Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (55770)	11/5/2002 1:34:21 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Turkey also declares their bases off limits to US unless America gets a UN resolution: theage.com.au Crucial bases could be off limits November 2 2002 By Peter Fray Ankara An influential Turkish politician has warned that his country would place military bases out of bounds to US strike planes if President George Bush insists on attacking Saddam Hussein without a new UN resolution. Turkey, the only Muslim member of NATO, has several strategic bases which the US military command, under General Tommy Franks, is negotiating to use for air strikes and on-ground support against neighbouring Iraq. Inal Batu, a senior member of the Republican People's Party (CHP), which is widely expected to play a key role in the next Turkish government after tomorrow's election, said Turkey could not stop use of the Incirlik base, from which US and British planes patrol northern Iraq but it could withhold approval for the use of other bases. "We insist they must have a resolution from the UN before any military action," he said. Asked how Turkey would respond to unilateral US attack, Mr Batu said: "I do not think we will be able to cooperate with them if they do so . . . other Turkish bases will be out of bounds for them." Mr Batu, who is a former Turkish ambassador to Rome and the UN, is a likely candidate for foreign minister in a coalition government between the CHP and the Islamist Justice and Development Party, which is expected to top tomorrow's poll. General Franks and General Joseph Ralston, the supreme allied commander in Europe, recently held talks with the Turkish military, including chief-of-staff General Hilmi Ozkok, about Turkey's role in any Iraqi conflict. Turkish MPs and military are believed to want massive debt relief from the US - and new military equipment - in return for cooperating in the war against Iraq. They also want the US to pressure the European Union to drop its opposition to Turkey joining the EU. Last month, Turkey was told it falls so far short of the EU entry criteria that it cannot even have a starting date for negotiations. Turkey's president Ahmed Necdet Sezer, caretaker Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit and senior politicians from several Turkish parties have recently warned that military action against Iraq would destabilise the region and called for a peaceful end to the issue. Mr Ecevit called on the US to abandon the planned attack and warned that "the US cannot carry out this operation without us". However, Western diplomats believe that Turkey will eventually join the US-led assault against the Iraqi President, if only to stop the Kurds in southern Turkey and northern Iraq from forming a Kurdish homeland, based on the oil-rich Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (55770)	11/5/2002 10:54:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Questions about weapons inspections By SEAN GONSALVES SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Tuesday, November 5, 2002 "Unfettered access" and "material breach." On the surface, it all seems so clear and straightforward. If Iraq does not give weapons inspectors "unfettered access," they will yet again be in "material breach" of the United Nations' weapons of mass destruction disarmament mandate. But what does the actual inspections record tell us? We pick up the story in September 1997. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler had been on the job for only a month, having replaced Rolf Ekeus who served in that post from 1991 until 1997. Because it had become evident that Iraq was still concealing its mostly defanged weapons of mass destruction program, UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter was given a new angle: Assume Saddam Hussein could not be trusted and find out, by clandestine scientific means, what he was hiding. Hence, the formation of the Capable Site Concealment Investigations team -- an entity designed to stimulate concealment activities. Hidden in the back of CISI vehicles were "covert communication interceptors" -- a network of 10 radio receivers, each specifically tuned to a unique frequency. The receivers were linked to digital tape recorders hidden in the inspectors' personal backpacks, making them walking microphones. The idea was to initiate confrontations at presidential security organizations to get senior Iraqi officials yakking on their radios. That way, secret and sensitive information could be gathered by UNSCOM. Oct. 1, 1997: UNSCOM 207 -- a surprise inspection of a secret biological unit inside Iraq's Special Security Organization headquarters in Baghdad. But with guns pointed at them, the inspectors were denied access to the SSO's Al-Hyatt building. Iraq cried foul, aware that UNSCOM was being manipulated by U.S. intelligence sources and that the inspection protocol was being violated, according to a Security Council-approved agreement set up by Ekeus in 1997. The agreement declared certain sites off limits -- presidential palaces, for example. (Imagine the United States granting "unfettered access" to all of its weapons facilities but denying access to CIA headquarters, Camp David or the president's private residence.) Dismissing concerns about sovereignty, which the U.N. Charter promises not to violate except when approving self-defensive military action, CISI was being pushed by U.S. planners to go on wild goose chases. "A lot of information we were given was provided to us by the Americans," explains former UNSCOM inspector Roger Hill. "It was either out of date, incorrect or it was completely false and designed to take us down the wrong path." It soon became evident to the inspectors that U.S. officials didn't want the inspections to end. They wanted "containment." As long as the inspections were unfinished, the United States could keep Iraq under its control with "Saddam in his box." Saddam was playing games and the Clinton administration was too. CISI team leader Chris Cobb-Smith became convinced the inspections had become politicized by a U.S. effort to purposely provoke confrontations of "access." Ritter was instructed to come up with a plan that he later presented to senior staff in the White House situation room. Ritter's plan was approved with one addition: "inspect" Iraq's Defense Ministry. During the meeting, Butler drew a timeline. According to Ritter, Butler instructed him to provoke a confrontation by early December 1998 because the United States planned to launch a military strike in mid-December. As planned, Iraq denied access. But U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan persuaded Iraq to relent. The Defense Ministry was inspected. Nothing was found. Then, confirming inspectors' suspicions, Butler shut down CISI and "decided" that its function would be turned over to U.S. intelligence officials, which effectively gave the United States cover to move the disarmament goal posts by simply asserting it had weapons "intelligence" about some site. Ritter resigned in frustration. Hill replaced him and carried out UNSCOM 258 in violation of the agreement. As Butler was meeting with the Security Council to discuss the matter, Clinton gave the green light for Operation Desert Fox. What assurances are being taken this time to protect the integrity of the internationally supported inspections and what's to stop U.S. hawks from arbitrarily moving the disarmament goal posts indefinitely as a pretext for unilateral action? None of these questions are being debated in public. That should make anyone concerned about peace and honesty quite nervous. Indeed, "the time for denying, deceiving and delaying (ought to) come to an end." And that goes for U.S. hawks, too. Saddam has been cast as the demon but, as the cliché has it, the devil is in the details. seattlepi.nwsource.com