underlies the dispute over what the inspectors have found and what they might have missed.

19 February 2003, Time online
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,424148,00.html

An astounding degree of negative, hostile, frustrated, fear-provoking, and even ad hominem criticism in recent weeks has been directed at President Bush for his positions on such diverse matters as waging war to depose Saddam and to disarm Iraq, opposing the system of affirmative action used by the University of Michigan to achieve diversity, advocating a tax cut plan, and even his commitment to going forward with the space program and future space exploration. Yet public opinion polls report that a solid majority of citizens support a wide range of the President’s policies, including affirmative action (two out of three Americans, according to a February 6 Los Angeles Times opinion poll), continuing the manned space program (78 percent of Americans, according to a recent Washington Post poll conducted after the Columbia tragedy), and the use of military force against Iraq (66 percent of Americans, as reported below). Most Americans in fact express overall support for the job the President is doing: nearly two out of three Americans (64 percent) give Bush a positive overall job rating as president.

I would like to look at one recent poll in more detail—Americans’ view of a potential war against Iraq—to highlight the huge gap between many critics and most Americans. The ABC/Washington Post poll released February 11 shows that a solid majority (66 percent) of Americans support the use of force against Saddam, with a clear majority (57 percent) willing to go to war even without United Nations support as long as we do so with several allies such as Britain, Australia, and Italy. The same poll reports that those Americans who “strongly support” the war outnumber those who “strongly oppose” it by 3 to 1. And more than one-half of those who now strongly oppose war with Iraq said they might change their minds, compared to only one-third of those who now strongly support it. A majority (63 percent) of Americans according to this poll believe the administration has presented enough evidence to justify the use of force against Iraq—a point of view that existed prior to Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN last week. A majority (59 percent) favor giving UN inspectors just weeks, not months, to do their job. Overall this is a very substantial majority of Americans voicing support for war with Iraq.

The same ABC/Washington Post poll reports that Americans support the use of force against Iraq because: Iraq is a threat to the United States, it has weapons of mass destruction, it supports terrorists, it has not cooperated with UN inspectors, and it is not a good candidate for diplomacy. What is striking here is how most Americans’ thinking about Iraq is based on specific factors resulting in a qualified judgment in support of war, a judgment distinguished from their view toward dealing with the threat posed by North Korea. A solid majority of Americans, 56 percent to 33 percent, see Iraq as a greater threat than North Korea to the United States at the moment—indeed, nearly twice as many Americans (39 percent to 20 percent) report being “very worried” about Iraq compared to expressing a similar concern about North Korea.

The key to understanding the difference between Americans’ perspectives on Iraq and North Korea is that a majority (69 percent) of Americans see no chance of diplomacy working with Iraq, whereas a majority (65 percent) of Americans still believes diplomacy may have a chance to succeed in the case of North Korea. Americans see war as a measure of last resort only when all other avenues, such as diplomacy, have been tried and have failed to deal with a major threat.

Yet critics have been giving voice in recent weeks to every possible doubt or objection to war with Iraq. Is Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq preventing him from seeing North Korea as the greater danger? Most Americans see Iraq as the greater danger if only because a decade of diplomacy has failed to resolve the threat Saddam poses to America and the world. What about Iraq distracting us from the War on Terrorism and Afghanistan? Most critics have failed to understand a point most Americans are very clear on: our stand on Iraq is part of waging the War on Terrorism. There have been columns that have criticized the lack of evidence that Iraq was concealing anything, citing Bush's “metaphysical” belief against Iraq. Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN appears to have provided sufficient evidence to most Americans and to have silenced most critics on this topic.

Yet critics raise ever new fears and concerns about a war with Iraq. What if attacking Iraq makes us less safe and results in more terrorist attacks against the United States and its citizens? To date, the United States has already suffered a number of terrorist attacks: the bombing of U.S. embassies and installations in Africa and Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and, of course, the destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York on September 11. It makes a big difference to most Americans that these unprovoked attacks have targeted America and taken American lives. Here critics have missed the point: doing nothing to provoke such attacks, we nevertheless became targets and victims of a new enemy on our own soil. Critics are at risk of blaming the victim—their fellow Americans—for responding as we are with a heightened sense of the need for a pro-active self-defense. It makes sense to most Americans that stopping Iraq today may mean stopping a terrorist attack at home tomorrow.

Most recently, critics have begun to focus on such issues as the economic cost of the war (possibly in order to link Americans’ worries about the economy with the war) and the economic cost and manpower commitment that will be required for rebuilding Iraq after military action. A good illustration of the latter criticism is Marsha Mercer’s February 11 op-ed, “After the U.S. Wins the War in Iraq, What will be the Endgame?”, in which she writes, “Many Democrats, including [Delaware senator Joseph] Biden, believe Secretary of State Colin Powell has made a strong case for going to war . . . But they are beginning to ask Bush to tell . . .What happens after Saddam?” Or Thomas Friedman’s February 6 op-ed, “Are Neighbors Ready for Iraq?”, in which he writes, “It’s time for Bush to level with Americans about what will be required to make this war a success.”

Aren’t such critics putting the cart before the horse? Yes, rebuilding Iraq will be a costly proposition and it will require a huge commitment of peacekeepers and economic assistance. But first things first. President Bush and our leaders’ top priority at this point must be to decide if, when, and how to wage and win a war against Iraq. Imagine our Revolutionary War leaders refusing to make a decision about going to war with Britain until an economic cost-benefit analysis had been performed along with other postwar plans such as a new government and constitution were first resolved. Important as such postwar rebuilding plans are, they are not preconditions to the political deliberation concerning war in the first place.

This abyss between critics’ and citizens’ viewpoints would seem to amply confirm the words of my colleague Gary Geipel, who recently observed, “In no other country in the world is the intellectual, diplomatic, and media elite so unable to analyze or even to accurately describe the views of large segments of its own population as in the United States.”

How and why are the professional critics so out of touch on so many issues with mainstream America? Obviously, part of the answer to this question is politics and ideology: there are some critics who will never concede that George Bush can get or do anything right. But there are deeper reasons at work here that have to do with the way our culture and institutions have evolved over the past several decades. In particular, critical thinking in the postmodern era has become a deconstruction of all things and a radical break with tradition. Earlier generations perceived critical thinking as a constructive form of criticism that preserves and cultivates connection with tradition. However, most professional critics and even public intellectuals today are, whether they realize it or not, trained as deconstructionists.

Consider the impact of a deconstructionist mode of critical thought on the role of citizenship: leadership comes to be viewed pessimistically and negatively through the half-empty glass scenario. Citizens come to “critically” view leaders’ words as only half-truths and lies. Citizens come to “critically” view leaders as incapable of the altruistic pursuit of the common good because they see leaders as self-interested persons seeking to promote their own personal welfare. Citizens “critically” view leaders as no more informed, no more thoughtful, no more in a position to know anything beyond what citizens know. In deconstructing leadership, of course, the very root meaning of citizenship as the bond to a particular community is itself finally dissolved: There is no difference between loyalty to the United Nations or to the United States (or if there is, the United Nations is seen as a higher loyalty). There is little or no difference between democracy and autocracy. There is no difference whatsoever between the use of force to liberate people and to preserve freedom and peace, and the use of force to conquer and to enslave others. Collective will and action becomes impossible because no authority is beyond question and challenge. Deconstruction, in effect, leads to nihilism and anarchy.

Yet citizenship in the classic view implies a kind of symbiotic relationship between citizen and the community to which he or she belongs. A basic requirement of citizenship is civic loyalty: a more or less enduring commitment on the part of the citizen to the particular community of laws, values, and people to which she or he belongs and has been nurtured. A primary duty of citizenship is to recognize, trust, and support the community’s leadership when it has demonstrated a good-faith effort to address a common problem within the framework of communal tradition, and when it has displayed a due regard for its people. In a democracy, citizenship is predicated upon the citizen’s consent to be led by those who are authorized by the community through election by citizens to direct its affairs and to govern its members.

The practice of critical thought in America exemplifies, to be sure, a form of civic loyalty in action. The prospect of war with Iraq presents many challenges for Americans in the realms of critical thought, citizenship, and leadership. Our American experience and tradition provides an important resource that must not be overlooked in critical appraisals of the current situation. For example, our history demonstrates a paradoxical truth that is uncomfortable and counter-intuitive to many critics: war and the use of military force may at times be the only path to peace and stability. The American Revolution, The Civil War, and World War II are prime examples where Americans have gone to war, knowing full well the terrible cost in lives and property, in order to create a just and lasting peace. We have also learned along the way that diplomacy stands the best chance of succeeding when it is backed up by the will and threat of force.

Ken Colburn is a Sociology professor and Director of the Urban Affairs Program at Butler University, and a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

19 February 2003, Hudson Institute
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=2224

Since 1857 the term "preempt" is being used in the United States "to occupy (public land) so as to establish a preemptive title." It is similar to the military concept that offence is the best form of defence. The US administration is using the concept of "preemptive strike" to establish a preemptive control over an enemy country.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive strike apparently means that the US would strike against any country thought to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction or any other country, which is likely to pose an immediate or potential threat to the security of the United States. It is apprehended that President Bush may plan preemptive action against several countries considered as enemies. Iraq is perhaps the first target. According to a report President Bush has tentatively "authorised the CIA to employ covert action ‘in as many as 80 countries’."[1]

Being the sole super power, President Bush considers that it is the legitimate right of the United States to act unilaterally wherever necessary, without the sanction of the United Nations, if it is in the interest of the security of the country.

The reason for the strike against Iraq was first given that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD), i.e., nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Later it was stated that Iraq has links with al-Qaeda network. To establish Iraq’s link with al-Qaeda, US Secretary of State Colin Powell denied the theory that "Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny and Al-Qaeda’s religious tyranny do not mix" and said that Iraq had used its embassy in Pakistan to maintain contact with that organisation. General Pervez Musharraf , while in Moscow, vehemently refuted the suggestion that the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan was such a contact point.[2]

The Chief UN Weapons Inspector has confirmed the charge that Iraqi missiles exceed the range prescribed by the United Nations i.e. 150 km and thus defying Security Council resolution on disarmament.[3] On February 14, Farooq al Shara of Syria stated in the Security Council that the US has a “hidden agenda” and that the charge of having WMD is just an excuse. Some people believe that the US wants to control the wealth of Iraq which has reserves only second to Saudi Arabia.

There is also a demand for change of regime in Iraq like the one we have witnessed in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan in the recent past. Some Arabs are proposing the idea to offer exile to Saddam Hussein through a resolution in the Security Council.[4] While addressing Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 06, 2003, Colin Powell stated that the removal of Saddam Hussein could "fundamentally reshape" the map of the Middle East that would "enhance US interests." This is a revealing statement. Henry Kissinger says: “If the crisis ends without regime change in Baghdad, the credibility of American power in the war on terrorism and in international affairs will be gravely impaired.”[5]

During Security Council meeting on February 14, the Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix has stated that so far he could not discover any evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or that he had any plan to develop them but this does not rule out the possibility of their existence.

There is thus a division in the Security Council to permit the strike. The US administration is threatening to act unilaterally in the absence of UN sanction for the war. On February 16, 2003, US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice has said that the US is working for a new US resolution on Iraq “to authorize use of force within weeks, not months.”[6]

Why US is asserting that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? The history goes back to the Iraq-Iran War (1980-88). Initially the United States did not favour either "Hussein’s dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism" or the "Islamic fundamentalism" of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive and Iran’s troops had advanced within a few miles of Basra in Iraq. "U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies."[7] Accordingly, the National Security Decision Directive 114 of November 26, 1983 (still classified) of the Reagan era is reported to have stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war.[8]

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush "authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."[9] Thus chemical weapons were used by Iraq in the war against Iran as well as against its own people – Kurds - in violation of 1935 Geneva Protocol.

Later as a result of the Gulf War (1991), when the UN weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq they compiled "long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes."[10] Recently it has been revealed that an Indian firm NEC Engineering Private Ltd. exported consignments of "raw materials and equipment that could be used to produce chemical weapons and propellants for long-range missiles."[11]

Irrespective of the charges against Saddam, there may be a plan to fragment Iraq into small states like other Gulf states so that they could not be in a position to pose any threat to US interests or its allies such as Israel in the Middle East. The history of the post World War One (1914-18) may be repeated when the Ottoman Empire was fragmented into several states, or of recent bifurcation of Yugoslavia.

It is also reported that Washington is planning for a military control of Iraq for a minimum of one and a half year, like they had occupied Philippines after Spanish-American War (1998) or Japan and Germany after World War II (1939-45). The British Army is being told to prepare for an occupation of Iraq for about three years, the BBC reported on February 04, 2003. There may be variation in some details. To pacify Arab concerns, a civil administrator may be appointed by the UN who may run the civil administration of the country unlike General Douglas MacArthur who exercised "unchallenged authority as supreme commander in Japan.[12]

In any case the American military would remain "the central player in running the country" at least for as long as necessary. The ultimate aim is stated to be to create a democratic government in Iraq and preservation of its oil resources. On December 29, 2003, Secretary of State Collin L. Powell hinted, "If coalition forces go into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure that they are used to benefit the people of Iraq, and are not destroyed or damaged by a failing regime on the way out the door."[13]

As far the likely timing of the war, the weather is an important factor. The temperature in Kuwait rises to 100 degrees after the first week of April and later soars to more than 120 degrees during summer. Hence, the likely months are February-March.

The world is divided and, it appears, that a vast majority is in favour of a peaceful solution and not for a war. Out of five permanent members of the Security Council, as many as three – Russia, China and France – are against war. Among non-permanent members some nations led by Germany are against war. On February 08, 2003, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the United States against attacking Iraq unilaterally. He argued for collective action under a UN umbrella, for it would have "greater legitimacy and better odds of success."[14]

Soon after Security Council debate on February 14, there were large-scale demonstrations against war throughout the world including the US, Australia and Europe, where millions of people took part. This clearly shows that a vast majority of the people in the world is against violence and war.

Although, Saddam Hussein is not liked the world over for his crimes against his neighbours and his own people, the preemptive policy is fraught with dangerous consequences unless it has two basic requirements fulfilled. The first is that the preemptive strike should be justified by hard facts and not based on suspicions alone. Secondly it should have the proper authorisation by the world body.

If the US alone, or in collaboration with some other countries but without the approval of the Security Council takes unilateral action, it will disturb international system. The United Nations, whose main aim is to maintain peace and security, would become irrelevant and, in fact, there would be law of jungle where might is right. The twenty first century world, where about a dozen states have nuclear capability, simply cannot afford lawlessness unless they are prepared for extinction.

"Countries like Russia, Israel, Colombia, and India – jumping on the bandwagon – are behaving more unilaterally, and very often at the expense of civilian population."[15] Under the cover of this doctrine, Israel is taking punitive action in Palestine; India is encouraged to threaten its neighbours, and China may like to strike against Formosa. And any country with intercontinental missiles may strike any country in the world including the United States if it feels there is a threat to its security.

The lessons of the wars learnt during the preceding centuries may not be forgotten. The cooperative concepts enshrined in the Concert of Europe (1815) or the League of Nations (1919) when abandoned resulted in the global wars. If, in order to pursue self-interest, the history is repeated and the United Nations is ignored, the consequences unlike the past result in doomsday. This scenario should not encourage the international community to make the UN irrelevant through preemptive strikes unilaterally.

[1] http://www.peace-action.org/home/preempt.html retrieved on March 2, 2003.

[2] SIFY News, retrieved on July 02, 2003.

[3] New York Times, February 13, 2003.

[4] New York Times, February 13, 2003.

[5] Dawn, February, 16, 2003.

[6] New York Times, February 17, 2003.

[7] Michael Dobbs, Washington Post Staff Reporter, December 30, 2002.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Iid.

[11] LA Times and Washington Post cited in The Indian Express, January 20, 2003.

[12] David E. Sanger and James DAO, “US Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq,” New York Times, January 06, 2003.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Reuters, February 09, 2003.

[15] http://www.peace-action.org/home/preempt.html retrieved on February 02, 2003