SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Let's Start The War And Get It Over With -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/10/2003 11:00:56 PM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 808
 
Are you now, or have you ever been, employed in any capacity by Iraq or any of its government officials?



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/10/2003 11:08:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 808
 
Is the news media asking enough tough questions?

News media abdicate role in Iraq war
By James O. Goldsborough
Columnist
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
March 10, 2003

signonsandiego.com

Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, devotes its latest issue to the subject of the press and the Iraq war. "Now that the Super Bowl and Golden Globes are over," it begins, "Americans are finally ready to debate an attack on Iraq."

The press' role in the Bush administration's march to war has not been glorious. No Golden Globes for us, whatever they are. Yet even E&P's analysis misses the central point we presumably learned in Vietnam: that in war as in everything else the press' role is to question, question, question.

That role is especially important for Bush's war, which is war against a nation that has not attacked us. Bush repeats ad nauseum that "Iraq is a threat," but offers no evidence. With his policy of "pre-emptive" war, he doesn't need evidence, but imagine that every nation adopted such a policy. Or imagine that Bush had come to power during the Cold War.

E&P blames the public's confusion in part on "officials planning the war, who have not fully explained the reasons for it," but adds that U.S. newspapers deserve "no small measure" of blame for the confusion.

I think the media deserve most of the blame. Bush officials have explained in detail their reasons for war, and the media have not sufficiently challenged those reasons. They are endorsing Bush's war by default. The public is confused because its gut feeling is that the government/media reasoning doesn't add up.

E&P focused on newspapers, but television is worse. For Bush's war, cable TV – with its absurd "countdowns to war" – leads the charge. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News goading Bush is worse than Hearst's and Pulitzer's New York American and World goading McKinley into war with Spain a century ago because Murdoch reaches tens of millions. Commercial talk radio, with ranting paranoids shouting at angry people stuck in traffic, is a nightmare.

Newspapers have always had trouble with war. They are good at challenging government on domestic issues, but on war flail about like hooked flounders, unclear what to say. Truth is still the first casualty of war.

War is a nasty business the press must stick its nose into like anything else. The press' meat is death, and there is more death in war than in anything. It took us years in Vietnam to report a war gone wrong, but this time we have a chance before war starts. When America starts shooting 3,000 guided missiles into Baghdad – to "shock" a city the size of Los Angeles into surrender – it will be too late to realize this isn't a Super Bowl.

Television is Bush's ally in war because it is a visual medium. It shows pretty pictures of ships sailing, flags waving, troops landing. Television loves Bush photo-ops and shrugs off anti-war protests. C-SPAN and PBS alone present fair pictures because they don't depend on advertising.

The wasteland of commercial television is an easy target, but why does E&P let newspapers off so easily, quoting a gaggle of talking heads about how "complicated" war is to cover and how "uneasy" newsrooms are about their coverage. Why isn't this magazine – watchdog of the watchdogs – willing to confront the central question: Why has the press become a willing accomplice in Bush's war?

Unlike television, newspapers are not a picture show. Unlike television, newspapers have editorial and opinion pages whose job is analyze, endorse or refute official policy. These pages have ties to their communities, not to some multinational news machine in New Jersey. Reporters report what Bush and Donald Rumsfeld say or do, but the job of opinion pages is critical analysis. Short of that, we are useless.

The catastrophe of Vietnam could have been prevented with more editorial courage. A few voices – Walter Lippmann most notably – did question the war from the beginning, but just as most editorial pages in 1965-67 were willing accomplices, so are most of them today.

Lippmann, easily America's most respected commentator, wrote in February 1965, when Johnson was just starting to gear up for all-out war, that it would be "supreme folly" to wage a land war in Asia. "While the warhawks would rejoice when it began," he wrote, "the people would weep before it ended." Remember those words.

"Despite rising doubts," writes E&P, "there doesn't seem to be one U.S. newspaper among the top 50 dailies by circulation that is strongly anti-war." A group of big city newspapers (read big advertising) advocates "fast-track invasion," writes E&P. "Not surprisingly, The Wall Street Journal leads the formation of hawks."

The press has accepted Bush's war assumptions from the beginning, confusing a skeptical public. It reports Pentagon leaks as truth, reports Bush allegations as fact and endorses the fiction that Bush's goal is disarming Iraq when his clear purpose all along has been "regime change."

In a nation bitterly divided, this editorial enthusiasm for Bush's war amounts to professional crime. The media, led by cable television (which wasn't there) has forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. Soon we will be remembering the words of Tacitus, referring to the Romans: "They make a desert and call it peace."

_______________________________________________

James O. Goldsborough is foreign affairs columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune and a member of the newspaper's editorial board, specializing in international issues.

Goldsborough spent 15 years in Europe as a correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune, the International Herald Tribune and Newsweek Magazine. He is a former Edward R. Murrow Fellow at the Council on Foreign relations and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment.

He is the author of Rebel Europe: Living with a Changing Continent, and of numerous articles on foreign affairs for national publications. Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/10/2003 11:15:21 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Blix 'hid devastating facts on weapons'

By Marcus Warren at the United Nations and David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 11/03/2003)

The White House yesterday demanded that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, explain why he buried potentially devastating revelations about newly-discovered Iraqi weapons systems in his last written report.

United States officials told reporters that the UN had discovered a new variety of rocket warhead seemingly configured to scatter "bomblets" filled with biological or chemical agents.

Yet, to the apparent dismay of the Bush administration, Mr Blix chose not to raise the discoveries in his oral report.

The Bush administration has also seized on the discovery that Iraq has developed an unmanned aerial drone capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons, and which may exceed the 93-mile range allowed under UN resolutions. Colin Powell, the secretary of state, said the revelation "should be of concern to everybody".

In what appeared to be a deliberate rebuke for Mr Blix, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, twice said the omission raised questions that the Swedish chief arms inspector needed to answer.

Asked if America feared that Dr Blix deliberately buried the incriminating data, Mr Fleischer said: "There are outstanding questions, and all members of the Security Council, I think it is safe to say, look forward to hearing the answers."

A Western diplomat at the UN even implied that the inspector's omission was not accidental. "This was an attempt, for whatever reason, to bury absolutely key information about Iraq's arsenal," he said. "We want answers from Iraq, but also from Mr Blix."

British and American officials were furious that Mr Blix had failed to mention Iraq's "Project 101" when he addressed the Security Council last Friday.

Details of the scheme suggested Iraq had sought to produce cluster munitions filled with biological and chemical agents to be scattered across battlefields. The project was referred to in the detail of the inspector's written report. The hollow metal balls, and fuses Iraq is known to possess, were ideally suited for dispersing agents across large areas, a US official told the New York Times.

"When these things come out from the main frame and they explode inward, chemical agents come out," he said. "These can be used for biological weapons too."

The UN report, entitled Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes, concluded that "Iraq's interest in cluster munitions and the developments it did make may have progressed well beyond what it declared". A munition component was discovered at the Al Noaman factory, well known as a centre of production of such weapons, last month, the report said.

It also suggested that gas gangrene was the preferred agent to be used in the device because the substance was most effective when in contact with open wounds. Iraq produced 340 litres of the concentrate in 1990.

The revelation was part of the huge amount of evidence that the United States and Britain now intend to deploy in the campaign to secure support from the Security Council for a new resolution effectively authorising war.

Mr Blix's written report does an eloquent job in indicating the difficulties in pursuing successful inspections, given the huge quantity of information still concealed from the UN by Iraq.

"Unmovic has credible information that the total quantity of BW [biological warfare] agents in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf war was 7,000 litres more than declared," the report said. It dismisses Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stocks of the agent 10 years ago.

telegraph.co.uk



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/11/2003 5:10:17 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Blair Urges Russia, France: Don't Let Saddam Off

6 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Mike Peacock

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Tony Blair (news - web sites) warned Russia and France that their veto threat risked undermining the transatlantic alliance and said he was working feverishly to find common ground on the Security Council.

Special Coverage

"My concern is if countries talk about using a veto in all sets of circumstances, the message that sends to (Iraqi leader) Saddam (Hussein) is: 'you're off the hook,"' the prime minister told reporters in his Downing Street home after talks with Portuguese premier Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.

With France and Russia threatening a veto, the United States and Britain have delayed a U.N. Security Council vote on an ultimatum for Iraq (news - web sites) to disarm or face war.

"I hope we won't talk about vetoes in all sets of circumstances but rather we will try and find the common ground that allows a way through," Blair said.

"What we are trying to do in the Security Council now is to offer very clear ideas about what Iraq has to do in order to demonstrate it is prepared to disarm voluntarily."

Blair has cleared his diary to work the phones with fellow international leaders, trying to drum up support for a new resolution which is vital to his domestic political standing.

Britain is ready to modify the resolution, setting out a list of detailed disarmament moves for Iraq to fulfil by March 17 in order to avoid war.

Britain's ambassador to the U.N., Sir Jeremy Greenstock, also signaled that the March 17 deadline -- laid down by London and Washington in the draft resolution -- was a moveable feast.

"March 17 has nothing magic to it as the 17th but it is a clear indication...that time is short, it is no more than that," he told BBC Radio.

French President Jacques Chirac raised the stakes in Paris on Monday, saying France would veto a planned resolution setting Iraq that tight deadline to scrap weapons of mass destruction.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also said Moscow would vote against the existing resolution. Several European Union (news - web sites) nations, including Germany, also oppose military action.

Blair warned his European Union partners they would suffer the consequences if they alienated the United States.

"Dividing Europe from America, an alliance that has served us well for over half a century, I think would be a very, very dangerous thing to do," Blair said. "That's why we have got to find that common ground that brings us back together again. I am working night and day in order to achieve that."

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/11/2003 5:15:31 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
'Weather warriors' key on desert battlefield

Mon Mar 10, 7:34 AM ET Add Top Stories - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!


Patrick O'Driscoll USA TODAY

If the geopolitical forecast is for war in Iraq (news - web sites), it's the weather forecast that may determine when and how the fighting goes forward.

Special Coverage

Hundreds of ''weather warriors'' already are in the Persian Gulf, armed with tools and technology unavailable just a few years ago. That makes the estimated 250,000 U.S. troops now in the region the most weather-aware fighting force ever assembled.

''No military operation takes place without a weather person giving that pilot, tank driver or commander the weather,'' says Paige Hughes of the Air Force Weather Agency, which forecasts for the Air Force and Army.

The agency's motto describes the mission for all military branches: ''Anticipate and exploit the weather for battle.''

Air pressure, humidity and wind can alter the flight of artillery shells, missiles and bombs. Wind can hasten the spread of chemical or biological weapons. Clouds can obscure targets but can also help conceal aircraft from the enemy.

Most of all, desert heat can hamper ground troops, especially if they have to wear protective bio-chem suits and gas masks over heavy combat gear.

That's why speculation is so high that any assault would start this month. The average high temperatures in March are tolerable 50s-70s. In April and May, Baghdad's average daily temperature climbs into the 80s and 90s. The record springtime high is 117 for the desert and 100 in river valleys.

As temperatures rise, violent shamal winds from the north whip up dust storms that can reach as high as 40,000 feet and gust 60 mph or more on the ground. ''A good sandstorm is going to ground everything,'' says Master Sgt. Bruce Bellairs of the Air Force Special Operations Weather Operation Center near Omaha, which forecasts for secret missions.

Weathercasters have been involved in every step of the buildup. Air Force meteorologists plotted courses for aircraft going to the region. Navy ''mobile environmental teams'' charted routes for carriers and troop ships.

Once in the region, troops, pilots and sailors rely on weather briefings for training and other pre-war missions. Pilots will take off based on wind, cloud and dust conditions. For ground operations, Air Force and Marine Corps technicians will set up weather stations wherever the troops go.

Some Air Force ''Gray Beret'' commandos may drop behind enemy lines to take weather readings and fight beside Army Green Berets on clandestine missions.

In most cases, field meteorologists use laptops with satellite connections to send data about current conditions back to weather squadrons, oceanography centers and other bases. Specialists at those locations run the readings through computer models and send back fresh forecasts.

The weather squadron at Shaw Air Force Base near Sumter, S.C., has forecast duties for the Persian Gulf region and ''does the big picture,'' Bellairs says. ''Then you cut out your piece and do a forecast for whatever your requirement is.''

More than 7,000 uniformed and civilian weather staffers in the Air Force and Navy also forecast for the Army and Marines.

All weather forecasts mix current readings with historical data. Records for the Persian Gulf region go back to 19th-century British and French colonial rule. But few records from ground observations exist on Iraq for the past 20 years because of its isolation.

Even so, Air Force climatologists fashioned a computer model three years ago to plot forecasts there. It uses satellite data, past observations from pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over parts of Iraq and information from ground units in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) won't divulge how many weather outposts are in the Persian Gulf. But during the last Iraqi war, the Air Force alone had about 500 weather staffers at more than 70 field locations.



In January 1991, the number of days that clouds around Baghdad prevented firing on targets was twice what planners had predicted. Laser-guided weapons couldn't ''see'' through clouds and smoke from burning Kuwaiti oilfields. Bad weather hindered missions one-third of the time.

By one account, the war's No. 2 general had to consult CNN weather reports before ordering stealth fighter jets to attack Baghdad.

This time, most bombs would carry ''all-weather'' systems that guide them to map coordinates using global-positioning satellite technology, known as GPS. But it won't eliminate the need for weather watchers.

''How do you get the (jet) in the right place to drop those GPS weapons? How do you launch them off the deck of aircraft carriers or the ground airfields?'' says Cmdr. Archer Wright of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command near Bay St. Louis, Miss.

In the field, combat meteorologists use portable weather stations that got a vigorous workout in Afghanistan (news - web sites) after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

''It's hard. Long hours. Dirty. Security threats,'' says Air Force Technical Sgt. Jim Williams, 34. For three weeks in Afghanistan last summer, Williams ''did'' the weather for an Army unit on the mountainous border of Pakistan.

While soldiers hunted for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and al-Qaeda, Williams carried his M-16 when he took his hourly weather readings. ''People are wanting to pick you off,'' he recalls. ''And by 10 a.m., it's 117, 119 degrees, easy. Hotter than snot.''

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/11/2003 5:19:08 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Polls Suggest Majority Supports Iraq War

1 hour, 43 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) has managed to rally public support for a war with Iraq (news - web sites), a new poll says, even though most Americans say the administration hasn't said enough about the reasons for war.

Special Coverage

While polls released Monday showed Bush's approval rating has dropped into the low to mid-50s, they also show general support for military action holding firm, and sentiment for prompt action growing slightly.

The polls highlighted the stakes for the president in the Iraq conflict.

Two-thirds support military action against Iraq. About the same percentage say United Nations (news - web sites) support is desirable but not necessary if the United States has the support of other countries like Australia, Britain and Spain, according to an ABC poll.

Public support for the war has tended to fluctuate depending on the timing and whether this country has the support of allies or the United Nations.

Half of the respondents in a CBS-New York Times poll said the threat of Iraq's development of weapons requires action now, while four in 10 said the threat can be contained; the public was evenly divided on that question in early March. The number in the poll who said weapons inspectors should be given more time was down from 60 percent in early March to 52 percent now.

Other findings in the CBS-Times poll:

_Six in 10 said the United States should take allies' views into account, while 36 percent said the United States should do what it thinks is right.

_The public was divided on what this country should do if Russia, France or China veto a new resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq doesn't completely disarm in the coming days. Those saying proceed anyway made up 44 percent while 49 percent say the United States should take the veto into account.

_People were evenly divided on whether other world leaders respect President Bush, while they thought by a 49-39 margin two weeks ago that he was respected by those leaders.

_More people tend to think a war with Iraq will make the economy worse and will increase the risk of terrorism in this country.

_Only a third, 33 percent, said the Bush administration is telling the public all they need to know about the reasons for attacking Iraq. Almost twice that many disagreed.

The president's diminished political standing was suggested in an Ipsos-Reid poll done for the Cook Political Report. His overall job approval was at 53 percent, down from 65 percent in the early fall. His job approval was at 56 percent in the CBS-Times poll. His job approval has been in the low to mid-50s in several recent polls, near the levels it was before Sept. 11, 2001.

Only four in 10 in the Ipsos-Reid poll, 39 percent, said they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush, while 34 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else. A year ago, 54 percent said they would definitely vote for Bush while 20 percent wanted someone else.

The ABC News poll of 1,032 adults was taken March 5-9. The CBS-Times poll of 1,010 adults was taken March 7-9 and the Ipsos-Reid poll of 2,009 adults was taken between Feb. 18 and March 6. The polls by ABC and CBS-Times had error margins of plus or minus 3 percentage points, while the Ipsos-Reid poll had an error margin of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/11/2003 5:20:32 AM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 808
 
Resistance falls to war without U.N. backing, poll shows

1 hour, 44 minutes ago

LONDON - Resistance is falling to war against Iraq (news - web sites) without U.N. backing, but half the British population still opposes military action unless supported by the Security Council, according to a poll published Tuesday.

Special Coverage

The Populus study published in The Times showed that 52 percent of people would only back British involvement in a war if there was a new U.N. resolution. A month ago, the figure was 62 percent.

The Times said the drop was due to a rise — from 11 to 19 percent — in the proportion of people who would back military action regardless of U.N. support.

The study showed that support for Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s Labor Party and the main opposition Conservative Party was level at 34 percent each.

Blair is trying to win U.N. backing for a new resolution that gives Iraq a March 17 disarmament deadline, but France and Russia say they will vote against the proposal. The prime minister faces strong opposition within his own party to war unless backed by the U.N.

A Cabinet minister on Sunday lambasted Blair's handling of the crisis, and last month 122 Labor lawmakers staged a revolt in the House of Commons, voting for a motion that said the case for war was as yet "unproven."

Populus interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults by phone between March 7-9. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/12/2003 5:50:22 AM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 808
 
Foot in a Closing U.N. Door

LEAD EDITORIAL
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
March 12, 2003

Two weeks ago, Canada suggested giving Iraq a list of demands and a deadline of the end of March to comply or face United Nations-authorized military action to force it to disarm. It was a good proposal then, although the United States and Britain dismissed it out of hand. It remains a good proposal, one that might let Washington and London round up the nine votes needed for the Security Council to act on its own resolution to disarm Iraq.

Britain and the United States have begun to show some flexibility. First, they amended their original proposition and set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to demonstrate that it was complying with U.N. disarmament resolutions. Then, with Britain leading and Washington reluctantly tagging along, they indicated that date could be pushed back.

Both countries also heeded requests from uncommitted nations with Security Council seats that Iraq be given "benchmarks" to meet. These should include a clear means of verifying that disarmament has taken place.

In return for those compromises, France should say whether there are any conditions under which it would back military action against Iraq or if it would use its veto power no matter what, as French President Jacques Chirac said Monday. If France maintains that position, it should explain why it joined November's 15-0 Security Council vote to give Iraq a "final opportunity" to meet a dozen years of U.N. disarmament demands or "face serious consequences."

Iraq responds only to the threat of force and then only at the last minute. It needs a deadline for compliance so it won't be able to wait until other countries lose interest, as they have before.

Hussein has begun to slowly and begrudgingly respond only under constant political and military pressure. But with the prospect of a war unpopular around the globe, Britain pushed for delay to address opposition not just from the average Briton but from many members of Prime Minister Tony Blair's own party and some Cabinet members.

With 300,000 troops massing near Iraq or on their way there, war certainly seems inevitable, but it doesn't have to be. The United States risks being branded as the aggressive and arrogant superpower that disregards the wishes of the international community. Opponents of war on the Security Council risk being branded as Hussein appeasers who have turned the United Nations into a toothless body that can be ignored.

In part, it's a measure of Hussein's diabolical craftiness that the United States and the United Nations have turned against each other, instead of uniting against him. There's a tremendous amount for both sides to lose, and that should create great incentive to compromise.

If it takes more time to win Security Council agreement on a demand that Iraq disarm or be forcibly disarmed -- and given the heated disputes, it probably would take more than a few days -- then the United States should take the time. A U.S.-led invasion without U.N. sanction ought not to happen. The United Nations, then, had better come up with a viable alternative, and fast.

latimes.com.



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/12/2003 10:07:02 AM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 808
 
Big Brother for Peace
By Ryan Anderson O’Donnell
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 12, 2003

The group at the forefront of the recent anti-war rallies, International A.N.S.W.E.R (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is in reality a front organization designed to further the radical agenda of several extremist movements from the political Left. Despite the media’s assertions to the contrary, present incarnation of the peace movement, led by ANSWER, is anything but representative of mainstream America.

ANSWER’s steering committee reads like a "Who’s Who" of radical political organizations. The most influential member of ANSWER’s steering committee, Ramsey Clark’s pet project known as the International Action Center (IAC), is considered by many observers to be little more than a communist front organization for an obscure Stalinist organization known as the World Workers Party (WWP). Yet, the IAC is not the only member of ANSWER’s steering committee committed to extremist causes. The Korean Truth Commission and Pastors for Peace are staunch allies of Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro, respectively, and both groups continue to support these murderous regimes’ violation of International law. In addition to its role as a front for the support of totalitarian/communist governments in North Korea and Cuba, members of ANSWER’s steering committee such as the Muslim Student Association and the Free Palestine Alliance continue to provide ideological, logistical and financial support for organizations devoted to the destruction of the state of Israel, including the terrorist group, Hamas. A comprehensive investigation of the members of ANSWER’s steering committee make it clear that the organization is in actuality one of Peace’s greatest enemies.

Since its inception in the early nineties, Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center has been documented to be a front organization for the World Worker’s party. While the WWP’s history and support for murderous regimes and bloody crackdowns on communist/totalitarian dissidents has already been extensively documented by Front Page Magazine, as well as other several media outlets, through a deliberate infiltration strategy in which key WWP operatives have assumed high level positions in Clark’s organization, the WWP has been able to exert tremendous ideological sway over the IAC, and subsequently, ANSWER. As noted by Kevin Coogan, a contributor to the Hit List who has extensively investigated the WWP-IAC connection, "it is undeniable that without the presence of scores of WWP cadre working inside the IAC, the organization, for all practical purposes would cease to exist."

It was Ramsey Clark’s seduction by the WWP that marked the beginning of the WWP’s movement to the forefront of liberal activism. In 1991, the National Coalition was born out of the ashes of another WWP front organization known as the People’s Anti-War Mobilization (PAM). The WWP’s role in the creation of the National Coalition was immediately made apparent through the selection of prominent WWP member Monica Moorehead as the head of the new organization. The National Coalition quickly established its headquarters in a Manhattan office building adjacent to the offices of Ramsey Clark, which was already infested with WWP members. Gavriella Gemma, a WWP and National Coalition coordinator, was a legal secretary in Ramsey’s office, and was allegedly instrumental in bringing Clark into the WWP fold. Clark quickly fell under the sway of the WWP, and within months was announced as the organization’s official spokesman.

Clark’s appointment as National Coalition spokesman marked the beginning of his alliance with the WWP, an alliance that resulted in the formation of the International Action Center. Workers’ World, the official newspaper of the WWP announced the creation of the IAC, describing it as a "center of international solidarity." However, with Clark as its spokesman, and WWP member Sarah Flounders as its coordinator, IAC was clearly designed to be the National Coalition’s successor as a sanctuary for WWP front groups and other affiliated organizations, including the National Coalition to Stop U.S Intervention in the Middle East, the Hati Commission, the Campaign to Stop Settlements in Palestine, the Commission of Inquiry on the U.S. Invasion of Panama, the Movement for a People’s Assembly, and the International War Crimes Tribunal (Coogan, p. 3). Brian Becker, member of the secretariat of the World Workers Party, is now a national co-director for the IAC. Other WWP members overtly associated with IAC are Sarah Sloan (youth coordinator), Teresa Gutierrez (co-director) and Gloria La Riva (correspondent, Workers World.) Of course, IAC WWP members are never identified as such at ANSWER rallies. Ostensibly, this lack of WWP identification is because their positions at the IAC are to be the focus of the rallies. While this may be superficially accurate, one wonders how many of the anti-war demonstrators at ANSWER events would be pleased to know their time and donations are aiding a group (WWP) that supported the Tiananmen Square massacre?

The IAC’s formation of the Korea Truth Commission, another ANSWER steering committee member, provides further evidence of WWP’s heavy hand in the ANSWER coalition. Presumably incorporated to uncover some form of "truth" about the Korean War, the KTC has proven itself to be little more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the communist nation’s lackeys in the IAC and WWP. Once again, the infamous Ramsey Clark is the organizer behind this entire charade. Under guidance of Clark’s IAC, the KTC has sent eight delegations to the Korean Peninsula in order to gather "evidence" of war crimes allegedly committed during the Korean War. These fact-finding delegations unsurprisingly included all of the usual suspects: Ramsey Clark, Gloria La Riva, and Brian Becker. Most of these delegations accomplished little more than finding every excuse to vilify the United States, while praising Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. The reports filed by these delegations were often short on concrete fact, choosing instead to spend pages extolling the virtues of the communist regime in the North. For example, the eighth delegation reported back:

To the visitor, Pyongyang leaves the impression of a clean, modern world capital. It is a city of two million people with an efficient public transit system, wide, tree-lined streets, and all the cultural amenities, hospitals, schools, parks and sports facilities that one would expect to find in a large metropolis. Industry has been located on the perimeter of the city to avoid the problem of pollution as much as possible…the people of Pyongyang present themselves as cultured and purposeful. There is no sign of vagrancy or homelessness. Instead of billboards with product advertising, the streets are adorned with posters, banners and inscriptions exhorting citizens to work together to build a powerful nation.

Anyone familiar with the Pyongyang regime knows such a glowing representation of the city and its government is inaccurate. However, since much of the KTC is controlled by Kim Jong-Il’s fan club at the WWP and the IAC, such misrepresentations should come as little surprise.

In fact, at the time of this article’s publication, the KTC does not even have its own website; the IAC has simply devoted a portion of its Iacenter.org to information on the KTC. While other organizations are active in the KTC, it is clear that Ramsey Clark and the IAC/WWP alliance dictate the commission’s agenda.

The KTC’s flurry of activity in the late nineties culminated with an International War Crimes Tribunal on U.S. Crimes in Korea, a shameless travesty that made a mockery of the Tribunal concept. Once again, the WWP and IAC’s fingerprints were all over the tribunal. Sarah Flounders served as the Tribunals co-chair, while Ramsey Clark appointed himself Chief prosecutor. Brian Becker was listed as a Tribunal Sponsor, while Sandra Smith, Gloria La Riva and Anne Becker all led discussion groups related to the tribunal. Unsurprisingly, with the WWP running the show, the tribunal, like many of today’s anti-war protests, dissolved into an orgy of anti-Americanism, with little adherence to its stated purpose, the truth.

WWP influenced groups like the IAC and the KTC are not the only members of ANSWER’s steering committee that back rogue dictatorships. Another of ANSWER’s steering committee members, Pastors for Peace (PFP), is partially funded by the ARCA foundation, an organization devoted to supporting pro-Castro groups in the United States. In the last decade alone, ARCA has granted well over one hundred thousand dollars to PFP. According to PFP, these grants go towards humanitarian relief cargo such as medicine, computers, and school buses. Of course, PFP fails to note that in Cuba, everything is owned by the state. And that Castro is the State. So essentially, PFP is using ARCA’s grant money to prop up Castro’s worker’s paradise.

Reports from Cuba indicate that the medicine PFP claims has gone directly to the Cuban people is in fact often sold at the government’s "foreigners only" stores. Since regular Cubans are not allowed to own computers, the government immediately seizes the machines. As for the school buses donated by PFP to the Cuban people? Cuban refugees have reported these buses are now used by the police for raids against anti-Castro dissents.

Not only do these humanitarian shipments aid Castro, but they are also in flagrant violation of US law. Although the 1992 Cuban Democracy act allows for private humanitarian donations to Cuba, "appropriate licensing and inspection procedures must be met by all donors." PFP has repeatedly failed to follow such procedures, as illustrated in a letter composed by a group of US Congressmen to the Director of the Office of Foreign Asset controls. The letter documents PFP’s numerous violations of the Cuban embargo, concluding that "Pastors for Peace has publicly and intentionally violated the law in an attempt to challenge US policy towards the Castro dictatorship. If Pastors for Peace was truly the peaceful humanitarian organization which it claims to be, it would not make its travel and resources contingent on political posturing, or violently violate the law and injure customs officials."

In its zeal to bolster Castro’s Communist cabal, the PFP has even resorted to violence in order to defy the Cuban Democracy act. Despite the fact that the PFP could ship humanitarian goods to Cuba if licensed under the Trading with Enemies Act , the group has consistently sought out confrontation with United States authorities. The most violent of these clashes occurred in 1996 when thirty vehicles carrying two hundred activists and three hundred computers was stopped at the Mexican border by US customs officials. PFP activists then exited their caravan and attempted to break through the blockade. A physical confrontation quickly erupted between the Customs officials and the activists, and although PFP profess adherence to "non-violent techniques," the melee resulted in serious injuries to four customs officials, three of which required hospitalization. A single PFP activist received minor injuries.

PFP has no qualms about placing the health and safety of American citizens at risk, as demonstrated by its involvement with "biorat." In July of 2001, Customs Officials seized more than thirty pounds of "biorat" from PFP activists. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, "Biorat is not admissible into the United States," because "it poses a public health risk worldwide." The report cites a "1996 article in the British medical journal Lancet asserting that the product could easily cause food-borne disease in people."

Through his sympathizers like Pastors for Peace, Castro continues to export toxins into the U.S. that could harm the American people. The desire of Pastors for Peace to smuggle contraband biochemicals into the United States needs to be scrutinized carefully, especially as our nation remains on alert against biological and chemical terrorism.

While not directly associated with the WWP or the rogue regimes in North Korea and Iraq, two other ANSWER Steering Committee members, the Muslim Student Alliance (MSA) and the Free Palestine Alliance (FPA), continue to contradict ANSWER’s alleged commitment to peace and ending racism. The Free Palestine Alliance is an outspoken supporter of the intifada, the Palestinian Uprising that has killed thousands of Israelis. Started by the Islamic Jihad, the Intifada has been guided by the PLO and strongly influenced by terrorist organizations like Hamas, which carry out suicide bombings. While the FPA does not overtly endorse the terrorist elements of the Intifada, much of the same rancor and anti-Semitism that drives the Hamas suicide bombers is on display at FPA events. For example, this past April, ANSWER sponsored a Free Palestine Rally, marchers bore signs reading " ‘Chosen People’ : It's Payback Time." The Nation’s Liza Featherstone reported "Some demonstrators' signs bore swastikas and SS symbols [that while] intended to draw parallels between Hitler and Sharon, [could] easily [be] construed as pro-Nazi."

While the FPA’s support of the Palestinian Intifada, an uprising that has claimed the lives of thousands of Jewish civilians and will continue to claim more, is disturbing enough, the Muslim Student Association has indirectly contributed to numerous terrorist organizations, including Hamas, and perhaps even Al-Qaeda. The MSA has actively solicited donations for the Holy Land Foundation.10 Treasury Department Secretary Paul O'Neill named the HLF, as well as two Palestinian-based financial organizations, as "Hamas operated organizations." President Bush described Hamas as "one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world today," which seeks the total destruction of the State of Israel. Altaf Husain, national president of the MSA, said his organization has no plans to stop raising money for various groups unless federal authorities crack down. He called suspicions about terrorist links post-attack "hype," and said it is up to the government to trace the money. "We are as American as anyone else. Why should we be the ones looking for all these so-called 'sleeper cells' or whatever?"

Mr. Husain’s indifference towards aiding terrorist organizations seems to have infected many of MSA’s student chapters. For example, according to the Supreme Islamic Council, "The MSA's Ohio State University chapter produces a Web newsletter called MSA News, which has included news releases from the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, which is on the State Department list of terrorist organizations that Americans are forbidden to support or finance, and the Islamic Salvation Front, a fundamentalist party banned in Algeria."

MSA's terror connections appear to even extend beyond Hamas and into the shadowy realm of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terror organization. In 1998, while investigating the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, the FBI recovered diaries maintained by Wadih El Hage, a bin Laden Lieutenant. In Mr. El Hage’s journals, investigators discovered passages that referred to a "joint venture" with the Holy Land Foundation. In addition, Mr. El Hage's address book contained the name and phone number of an alleged Hamas figure who worked with the HFL, Ghassan Dahduli.14 If the HLF was indeed involved with El Hage, then it seems indisputable that some MSA money has gone to fund al-Qaeda. Subsequently, a strong argument could be made that members of International ANSWER’s steering committee indirectly contributed to the September 11th attacks that massacred 2,792 women and men. Quite an impressive feat, for an organization dedicated to "peace."

The tolerance for anti-Semitism and violence against Jews that taints the MSA and IFA also manifests itself in the WWP. When a WWP delegation, lead by Sam Macy and Sue Bailey, traveled to North Korea in April 1992 to attend Kim Sung Il’s 80th birthday celebration, the group entered into discussions with other hardline Communist groups, including an anti-Semitic Stalin-worshipping sect called the Russian Communist Workers Party (RCWP) (Rossiskaia Kommunisticheskaia Rabochaia Partiia, or RKRP), which emerged from the anti-Gorbachev, "anti-revisionist" Movement of Communist Initiative in November 1991.

This contact between the WWP and RCWP continued to intensify after the parties left North Korea. "On September 3rd, 1992, WW ran an article by Viktor Tyulkin, the group's Secretary of its Central Committee. They remained in contact, and on Marcy's 85th birthday Tyulkin sent him a "message of solidarity" from the RCWP that was reprinted in the October 17th, 1996 WW. Tyulkin's comrade Victor Anpilov from the Executive Committee of Working Russia also enclosed his own "message of solidarity." This is the same Victor Anipilov who co-founded the RCWP and recently attacked Boris Yeltsin’s presidency as a "Jewish conspiracy."

Although collaboration and "solidarity" between communist organizations is not in itself shocking, much of the RCWP’s platform, which tends to mirror Anipilov’s Yeltsin comments, is. According to the leftist International Solidarity with Workers in Russia (Sword-SITR-MCPP) group, the RCWP could be best described as "an extremely racist and homophobic party whose members worship Stalin, campaign against black people in general and rap music in particular, issue material calling for homosexuals to be jailed, and published a party document in 1997 that blamed Russia's economic crisis on "American imperialism and international Zionism." The group also attacked current Russian President Vladimir Putin for being so close to "the Jews that he ignores true Russian 'patriots'."

Despite the RCWP’s unabashed anti-Semitic proclamations, the WWP continues to allow RCWP members to present their political views in the pages of Workers World. By declaring "solidarity" with the RCWP, it can only be presumed the WWP sympathizes with the organizations’ public statements regarding Jews. Rather than condemn their comrades’ assertions that Jews will be the downfall of Russia, the WWP has chosen to remain silent.

Further illustrating their sympathy towards anti-Semites, ANSWER’s organizers, many of whom are documented members of the WWP, have frequently refused to let devoted political leftists and peace advocates speak at rallies if they hold a pro-Israel position. The most celebrated of these incidents occurred when Rabbi Michael Lerner was barred from speaking at a recent IAC anti-war rally in San Francisco. Yet, at its January march in Washington, ANSWER "handed a microphone to Abdul Malim Musa, a Muslim cleric who on October 31, 2001 appeared at a news conference at the National Press Club with other Muslim activists and members of the New Black Panther Party, ‘where speakers asserted that Israel had launched the 9/11 attacks and that thousands of Jews had been warned that day not to go to work at the World Trade Center.’ At that press conference, Musa blasted the 'Zionists in Hollywood, the Zionists in New York, and the Zionists in D.C.’ who ‘all collaborate’ to put down blacks and Muslims."

ANSWER’s connection to anti-Semites extends even to Ramsey Clark, the head of IAC and a leader of the new anti-war coalition. As an attorney, Clark has taken it upon himself to represent several clients primarily characterized by their intense hatred of Jews. In 1989, Clark represented Lyndon Larouche, who by the late 1970’s embraced far-right anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Despite Larouche’s documented history of anti-Semitism, Clark expressed ‘amazement’ at the personal ‘vilification’ directed at Larouche throughout the trial. Clark also represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly vacationer who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986. Another Clark client was Karl Linnas, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard in Estonia (where he had overseen the murder of some 12,000 resistance fighters and Jews), who was being deported from the US to the USSR to face war crimes charges. Clark again lost the case but again went to bat for his client in the public arena, questioning the need to prosecute Nazis "forty years after some god-awful crime they're alleged to have committed."

It is not troubling that Clark defended these anti-Semitic thugs; our nation guarantees every man and woman the right to an attorney. However, there is clearly something highly questionable about a man, especially one with Clark’s profile, who makes an effort to publicly defend Nazis and anti-Semites after their trial has been concluded. However, in light of IAC’s connection with the WWP, an organization that in the past had been vehemently opposed to the state of Israel and, most importantly, supported the RCWP, Clark’s comments immediately assume a far more nefarious context.

Taken one example at a time, each of the facts presented concerning the activities of ANSWER’s steering committee would not be sufficient to indict the organization as a whole. However, even a brief study of some of ANSWER’s steering committee members reveals a pattern of support for governments, extremist organizations and radical individuals whose goals contradict ANSWER’s stated purpose of stopping war and ending racism. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has shown little inclination to investigate the organizations supporting ANSWER, and thus the vast majority of ANSWER’s supporters have no understanding of the group’s true origins. As conflict with Iraq, due to Hussein’s continued lack of compliance with UN Resolution 1441, becomes inevitable, it is likely ANSWER will double its efforts to infiltrate mainstream America’s political consciousness. Therefore, our citizenry must remain vigilant against these front organizations efforts to wrap their poisonous agenda in the banner of peace and brotherhood. After all, the greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing man he never existed.

frontpagemagazine.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 9:45:28 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
"FURTHER MATERIAL BREACH"

New Blix Report Could Delay U.N. Vote on Iraq
Wed Feb 19,12:15 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.S.-British resolution seeking U.N. authorization for war against Iraq may not be pushed to a vote before early March, after another report by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, diplomats said on Wednesday,

Before making a final decision about launching a military strike, the United States appears willing to devote a few weeks to getting international support, leading analysts and diplomats to believe a possible attack would not take place before mid-March.

But the language of a draft resolution has still not been agreed on by President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites). Its distribution to the 15-member U.N. Security Council, originally expected on Wednesday, is delayed until later in the week or early next week.

In the face of strong opposition to war in the Security Council, some knowledgeable envoys believe the United States and Britain will wait for any vote on a resolution until Blix's next report in hopes he will deliver criticism of Iraq that would rally support for military action.

Blix, along with his colleague Mohammed ElBaradei, in charge of nuclear arms inspectors, is to give a written update to the Security Council at the end of the month or early in March on the inspectors' progress and Iraq's cooperation

His report may include "key unresolved questions" that Iraq may answer. He is expected to report orally to the council during the first week of March.

To prepare for the report, Blix on Monday and Tuesday meets again with his outside advisory board, called a College of Commissioners, which is made up of technical experts and government officials from around the world. Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf represents the United States and Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov is Russia's commissioner.

"FURTHER MATERIAL BREACH"

The draft resolution is expected to be simple and say Iraq is in "further material breach" of a Nov. 8 Security Council resolution giving Baghdad one last opportunity to disarm or face serious consequences. The words "material breach" can be used as legal justification for military force.

The draft may give President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) a deadline to comply with Security Council demands. But this warning may also appear in a separate statement issued by the United States and Britain, the diplomats said.

The Bush administration also was weighing whether weapons inspectors should first set certain tasks for Iraq to fulfill.

Members could then assess whether Iraq is cooperating with so-called "benchmarks" and if it does not comply, the United States would have an easier time pushing a resolution to a successful vote. But diplomats said this plan seems to have been discarded.

"Technically it is not hard to establish benchmarks -- on Iraq allowing private interviews with scientists all the time, on missiles, on any stocks of anthrax it may have," said one Security Council source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But the time this might involve is risky."

John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), cautioned on Tuesday that the Bush administration had not yet decided when to circulate a document.

He said at minimum he would wait until Wednesday, the end of a public meeting at which dozens of U.N. members expressed opposition to war. But distribution will probably be later.

U.N. backing is particularly important for Britain and other European nations that support the United States, which has amassed 150,000 troops in the Gulf for an attack.

Anti-war protests over the weekend showed massive turnouts throughout the globe, with at least 750,000 people protesting in London, 1.3 million in Barcelona and one million in Rome among others.

Washington had thought it could fairly easily get the minimum nine votes needed for adoption of a resolution and then dare France, Russia and China -- permanent council members with veto rights -- to veto the measure.

But a debate last Friday, when Blix gave a more favorable report on arms inspections than expected, showed this was not the case. The United States and Britain received strong support from only Spain and mild backing from Bulgaria.

Other council members either supported France, which wants inspections extended, or were undecided.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 9:49:56 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
"Saddam's bluff is about to be called. Indeed, even the concessions he has made to date are being questioned. The Iraqi dictator recently banned the development of weapons of mass destruction, for example. It turns out that the edict applied only to private individuals, not the government, according to a senior U.S. official. So it would hardly impede any existing or prospective program. Iraq also has failed to produce scientists for private interviews, as the November resolution requires."

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

BusinessWeek Online
Why Bush Isn't About to Back Down
Monday February 24, 8:40 am ET
By Stan Crock

Last fall, when President Bush ignored the unilateralists on his team and chose to the path of allowing a U.N. inspection regime to try disarming Iraq, critics predicted a "trap." The question now: a trap for whom?
ADVERTISEMENT


The hawks, of course, thought it was a trap for the Administration. They figured that between concealment and strategic concessions, a cagey Saddam Hussein would be able to string out the process until interest waned and support for sanctions withered away. Then the Iraqi strongman would be free to expand his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, these critics feared. After all, that's what Saddam did in the 1990s -- and it worked.

Winter 2003 has seen the rise of bitter French and German opposition to U.S. war planning, millions around the globe marching in antiwar demonstrators, and public opposition from scores of African leaders. Many countries on the U.N. Security Council that initially appeared to be agnostic on the issue of war are also expressing jitters now. Time for the Bush Administration to make a tactical retreat? Don't bet on it.

MARCHING ORDERS. It may well turn out that the "trap" laid last autumn will squeeze Saddam and opponents of military action harder than it does Bush when Washington proposes a second resolution in the next week or so. The U.N.'s November resolution required not just an end to impediments for inspectors but also what Administration officials call a strategic decision by Baghdad to change its behavior. Unable to peer into every nook in a nation the size of California, inspectors were supposed to do little more than watch as Iraq disclosed and destroyed all its unaccounted-for chemical and biological weapons. Based on Saddam's track record, the Administration doubted Baghdad would in fact do this.

What's critically important now is that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has been making some of the same points. He has told Iraq that it must destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which exceed permitted ranges, and their engines. Even if Saddam agrees to do that -- the kind of partial, strategic concession Bush Administration hardliners feared -- Baghdad is unlikely to agree to all the actions Blix wants. He's now calling for the sweeping disclosure and destruction that both the U.N. resolution and the U.S. demand.

Saddam's bluff is about to be called. Indeed, even the concessions he has made to date are being questioned. The Iraqi dictator recently banned the development of weapons of mass destruction, for example. It turns out that the edict applied only to private individuals, not the government, according to a senior U.S. official. So it would hardly impede any existing or prospective program. Iraq also has failed to produce scientists for private interviews, as the November resolution requires.

ULTIMATE VICTORY? If an increasingly frustrated Blix outlines all these failures in his report to the Security Council on Mar. 7, it could slow the wave building against the U.S. And it could buttress support for the simple resolution Washington and London will propose, which doesn't have to say much more than that Iraq continues to flout previous resolutions. That's something even French officials concede.

The Administration hopes to wrap up any discussion and negotiation over the resolution's language in a couple of weeks. So by mid-March, it should be clear which way the wind is blowing. I suspect President Bush will be proved right after he all but predicted on Feb. 22 ultimate diplomatic victory in the U.N. While the momentum appears to be moving in the direction of the U.N. trying to block a U.S. military attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell and other State Dept. officials are heavily wooing some of the smaller nations on the Security Council.

The larger powers may come around, too. Britain already is on board, at considerable political risk for Prime Minister Tony Blair. Russia isn't likely to put at risk its relationship with the U.S. over Iraq, especially if Moscow is likely to get some concessions on the debt Baghdad owes it and on oil rights. And China would not want to be an outlier.

LIMITED CAPABILITIES. Even the French may cave. They say they stand on principle, but it's never clear with the French if it's spelled "al" or "le." French oil interests, after all, have a huge potential stake in Iraq. I don't think Paris wants a new Iraqi regime to be asking the indelicate question, "Where were you when we needed you?" [see BW Online, 2/24/03, "Stop Frying the French"].

The critical ingredient for American success could be Blix. All of the opposition is riding on the possibility that an inspection regime will work to rid Iraq of its chemical and biological weapons, and whatever nuclear plans are in train. But inspectors know better than most the limits of their capabilities. In the 1990s, they were ready to give Baghdad a clean bill of health until a defector told them of vast undetected stashes of weapons.

It's clear to anyone who has studied the issue that real disarmament isn't possible if a government doesn't actively cooperate, as South Africa, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan did. Iraq clearly has not cooperated in this manner.

MANDATE TO DISARM. If Blix concludes, perhaps in diplomatic, somewhat obfuscating language, that inspections are a dead end, the case against a U.S.-led effort to take out Saddam and any weapons of mass destruction becomes harder to make. Opponents may say that war to achieve disarmament isn't needed because the inspections produce adequate containment for whatever arms Saddam has. Whatever its validity, that position would leave unresolved the question of the U.N.'s credibility.

After all, the Security Council didn't mandate containment. It mandated disarmament. And that, Washington is sure to argue, is the issue the U.N. must decide.

biz.yahoo.com

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 9:55:33 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
"not doing enough to prove it had done away with banned weapons."

Dollar Mixed After Blix Report on Iraq
Fri Feb 14, 2:20 PM ET Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Andrea Ricci

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The dollar was mixed on Friday after a report by United Nation's weapons inspectors did little to change the opinions of Security Council members on whether or not war should be waged with Iraq.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix said there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and noted that Baghdad had taken some steps to cooperate with his team.

He also questioned some of the intelligence Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) presented to the Council last week to show Iraq was hiding weapons.

But Blix also pointed out that Iraq had missiles with ranges that exceeded U.N.-mandated limits and said that the Mideast country still was not doing enough to prove it had done away with banned weapons.

Diplomats from France, Russia and China -- which have opposed using force to assure Iraqi compliance -- said the inspections were producing results and called again for more time for inspectors to do their job.

But key U.S. ally Britain said Iraq had shown again that it was not cooperating fully, and Powell said Iraq was playing tricks on the United Nations (news - web sites).

"The Security Council is even more divided than last week ... and if anything, the foreign exchange market is even more uncertain," said Ron Simpson, senior currency analyst at MMS International.

By early afternoon in New York, the dollar was up about three-tenths of a percent against the euro at $1.0785 per euro and up a half a percent versus the Swiss franc at 1.3626 francs .

"The dollar is just chopping around until something new happens," said Marc Chandler, currency strategist at HSBC in New York.

U.S. stocks initially rose and gold and oil prices fell in response to the testimony by Blix and nuclear expert Mohamed ElBaradei on views it pushed back the probability of war.

(Story continues after advertisement)

ADVERTISEMENT


Political analysts surveyed by Reuters said that on balance, the testimony gave a bit more ammunition to countries that wanted to give more time to the inspectors. Still, they said it was unlikely either side would be materially swayed by the reports.

"I don't think Blix has changed any minds. There was something in there for everyone and satisfaction for no one," said Rosemary Hollis, head of the Middle East program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.

Dealers said the dollar's rebound against European currencies on Friday had more to do with position-squaring after its big declines on Thursday than with any reaction to the U.N. report. The dollar fell more than 1 percent against the euro and the franc on Thursday.

Bob Lynch, currency strategist at BNP Paribas, said that if Blix had been more hawkish, thereby lending more support to the U.S. position, the dollar might have picked up more of a bid.

"The Blix report really didn't give any incentive to buy the dollar, which might have been the case if he had been more critical of Iraq," he said.

For the dollar, the worst-case scenario is unilateral U.S. action because it would likely raise the costs of a war to the nation and could discourage capital inflows.

DATA BY THE WAYSIDE



With the focus on the United Nations, the dollar paid little attention to news that U.S. industrial output jumped 0.7 percent in January, boosted by renewed auto production. Economists on average had expected a rise of only 0.3 percent.

Capacity utilization rose to 75.7 percent from 75.2 percent in December.

The dollar did slip modestly after the University of Michigan reported that its preliminary February consumer sentiment index fell to 79.2 from 82.4 in January. Analysts had forecast a reading of 81.2.

JAPANESE GROWTH

The yen drew some bids after Japan said gross domestic product for the three months to Dec. 31 grew 0.5 percent from the previous quarter, stronger than expected.

The dollar was trading at 120.31 yen , down 0.26 percent. The euro, which was widely thought to be overbought versus the yen, was off 0.61 percent at 129.75 yen .

TJ Marta, senior foreign exchange analyst at Citibank, said the data did not change the bank's belief that Japan's economy was in trouble.

"For one thing, the (capital expenditure) and consumer demand numbers varied substantially from monthly numbers, and for another, a fair amount of the growth came by way of deflationary pressures. So we don't see a whole lot of positives in this number," he said.

Separately, the Bank of Japan decided to keep monetary policy unchanged, as expected.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 10:14:08 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
"The declaration of Dec. 7, despite the hopes attached to it and despite its large volume, has not been found to provide new evidence or data that may help to resolve outstanding disarmament issues. ... It did, however, usefully shed light on the developments in the missile sector and in the sector of non-proscribed biological activities in the period 1998-2002."

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

Excerpts from the new report on Iraq by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix
Fri Feb 28,11:46 PM ET

By The Associated Press

Excerpts from a new written report delivered to the U.N. Security Council Friday by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. The report was written prior to Iraq (news - web sites)'s agreement to eliminate all Al Samoud 2 missiles.



__

In most cases, (chemical, biological and missile) issues remain unresolved because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Such supporting evidence, in the form of documentation, testimony by individuals who took part in the activities, or physical evidence, would be required.

__

Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on Nov. 27, 2002, UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly.

__

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened ... The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

__

On Feb. 21 and 25, Iraq informed UNMOVIC that two complete R-400 aerial bombs (one of which had liquid contents), plus remnants of what it states were 118 R-400 bombs, had been excavated at Azzizziyah, the declared unilateral destruction site of (biological weapon)-filled aerial bombs, along with some related components and remnants of other destroyed munitions. UNMOVIC inspectors are currently investigating these finds.

__

To date, approximately a dozen countries have provided information of potential relevance to UNMOVIC's mandate.

__

UNMOVIC could certainly further expand and strengthen its activity ... Member States could also provide further support and assistance, notably in the field of information.

__

UNMOVIC is presently finalizing an internal document of some importance, namely, a list of the disarmament issues, which it considers currently unresolved, and of the measures which Iraq could take to resolve them, either by presenting proscribed stocks and items or by providing convincing evidence that such stocks or items no longer exist.

__

After some initial difficulties with Iraq relating to escorting flights into the no-fly zones, UNMOVIC helicopters have been able to operate as requested both for transport and inspection purposes.



__

After some initial difficulties raised by Iraq, UNMOVIC has been able to send surveillance aircraft over the entire territory of Iraq ...

__

The Iraqi commission established to search for and present any proscribed items is potentially a mechanism of importance. ... Although appointed around Jan. 20, it has so far reported only a few findings: four empty 122-mm chemical munitions and, recently, two ... aerial bombs and some associated components.

__

The second Iraqi commission established to search for relevant documents could also be of importance, as lack of documentation or other evidence is the most common reason why quantities of items are deemed unaccounted for. Iraq has recently reported to UNMOVIC that the commission had found documents concerning Iraq's unilateral destruction of proscribed items. As of the submission of this report, the documents are being examined.

__

The list of names of personnel reported to have taken part in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons and missiles in 1991 will open the possibility for interviews, which, if credible, might shed light on the scope of the unilateral actions. Such interviews will soon be organized.

__

Iraq has proposed a scientific technical procedure to measure quantities of proscribed liquid items disposed of in 1991. UNMOVIC experts are not very hopeful that these methods will bring meaningful results and will discuss this matter with Iraq in early March in Baghdad.

__

It has not yet proved possible to obtain interviews with Iraqi scientists, managers or others believed to have knowledge relevant to the disarmament tasks in circumstances that give satisfactory credibility. The Iraqi side reports that it encourages interviewees to accept such interviews, but the reality is that, so far, no persons not nominated by the Iraqi side have been willing to be interviewed without a tape recorder running or an Iraqi witness present.

__

The declaration of Dec. 7, despite the hopes attached to it and despite its large volume, has not been found to provide new evidence or data that may help to resolve outstanding disarmament issues. ... It did, however, usefully shed light on the developments in the missile sector and in the sector of non-proscribed biological activities in the period 1998-2002.

__

The presidential decree, which was issued on Feb. 14 and which prohibits private Iraqi citizens and mixed companies from engaging in work relating to weapons of mass destruction, standing alone, is not adequate to meet the United Nations (news - web sites) requirements.

__

During the period of time covered by the present report, Iraq could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items. The results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far.

__

It is hard to understand why a number of the measures, which are now being taken, could not have been initiated earlier. If they had been taken earlier, they might have borne fruit by now.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 10:18:30 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Blix Says Iraq May Still Have Anthrax

Sat Mar 8, 3:41 AM ET

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - In a 173-page dossier on Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix says Baghdad may possess about 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads filled with deadly biological and chemical agents, and drones capable of flying far beyond a 93-mile limit.

The report, obtained late Friday by The Associated Press, traces the history of Iraq's weapons programs and outlines the many areas where questions remain, many old but some new. Blix told the Security Council earlier in the day that he planned to cull items from the document and compile a list of key remaining disarmament tasks by the end of March that Iraq must complete.

The table of contents reflects the scope of the unanswered questions: missile technology, aerial bombs, spray devices and drone aircraft, mustard gas, sarin, chemical processing equipment, Botulinum toxin, ricin, genetic engineering and viral research — and the list goes on.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described the document as "a shocking indictment of the record of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s deception and deceit, but above all, of the danger which he poses to the region and to the world."

Britain and the United States, which are seeking Security Council approval for a war against Iraq, can find plenty of ammunition in the dossier to support their argument that Baghdad has failed to cooperate and fully disarm. But opponents of a rush to war counter that Iraq is starting to provide evidence — and therefore U.N. weapons inspections should continue.

Blix has previously questioned Iraq's reporting of its destruction of anthrax supplies from 1988 to 1991. He said Iraq declared that it produced 8,445 liters but cited evidence in the new report that it produced more.

"The strong presumption is that about 10,000 liters of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist," he said. In addition, "Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax."

"Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries. There does not appear to be any choke points, which would prevent Iraq from producing anthrax on at least the scale of its pre-1991 level," Blix said.

The chief inspector also expressed concern about Iraq's program to build pilotless aircraft known as drones, citing intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein is developing vehicles with a range of 312 miles — far exceeding the 93-mile limit.

While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax.

Iraq hasn't revealed the development of any drones that fly automatically, though it has declared that it developed two vehicles controlled from the ground or other aircraft with a range of 62 miles, he said, adding that this must be investigated.

"Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45 meters (24 1/2 feet) that has not been declared by Iraq. Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test flown," Blix said.

The chief inspector also expressed concern that Baghdad may be developing or planning missiles other than the Al Samoud 2 that may also have ranges exceeding 93 miles. Iraq has begun destroying its Al Samoud 2s.

"Indications of this come from solid propellant casting chambers Iraq has acquired through indigenous production, or from the repair of old chambers," he said. "The size of these chambers would enable the manufacture of a missile system with a range much greater than 93 miles."

Blix said Iraq must also produce evidence to prove that it has fully abandoned its program to develop a medium-range ballistic missile with a range of between 625 and 1,875 miles.

On Scud-B missiles, he said, "the lack of documentation to support the destruction of Scud-B liquid propellant, and the fact that approximately 50 warheads were not accounted for among the remnants of unilateral destruction, suggest that these items may have been retained for a proscribed missile force."

Iraq must also account for up to 30 chemical and biological Scud-type warheads which it claims it destroyed, he said. One way would be to provide minutes from a committee formed in 1991 to address the issue of retaining banned material and weapons, he said.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 10:21:08 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Hans Blix said on Friday that Iraq's cooperation fell short of U.N. Security Council demands

UN's Blix Gives Mixed Picture of Iraqi Cooperation
Fri Mar 7, 8:18 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said on Friday that Iraq (news - web sites)'s cooperation fell short of U.N. Security Council demands but applauded Baghdad's recent scrapping of al-Samoud missiles.

Reuters Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein




"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -- indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s," Blix said. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

His colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, who fields nuclear arms teams, was even more positive.

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," ElBaradei said.

In delivering a fairly favorable report on Iraqi cooperation to the U.N. Security Council, Blix gave ammunition to those who want inspections to continue, although he made clear many disarmament issues were unresolved.

"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active,' or even 'proactive,' these initiatives three-four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' cooperation," said Blix, in charge of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.

"Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance," he added.

'BETTER INFORMATION'

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), who is pressing the council to give Iraq a deadline to cooperate, said in an interview that the inspectors could only do so much.

"They are doing a reasonably effective job in light of what they are able to do, and they are only able to do what the Iraqis are really allowing them to do," he told ABC television.

"I think I have better information than the inspectors. I think I have more assets available to me than the inspectors do," he added, referring to U.S. intelligence gathering.

Asked why the United States does not give them that information, he said: "We are giving them as much as we can that is actionable, that really can cue them to something."

Blix praised Iraq's decision to destroy 34 of its al-Samoud 2 missiles, whose range exceeded U.N. limits, as well as four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher, five engines and two casting chambers since March 1.

But his presentation contrasted sharply with a 167-page document he gave to council members that lists 29 areas of unresolved weapons issues and a "to do" list of steps Iraq should take to comply.

This report, released by Reuters on Thursday, disputes Iraq's claim of how much anthrax it had destroyed, says it may be developing new banned missiles and calls on Baghdad to surrender any remaining biological, chemical or Scud missiles and to explain the fate of aerial bombs and missing chemical agents.

Blix said that if inspections continued and Iraq cooperated, "it would not take years, nor weeks, but months."

"Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspections to go on forever," he said.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 10:25:16 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
BLIX: still unsure if Baghdad really wanted to cooperate.

Report: Blix Says Inspections Could Take Months
Wed Feb 26,10:43 AM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


BERLIN (Reuters) - U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in remarks published Wednesday his team would need a few months to complete inspections in Iraq, but he was still unsure if Baghdad really wanted to cooperate.

Reuters Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein




"It's a process that is proceeding centimeter by centimeter ... Even if Iraq were to cooperate with us immediately, actively and unconditionally, we would need a few months," he told the German weekly Die Zeit.

"At the moment it is just not clear whether Iraq really wants to cooperate. On the other hand, this country has had eight years of inspections, four years without inspections and now 12 weeks with again. Is it the right time to close the door?"

Blix presents a written report on the progress on inspections to the U.N. Security Council Friday.

He denied the United States was trying to persuade him to sharpen his tone or to consider pulling out of Iraq.

"That is not the case ... It could be that I am naive and stupid or am too thick-skinned, but I do not feel much pressure," he said.

Blix also said he did not believe the United States wanted to go to war despite hawkish comments from the president and his staff and the build-up of U.S. troops in the Gulf.

"I am fairly convinced that Washington itself does not want a war," he said.

Blix repeated earlier comments that there were signs of increased cooperation, although Iraq still needed to do more.

"The regime has allowed us back in to avoid an immediate military strike. To what extent it was really a decision to cooperate I don't know," he said.

"Iraq could do more and we would register that."

Blix also insisted his team had been given a specific task, simply to compile evidence and that it bore no responsibility for a potential conflict.

"The security council has asked us for the most accurate report possible. I am a trained lawyer. The war is not my responsibility," he said.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 10:34:50 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
The U.N. nuclear chief warned that war is imminent if Saddam Hussein doesn't change his ways

Top nuclear inspector says Saddam needs attitude adjustment; more than half Al Samouds crushed
Mon Mar 10, 7:04 PM ET

By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.N. nuclear chief warned that war is imminent if Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) doesn't change his ways, even as weapons inspectors announced Iraq (news - web sites) has destroyed about half its banned Al Samoud 2 missiles.



Meanwhile, United States and France led a flurry of lobbying Monday over a plan to give Saddam a deadline of March 17 to prove he has disarmed or face war. U.S. diplomats said they would push for a U.N. Security Council vote this week.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Saudi-owned newspaper Al Hayat in an interview published Monday that he will send a message to Saddam with five Arab foreign ministers this week proposing "an essential change in spirit and essence."

"If Iraq, during the coming week or the next two weeks, failed to present absolute evidence that it does not possess (banned) weapons, we will walk the path of war," ElBaradei was quoted as saying. "The next two weeks will be decisive, and the ball is still in the Iraqi court."

ElBaradei said he would recommend that Saddam let weapons inspectors interview scientists outside Iraq — which would allow them to defect if their comments put them at risk — and present more evidence that he has destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.

Doing that might buy Iraq time, he said.

"The basic issue is that the U.S. would not agree on extending this period without providing absolute indications that it will lead to positive results," he said.

Opposition to the U.S.-backed resolution hardened Monday. French President Jacques Chirac said his country was prepared to use its veto if necessary. France, Chirac said, would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war: "No matter what the circumstances we will vote 'no.'"

Also Monday, the speaker of Russia's parliament, Gennady Seleznyov, told Saddam that Russia will vote against the ultimatum, the official Iraqi News Agency reported.

The Iraqi newspaper Babil, owned by Saddam's son Odai, urged the Security Council to oppose the U.S. ultimatum, saying the body must not be ruled by the "bloodthirsty whims for a group of adventurers in Washington."

If the resolution is defeated, the U.S. and British governments have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway with a coalition of willing nations.

Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, said Monday that invading forces "are not going to take Iraq easily" because Iraqis will fight to defend their country.

"They want us to surrender to them before the war," he said. "We shall not surrender at all, and when they fight ... we will fight them — courageously and effectively — and they will fail. They will fail."

As part of its most visible move to disarm, Iraq continued to crush its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which chief weapons inspector Hans Blix ordered destroyed because they can fly farther than allowed under U.N. resolutions.

Inspectors' spokesman Hiro Ueki said bulldozers crushed six more missiles Monday, meaning Iraq has destroyed more than half its arsenal since March 1. Of 100 missiles Iraq was believed to have, 52 have been destroyed.

Iraq also destroyed three Al Samoud 2 warheads, bringing the number of those destroyed to 19, Ueki said.

Inspectors interviewed an Iraqi involved in the country's destruction of precursors for chemical weapons production, Ueki said. Interviews with such scientists began in earnest only Feb. 28, when Iraq began pressuring the scientists to talk.



Weapons inspectors also visited a former airfield where they have been trying to verify Iraq's claims that it destroyed bombs filled with biological agent 12 years ago.

The threat of war was taking a toll on Iraq. The Iraqi dinar slid to 2,600 to the U.S. dollar, down from 2,200 to the dollar last month. The dinar was worth more than US$3 in 1990.

Prices for basic goods like powdered milk, sugar and cooking oil rose sharply as Iraqis stocked up on basic supplies. People dug wells and trenches in their yards and police patrolled the streets. Foxholes surrounded by sandbags dotted the city.

Also Monday, Iraq asked the Security Council to consider punishing the United States and Kuwait for cutting seven holes in a 200-kilometer (120-mile) fence separating Kuwait and Iraq.

U.N. peacekeepers patrolling the border found the holes being cut by men in civilian clothes who identified themselves as U.S. Marines, the United Nations (news - web sites) said.

In a letter sent Sunday and made public Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri appealed to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) to take the report to the Security Council.

"The participation of Kuwait in this aggression will carry legal responsibilities according to international law and the U.N. charter," he wrote. He said the action "represents a threat to the world's security."

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 10:40:13 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
"The results to date have been consistent with Iraqi declarations" that it possesses no weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix, chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission, told the 15-nation Security Council.

Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that access granted by Iraq to its weapons sites has been good, but he concluded it still hasn't accounted for chemical and biological weapons.

"What we need is not more inspections, what we need is immediate, active, unconditional, full cooperation on the part of Iraq," Powell said. "What we need is for Iraq to disarm."

Powell said Iraq remains in violation of provisions of U.N. Resolution 1441. Passed last fall, it calls for disarmament by the country.

Blix's speech covered familiar ground with Iraq, and it's unclear how it will affect U.S. preparations for a possible war.

"Blix's 'something for everybody' report assures only one result: more confusion for Wall Street," Tony Dwyer, chief market strategist with Kirlin Securities, told.

biz.yahoo.com

Friday February 14, 4:17 pm ET



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 11:43:22 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Blix also will distribute a 167-page report that disputes Iraq's claim to have destroyed 21,000 liters of biological warfare agents, including anthrax, 12 years ago, according to a weapons report to be released on Friday.

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

Britain, U.S. Discuss Amendments to Iraq Resolution
Thu Mar 6,10:36 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Facing strong opposition, Britain on Thursday offered to amend a U.S.-backed U.N. resolution that would give Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) a bit more time to prove he had eliminated all banned weapons, a proposal the United States considered seriously.

Reuters Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein




With about 300,000 U.S. and British troops in the Gulf ready to invade Iraq (news - web sites), British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, however, made clear at a U.N. news conference that any compromise had to include adoption of a U.S.-British-Spanish resolution that authorized war

President Bush (news - web sites), in a rare prime-time news conference, said he would insist on a vote regardless of prospects for passage.

"It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam," he said.

But State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), in meetings with Straw and Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio "discussed various ideas about a resolution, including possible changes in the text."

Straw, in his news conference, did not give details of his proposal which diplomats said would give Iraq more time to disarm after adoption of the resolution and before war.

Britain was considering a five or seven day time span while the United States wanted 72 hours, the envoys said. "Of course, we are ready to discuss the wording of that resolution," Straw said. "There is certainly the possibility of an amendment, and that's what we are looking at."

Straw, Powell, Palacio and other key foreign ministers arrived at the United Nations (news - web sites) for a meeting on Friday at which top U.N. weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, will give their latest report on Iraqi compliance with U.N. demands that it disarm. Iraq denies it has any banned weapons.

Powell also met French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, his most articulate opponent of the resolution.

"He had good extensive discussions (with all the ministers) on Iraq's refusal to disarm and the council's responsibility to deal with this danger," Boucher said.

While some undecided nations, like Chile, expressed interest in the British proposal, it was bound to be rebuffed by Russia, France, Germany and China who oppose war.

IS THAT A COMPROMISE?

"First you say you start the war tomorrow," said Russia's U.N. ambassador Sergei Lavrov. "And then you say you start the war in three days. Is that a compromise?"

Despite intense lobbying, the British effort indicated that the United States had still not nailed down the support it needed in the Security Council, with swing states unwilling to publicly back Washington.

A resolution needs nine votes and no veto from its five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- for adoption.

If the United States gets the minimum nine votes and France or Russia cast a veto, Washington could then say it had done its best to get international approval for war. Aside from the sponsors of the resolution, only Bulgaria has openly backed an attack against Iraq, albeit with misgivings.

ARMS INSPECTORS' REPORT



The British proposal was expected to be discussed on Friday, when foreign ministers representing most council members meet behind closed doors after the inspectors' report.

ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, again expressed doubts at U.S. allegations that Iraq had tried to revive its nuclear arms programs.

"If things move as they are now, if Iraq keeps accelerating its cooperation ... I think one can talk about two to three months," he said in an interview.

Blix, in charge of chemical, biological and ballistic arms programs, has also given a preview of his presentation at a news conference on Wednesday.

While he is not as optimistic as ElBaradei he said Iraq had provided substantial cooperation in the past few weeks, particularly in destroying its al-Samoud 2 missiles because they exceeded the 90 miles range set by U.N. resolutions.

Blix also will distribute a 167-page report that disputes Iraq's claim to have destroyed 21,000 liters of biological warfare agents, including anthrax, 12 years ago, according to a weapons report to be released on Friday.

The report, obtained by Reuters, says Iraq may be developing new banned missiles, calls on Baghdad to surrender any remaining biological, chemical or Scud missiles, and explain the fate of missing chemical agents.

But the report is bound to encourage France, Russia and Germany by setting out a program of work that Baghdad is expected to follow in accounting for dangerous weapons.

However, Straw seized on the report to argue that Iraq has no intention to disarm, calling it a "shocking indictment of the record of Saddam Hussein's deception and deceit."

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/14/2003 11:48:22 PM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 808
 
Democracy Must Reign Iraq's Future, Says Rights Group

Thu Feb 13,11:31 AM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!


Beth Bolitho,OneWorld UK

Rights advocates staking out early positions in advance of possible military action against the regime of Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), are calling for democratic principles to be upheld in any post-conflict settlement for the multi-ethnic and religiously diverse country.

• The Report from Minority Rights Group International
• Iraqi Voices Discuss Building a New National Identity on OpenDemocracy
• Kurdish Human Rights Project
• OneWorld Special Report on Iraq

Supported by
Cable & Wireless




All sections of Iraq's population must have ownership over efforts to rebuild the country in the aftermath of any attack, according to London-based Minority Rights Group International (MRG), which published a report Wednesday based on interviews with a number of internationally-renowned post-conflict, constitutional law, and human rights experts.

"Self-determination of the Iraqi people is the overriding criterion for creating democracy in Iraq," according to the report, 'Building Democracy in Iraq,' which recommended a central role for the population in "decisions over the structure of any transitional administration, the choice of representatives, the design of the constitutional process, and the form and content of the new constitution."

The report said that this model should be favored over other options--including establishing a 'United States protectorate' or appointing an Iraqi general as interim president--recently considered by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites), who has publicly stated that "regime change" would be one of the goals of action against Iraq.

Such non-inclusive approaches would undermine the legitimacy of a transitional government, and threaten the viability of a more permanent body elected by the Iraqi people, according to MRG's director Mark Lattimer, who authored the report.

"Installing another Iraqi strongman or general as president...would likely result in continued discrimination against minority communities in Iraq and may lead to a backlash, and might have the effect of prolonging division and even increasing the chance of a widespread civil conflict," he said.

Iraq is home to a range of ethnic and religious groups, including members of the region's Kurdish population in the north, alongside Assyrian and Turkoman communities, and Shi'ite Muslims in the south, who make up a majority of the country's Islamic population, dominated by the politically influential Sunni grouping around Baghdad.

"What is necessary is a constitution-making process which encourages cooperation between communities, while recognizing and protecting identities--like that of the Kurds--where these are strongly felt," said Lattimer, whose report also calls for a "Pan-ethnic president."

MRG's appeal comes ahead of a new report, due to be delivered to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council on Friday, from chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. That report--on progress in uncovering evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--is likely to prove decisive in preparations for military action in the coming weeks.

The U.S., along with Britain--which together are building up a substantial military force in the Gulf--is seeking Security Council authorization for an attack on Iraq, but is facing opposition from three veto-holding permanent members of the Council - France, Russia, and China.

However, U.S. public support is growing for military action in Iraq with or without a UN mandate. According to a poll conducted this week by the Washington Post and ABC News, 57 percent of those surveyed would stand behind an invasion even if only the U.S. and its close allies were involved.

If an invasion were to take place without UN backing, Lattimer stressed, the legitimacy of any nation-building efforts could be seriously undermined.

"It will make it much harder to get UN or EU support for international peacekeepers, a major aid effort, or even an international criminal tribunal, all of which need to be genuinely international and neutral in the eyes of the Iraqi people in order to be successful," he said.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (730)3/17/2003 11:51:07 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 808
 
alighthouse.com
.
.