Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
EU Parliament resolution against cluster bombs and uranium weapons
On a day of high drama, a quiet Swede may just have turned back the tide of war
Co-operation could make 'period of disarmament' short
Threat Erodes Japan's Pacifism
South Koreans Visiting North, Despite Tensions
U.S. may build smaller nukes
President mulls plan to build mininukes
Peace call from Pope
The Great "Intelligence Fraud"
MILITARY
Nepal in a stalemate
THAILAND: Burma urged to free 12 activists
U.S. Urges Taiwan to Spend More on Defense
U.K.'s Blair: No march for Saddam victims
BAE Agrees To Buy D.C. Defense Firm
Defense Stocks Have Long - Term Appeal
Colombian Rebels Kill U.S. Civilian
15 killed by bomb 'meant for President'
Iraq Feud Eats at Europe's Unity
India won't support U.S. attack on Iraq
Iran out of Bush's new spin on 'axis of evil'
Bin Laden son, al Qaeda terrorists spotted in Iran
Iraqis protest war, welcome U.N. report
10 million mouths to feed after battle
Invasion, bombs, gas - we've been here before
Hussein Issues Decree to Ban Weapons of Mass Destruction
Arafat Will Appoint a Prime Minister, a Major U.S. Demand
Iraqi crisis: Terror fallout in the Philippines
Russian calls situation 'typical guerrilla war'
Space debris remains suspect as cause of shuttle crash
Shifting Sands at the U.N.
U.S. Meets New Resistance at U.N.
U.S. rebuffed on using force in Iraq
Powell Calls for U.N. to Act on Iraq and Meets Deep Resistance
Troops plan to storm Baghdad on first day of battle
Seabees Get Ready To Pave Trail to Iraq
Readers troubled by 'timid' air strategy story
Troops plan to storm Baghdad on first day of battle
20,000 More Troops Sent to Persian Gulf; Jets Hit Iraqi SAM's
Iraqi reporter expelled; Baghdad orders Fox out
Timely Anti-war Quotes
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Bush Aims to Blend Counterterrorism Efforts
BRITAIN - Six arrested in airport security sweep
Ridge cautions against panic
Democrats Criticize Homeland Security Budget
President Seeks to Assuage Fears
N95 Masks Flying Off Shelves, but They Offer Scant Protection
Congress Funds INS Registration System but Demands Details
Government Extends Deadline for Foreign Students to Register
F.B.I. and C.I.A. Set for a Major Consolidation in Counterterror
As Man Lay Dying, Witnesses Turned Away
White House Scales Back Cyberspace Plan
OTHER
Toxic Gas Vented from Lake
We hardly knew ewe
Tradition May Lead To AIDS Vaccine
Media Frenzy: How Mold Got Sold as a Top Health Hazard
ACTIVISTS
Protests Take Some Unlikely Routes
Doves ascending
Anti-war protesters take to streets
Global Protests Add to Diplomatic Push Against War
1 million Italians march against Iraq war
Antiwar protests rally for peace
S. Koreans stage anti-war rally
Peace demonstrators flood N.Y.
Anti-War Protesters Hold Global Rallies
Zimbabwe Arrests Protesters
Huge crowds worldwide protest Iraq war
Huge Europe protests move to U.S.
Violence at Greek antiwar rally
Antiwar Marchers Are Hoping They Can Change Blair's Mind
War Protesters Prepare for Rally, but No March
Canadians send anti-war message
Initial Report: Anti-War Demo in Berlin
Giving Christianity A Bad Name
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- depleted uranium
EU Parliament resolution against cluster bombs and uranium weapons
From: "Dai Williams" <eosuk@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003
1. CONTEXT
Refer previous messages to DU list since January 2001 regarding investigations into new guided weapons with suspected Uranium warheads. Full details in 'Depleted Uranium weapons 2001-2002, Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan' (January 2002) available at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm
Refer also new findings published in 'Uranium weapons 2001-2003: Hazards of Uranium weapons for Afghanistan and Iraq (October 2002) http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u232.htm
2. CONCERN AND ACTION IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
A number of MEPs have been campaigning against Depleted Uranium weapons for several years. In April 2002 MEP Paul Lannoye questioned the use of Uranium weapons in Afghanistan in the European Parliament (link in References of http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm ).
In October Green Party MEPs requested a briefing about the new Uranium weapons, their suspected use in Afghanistan and risks for US war plans in Iraq. They included this latest information, including reports of Uranium contamination in Afghanistan, when drafting a new European Parliament resolution with other groups.
The hazards of Uranium weapons - radiological bombs - have much in common with international concerns about landmines and cluster bombs. Low level radiation exposure can also maim, cripple or kill civilians, troops and children years after combat finishes.
The new EU resolution was debated on Wednesday 12th February. Despite a hostile defence of Uranium weapons by Commissioner Byrne, actually distorting warnings in the Royal Society report, the resolution was passed in Strasbourg on Thursday 13th February - see text at the end of this message. I am grateful to all the MEPs and researchers who have treated this subject with such concern.
3. HAZARDS OF URANIUM WEAPONS IN THE PROPOSED WAR ON IRAQ
See new online presentation Last chance to question US Dirty Bombs for Iraq? at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/Uhaz7feb03/index.htm
Unlike Europe, neither the UK Parliament, nor the US Congress or Senate, have had any informed debate about the secret, high density metal used in new hard target guided weapons and sub-munitions. Uranium (depleted or undepleted) is the only economic metal that offers both the high density AND incendiary effects required, but at incalculable cost to human life and the environment.
These hard target guided weapons are essential to the Pentagon's 'Shock and Awe' air strike plans for Iraq reported in the New York Times on 2nd February. The suspected warheads contain between 50 and 5000 kg of the secret metal. If this metal is Uranium then these are large radiological bombs.
The Pentagon plans include 700 cruise and other guided missiles, 6000 JDAM and 3700 other (e.g. Paveway III) guided bombs. As in Afghanistan I estimate that at least 30% of these will have hard target warheads designed for underground targets and for suspected chemical or biological weapon targets.
If the secret metal is Uranium then such a Uranium blitz with US Dirty Bombs may spread 1500+ tons of radioactive, toxic waste across large areas of Iraq. See the online presentation mentioned above at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/Uhaz7feb03/index.htm. This scenario will jeopardise the lives of Iraqi civilians, expatriate aid workers and media teams, and of UK, US and other allied troops - friend and foe alike.
High levels of so called natural 'background' uranium in target areas may really be contamination from undepleted uranium warheads. Uranium oxide dust is very fine and will stay airborne for weeks or months, re-suspended by vehicles and summer heat. Like the radiation detected in Greece and Hungary during the Balkans bombing, and the "haze over Kabul" during October 2001, a new US bombing campaign in Iraq may spread a radioactive haze over large areas of Iraq. With normal winds this is most likely to drift into neighbouring countries Kuwait, Saudi and Iran.
A radiological bombing attack on Iraq on this scale risks causing slow genocide for large numbers of Iraqis and fratricide (friendly fire killing) for allied forces and aid workers. This may already be happening in Afghanistan and for expatriates and refugees who have left since the bombing. Health reports on civilians and troops have been very limited but some disturbing epidemics have been reported see section 9 in the updated analysis at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/Uhaziraq1.pdf
The health effects of the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq are already horrific. There is very little time left for citizens, politicians and media to prevent a new Uranium nightmare in Iraq.
4. NEED TO VETO US WAR PLANS & INSPECT SUSPECTED DIRTY BOMBS
There is growing evidence of Uranium weapons development. 23 weapon systems are now under suspicion. It is absolutely essential to stop US war plans that rely on these weapons since they may lead to genocide.
It is the gravest folly for the UK Government to support US military operations using these weapons, or to commit UK troops to operate in suspected Uranium target zones, until full and rigorous inspections by UN inspectors have been carried out
These UN inspections need to be even more rigorous than in Iraq. They need to include evidence of suspected weapon systems dating back to 1985, target areas in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan where they have been used, plus Uranium testing and health monitoring for civilians and troops exposed to bomb and missile target areas. UN inspectors must expect similar delays, denial and deception from the US and other countries as they have experienced in Iraq.
Although most of the suspected systems have been developed in the USA, Uranium arms control inspections may need to include up to 20 other countries involved in the development, purchase or use of Uranium weapons. These may include the UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and China. Uranium weapons proliferation is a potentially very serious international arms control issue.
This week's EU Parliament resolution linking arms control for cluster bombs and uranium weapons is appropriate. But suspected Uranium weapons may represent an even bigger and more serious hazard than cluster bombs.
The EU resolution to freeze and investigate Uranium weapons needs immediate and rigorous follow up in the UK and many other Parliaments, in the UN Security Council and General Assembly, and in the international media. But can this happen fast enough to veto a major US attack on Iraq?
Thank you EU MEPs, and to Alice Mahon MP and Valerie Davey MP for brave but brief questions in Westminster recently seeking assurances that Uranium or depleted uranium weapons will not be used in Iraq.
I hope that the issue of US Dirty Bombs will be raised in today's protests around the world.
Prime Minister Tony Blair challenges peace marchers to question the morality of leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
I challenge Tony Blair and George Bush to justify the morality of using massive radiological bombs - the latest weighing 10 tons - to achieve any military objective, with utter disregard for the consequences for troops and civilians.
Genocide is unforgiveable. So is the secrecy and deception that has concealed the development of these weapons for over 10 years, and subverted medical and environmental research into the hazards of uranium weapons - including work by UN agencies.
Rapid international action is needed to save Iraqi civilians and allied troops from these weapons.
The vital issue now is whether media editors will be allowed to start a national and international debate about suspected US Dirty Bombs. Until then Tony Blair and George Bush probably don't even realise that they exist.
In concern for peace and humanity
Dai Williams, independent researcher Surrey, UK eosuk@btinternet.com
--
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Session 1999-2004
10 February 2003
[B5-0116/2003 - B5-0131/2003]
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
pursuant to Rule 42(5) of the Rules of Procedure by:
- Antonios Trakatellis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group
- Jannis Sakellariou, on behalf of the PSE Group
- Johan Van Hecke and Bob van den Bos, on behalf of the ELDR Group
- Nelly Maes,on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
- Luisa Morgantini, Pernille Frahm and Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group
European Parliament resolution on the harmful effects of unexploded ordnance (landmines and cluster submunitions) and depleted uranium ammunition
The European Parliament,
- having regard to its previous resolution on cluster submunitions and depleted uranium ammunition,
reaffirming the need to establish moratoriums on these types of ammunition pending a total ban,
having regard to the work of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Explosive Remnants of War and Anti-Vehicle Mines, which has been discussing and will begin to negotiate in 2003 on weapons and weapons systems, including cluster submunitions that produce unexploded ordnance,
having regard to the excellent progress that the Commission has made in the area of mine clearance support,
having regard to the ongoing use of anti-personnel landmines and anti-vehicle landmines in many major armed conflicts; whereas landmines are mainly used in conflicts in which both state and non-state armed groups are involved,
recognising that most EU Member States have signed the Ottawa Treaty to globally ban anti-personnel landmines, and hence do not use these types of weaponry any longer; recognising that NATO has de facto banned the use of anti-personnel mines,
whereas cluster submunitions have been and are currently widely used in armed conflicts,
having regard to the use of depleted uranium ammunition in past military interventions,
whereas NATO has not banned these types of weapons,
whereas - whilst acknowledging that international law does not refer specifically to the issue of depleted uranium at present - credible efforts are needed to ensure that any use of such weapons is not in violation of the Additional Protocol I to the Convention on Conventional Weapons,
whereas current international law does not cover compensation for possible harmful effects from users of such kinds of weapons and weapons systems,
whereas, furthermore, states, including EU Member States, are willing to aid in the effort to address this shortfall by providing assistance, in the form of economic assistance, land clearance, social assistance and medical support, to those affected by such weapons,
whereas EU citizens, civilian and military members of peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations, could have been and could continue to become victims of such weapons, in humanitarian civilian and military missions and potentially under future ESDP missions,
whereas the targeting of civilians in any conflict with any weapon is contrary to international humanitarian law, and the use of these types of weapons might be considered a war crime under the competence of the ICC,
whereas for the EU, in developing its ESDP and deploying armed forces, it is vital to uphold international humanitarian law and arms control to the highest standards,
1. Calls on the Council and the EU Member States to review and monitor the design and development of weapons, ensuring that these are in line with the appropriate international law to meet the highest international standards against technical misuse, misdeployment, mistargeting and malfunction;
2. Calls on the Council and the EU Member States, as well as on NATO and its non-EU Member States, to make a public declaration and guarantee that they will not use weapons or weapons systems that have been banned or are deemed to be illegal under international law in present or future armed conflicts;
3. Calls on the Council and the EU Member States, as well as the applicant states, to fully support the Group of Governmental Experts aiming at negotiating a new or amended protocol, within the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, to tackle the issue of explosive remnants of war, in particular so as to achieve benchmarks for speedy assistance to affected victims;
4. Calls on the Council to fully support the Commission's programmes in the area of mine clearance; emphasises that these programmes should be extended to the broader area of explosive remnants of war; invites the Commission to make a statement on how this could be done;
5. Invites the Commission to issue a communication on this matter outlining in detail how it is strengthening its efforts in favour of projects assisting the victims of anti-personnel mines or unexploded ordnance (primary care or social and economic reintegration projects) and by what means it is encouraging the third countries concerned to set up a national policy towards these victims;
6. Invites the Commission to issue a communication on its assessment of priorities and best practice which might be usefully incorporated into any international legal efforts to address the issue of unexploded ordnance, in order to support the efforts in Geneva with the States Parties to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons;
7. Asks the Commission, in the light of the results of these scientific investigations on the use of DU ammunition, to monitor developments in relation to the possible serious, widespread contamination of the environment, as well as an acute or appreciable long-term hazard to human health, and to keep it regularly informed;
8. Supports the stepping up of the EU contribution to the fight against anti-personnel landmines, and asks the Commission to play a prominent role in fostering cooperation and coordination with the Member States, the United Nations and the US and to support effectively coordination between the main programmes of activities and the partners on the ground;
9. Calls on the Council and the EU Member States to take all necessary steps to promote the universalisation of the 1997 Ottawa Treaty and the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons;
10. Calls for a ban of the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines by non-state armed groups; calls on the States Parties to the Ottawa Treaty to incorporate this issue in their forthcoming meeting in Bangkok and to support the efforts of specialist NGOs and international humanitarian organisations in engaging non-state armed groups in the ban on landmines;
11. Calls on the Council to support independent and thorough investigations into the possible harmful effects of the use of depleted uranium ammunition (and other types of uranium warheads) in battlefield operations such as in the Balkans, Afghanistan and other regions; stresses that such investigations should concern the effects on the soldiers in affected areas as well as the effects on civilians and their land; calls for the results of these investigations to be presented to Parliament;
12. Requests the EU Member States - in order to play their leadership role in full - to immediately implement a moratorium on the further use of cluster ammunition and depleted uranium ammunition (and other uranium warheads), pending the conclusions of a comprehensive study of the requirements of international humanitarian law;
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EU Member States, all non-EU NATO Member States, the UN Secretary-General and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
-------- inspections
On a day of high drama, a quiet Swede may just have turned back the tide of war
By David Usborne in New York
15 February 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=378431
Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, unexpectedly threw sand in the cogs of war yesterday by suggesting that Iraq could yet satisfy United Nations demands that it rid itself of weapons of mass destruction if it acts quickly to resolve the riddle of its missing chemical and biological agents.
In an electrifying meeting, Mr Blix singularly failed to state that Iraq was in "material breach" of resolution 1441, dealing a crippling blow to the British and American hopes for an second resolution that would endorse a war on Iraq.
Updating the council on the progress of inspections to the UN Security Council, Mr Blix repeated that Iraq still had not answered critical questions but pointed to some new movement on the part of Baghdad to try to satisfy inspectors. He repeated that his teams still had found almost no evidence of proscribed arms.
With a report that remained mixed but was notably less dejected in tone than his last one delivered on 27 January, Mr Blix is likely to have fueled divisions that continue to plague in the Security Council as well as Nato and the European Union. France and several other countries seized on his findings to restate their argument that inspections should be allowed to continue.
There was little new ammunition in Mr Blix's words, by contrast, for Britain and the United States. The two countries must now decide whether to press forward and submit a new resolution to the Council declaring that Iraq is already in "material breach" of Resolution 1441 of last November, implying that the time for force has come.
Today Tony Blair will do just that when he signals his determination for military action even without a second UN resolution. He will tell the Labour Party's spring conference in Glasgow: "I will be failing in my duty not to say what I believe." A senior minister told The Independent: "Tony is prepared to go it alone. He thinks he is doing the right thing."
Mr Blix may have severely complicated the task of getting such a text adopted. Minutes afterwards, the White House said President George Bush was not on a tram-track to war. "The President remains hopeful that Iraq will, indeed, disarm and therefore avert the need for force to be used to disarm him," his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters.
As peace protestors prepare to take the streets worldwide today to denounce war, observers in New York agreed that Mr Blix's newest assessment appeared to have pushed the pendulum in the argument over Iraq marginally back in the direction of countries resisting the use of force.
If the veteran Swedish diplomat was under pressure from Washington to give Iraq the blackest possible grade for its co-operation, he certainly did not show it. Indeed, he twice called into question allegations recently made about Iraq's activities by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Mr Powell looked on with a face of thunder.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes?" Mr Blix asked. "So far, Unmovic [UN Monitoring and Verification Commission] has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions.
"Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."
Mr Blix, whose presentation was followed by an accompanying report by Mohamed al-Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reflected that the inspections process, when it was first initiated in 1991 after the Gulf War, was designed to be short.
Iraq still has the chance, he argued, to bring the new phase of inspections, started 11 weeks ago, to a swift conclusion.
"Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspectors could still be short if 'immediate, active and unconditional co-operation' with Unmovic and the IAEA were to be forthcoming," Mr Blix said, possibly with an eye on UK-US consideration of a possible ultimatum in a second resolution. It would set a final date for Iraq to come into compliance.
Mr Baradei told the Council that his inspectors had also found no evidence Iraq had resumed its nuclear weapons programme and said inspectors could do their job without Iraq's full co-operation. "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq," he stated.
Positive improvements noted by Mr Blix included a decree issued by Saddam Hussein yesterday banning the importation or the production of weapons of mass destruction. He noted that Iraq had agreed to set up a second commission of its own to seek out new documents to demonstrate that the missing agents were long ago destroyed. It also offered names of 80 people to Mr Blix who witnessed that destruction.
The clash of opinions over what do next was starkly on display in the Council as Mr Powell sought to contend that the gestures made by Iraq amounted to nothing more than a continuing cat and mouse game. With these eleventh-hour manoeuvres, Iraq was trying to "throw us off the trail," Mr Powell argued.
"To this day we have not seen the level of co-operation that was ... hoped for," Mr Powell insisted. And disputing those arguing for more time for inspections, he said: "We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out."
Giving strong support to Mr Powell, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who flew to New York by Concorde for the session, urged all 15 members to "hold our nerve in the face of this tyrant", President Saddam Hussein.
But several speakers firmly took the stance that inspections should be allowed to continue. The French Foreign Minister, Domique de Villepin, contended that Mr Blix's report showed that progress was being made."War is always the sanction of failure," Mr de Villepin asserted. "We must give the inspectors every chance of succeeding."
His statement triggered applause in the gallery of the Security Council, an extremely rare - and, under UN protocol, strictly discouraged - event.
Significantly, however, Mr Villepin called for another report from Mr Blix on 14 March. He said that if, at that time, the inspectors find their efforts are failing, then it might be time for the Council to declare Iraq in "material breach", a code for war.
"But that's not the time in which we are today," he said. Some other swing countres, including Mexico, also said they were not ruling out the use of force for ever. In an unexpected fillip for the French as well as for the French-German-Russian common position in favour continuing inspections, Mr Blix revealed that he had already authorised the deployment of French Mirage aircraft starting late next week as well as unmanned drones to be supplied by Germany. He also suggested that he was likely to accept a Russian offer of Antonov aircraft with night vision.
With Mr Powell just across the horseshoe of the Council table, Mr Blix openly questioned the conclusion drawn by the Secretary of State from one of the satellite images he presented as evidence of Iraqi malfeasance 10 days ago. According to the US interpretation it showed lorries clearing banned materials from a bunker complex just prior to an expected inspection.
"The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection," Mr Blix responded. "Our reservation on this point does not detract from our appreciation for the briefing."
He also contradicted a claim made by Mr Powell that Iraqi intelligence agents have infiltrated his inspection teams and have been able to predict their every movement. "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming," the inspector said flatly.
The decree from President Saddam on weapons production came just hours before the start of yesterday's crucial UN session. "Individuals and companies in private and mixed sectors are banned from importing and producing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons," it read. It went on to say that materials used in producing them were also banned. Such a ban had been a key UN requirement on Iraq.
----
Co-operation could make 'period of disarmament' short
This is an edited extract from Hans Blix's report to the UN Security Council
15 February 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=378434
"Since I reported to the Council on 27 January, Unmovic has had two further weeks of operational and analytical work in New York and inspections in Iraq. This brings the period of inspections to 11 weeks. We also listened on 5 February to the presentation to the Council by the US Secretary of State and the discussion that followed. Lastly, Mohamedal-Baradei and I held another round of talks in Baghdad with our counterparts and with Vice-President Ramadan on 8 and 9 February.
Work in Iraq
We have continued to build up our capabilities [in Iraq]. Since we arrived, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew the inspectors were coming.
The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment. We have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.
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.
Access to sites
We note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected. [In January[ I said a decision to co-operate on substance was indispensable in order to bring the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated.
Evidence of weapons
How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, Unmovic has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded.
We are aware many governmental intelligence organisations assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly.
Anthrax and nerve gas
I referred [earlier] to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles. The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December missed the opportunity to provide the fresh evidence needed to respond to the questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it.
Missile systems
In January I referred to the Al-Samoud 2 and the Al-Fatah missiles, re-constituted casting chambers, construction of a missile engine test stand and the import of rocket engines, which were all declared to Unmovic by Iraq. Earlier this week, Unmovic missile experts met experts from member states to discuss these items. The experts concluded that the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150km in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq. As for the Al Fatah, the experts found that clarification of the missile data supplied by Iraq was required before the capability of the missile system could be fully assessed. The experts [said] the re-constituted casting chambers could be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges greater than 150km. These chambers remain proscribed.
Baghdad meeting
In Baghdad on 8 and 9 February, the Iraqi side gave us papers regarding anthrax and growth material, the nerve agent VX and missile production. Although no new evidence was provided, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on important open issues. A letter from Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate ... presents a list of 83 names of participants "in the unilateral destruction in the chemical field, which took place in the summer of 1991". The Iraqi side also informed us that [a] commission, appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. A second commission has been appointed with the task of searching for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes. The two commissions ... need to work fast to convince us, and the world, that this is a serious effort.
Intelligence
A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full cooperation on "process" and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information. However, with the closed society in Iraq and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process. I remember how, in 1991 ... it was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services of governments could come to very active use. This remains true.
Unmovic has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing. However, we must recognise that misinterpretations can occur.
The presentation of intelligence information by the US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment on one case, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection.
What next
Unmovic is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the disarmament task or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur. The latter taskrequires monitoring, which is open-ended until the Council decides otherwise.
By contrast, the task of disarmament ... which Iraq was given a "final opportunity to comply with" under resolution 1441 (2002), [was] always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Despite the elimination of large amounts of weapons, the task remained incomplete. If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament could have been short. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with Unmovic and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.
Blix on Colin Powell's UN presentation
"The ... US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes ... We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity."
-------- japan
Threat Erodes Japan's Pacifism
Debate and Troops React to N. Korea
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10698-2003Feb14?language=printer
TOKYO, Feb. 14 -- The heightened tension over North Korea's nuclear program is eroding Japan's half-century of pacifism, stirring moves by the country's defense forces and open debate of military options.
Japan's defense minister this week said his country would be entitled to attack North Korea if it were clear North Korea was about to launch a missile at Japan. Other politicians have said Japan should consider having nuclear weapons, a long and strong taboo in the only country to have suffered an atomic attack.
Japan's army, navy and air forces also have been making quiet adjustments to the threat from North Korea, according to sources close to the military and reports in the Japanese press.
Japan's version of Special Forces, a small and secretive group within the navy, and a larger army airborne unit, are undergoing stepped-up training, the sources said. The maritime forces have been put on heightened alert. And the country's Defense Agency is reported to be preparing to dispatch two destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile and tracking system, the Myoko and Kongo, closer to North Korea to watch for a possible missile launch.
Other moves, started years ago with an eye on North Korea, are now being completed. Japanese forces have been slowly transferred from the northern island of Hokkaido, where they had long been poised to counter a possible Russian threat, to western Japan close to the Korean Peninsula.
And next month, Japan plans to embark on its first military use of space with the launch of two spy satellites designed to take radar and optical pictures of North Korea. These moves, subtle and often unpublicized, add to the gradual and often wrenching progression toward a greater role for the Japanese military.
After leading the country into disaster during World War II, the country's armed forces were stripped of their weapons as part of the 1945 surrender. In the post-war era, the country took on a pacifist constitution that declared Japan would never use force to settle an international dispute. The military was reconstituted in limited form early in the Cold War, and in deference to the spirit of the constitution is faithfully called jieitai, or Self-Defense Forces.
Japan has continued to largely rely on U.S. military and nuclear might for protection.
Even the recent small moves by its military are watched suspiciously by Asian neighbors who suffered Japan's wartime aggression, and by many Japanese who cling fiercely to the post-war pacifist constitution and the country's soft-treading foreign policy.
"The Japanese people still have a strong aversion to war," said Masako Owaki, a Socialist member of the upper house of parliament and a strident voice against strengthening the military. "The majority of people still want to solve this [North Korea dispute] by peaceful means."
But public opinion polls show a slow but steady decline in opposition to revising Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which renounces war and theoretically bars Japan from having a military.
And while there is little sense of alarm here, those polls show a deep concern about North Korea. The public mood has sobered enough to permit debate about nuclear and military options, topics that would have been quickly closed even a few months ago.
Opposition member of parliament Shingo Nishimura, who argues that Japan should have nuclear arms, said in an interview that he used to be castigated for even mentioning the subject.
Now, the Japanese media is carrying on an active debate about whether a nuclear-armed North Korea should prompt Japan to acquire similar weapons.
Minister Shigeru Ishiba, director general of the government's Defense Agency, also broke new ground in the defense debate by broaching the possibility in parliament of attacking North Korea and mentioning it again this week in a media interview.
"Our nation will use military force as a self-defense measure if [North Korea] starts to resort to arms against Japan," Ishiba told the Reuters news agency. He said such a step would be constitutionally acceptable self-defense, and not a preemptive strike.
Others disagree: "Japan now doesn't have any [constitutional] right to attack or preemptively attack North Korea," said Hideaki Kaneda, a retired navy vice admiral and now a senior defense fellow at Harvard University.
And the attack conjured by Ishiba was a bit fanciful, according to defense experts.
"I agree with his remarks," said Gen Nakatani, Ishiba's predecessor as Defense Agency head. "But our country does not have the ability to attack" North Korea.
North Korea's missile sites are at the extreme range of Japan's F-15 fighter-bombers without mid-air refueling, and Japan only this year approved a budget for airborne refueling tankers, said Toshiyuki Shikata, a professor of crisis management at Teikyo University in Tokyo.
Even if they reached the target, the planes have limited air-to-ground weapons and none of the heavy precision bombs used by the Americans, he said.
There is no reliable weapon for intercepting a ballistic missile launched by North Korea, though Japan is working with the United States in trying to develop a missile defense system.
Japan's Aegis ships could detect a North Korean launch, but with Japan only a 7- to 10-minute flight by rocket from North Korea, there is little Japan could do.
Indeed, when a Japanese newspaper last week announced a scoop about the Defense Agency's new plans for such an attack, the plans consisted mostly of sending the Self-Defense Forces to the site to clean up. Japan's navy and coast guard could mount operations against North Korea short of such an attack, Kaneda said, such as interdicting weapons shipments offshore. But he thought such an operation could work only in conjunction with other countries.
-------- korea
South Koreans Visiting North, Despite Tensions
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By JAMES BROOKE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/asia/15NORT.html
KOSUNG, North Korea, Feb. 14 - An all-girl brass band - with rank upon rank of matched hairstyles and gold-piped blazers - greeted 22 tour buses from South Korea that rumbled past barbed wire and antitank barriers today on a new dirt crossing through the demilitarized zone.
In a sign that even North Korea's powerful military supports hospitality, sentries holding AK-47's wore baby blue gloves. Passing weather-beaten propaganda posters with slogans like "Demolish the U.S." and "Soldiers and Civilians Are One in the Spirit of Suicide Bombs," the buses, balloons bobbing from their windows, made their way to the resort compound of Mount Kumgang. There, Southerners offered flowery speeches about unification, and Northerners ducked questions about their country's nuclear program.
Barely 10 days since north-south traffic was initially re-established with a smaller bus convoy, today's tour group of 500 Southerners inaugurated the first regularly scheduled land crossing of the buffer zone since the Korean Peninsula was split by war a half century ago.
While the rest of the world prepares to debate North Korea's nuclear weapons program at the United Nations, South Koreans are again focused on breaking down barriers with their Northern cousins.
"With this connecting land route, we will let the blood of our peninsula flow once again," said Han Joon Yeob, a South Korean government spokesman, who was nearly in tears as a bright sun shone over the scenic eastern shore.
North Korea "has no nuclear weapons," said Bang Jong Sam, the director of the state tourism company for Mount Kumgang, North Korea's first international tourist spot. He had been driven by chauffeur from Pyongyang, the Northern capital, in a sport utility vehicle for the event. Before he attended a circus performance at the resort here, he added: "Let the crazy people blather whatever they want. All we have to do is continue tourism."
Approached on the way out of the show, as he strode quickly to his waiting car, he said: "The nuclear issue is between us and the U.S. There is no reason for South Korea to get involved. This is just a tour group - don't bring politics into it."
Today's tour group is to be the advance for a cross-border flow that could hit 500,000 next year, according to officials of Hyundai Asan, the South Korean company that runs Mount Kumgang.
Hyundai plans to break ground this spring on two golf courses and a ski lift and to start renovating 250 rooms in North Korean hotels here, allowing for more than a doubling of lodging capacity.
This hoped-for construction boom is emblematic of intensifying inter-Korean relations as North Korea seeks to peel South Korea away from its traditional military alliance with the United States. Today, North and South Korean negotiators concluded four days of talks in Seoul, making progress on two projects, an industrial park planned by Hyundai in North Korea and connection of two inter-Korean railways.
On Saturday, about 700 civic groups across South Korea are to hold antiwar rallies, protesting a possible American-led war on Iraq's government and demanding a peaceful resolution to the tensions over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Next Thursday, 100 elderly South Koreans are to come to the resort here to meet 100 relatives whom they have not seen since the end of the Korean War.
On March 1, civic leaders of the two Koreas plan for the first time to hold joint celebrations marking the anniversary of the 1919 uprising against Japanese colonial rule. About 100 North Koreans are to travel to Seoul for the national holiday.
Inside the theater, before the high-wire circus acts, Kim Young-Hyun, president of Hyundai Asan, gave a slide show documenting his company's projects around North Korea, including the Pyongyang Gymnasium, a 12,335-seat covered stadium that opened last month.
Last week, Hyundai announced it was involved in seven projects in the North, including working on railways, power plants, communications networks and an airport. The disclosure came in an effort to ease a scandal over the provision of large amounts of money to North Korea before the summit meeting in June 2000.
In recent weeks, government opponents charged that Hyundai took part in the transfer of $200 million in government money to North Korea's government before the meeting in Pyongyang between South Korea's president, Kim Dae Jung, and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il. In a recent opinion poll conducted by Korea Gallup for the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, 63 percent of respondents said they believed that the payments were made to guarantee the summit meeting.
In a nationally televised speech today, President Kim acknowledged that he knew money had been transferred. Without admitting any specific wrongdoing, he apologized to the nation. By timing the apology to the opening of the land crossing, he apparently hoped that today's festive images would communicate to Koreans the tangible benefits of his policy of engagement with the North, called the sunshine policy.
"The opposition thinks they can turn around public opinion," said Cho Bae Sook, a ruling party congresswoman who was on the Hyundai tour today. Referring to the money transfer scandal, she said, "It is important that it be kept quiet because it could be bad for relations with North Korea."
One person here said North Korea was moved only by money - whether it was $200 million for a presidential summit meeting or the $100 the government earns for every tourist who comes here.
"It may be symbolic that the D.M.Z. is open after 50 years, but it doesn't mean much," said Jang Song Hyun, a South Korean business consultant on the tour. Referring to the 10-foot-high barbed-wire fence that prevented any unauthorized contact between Northerners and Southerners, he said: "Any form of collaboration is positive, but it is very limited. We are not allowed to talk to any North Korean residents. Here, it is all fenced off."
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
U.S. may build smaller nukes
Memo reveals plan for conference on design and testing
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/15/MN79475.DTL
Policymakers in the Department of Defense, the armed services and the nuclear weapons design labs are moving forward rapidly in planning for the possible production of a new generation of smaller nuclear bombs and a resumption of nuclear testing, a leaked Bush administration document shows.
The internal memo outlines the planning for a conference tentatively scheduled for August, at which panels of experts would address questions relating to how the country would design new types of nuclear weapons and possibly test them.
The conference would also address questions about how the new nuclear policies would be sold to the public and to political leaders.
The eight-page document, titled "Stockpile Stewardship Conference Planning Meeting Minutes," was obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, an anti-nuclear weapons group based near the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Greg Mello, a leader of the group, said that the unclassified memo came from a government official who was concerned about the aggressive new weapons policy it represented.
The memo was a record of a meeting held on Jan. 10 at the Pentagon. Attendees at the meeting, including Defense Department officials and representatives of the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories.
While the ideas in the memo are not new, experts said, their circulation in government, military and nuclear laboratory circles suggests a quickening pace toward what could be a fundamental change in the country's post-Cold War nuclear doctrine -- away from deterrence and nonproliferation and closer to the notion of "usable" nuclear weapons.
House Republicans issued a policy paper on Thursday which calls for some of the changes discussed in the Pentagon memo. These include the repeal of a decade-old law that prohibits the development of small, low-yield nuclear weapons, and steps that would make it easier to resume nuclear testing, which was halted ten years ago.
The GOP paper also proposed a new doctrine under which the country would be able to launch nuclear attacks not just in response to a nuclear attack, or the threat of one, but to pre-emptively destroy stockpiles of other weapons, such as chemical or biological weapons, in the hands of hostile countries.
These proposals have stirred concern from some weapons experts and lawmakers who say they could make the use of nuclear weapons more rather than less likely, and would encourage other countries to develop their own stockpiles of more usable nuclear weapons.
The White House has not responded to requests for comment on the Republican policy paper or on the Jan. 10 meeting.
In addition to summarizing the results of previous discussions among dozens of officials, the Pentagon memo outlines suggestions for the planning of construction of small batches of low-yield nuclear weapons and possible testing, and how authorization for commencing the new weapons development would be provided.
At the August conference, where such issues would be taken up, presentations would be made by four panels: a strategy and risk panel; a future arsenal panel; a National Nuclear Security Administration and Department of Defense Infrastructure Panel; and a strategy and policy panel.
The panels would consist of policy planners from the Pentagon, individual military services and officials from Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and other weapons research facilities.
The document poses specific questions to be addressed, such as to the kind of guidance systems any new missiles might need. "What is the testing strategy for weapons more likely to be used in small strikes," the document asks. "Do we put GPS (global positioning system guidance) on all systems, or just a few?"
Another question asks: "How do we frame the explanation of emerging (sic) policy to show the deterrent value of reduced-collateral damage, precision, agent defeat, and penetrating nuclear capabilities in meeting our national security objectives?"
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the memo indicates the planning process for what would be a new nuclear doctrine is well advanced, despite the almost total absence of any congressional or public debate on the subject.
"Right now, it's a stealth campaign," Kimball said. "Proponents understand that it's an explosive issue and they risk losing if they don't wait for the right moment."
E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.
----
President mulls plan to build mininukes
Policy shift reflected in Bush's $21 million budget request for design of new weapons in 2004
By Ian Hoffman - STAFF WRITER,
Oakland Tribune
Saturday, February 15, 2003
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1865%257E1182353,00.html?search=filter
Top Bush administration nuclear-weapons executives and weapons scientists are sketching out a strategy for adding a new menu of mininukes, neutron bombs and other nuclear arms to the nation's Cold War-style arsenal.
In talks at the Pentagon last month, federal defense executives and weapons scientists from California and New Mexico set the stage for a debate over "selecting first 'small builds'," or choosing tailor-made weapons for limited production runs.
"What's clear is, in this administration, the brakes are off in nuclear development and the push for nuclear testing," said Greg Mello, head of the Los Alamos Study Group, an arms-control group in New Mexico that obtained minutes to a meeting of top nuclear-weapons advisers.
The revelations are the latest herald of a potential sea change in U.S. nuclear policy:
- On Thursday, House Republicans touted an aggressive new nuclear-weapons policy calling for scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos labs to begin studying "advanced concepts" for new weapons for the first time since 1994. GOP lawmakers say they also are thinking of repealing a 1993 ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons, or those with an explosive yield at or below a third of the Hiroshima bomb.
- President Bush's new budget asks for $21 million for design of new or modified nuclear weapons in 2004.
- White House pronouncements since September lay out a new defense policy giving greater prominence to pre-emptive strikes on foreign weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon war planners already are drawing up contingency plans for a nuclear strike in Iraq, to pre-empt or retaliate for a chemical or biological attack, according to a Los Angeles Times report.
- Nuclear Weapons Council Chairman and Assistant Defense Secretary E.C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr. asked weapons scientists in October "to assess the potential benefits that could be obtained from a return to nuclear testing." Meanwhile, Assistant Defense Secretary for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons Dale Klein has said the nation will have to test within five to 10 years.
"The drums are beating pretty loudly on all quarters," said Thomas Cochran, a physicist and head of the Natural Resources Defense Council's program on nuclear arms.
"Like kids in a toy shop, they have all these ideas (for weapons) they want to pursue but without any utility," Cochran said. "The U.S. has not designed a new, successful weapon in decades, and that's because all the practical improvements you can make in nuclear weapons were made at least two decades ago."
Senior administration officials stress that they have no requirements for new nuclear weapons, meaning the military services and Bush have not yet detailed a new attack mission demanding a new weapons design.
Yet according to minutes of a Jan. 10 meeting, federal defense executives and top lab scientists are laying the preliminary groundwork for those new weapons requirements as they prepare for a Stockpile Stewardship Conference in August, their first in seven years. They plan to debate among other things whether a return to low-yield or high-yield nuclear testing for the first time since 1992 would be needed in proving the new designs.
"What forms of testing will these new designs require?" Defense Department officials asked themselves and scientists on a panel advising the Nuclear Weapons Council, the foremost body for recommending weapons policy to the president.
"What is the role of nuclear testing in reducing risk in the stockpile? What parts of those risks are associated with the absence of nuclear testing, in comparison to the risk association with a 150kt (kiloton explosive yield) threshold or a low-yield test program. ...What would demand a test?"
The talks offer a rare glimpse into the Bush administration as it mulls building modified or wholly new bombs and warheads as hardware for pre-emptive attacks.
Administration officials cautioned that the document distilled frank conversations among the executives and scientists responsible for "very long-range issues for the nuclear stockpile."
"So it's appropriate that they consider any range of possibilities and that's exactly what this group is doing," said Anson Franklin, chief of governmental affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "That shouldn't be read to suggest we are actively considering new weapons systems or a return to testing.
"It's a far cry from a planning document for administration policy," Franklin said.
Even so, the Bush administration is asking for $21 million for "advanced concepts" studies of modified or new weapons in 2004. That includes $15 million for scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national labs to compete for design of a "bunker-buster" bomb for attacking deeply buried, hardened concrete bunkers. Called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the bomb would be based either on Livermore's B-83 or Los Alamos B-61, both featuring adjustable explosive yields.
The president also is asking for $6 million for "additional and exploratory studies" of advanced weapons designs.
"These are not vague plans for the future," said the Los Alamos Study Group's Mello. "This is a detailed planning process that bespeaks a great deal of thought and coordination between branches of government."
He finds especially disturbing a portion of the document in which top defense executives and weaponeers ask themselves "what should the policy and practice be for granting authority to adapt and build small quantities?"
Traditionally, only the president may authorize the production of a nuclear weapon. The conversation to Mello suggests lax oversight and control of the nation's key nuclear weapons agencies at the Defense and Energy departments. "That you would even talk about that would suggest the democratic governance of these institutions is already very, very weak. Every member of Congress should sit up and take notice that we are losing congressional oversight of the nuclear weapons program of the United States."
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.
-------- us politics
Peace call from Pope
By Richard Owen
February 15, 2003
UK Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578456,00.html
THE Pope is considering a direct appeal to President Bush to refrain from launching an attack on Iraq. Vatican sources said it was unlikely the Pope would undertake a personal peace mission to Washington. He may, however, send a personal envoy. The Pope, 82, received Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, at the Vatican yesterday, despite protests that Mr Aziz had blood on his hands as the henchman of President Saddam Hussein.
-------
The Great "Intelligence Fraud"
February 15, 2003
CounterPunch Diary
by ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02152003.html
Events do rush by us in a blur, I know, but let's not abandon Secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb 5 speech to the UN in the graveyard of history without one last backward glance. It was, after all, billed by the President as a conclusive intelligence briefing on exactly how Saddam Hussein has been concealing his weapons of mass destruction, and how he's handin-glove with Al Qaeda.
Now, when the Commander in Chief states publicly that his Secretary of State will deliver the goods, we can be safe in assuming that he's been assured that yes, the US intelligence "community" has indeed got the goods. But barely more than a week after Powell's speech it now looks as though its major claims were at best speculative, and at worst outright distortions, some of them derided in advance by UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix.
There was the supposed transporter of biotoxins that turned out to be a truck from the Baghdad health department; the sinisterly enlarged test ramp for long distance missiles that was nothing of the sort; the suspect facility that had recently been cleared by the UN inspection teams; the strange eavesdropped conversations that could as well have been Iraqi officers discussing how to hide stills for making bootleg whiskey. The promoter of the Iraq/Al Qaeda link, Abu Musab Zarqawi turns out to be an imaginative liar trying to get a prison sentence commuted and the terror cell, Ansar-al Islam, a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists violently opposed to Saddam and operating out of Kurdish territory.
(A few days later Powell cited Osama bin Laden's latest tape as confirming that Saddam and Al Qaeda are in cahoots. Actually it's mostly a vivid account, which has the ring of truth, of how he and his men in their Tora Bora foxholes survived ferocious US bombing with minimal casualties. Bin Laden concludes by urging all Muslims "to pull up your pant legs for jihad" against the forces of darkness. Of Saddam and the Ba'ath he says, "the Socialists are infidels wherever they are, either in Baghdad or Aden. Such war which may take place these days is similar to the war between Muslims and Romans when the interests of the Muslims came along with the interests of the Persians who both fought against the Romans.")
And of course there was the British intelligence report, sent by Tony Blair to Powell who commended it in his UN speech as particularly "fine". The report turned out to be a series of plagiarisms from old articles from Jane's, and from a paper on Iraqi politics written by a student called Ibrahim al Marashi, at the Monterey Institute for International Studies.
The Marashi plagiarism represents an intrusive parable on how "intelligence" reports actually get put together, to fulfill a political agenda. From some enterprising work by freelance reporter Kenneth Raposa who worked on the Iraqi Dossier story for the Boston Globe, it emerges that Marashi himself comes from a Shi'a family in Baltimore, Md. He's never visited Iraq and is keen to see Saddam toppled by US invasion.
Marashi's essay was published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs in Sept 2002, a scholarly magazine run by the GLORIA Center (acronym for Global Research in International Affairs Center) in Herzliya, Israel. Its director is Barry Rubin, who has also been a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- an Israel policy think tank. Rubin is part of the coterie--which includes Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, and the arch conspirator Richard Perle--who have been pressing for a US attack on Iraq.
Marashi told Raposa that the documents on which he had based his paper had been given him by Kenaan Makiya, a well-known Iraqi exile, and proponent of invasion, much favored by Powell's own State Department. Makiya claims to have some 4 million pages of documents seized from northern Iraq after Operation Desert Storm.
So here we have a politically-inspired document, spliced together by a Shi'a student, published by an Israeli-based think-tank hot for war, swiped off the web by Blair's harried minions and served up to Powell as a masterpiece of British intelligence collection from MI6.
Quite aside from the welcome damage done to Powell's credibility and to the war party in general, the Marashi saga vividly reminds us of just how much rubbish has been served up to the American people in the guise of reliable "intelligence". Remember how back amid the build-up to the last Iraqi war, the Pentagon invoked satellite photos of 265,000 Iraqi troops massed to invade Saudi Arabia.
Jean Heller, a journalist from the St Petersburg Times in Florida persuaded her newspaper to buy two photos at $1,600 each from the Russian commercial satellite, the Soyuz Karta. No troops showed up on the photos. "You could see the planes sitting wing tip to wing tip in Riyadh airport," Ms Heller says, "but there wasn't was any sign of a quarter of a million Iraqi troops sitting in the middle of the desert."
The ridicule now being showered on Powell's Iraq Dossier won't slow up the production of these ridiculous documents or hinder the endless flourishing of supposedly conclusive satellite photography or communications intercepts. If war does come, we can be sure there will be repetitions of the "misinterpretations" and "tragic errors" of the 1991 onslaught.
When my brother Patrick drove from Amman to Baghdad back at the end of the 1991 onslaught he passed the hulks of oil tankers bombed to bits under the claim they were mobile SCUD launchers. The single biggest atrocity of that war was the US bombing of the Almariya shelter in Baghdad. The Pentagon claimed it was a top secret military command center. It wasn't. Absent its intended occupants, university professors and technocrats, ordinary Iraqi mothers and children had taken shelter there. Just another intelligence screw-up, with several hundred dead mothers and kids as the price.
And yes, we are in the wake of the greatest intelligence failure in American history, for which not one intelligence head rolled. Instead they gave the CIA even more money, and yes, it's grateful chief George Tenet sitting beside Powell in the UN Security Council. He should have been too ashamed to show his face in public.
-------- MILITARY
-------- asia
Nepal in a stalemate
By Chitra Tiwari
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-76832784.htm
Late last month, 14 months after the deployment of the army against Maoist insurgents, both the government of Nepal and the rebels fighting the monarchy declared a cease-fire, indicating a desire to settle their disputes peacefully.
King Gyanendra, who took over executive power from elected politicians on Oct. 4, had been reportedly seeking to end the insurgency through talks, and had used several interlocutors to contact the Maoist leadership. Rebel leaders had reportedly made it clear they were interested in talks, provided they led to a positive political outcome.
They also insisted that, as a precondition for a cease-fire, the king's government withdraw its terrorist label of the Maoist party, cancel its Interpol "red-corner notice" for the arrest of top-ranking Maoist leaders and nullify the bounty declared on the heads of top rebels.
For more than four months, King Gyanendra's government ignored the Maoist preconditions until a Maoist hit squad assassinated Krishna Mohan Shrestha, chief of the Armed Police Force (APF), along with his wife and a bodyguard, on the foggy morning of Jan. 26 as the three were taking a walk.
The 15,000-man APF was created in 2001 to fight the Maoist insurgents. Many human rights organizations, including Amnesty International (AI), have blamed it for many human rights abuses in the countryside, including extrajudicial killings of innocent civilians suspected of being Maoists or Maoist sympathizers.
The assassination of Mr. Shrestha terrified the Katmandu-based counterrevolutionary elite, including King Gyanendra. His government quickly held an emergency meeting and decided to accept the Maoist preconditions for a cease-fire by withdrawing the terrorist label, bounties and the Interpol arrest warrants against top rebel leaders.
The government promptly communicated to the Maoist leadership its willingness to call a cease-fire and open negotiations on three key Maoist demands: convening a round-table conference, forming an interim government and holding elections to a Constitutional Assembly.
On Jan. 29, Maoist supreme leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ("Prachanda") declared a cease-fire in response to the government's proposal, and the government did the same within two hours.
The dramatic turn of events and the speed of the king's offer took many political observers and party leaders by surprise. Nonetheless, these developments provoked euphoria among many Nepalis, who feel the door to a political solution has been opened, and hope this process will continue until peace is restored throughout the country.
The Maoist insurgency entered its eighth year two days ago. In the past seven years, the insurgency and counterinsurgency operations have claimed the lives of more than 8,000 Nepalis - nearly 6,000 of them in the last 14 months, following the army deployment in November 2001.
Many human rights organizations, including AI, have noted a kill ratio of 5-1 in favor of the government forces. AI said in its December report it believes that half of those killed by government forces are civilians who only gave food or shelter to the Maoist guerrillas.
Those who believed deployment of the military would bring the Maoist insurgency under control after the police had failed have been proved wrong. Despite the declaration of an emergency and the sweeping powers given to the military, the insurgency continued to expand as government forces were forced back to the safety of the cities and district headquarters.
Facing superior modern arms supplied by India, the United States, Britain and Belgium, the ragtag Maoist militia, employing the primitive tactic of human-wave attacks and Maoist theories of guerrilla warfare, put the government armed forces on the defensive. As a result, a strategic stalemate has emerged, but the Maoists are closer to seizing power in Katmandu.
The Bush administration is alarmed at the success of Maoist rebels in Nepal and concerned the war might cause regional instability.
"The Maoists are doing very well and the government of Nepal seems to be unable to pull together to deal with the issue," Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca recently told reporters from the Defense Writers Group in Washington.
"This is an area of great concern to us. The situation in Nepal is really not looking very good," she said.
The administration backed King Gyanendra in the war. It asked Congress for $20 million in military support for Nepal in 2002, but Congress cut that back to $12 million. The United States has supplied Nepal with 2,000 M-16 assault rifles and promised 3,000 more. In addition, 49 U.S. military personnel are training the 60,000-man Royal Nepali Army (RNA) in counterinsurgency operations.
Foreign powers backing Nepal's government against the Maoists - India, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Community - have seen some grounds for cautious optimism in the recent cease-fire.
Nepal's politics since the Oct. 4 royal takeover is divided into three camps: the monarchists, political parties advocating limited constitutional monarchy and the Maoists seeking a republic.
The political parties have become sandwich filling between the two armed protagonists - the monarchists and the Maoists. Without the participation of centrist political parties, however, any peaceful settlement seems unlikely.
At the moment, the monarchists and Maoists both seek the support of centrist political parties. The rebels have been saying they will support multiparty democracy if the centrist parties support the Maoist party's republican agenda. The king says Nepal's welfare lies in the coexistence of monarchy and a multiparty democracy.
This clear competition between the monarchy and the Maoists for the support of the centrist political parties indicates that democracy is not a hostage in the civil war.
Maoists have formed a five-member negotiating team with Baburam Bhattarai, the president of the Maoist Provisional Government, as coordinator.
In an interview after the declaration of cease-fire, top Maoist leader Prachanda said the success of the peace talks would depend on a serious approach by all sides, including King Gyanendra and the political parties. He also threatened to break the truce if he suspects foul play by the government side during the negotiations.
Prachanda also laid down preconditions for the government to meet as confidence-building measures in the peace process. He said that before the talks begin, the government must:
•Release jailed Maoist cadres.
•Provide information about those who have disappeared in police custody.
•Revoke the anti-terrorist law.
•Provide equal access to government-controlled media.
•Send the army back to its barracks.
•Work to frame a mutually acceptable code of conduct for the dialogue.
Owing to internal differences, the government has not yet announced its negotiating team, except to appoint Minister Narayan Singh Pun as its chief coordinator. The government seems to be trying to include a few negotiators from the political parties to make the team look more representative of the party-monarchy nexus.
The political parties, however, consider the present government unconstitutional and the creature of King Gyanendra, and question its authority to negotiate with the Maoists. However, the parties are not unanimous about how to deal with the issue.
The Nepali Congress (NC), the largest party in the dissolved parliament, seeks that parliament's reinstatement. The second-largest, the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) party, prefers an all-party government before any negotiations with the Maoists.
The country seems to have returned to square one since the Maoists walked away from the negotiations in November 2001.
Then, the government's refusal to entertain the Maoist demand for a constituent assembly caused the breakdown of negotiations, leading to emergency rule and deployment of the military.
The continued failure of military operations to disarm the Maoist guerrillas appears to have led to a realization among the political elite that election of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution is the only way to resolve the crisis peacefully.
Maoist sources maintain that a cease-fire was made possible after the royal palace agreed to entertain all three of their demands - a round-table conference, formation of an interim government and elections to a constituent assembly.
Political party leaders, however, have questioned the king's authority to entertain these demands.
It is too early to be optimistic about a negotiated settlement of the civil war in Nepal.
First, it is not clear who the participants of the round-table conference would be. Second, the Maoists will certainly demand leadership of the interim government - a claim likely to be denied by the royal palace and the parties. Third, the monarchists are aware republican sentiment is increasing in the country and fear that a constituent assembly will abolish the institution of monarchy.
This has led them to float the idea of a conditional constituent assembly that would reserve a well-furnished room in the new constitution for the king.
The Maoists, who demand a republic, are unlikely to agree. Indeed, they see a democratically elected constituent assembly as providing a graceful exit to the monarchy.
Even if the monarchists and the rebels agreed that a constituent assembly would have the final word, there is no guarantee the well-armed warring parties would abide by the results.
To guarantee that the will of a constituent assembly is carried out, the involvement in the peace process of truly neutral international agencies, such as the United Nations, is likely to be helpful.
•Chitra Tiwari is a Washington-based free-lance analyst of international affairs specializing in South Asia. He can be reached by e-mail at cktiwari@erols.com.
----
THAILAND: Burma urged to free 12 activists
Briefly
Washington Times
February 15, 2003
Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-77971517.htm
BANGKOK - The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development says it has written to Burma's military rulers urging them to release 12 pro-democracy activists arrested for anti-government activities.
The junta said the 12, most of them members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, would receive a fair trial.
The military announced their arrests on Monday saying some of them had been found with anti-government materials. The forum said it also had urged the junta to start dialogue with the opposition NLD and ethnic minorities to begin a process of national reconciliation.
GEORGIA - Official denies poison being made AKHMATI - A Georgian official denied Thursday that makeshift laboratories producing the deadly chemical ricin existed in the country's lawless Pankisi Gorge bordering Chechnya.
"I am sure that there has been no chemical weapons production in Pankisi. It would have been impossible to hide," said Zakro Kinkladze, mayor of this local administrative center.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told a security conference in Munich last week that the Pankisi Gorge is a "well-known destination" for the training of "international chemical terrorists."
Weekly notes ... Indian air force chief S. Krishnaswamy is in Sri Lanka on a five-day official visit that ends tomorrow. He was to pay a courtesy call on President Chandrika Kumaratunga and visit air force bases in the island's north and northeast, officials said. Sri Lanka maintains close military contacts with India. Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Morshed Khan arrived in India Thursday for talks aimed at defusing a festering row over reputed illegal immigration from Bangaldesh into India. Soon after arrival, he left for a one-day visit to an ancient Islamic shrine in Rajasthan state, and was to hold formal talks with Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha.
----
U.S. Urges Taiwan to Spend More on Defense
February 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-arms-usa-taiwan.html
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - The Bush administration has warned Taiwan it must spend more on its own defense rather than rely on the United States to thwart any possible aggression by China.
``We urge Taiwan to take the steps needed to acquire defensive weapons and systems sufficient to address the ever-increasing threat posed by the PRC (China),'' Randall Schriver, the State Department's top official on China, told a privately sponsored U.S.-Taiwan defense industry conference that wound up in San Antonio on Friday.
China was now adding 75 short-range ballistic missiles a year, up from 50 a year until recently, to the arsenal it has pointed at Taiwan and will have deployed 650 by 2005, a U.S. official told Reuters.
Beijing deems Taiwan a rogue province and has reserved the right to use force if necessary to unite the island with the mainland.
The Pentagon's top policy-maker for the region, Richard Lawless, told the session China was also aiming to keep the U.S. military at bay in a crunch -- an apparent reference to U.S. warships, including aircraft carriers.
Former president Bill Clinton sent two carriers to the region in a 1996 show of support for Taipei after China fired missiles near the island's main ports ahead of Taiwan's first direct presidential election.
``It is believed that surprise and speed will be used to make any potential U.S. assistance to Taiwan -- in an unprovoked attack -- ineffective,'' Lawless, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said in a text made available Friday by the Pentagon.
Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has moved away from a long-standing U.S. policy of ``strategic ambiguity'' on Taiwan in favor of greater clarity on his military support for the democratically governed island in case of attack.
INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE
On April 25, 2001, for instance, in an ABC television interview, Bush said the United States would do ``whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself'' if attacked.
Lawless cited Bush's ``whatever'' comment, but added that Taiwan ``should not view America's resolute commitment to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait as a substitute for investing the necessary resources in its own defense.''
``It is imperative that Taiwan dedicates the resources necessary to maintain an effective self-defense capability,'' he said.
To counter China's ballistic missile buildup, the United States is urging Taiwan to acquire an integrated air and missile defense capability, starting with Lockheed Martin Corp. 's Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) system, as a top priority.
The closed-door conference was organized by the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, whose chairman is William Cohen, former President Bill Clinton's last defense secretary.
Council member companies, notably top U.S. military contractors, were ``concerned'' by Taiwan's delay in wrapping up billions of dollars of weapons purchases authorized in April 2001 by Bush, Cohen told reporters.
The U.S. arms sale offer, including four decommissioned Kidd-class destroyers, 12 P-3C Orion submarine-hunting aircraft and help in acquiring conventional submarines, was the largest in a decade.
Taiwan's military budget has been decreasing in real terms, as a proportion of total government spending and as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to a speaker at the conference who asked not to be named in news accounts.
In his speech, the Pentagon's Lawless said Taiwan had long maintained a ``qualitative edge'' over China in air, naval and ground forces but was losing ground to China's force modernization.
-------- britain
U.K.'s Blair: No march for Saddam victims
From the International Desk
2/15/2003
UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-061541-8539r
LONDON, Feb. 15 -- In an impassioned appeal to Saturday's demonstrators worldwide against war with Iraq, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said removing Saddam from power would be an "act of humanity."
Meanwhile, he added, there is no march under way for Iraq's victims.
In a speech to a Labour Party conference, Blair said he respects the demonstrators' good intentions, but said that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would allow more misery and death for Iraqis.
Demonstrations in 300 cities worldwide, expected to attract millions Saturday, reflect a "hatred of war" and he said he also hated war. Making a case for the morality of ousting Saddam, however, Blair said that his "weapons are real."
"Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity," Blair said. "It is leaving him there that is inhumane."
That, he continued, "is why I do not shrink from military action should that indeed be necessary." If it is necessary, "We should be as committed to the humanitarian task of rebuilding Iraq for the Iraqi people as we have been for removing Saddam."
Blair also linked Iraq's stability to a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, drawing applause from the mostly supportive crowd of party faithful. "There will be no stability in the Middle East until there is a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state," he said.
"Many of the people marching today will say that they hate Saddam," Blair said, "but the consequence of taking their advice is that he would stay in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people."
"There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule," Blair said, "no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power are left in being."
Although he said he rejoices "we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic heritage," Blair went on to challenge their aims and acknowledge his position on war with Iraq was not the popular one.
"I simply ask the marchers, however well intentioned, to understand this," Blair said. "I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honor, but sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction."
"If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for," Blair said. "If there are 1 million, that is still less than the number of people that died in the wars that he started."
The year before Saddam took power, Iraq was richer than Malaysia or Portugal, Blair said, but now 135 "out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five" from infections that are easily preventable.
"Every year and now," he said, "tens of thousands of people -- political prisoners -- languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are brutally executed."
"This isn't a regime with weapons of mass destruction that is otherwise benign," Blair said. "This is a regime that contravenes every value, every principle decent people and people in our movement should believe in."
"Why is it now," Blair said, after reading from a letter from an Iraqi exile critical of America but more critical of Saddam, "that you deem it appropriate to voice your disillusions with America's policy in Iraq, when it is right now that the Iraqi people are being given real hope -- however slight, however precarious -- so they can live in an Iraq that is free from its horrors?"
Blair said Kosovo, despite warnings "would destabilize the whole of the Balkans, now "has the best chance of peace in 100 years."
In Afghanistan, Blair said, there are 3 million children in schools, thanks to action, not inaction."
-------- business
BAE Agrees To Buy D.C. Defense Firm
By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10360-2003Feb14?language=printer
BAE Systems North America, the Rockville-based division of a British defense services company, announced yesterday that it signed a definitive agreement to acquire a Washington-based defense contractor, Advanced Power Technologies Inc., for $27 million in cash.
The deal is subject to approval by the Department of Defense and other regulatory bodies; it is expected to close in about 45 days.
Advanced Power Technologies (APTI), a 17-year-old company, generated $26 million in revenue last year. . It specializes in gathering and processing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information. It has been a subcontractor with BAE, and the deal will enable the companies to expand, officials at both companies said.
"We are very pleased and excited," said Leonard Lynch, vice president and chief financial officer of APTI. The firm employs 110 people, almost all of whom work out of its offices in the District, Maryland and Virginia. The company does not anticipate changes to its management or workforce as a result of the proposed acquisition, he said.
BAE, which employs 22,000 people in North America, is a London-based defense giant that designs and builds aircraft, destroyers and space-related vehicles. Its U.S.-based division specializes in electronic and information technology systems that are used in military command and control centers.
"[APTI's] particular line of work is very much within our specialty, and our long-term strategy is to grow," said Joan Ferguson, a spokeswoman for BAE. The company's interest in consolidation has been an ongoing process, driven more by the growth in complexity of information systems and less by the immediate need for homeland defense and military surveillance, she said.
APTI was founded as a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Co. In 1994, it was sold to Dallas-based E-Systems Inc., which was sold to Raytheon Co. in 1995. Then, through a management buyout in January 1998, APTI was spun off and it became a privately held company.
--------
Defense Stocks Have Long - Term Appeal
February 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-arms-stocks-invest.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Defense stocks may seem an obvious play given the potential for a U.S.-led war on Iraq, but there's a wider rationale to buy them: growing geopolitical uncertainty that's unlikely to abate any time soon.
Some money managers and analysts say investors should look beyond the short-term increase in demand for war materiel that would bolster profits and share prices of defense suppliers.
The military tensions in the Korean Peninsula are a reminder that the United States is more inclined to strategic planning reminiscent of the Cold War, they said.
And considering the commitment to security after the Sept. 11 attacks, that means spending not just on the makers of arms to fight battles but also on the suppliers of electronics and security equipment to protect the United States at home.
``What we are unhappily beginning to recognize is that the world is a much, much more dangerous place than we would have reflected in the late, great 1990s,'' said Tom Madden, vice chairman of investment management at Pittsburgh-based Federated Investors Inc., which oversees $181 billion in assets,
Madden said it's not unreasonable to expect defense spending to rise and stay higher than many investors foresee, in part because the United States is spending on both old and new technology at the same time in order to fight both a traditional battle with set-piece armies as well as stateless enemies.
Madden's picks include Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N), the largest U.S. defense contractor, and aerospace propulsion systems and missile component maker Alliant Techsystems Inc.DEFENSE-FUNDED RESEARCH
Defense spending should also get a boost from a renewed emphasis on research and innovation in the industry, according to Richard Bernstein, chief U.S. strategist for Merrill Lynch.
Innovation in the 1990s was led by the Internet, and the funding of research and development in hardware and software by venture capitalists, Bernstein said. That will change in the next few years as the Pentagon and other government-funded groups propel technological innovation with their investments in the defense, intelligence and security arenas.
``It's important to remember that the 1990s were atypical because the Pentagon encouraged the use of innovative technologies for commercial purposes during those years,'' Bernstein said. Now, ``the paradigm may have shifted and the Pentagon is again the focal point of technological innovation.''
Bernstein's picks, include radio systems and jet fighter equipment maker Rockwell Collins Inc. (COL.N) and Moog Inc. (MOGa.N), a maker of precision control components and systems for aircraft, satellites and space vehicles, as well as arms manufacturers like Boeing Co. (BA.N) and United Defense Industries Inc.Since the Standard & Poor's aero defense indexpeaked in April at 254.80, following a run-up after Sept. 11, 2001, it has fallen about 30 percent and at 178.37 is near its 52-week closing low of 177.36 on Oct. 9. That's when major indexes such as the S&P 500 index (.SPX) set multiyear lows.
The nine-company index, which includes Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins, Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC.N) and General Dynamics Corp. (GD.N), had another run-up, climbing to 202.29 on Jan. 6 after the recent October lows.
DEFENDING AGAINST TERROR
Not everyone agrees on exactly what stocks to buy.
Jack Caffrey, equity strategist for J.P. Morgan Private Bank, which oversees $280 billion, notes the rules ``under which the U.S. will operate have changed. We have gone from containment to preemption.
``In the Cold War you faced a large standing army as a primary opponent with large population centers andwhere you could rely on rational calculations.''
In that situation, you bought the companies that made tanks, ships and planes.
But ``if the war on terrorism is stateless threats, it's not necessarily a conflict where you need large aircraft carrier groups,'' Caffrey said. ``Instead, you emphasize things like secure communications and land cruisers that can speed through Yemen.''
In addition to the traditional companies, he said, investors ought to consider smaller electronic companies that are involved in defense.
His picks include defense electronics maker L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. (LLL.N), as well as better known defense plays such as Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.
-------- colombia
Colombian Rebels Kill U.S. Civilian
Three Still Missing After Crash
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10417-2003Feb14?language=printer
BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb. 14 -- Rebels shot and killed an American civilian working on anti-drug operations for the Pentagon and a Colombian soldier when their plane crash-landed Thursday in the southern jungle, U.S. officials said today. Three other American civilians on the plane were missing at the remote site in a region dominated by Colombia's largest guerrilla organization.
The two bodies were found close to the plane's wreckage near the town of Puerto Rico, in Caqueta Province, about 220 miles south of Bogota, the Colombian capital, U.S. officials said. One man was shot in the head and the other in the chest. The fate of the three others on board the Cessna 208 was unknown. U.S. officials said they hoped the Americans survived and were able to elude capture by rebel forces operating in the mountainous area.
There was no specific word on what the U.S. contract personnel were doing on Thursday morning when their pilot radioed an airport tower in Florencia, about 25 miles from the crash site, that they were experiencing engine trouble. The pilot reported he was looking for a place to put the plane down, but the airport tower lost radio contact with him soon afterward.
While U.S. sources said the aircraft was outfitted for "photo reconnaissance," it was not known if the plane was conducting such operations. U.S. officials said the crew members, four Americans and a Colombian, were working on anti-drug operations over Colombia's southern coca fields.
A Defense Department official in Washington confirmed the men were civilians employed by the Pentagon as contractors, but added that they were detailed to work for the U.S. Embassy. Typical operations on such flights includes locating and targeting coca plantations for later eradication by Colombian troops. The Washington Post incorrectly reported Friday that the four Americans were civilian contractors employed by the CIA.
U.S. Embassy officials arrived in Florencia, the provincial capital, to lead an air search-and-rescue operation that was hampered by a surge of fighting in the area between Colombian troops and members of the Revolutionary Army Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC, the nation's largest Marxist-oriented guerrilla organization. Investigators from the Colombian attorney general's office said they were unable to reach the crash site because of security concerns. U.S. officials said surveillance aircraft and Colombian transport flew missions above the region of rolling pasture and jungle-covered mountains. Colombian air and ground units gave some cover for the search operations, Colombian officials added.
The region has been the focus of a $1.3 billion U.S. aid package that has given Colombia more than 80 transport helicopters, training for a new military brigade and intelligence assistance designed to attack a drug trade that provides 90 percent of the U.S. cocaine supply.
U.S. Embassy officials said that Pentagon personnel were not involved in any search-and-rescue operations on the ground, although U.S. pilots were among those looking for the missing Americans. U.S. military advisers here are prohibited from accompanying Colombian troops on operations. But U.S. officials said they have the right to defend themselves if attacked, and many trainers are stationed on bases in Colombia's war zones. "We've got people into the area, and we've gotten good support from the Colombian military," said Chip Barclay, a spokesman for the State Department's Western Hemispheric Affairs department. "U.S. assets are being used in the search and rescue, and in the investigation."
In passing a Colombian aid package in 2000 known as Plan Colombia, Congress limited the number of civilian and military contractors working in the country at any given time to 400 of each, a ceiling U.S. officials say they have not come close to exceeding. U.S. government contractors fly aerial herbicide spray planes over Colombia's coca fields, photograph drug crops for targeting and tracking and train helicopter pilots. They also work on programs designed to encourage coca farmers to trade illegal crops for legal ones. Recently, restrictions on U.S. aid have been eased so that it can be used to help the Colombian military fight the rebels.
Plan Colombia is managed by Colombia's Joint Task Force South, which operates two military installations near the crash site and southern Colombia's richest coca regions. About 25 U.S. Special Forces trainers are based in Larandia, an army post about 25 miles from Puerto Rico.
The 18,000-member FARC gets a major source of its war chest from a tax it imposes on coca fields it protects in the area. The FARC, classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization, has declared U.S. government operatives to be legitimate targets in their 39-year war against the Colombian state.
The capture of U.S. government officials or their employees could be a boon for the FARC, which is seeking an agreement with the hard-line government of President Alvaro Uribe that would lead to the release of some of its imprisoned members.
In recent months, the FARC has been trying to trade a group of kidnapped lawmakers for a number of its mid-level commanders held in Colombian prisons. But the exchange effort has foundered in recent days, and some political analysts here say the FARC would use any captured Americans to increase pressure on Uribe to make the deal.
"It's a likely eventuality," said Alfredo Rangel, a military analyst and adviser to Colombia's defense ministry. "That would immediately include the United States at the negotiating table over a prisoner exchange, and greatly complicate matters for the government."
----
15 killed by bomb 'meant for President'
By Javier Baena,
AP, in Bogota
15 February 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=378401
Fifteen people were killed yesterday when a huge bomb intended to kill the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, today was discovered by police and detonated by suspected rebels, the authorities said yesterday.
Prosecutors claim the bomb, in a house near the airport in the southern city of Neiva, was to have been detonated as the President's plane passed overhead during a scheduled visit. The plan was to blow the aircraft out of the sky, they said.
But the suspected rebels detonated the bomb when police raided the house. An investigator with the prosecutor's office and nine police officers, including Neiva's chief of investigations, were among those killed. The blast wounded 30 people, destroyed five houses and severely damaged 30 others.
General Teodoro Campo, director of the Colombian National Police, said rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or Farc, were behind the attack.
President Uribe, who has survived several rebel assassination attempts, is launching a crackdown on the 38-year-old insurgency.
Farc was blamed for the bombing of an exclusive club in Bogota last week that killed 35 people and injured more than 100.
-------- europe
Iraq Feud Eats at Europe's Unity
New EU Members Favor U.S., Threaten French-German Power
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10143-2003Feb14?language=printer
BRUSSELS, Feb. 14 -- The dream of a common European foreign policy, 15 countries dealing with the outside world as one under the leadership of France and Germany, has suffered deeply in the international feud over how to deal with Iraq, according to diplomats and analysts.
In recent weeks, Britain, Spain and Italy have sided with the United States, taking a hard line against Iraq, and lining up against France and Germany, which oppose sanctioning war against the Baghdad government.
The fight has also brought to light the foreign policy tilts of eight formerly Communist countries scheduled to join the EU next year. On hard issues of war and peace, they clearly look to Washington, not Berlin or Paris, for guidance and have sided, to one degree or another, with the United States on the issue of Iraq.
"This crisis has seriously questioned the leadership of France and Germany," said Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski, a professor of political sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. "With up to 25 countries in a future EU, the dominance of France and Germany will not be possible anymore." Malta and Cyprus have also been invited to join next year.
"The center around Germany and France no longer has the same importance," said Ulrich K. Preuss, a political science professor at Berlin's Free University. "The new members see the U.S. as a trustworthy superpower, which guarantees their security in a way that France and Germany never can. And this has a very clear consequence: The EU will be so heterogeneous that that the idea of Europe as a coherent unit will not exist."
But German-French dominance will not wane easily. Germany is by far the biggest net contributor to the EU's budget -- in 2001, it put in about $7.5 billion more than it took out. Its citizens' taxes will flow to Eastern Europe in the form of EU farm subsidies and development aid, giving Berlin strong influence in EU affairs.
On certain foreign policy issues, the EU has managed to maintain a largely unified front. For the most part, member governments are together on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying that Washington is too forgiving of Israel and should do more to try to restart peace talks. The governments also negotiate trade agreements as a bloc and largely abide by those deals after they are signed.
But on Iraq, they have split dramatically. Britain and some East European countries are deploying troops to the Persian Gulf region, while France and Germany are leading a diplomatic fight to extend the work of U.N. weapons inspectors and say the time for war has not arrived.
EU heads of government will hold an emergency meeting on Iraq in Brussels on Monday. Prospective members were pointedly not invited.
"It is a sign . . . of a lack of trust," said Janusz Reiter, a former Polish ambassador to Germany and head of the International Relations Center in Warsaw. "Some EU countries were probably afraid to hear voices they don't want to hear at the summit."
Others in the EU despaired of the rifts. "We need to be on one line," the Dutch foreign minister, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said this week. "Europe is failing at a time when it is just starting to formulate a common European policy. There is one man and one regime that can profit from this -- Saddam Hussein," president of Iraq.
The EU, which began as a six-nation common market more than 50 years ago, was a calculated, postwar embrace of Germany by France -- the "big two." The French sought to smother German militarism; the Germans wanted redemption through the idea of a united Europe. As the union grew to the current 15 members, the original big two countries, despite occasional strains, remained its indispensable engine.
The EU is trying to craft a written constitution, perhaps with some kind of strong presidential figure. The head of the drafting commission is a Frenchman, former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, a choice that underlines his country's role in fundamental EU policy.
On EU panels, France and Germany often scratch each other's back. In an address to the German parliament Thursday, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder declared, "German policies must never isolate the French."
Yet some Germans say they knew the traditional dominance of the two countries might come under attack. "We knew when we agreed to new members that the former Communist countries would naturally look to America because they hadn't been sovereign so long and they were still concerned about their security," said a leading member of Schroeder's Social Democratic Party who disagrees with his government's policy on Iraq.
"This crisis confirms for them that they should look to America," the party member said. "Under the formulation of a 'German way,' the chancellor decided to say no. If you take the collective memory of people in Central and Eastern Europe, they are much more afraid of a 'German way' than of any conflict in Iraq. And the long-term consequences of that fear for Europe will be much bigger."
-------- india
India won't support U.S. attack on Iraq
From the International Desk
2/15/2003
UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-083222-5592r
NEW DELHI, Feb. 15 -- India's government said Saturday it will not support any U.S.-led attack on Iraq without the approval first of the United Nations, adding it would be "inconceivable" the United States should act as long as U.N. inspectors in Iraq find no weapons of mass destruction.
"It would be inconceivable that the U.S. should take any action after what has been submitted to the U.N. Security Council yesterday by all those who were concerned with the search and also by the stand that has been taken by the members of the Security Council like France, Germany, Russia and China and other countries that have been associated with this opposition (to war)," Defense Minister George Fernandes told the Press Trust of India news agency in the southern city of Bangalore.
"It is an obvious situation where Iraq has been found to be without any weapons of mass destruction," the PTI quoted Indian defense minister as saying. "How can India support... (the United States against Iraq)?"
New Delhi has maintained the Iraq issue must be resolved amicably.
India is home to the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia and it still has an Iraqi embassy in the capital, New Delhi. The government's decision to allow U.S. airplanes to refuel at Indian facilities during the 1991 Persian Gulf War caused domestic political turmoil.
-------- iran
Iran out of Bush's new spin on 'axis of evil'
By Robin Wright in Washington
February 15 2003
Los Angeles Times,
Agence France-Presse
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927804372.html
The United States now distinguishes between Iran and the other countries that President George Bush lumped together in an "axis of evil" and does not plan to target the Islamic republic after the likely war in Iraq.
Despite growing concern about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, its assistance in the "war on terrorism" and the evolution of liberal thought there put it in a different category from Iraq or North Korea, the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, said.
"The axis of evil was a valid comment [but] I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently," he said. "I wouldn't think they were next at all."
Over the past 14 months, despite continuing tensions and sometimes heated rhetoric, US and Iranian officials have held quiet discussions about a growing list of overlapping interests, US officials confirmed.
Iran shares a long border with Iraq, and it has long hosted Iraqi opposition groups now also supported by the United States.
During four earlier administrations, Washington and Tehran tried public and private overtures that failed to develop. But the deepening US involvement on all of Iran's borders - in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Central Asia, along the Persian Gulf and now in Turkey and Iraq - has nudged the two countries into increasingly frequent discussions, US officials say.
The discussions, they add, do not mark the onset of a formal dialogue or a diplomatic thaw five years after the Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, proposed bringing down the "wall of mistrust" that has characterised relations since the 1979-81 hostage drama in which 52 Americans were held for 444 days.
Contact has been encouraging despite Mr Bush's description of Iran's religious regime as "repressive" and supportive of terror, the sources said.
Iran opposes US military intervention in Iraq, but the US hopes it will play the same kind of search-and-rescue role it did during the 1991 Gulf War and the Afghanistan campaign.
The US has quietly barred two Saudi Arabian Airlines pilots from flying in the US on the grounds that they "pose a security threat," The Wall Street Journal reported.
The case was the first under a new rule that allows US authorities to take away flying licences without disclosing evidence.
----
Bin Laden son, al Qaeda terrorists spotted in Iran
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030215-677323.htm
U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials.
Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan.
Officials said it is not clear what relationship Sad has with the Tehran government, which on Thursday denied congressional testimony by CIA Director George J. Tenet that al Qaeda terrorists are in Iran.
The new reports are the first time senior al Qaeda terrorists have been identified in Iran. Earlier reports have indicated other al Qaeda fighters have been granted refuge in Iran from neighboring Afghanistan.
The intelligence on bin Laden's son comes as the Bush administration has released intelligence indicating Iraq is working with al Qaeda terrorists, including a senior associate of Osama bin Laden who has been in Baghdad since May.
A CIA spokesman declined to comment when asked about the intelligence reports about Sad's whereabouts.
London's Arabic-language newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, quoting a diplomatic source, reported from Rome on Thursday that Sad was seen in Iran. The newspaper said it is not clear whether other senior al Qaeda are in Iran.
U.S. officials confirmed that Sad is among the senior al Qaeda believed to be in Iran after the newspaper report appeared.
Sad, 23, is the oldest of Osama bin Laden's 27 children from several wives. He lived with his father in Sudan and Afghanistan, and fled Afghanistan in December 2001.
Meanwhile, Iranian military forces are on heightened alert and Tehran leaders fear U.S. military forces will use operations against Iraq as a steppingstone for invading Iran.
The Iranian military activities appear similar to Iran's response to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when Iranian military forces built up in large numbers along the border with Iraq.
So far, the Iranian forces have not massed near the Iraqi border, but are expected to do so if U.S. military operations against Iraq occur.
Mr. Tenet said at a Senate hearing Tuesday that "we see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said yesterday that Mr. Tenet's claim was "baseless," state-run Tehran radio reported. "The seriousness of Iran's fight against terrorism, and its expelling those suspected of links to al Qaeda, has always been clear, sincere and transparent," he said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also said in a Senate hearing in September that the Iranian government is "currently harboring reasonably large numbers of al Qaeda," while keeping the support for the terrorist group from its people.
"The al Qaeda are functioning in that country, both transiting and located, and operating," Mr. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Iran's government has denied repeatedly it has any links to al Qaeda.
The chief of Iran's armed forces, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Salimi, said in Tehran on Monday that the Iranian army is "on full alert," according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Gen. Salimi said the armed forces are "on guard against any aggressive move by enemies that would threaten the territorial integrity of Islamic Iran."
Bush administration officials met privately last month in Europe with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq and seek Tehran's help in supporting Sunni Muslims in a post-Saddam Iraq. The meeting was first reported by The Washington Post Feb. 8.
Officials said the initiative was put forth by Richard Haas, the State Department's director of policy planning.
Intelligence officials said Iran's support for terrorists, including al Qaeda, in the past was carried out by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qods Force.
The Defense Intelligence Agency in 2000 uncovered information linking al Qaeda to Iran's government.
Intelligence from Malaysia showed that two of the September 11 hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, attended a key meeting of al Qaeda terrorists in Malaysia that year. The two men were the suicide hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
The 2000 intelligence showed they stayed at the Kuala Lumpur residence of Iran's ambassador to Malaysia.
The disclosure about the Iran-al Qaeda ties comes as the United States released intelligence indicating links between Baghdad and al Qaeda, and the release of an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden calling on Muslims to defend Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the United Nations last week that Baghdad was harboring a network of more than two dozen al Qaeda terrorists headed by Abu Musaab Zarqawi.
The White House said that Tuesday's audiotape broadcast of Osama bin Laden, who called on al Qaeda to defend Iraq, shows Baghdad's link to the group.
"If that is not an unholy partnership, I've not heard of one," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "This is the nightmare that people have warned about, the linking up of Iraq with al Qaeda." Iran's connection to al Qaeda was identified by Italian government authorities in October.
A Tunisian national, Nassim Saadi, was among six suspected al Qaeda terrorists who were arrested at that time and he had been found to have flown from Milan, Italy, to Tehran in January 2002.
Iran also backed Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who recently returned to Afghanistan from Iran and has joined forces with the remnants of the ousted Taliban militia and al Qaeda in opposing the government of Hamid Karzai and U.S. troops.
-------- iraq
Iraqis protest war, welcome U.N. report
By Ghassan Al-Kadi From the International Desk
2/15/2003
UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-100402-9358r
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 15 -- Thousands of Iraqis filled the streets of Baghdad Saturday to protest U.S. and British military deployments in the region and threats to invade Iraq.
Angry demonstrators gathered on the two banks of the Tigris River in the Iraqi capital, with hundreds waving Russian-made Kalashnikov automatic rifles and carrying banners denouncing the United States and Britain. Others marched with banners calling on the people of the world to support Iraq against the U.S.-British stance or waved Iraqi and Palestinian flags.
The demonstration coincided with others staged in Iraq's cities and in capitals around the world, including Washington.
In Baghdad, protesters chanted anti-war slogans and denounced the U.S. and British governments as the "evil coalition." Among them were peace activists from around the world, many of whom wore T-shirts reading "human shields." The activists began arriving in Iraq last week from the United States, Europe and Asia, especially Japan, to act as human shields around hospitals, schools and other facilities in the event of military action.
Iraq's state-owned media dedicated their programs Saturday to speeches by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his advice to his people, interspersed with nationalist songs calling for "jihad (struggle) against the aggressors."
Iraqis on the street welcomed Friday's report by weapons inspectors as a fair hearing before the international community. Inspection chiefs Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei told the 15-member U.N. Security Council that several questions remain with regard to Iraq's disarmament -- but also that, after 10 weeks of investigation, inspection teams had so far found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
There has been no official Iraqi response, though on Friday Deputy Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz -- in Rome to meet with Pope John Paul II about efforts to avert war -- said U.S. President George Bush "will have to answer some very hard questions" when inspectors continue to find no chemical, biological, nuclear or other illegal weapons.
Iraqi newspapers have also refrained from commenting on the reports.
Meanwhile, international inspectors continued their unannounced visits to a number of sites suspected of involvement in the production of weapons of mass destruction.
U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency experts visited al-Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad, which had previously contained two nuclear reactors, as well as the headquarters of the Iraqi Nuclear Energy Organization.
They also searched the Saddam Technological Center that belongs to Baghdad University, and conducted a comprehensive survey of Baghdad city.
A group of inspectors also visited Utad warehouses outside Mosul, 450 kilometers (270 miles) north of the capital.
----
10 million mouths to feed after battle
By Julia Preston at the United Nations
The New York Times
February 15 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927804508.html
The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, told the Security Council on Thursday that the United Nations was planning to feed up to 10 million Iraqi civilians and care for at least 2.6 million refugees in the wake of an American-led war in Iraq.
Saying that his organisation was moving to a "higher level of preparedness" for military conflict in Iraq, Mr Annan met the 15 council ambassadors in his offices to appeal for $US120million ($210 million) to pay for urgent contingency planning.
Mr Annan stressed that he did not regard war as inevitable and that he was engaging only in prudent advance planning, diplomats who attended the session said. But the meeting added to the sense that American military action to topple Saddam Hussein might be just weeks away.
The top UN official for emergency relief aid, Kenzo Oshima, said the organisation had moved food, shelter and health supplies into the region to care for 600,000 refugees in Iraq and across its borders.
At a news conference after Mr Annan's closed meeting, Mr Oshima said the UN was expecting a "huge, gigantic task."
He noted that the UN, through the oil-for-food program, was distributing 460,000 tonnes of food each month in Iraq. This was "four times the largest quantity we were able to deliver" in the days after the fighting subsided in Afghanistan, he said.
After 11 years of severe economic sanctions, Iraq's economy is paralysed, with about 60 per cent of the population depending entirely on the UN program for food, he said. The program uses income from Iraqi oil exports to buy food, medicine and other critical goods.
At the session, the US ambassador, John Negroponte, said that the Bush Administration had provided $US18.3 million for the contingency planning and that there was $US40 million more in the pipeline, several participants in the meeting said.
Bush Administration officials are calculating that about 2.2million people will become refugees in the fighting.
In Washington, InterAction, an umbrella organisation of 160 aid groups, questioned whether the Bush Administration was prepared to cope with the predicted humanitarian crisis.
In a confidential document, Mr Oshima's office reported that infant mortality rates in Iraq were 2.5 times those of 1990, when sanctions were imposed to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait.
----
Invasion, bombs, gas - we've been here before
By Ben Macintyre
February 15, 2003
UK Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578159,00.html
An attempt by a British force in 1915 to topple the regime in Baghdad ended in disaster. Our correspondent hopes there will be no parallels this time ARMED with high-tech weapons and even higher expectations, a British army marches on Baghdad to take control of the oilfields and topple a brutal regime.
Instead, the invaders get bogged down in the foetid marshes and broiling deserts; the enemy refuses to run away; soldiers perish in their thousands and Britain suffers one of its worst military defeats.
Even when regime change is finally brought about, the Iraqi people rise in rebellion and are cowed only by a ferocious aerial bombardment. There is talk of chemical weapons and the occupation drags on, draining blood and treasure, year after year.
This may sound like Tony Blair's nightmare, the worst-case scenario of the looming conflict. In fact, it is the story of Britain's first invasion of Iraq and provides an uncomfortable echo of the events unfolding today.
Then, the soldiers were clad in First World War uniforms; Baghdad was part of the Ottoman Empire and the enemy were Turks. The threat to use poison gas came not from President Saddam Hussein, but from Lawrence of Arabia and Winston Churchill. The most strident voice urging aerial bombardment to put down Iraqi insurgents was that of Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who would later use those methods to reduce Dresden to rubble.
The Mesopotamia campaign of 1914-1915 was one of the least glorious chapters in British military history, which is why imperial historians made strenuous efforts to forget it. Even Saddam Hussein does not celebrate Britain's disaster in his propaganda, for the defenders of Baghdad were not Iraqis but Turkish imperialists. This is one chapter of history that Mr Blair will not be evoking in the coming days; for this, as General George Gorringe bitterly recalled afterwards, was "the bastard war", a war nobody much wanted to fight, and few cared to remember, then or now.
British forces landed at Basra in November 1914 to protect the Persian oilfields against the Turks and their German allies. "I do not care under what system we keep the oil," Arthur James Balfour, the Foreign Secretary, would declare. "But I am quite clear it is all-important."
At the head of the army marched Major-General Charles Townshend, amateur violinist, ambitious extrovert and military incompetent. Having secured Basra, the over-confident Townshend pushed north up the Tigris, determined to take Baghdad and restore British prestige in the Middle East after the bloody debacle of Gallipoli. As the soldiers trudged through the soggy heat, one Indian trooper was heard to remark: "It passeth my understanding why the British Government should be interested in this Satan-like land."
The gung-ho British press referred to the campaign as the "Mesopotamian picnic", but as the men marched through the flat, fly-blown marshland, a Canadian soldier observed pithily: "This 'ere is the land of sweet F-all with a river up it."
By the time they reached Cstesiphon, 30 miles south of Baghdad, the British were already depleted, dispirited, exhausted and outnumbered. A well-entrenched and reinforced Turkish army pushed them back, and the dreadful retreat began. By December 1915 the British had regrouped at the village of Kut al Amara, where they were immediately surrounded and besieged.
The rations ran out after 22 days, but the siege of Kutal Amara would last for nearly five excruciating months. The men were reduced to eating pack animals, ravaged by heatstroke, cholera, dysentery and scurvy. Every attempt to break out failed. T.E. Lawrence was dispatched to see if he could bribe the Turkish commander into retiring, but without success, and Townshend appears to have suffered a nervous collapse. Finally, in April 1916, he spiked his guns and raised the white flag, but not before the British army had suffered 23,000 dead and wounded.
Eight thousand survivors were taken prisoner and paraded through the streets of Baghdad and Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town, where the captives were treated with notable brutality. One soldier recalled the march: "Some were thrashed to death, some robbed of their kit and left to be tortured by the Arabs. Men often fell out from sheer weakness."
Three-quarters of them died, but not Townshend, who lived out the war "in comfortable captivity" at the Pasha's palace in Constantinople.
The disaster provoked outrage in Britain, and a new offensive, led by General Sir Stanley Maude. This campaign was as efficient as the other had been inept, and on March 11, 1917, British troops entered Baghdad. Maude did not live long to enjoy his triumph: he died of cholera after drinking a glass of unboiled milk following a performance of Hamlet in Arabic. When the war ended Townshend, of all people, emerged from captivity to sign the armistice with the Turks in November 1918.
The Mesopotamia campaign had shocked even the most ardent imperialists. "We pay for these things too much in honour and in innocent lives," wrote Lawrence. "We cast them by their thousands into the fire to the worst of deaths, not to win the war, but that the corn and rice and oil of Mesopotamia might be ours."
Iraq was invented in the resulting carve-up of the Ottoman Empire, with Britain annexing the provinces of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. The result was not so much a country as an imperial convenience, artificially shackling together Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, all of whom detested each other. But they loathed the British, and British taxes more, and two years after driving out the Turks, the new imperial rulers of the new- minted Iraq faced a mass rebellion in a country as saturated with guns as it is today.
The British lost more than 2,000 dead and wounded in the ensuing tribal revolt, and the Iraqis more than four times that number. But in the course of putting down the insurrection, the British hit upon a new tactic of air policing, using bombs. Starting in 1922, RAF biplanes, flying out of Basra and Habbaniya, the airfield north of Baghdad, strafed and shelled the insurgents into submission. "The attack with bombs and machineguns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle," wrote Wing-Commander J.A.Chamier.
The Pentagon's "Shock and Awe" strategy in Iraq, in which 400 cruise missiles will be rained on Iraq during the first two days of fighting, is the direct descendant of that policy.
"Bomber" Harris, the young commander of the RAF's 45 Squadron, was a particularly enthusiastic advocate. "The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: they know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured," he bragged. This was imperial law enforcement by high explosive. Drop "one 250lb or 500lb bomb in each village that speaks out of turn," Harris urged.
Others were equally keen. Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for War and Air, encouraged the use of mustard gas, pointing out that it had already been employed "with excellent morale effect" on the ground. For technical reasons, gas bombs were less effective than delayed detonation explosives, but Lawrence was another enthusiast for chemical weapons. "It is odd that we do not use poison gas on these occasions," he said, as if describing what sort of canapé ought to be served at a cocktail party.
Some, however, doubted the effectiveness, let alone the morality, of bombing Iraq into obedience. "An air bomb in Iraq was equivalent to a police truncheon at home," wrote Air Commodore Lionel Charlton, who eventually resigned in horror at the "policy of intimidation by bomb". As today, politicians also wondered at the use of air power. Massive civilian casualties "will not be easily explained or defended in Parliament by me", said James Thomas, the Colonial Secretary.
But bombs were a cheap and effective way of controlling a volatile country with its new puppet king. Chosen by the British in 1921, Faisal I was the third son of the powerful Hashemite clan. He was malleable, cultured and he had joined the revolt against the Turks, which fitted him nicely into the evolving myths of Iraqi nationalism. The only problem with Faisal was that he was virtually unknown to the Iraqis and desperately weak, which was exactly how the British wanted it.
Faisal knew just how dependent he was on British goodwill and RAF bombs.
Shortly before he died in 1933, he observed: "There is still no Iraqi people, but unimaginable masses of human beings devoid of any patriotic ideas, imbued with religious traditions and absurdities, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil, prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatsoever."
The monarchy would be toppled in 1958, ushering in a decade in which military dictatorships came one after another in bewildering and bloody succession. Saddam Hussein, whose Baath party seized power in 1968, was the evil spawn of this brutal political world.
The historical parallels stretch only so far. When the British marched towards Baghdad in 1915 they had little idea what they faced; over the last 12 years Britain and the US have come to know the Iraqi terrain with grim intimacy. The Iraqi rebels of the 1920s were opposed to colonial rule; today Iraq is oppressed by a home-grown tyrant. The British discussed using chemical weapons, not removing them. Yet the airy confidence of some who predict immediate victory and a pacified Iraq in 2003 is oddly reminiscent of the complacency of British officials in the imperial age.
Gertrude Bell, the government adviser on Iraq in 1920, insisted, as British officials always did before something truly ghastly happens, that the country was utterly tranquil. "The bottom seems to have dropped out of the agitation and most of the leaders are only too anxious to let bygones be bygones," she said. Within months, Britain faced a mass uprising.
In Iraq, 70 years later, the bygones are still anything but bygones. Perhaps the most salutary lesson from Britain's first campaign in Iraq is that war in Mesopotamia is never a picnic.
Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession, Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn; Saddam: The Secret Life, Con Coughlin; A History of Iraq, Charles Tripp; A Modern History of the Kurds, David McDowall; The Gulf Conflict, Lawrence Freedman, Efraim Karsh
--------
BAGHDAD
Hussein Issues Decree to Ban Weapons of Mass Destruction
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By IAN FISHER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/middleeast/15BAGH.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 14 - Waiting until almost the last possible moment, Saddam Hussein complied today with one demand of the United Nations weapons inspectors by issuing a presidential decree banning the construction or import of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Hussein acted only hours before the two top United Nations arms inspectors delivered an updated report to the Security Council on Iraq's cooperation since weapons inspections began anew here, under threat of war, in November.
The Iraqi government offered no official response tonight to the report, which credited Iraq for generally better cooperation but said that it still had not delivered hard evidence that it was free of banned weapons. But one Iraqi official said the report was "less than we hoped for."
"It was fair, but not fair enough," the official said.
Over the next few days, the measure of how near an American-led attack might be will likely turn to the physical presence of the United Nations inspectors in Iraq. Yasuhiro Ueki, the spokesman for the inspectors, said there was no indication they would be asked to leave, "not as yet, for sure."
"We are operating on the assumption our inspectors will be allowed to continue," he said.
In a visit here last weekend, Hans Blix, the chief inspector for biological and chemical weapons, told the inspectors that anyone who wanted to leave for fear of hostilities breaking out could do so. It was unclear tonight how many inspectors, if any, had departed after Mr. Blix gave them the option. But the number of inspectors here at present is reported to be about 90, down from 110 at their greatest strength.
With Mr. Hussein's decree today, Iraq appeared to be trying to avoid a repeat of the last report by Mr. Blix, in late January, in which he presented a largely negative picture of Iraq's willingness to cooperate with the United Nations inspectors.
Since last week, Iraq has offered several concessions to the inspectors to help influence today's report, as well as members of the Security Council, in the hope they will continue to push for more inspections as an alternative to an American-led attack.
After long wrangling, Iraq first offered several scientists to be interviewed in private by inspectors and then said it would allow the flight of U-2 surveillance planes over Iraq to help the inspectors in their work.
Today's decree by Mr. Hussein marked a third concession, a largely symbolic gesture the inspectors have long sought as a statement of Iraq's commitment to disarmament. In the decree, Mr. Hussein repeated his claim that Iraq no longer had any weapons of mass destruction and imposed a ban on their manufacture or importation.
The Iraqi leader instructed his ministers to put the decree into effect and to "punish those who don't adhere to it."
In his speech before the Security Council, Mr. Powell dismissed the recent concessions as merely procedural points and repeated his contention, shared by the inspectors themselves, that Iraq has yet to offer full cooperation on the larger question of whether it still has weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Hussein's decree was immediately and unanimously approved in special session by the 250-member Iraqi National Assembly, though barely a word was said about the legislation itself.
The session, to which hundreds of foreign journalists were invited, was devoted instead to speeches denying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and condemning the United States for threatening an attack.
"The land of Iraq will be a graveyard for all aggressors," said Saddoun Hammadi, the Assembly's speaker. "On our side, there are people with high morale, highly united, believing in God and our homeland, fighting behind our courageous leader. On the other side, there is a front which is based on lies and is condemned by public opinion around the world."
-------- israel / palestine
Arafat Will Appoint a Prime Minister, a Major U.S. Demand
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By JAMES BENNET
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/middleeast/15MIDE.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Feb. 14 - Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, announced today that he would appoint a prime minister in a step toward meeting a central demand of the Bush administration for a resumption of the peace process.
Mr. Arafat did not say who would fill this new post or what powers it would have. Palestinians and Israelis are jockeying to improve their diplomatic positions, in response to domestic political pressures and in anticipation of a revival of the peace process as a result of a possible American war on Iraq.
The antagonists here are looking ahead to the aftermath of an Iraq war and to what one top Israeli official called "a fork in the road" in American policy. Each side foresees the Bush administration either seeking to mend fences with European and Arab nations by pressing Israel for concessions or else continuing its tilt toward Israel by treating Mr. Arafat as an outcast.
Mr. Arafat's statement appeared timed to precede a meeting in London early next week of the diplomatic group that has drafted a road map to achieve peace and a Palestinian state in 2005. The group is composed of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.
Mr. Arafat also told diplomats from the group for the first time today that he fully accepted the draft road map, backing off previous objections. Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, has said he accepts the road map, but he is seeking to change it substantively.
Mr. Arafat made his statements in a meeting in the remnant of his official compound here with representatives of the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. They have had repeated sessions with the Palestinian leader in recent days to press for a prime minister.
While demanding that Mr. Arafat yield his executive powers to a prime minister, the Bush administration has downgraded its diplomatic communications with him, declining to send senior representatives.
Terje Roed-Larsen, the United Nations special envoy, said Mr. Arafat had made "two important steps" in endorsing the road map and the appointment of a prime minister.
"What we now hope and expect is that he will appoint a credible prime minister and an empowered prime minister, and these steps will have to follow," he said.
The extent of the prime minister's powers, and his identity, are likely to be the next contentious issues for diplomats and Palestinian officials.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said after meeting with Mr. Arafat today: "It's no secret that Arafat will appoint the prime minister, and the prime minister will be accountable to Arafat. Those who say this will weaken Arafat - that is not the case." Asked to describe the prime minister's duties, Mr. Erekat said he would "run the cabinet."
Palestinian officials are anxious that the creation of a prime minister not appear to be a foreign initiative. But diplomats here believe that to gain support abroad for the move, Mr. Arafat will have to appoint one of two men: Salam Fayyad, a former official of the International Monetary Fund who became the Palestinian finance minister last year and has been embraced as a reformer by the Bush administration; or Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, who is second to Mr. Arafat in the Palestine Liberation Organization and has been involved in peace talks with Israel and American diplomats for years.
Mr. Sharon has declared Mr. Arafat irrelevant, while continuing to hold him responsible for stopping Palestinian violence. He has demanded that Mr. Arafat be removed from power as one of several conditions for peace talks. Mr. Sharon's office declined to comment on Mr. Arafat's announcement.
Speaking to reporters here, Mr. Arafat said he would call for an "immediate meeting" of the Palestinian Legislative Council "to discuss this decision and to take the needed measures." Palestinian officials said the central council of the P.L.O., the umbrella organization over the governing Palestinian Authority, would also need to approve the step. Mr. Roed-Larsen said he expected movement on both fronts "within days."
In 1996, Mr. Arafat was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, which was provided limited autonomy to govern Palestinians under the Oslo accords. It has lost most of that autonomy over the last two years as the conflict with Israel has intensified and Israel has taken back control of territory it had ceded under Oslo.
While he has been under pressure from abroad, Mr. Arafat has also been pressed by Palestinians complaining of corrupt and ineffective governance.
Mr. Sharon has bridled at the role of the four-member international diplomatic group in Middle East diplomacy, harshly criticizing European nations as being biased against Israel.
Yet since his overwhelming victory in parliamentary elections here last month, Mr. Sharon has renewed direct contacts with Palestinian officials. He has been proposing a formula that has failed amid mutual recriminations in the past, to withdraw Israeli forces from those areas where Palestinians assure Israeli security.
Mr. Sharon's motives are the subject of an intense guessing game in Israeli and Palestinian circles. He is trying to persuade the left-of-center Labor Party to join a new unity government. That has led some diplomats here to dismiss as mere coalition politics his contacts with Palestinians, which have been leaked to the Israeli press.
Israel is also facing a profound financial crisis, which Mr. Sharon has linked to the conflict with the Palestinians. He has told other leaders of his Likud Party that progress with the Palestinians is essential to shoring up Israel's economy.
-------- philippines
Iraqi crisis: Terror fallout in the Philippines
By Marco Garrido,
February 15, 2003
Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/EB15Ae02.html
MANILA - Should war break out in Iraq, the Philippines will most certainly feel it, and not just in terms of economic costs and domestic popular opposition to the war, but in the worst way - in terms of terror.
A local insurgency group has pledged to launch retaliatory attacks against the government and US interests in the event on war. Terror threats made by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) to be carried out by its armed wing, the New People's Army, have ratcheted up public anxiety over an imminent war and have put President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo under increasing pressure to revise her administration's position on the war in favor of neutrality.
Mounting apprehension The Arroyo administration has taken pains to craft a position on the war that balances contradictory political pressures.
On the one hand, the Philippines is the United States' closest ally in the region and, more pertinent, the recipient of massive amounts of US military and economic aid. Arroyo's recent visit with US President George W Bush fetched her country a 15-fold increase in US foreign military financing, from US$1.9 million to $29 million in 2003, $1 billion worth in trade benefits, as well as Bush's assurance that he would help Arroyo combat terrorism "in any way she suggests".
Hence when asked by the United States to give it "general support" in the event of war, Arroyo reiterated her commitment, per a Mutual Defense Treaty, to provide political, logistic, and humanitarian support. She has since had to refine her position in the face of growing domestic apprehension over the likelihood of war.
Such apprehension is well-founded. War jitters have already dragged the peso down to a two-year low and have jacked up the price of world crude oil to a two-year high; the lives and livelihoods of the 60,000 overseas Filipino workers based in Kuwait remain in jeopardy; and the Philippines confronts the prospect of shortages in oil and basic goods.
Moreover, political opposition to war in Iraq is fierce and public opposition to Philippine involvement in the war widespread. A number of legislators have urged Arroyo to declare Philippine neutrality. One prominent senator has lambasted the president for her "canine devotion" to the United States. The clamor raised by anti-war demonstrations staged by Muslim and student communities continues to mount. Leftist quarters have even demanded Arroyo's impeachment for endangering Filipino lives and violating a constitutional provision renouncing the use of war as an instrument of state policy.
Fallout in terror But the most worrisome development has been the threat of terror attacks by local insurgency groups. In addition to the "sympathy attacks" vowed by the CPP, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has warned against retaliatory attacks by Islamic militant groups such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Abu Sayyaf. The AFP expects these groups to target national infrastructure, foreign embassies, US investments, and the more than 1,000 US troops stationed in Mindanao for counter-terror military exercises.
"As I've said, nobody will be spared," General Dionisio Santiago told the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines. "What [these groups] will be doing will be just to sow terror so that everybody will realize, and to make people feel, that being sympathetic with the Americans will not work."
Five AFP battalions have been placed on standby in Manila in case such threats materialize.
Ominous links Recent disclosures by Philippine intelligence have made the threat of imminent terror attacks all the more real. In a series of increasingly serious accusations, the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) has linked Iraqi operatives and the Iraqi Embassy with a number of local insurgency groups, including the MILF and the Abu Sayyaf.
The NICA alleges that in addition to funding the anti-US rallies of various protest groups, Iraqi operatives tapped members of the MILF to launch terror attacks in the event a US-led coalition invades Iraq. Furthermore, the NICA charged a top Iraqi Embassy official, second secretary Husham Hussain, with collaborating with the Abu Sayyaf in a bomb attack last October that killed an American soldier and three Filipino civilians.
That the government has since expelled the diplomat comes as small consolation to a people on alert.
An equivocal position Caught between an indispensable alliance on the one hand and mounting public apprehension over the fallout of war on the other, Arroyo has elected to equivocate. Or at least she has struck a fine position that would seem to have it both ways: squarely behind the US case against Iraq yet unwilling to commit to action without the backing of the United Nations.
"Our foreign policy is based on fear," notes Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Manuel Villar. "In this particular case, we're clearly afraid of the US so we will be supporting the US." One might add that it is fear too - of popular opposition to the war and terrorist retaliation - that keeps the Philippines from supporting the US all the way.
While Arroyo said she felt "convinced" by the evidence US Secretary of State Colin Powell marshaled against Iraq last week, she demurred to support his conclusion - immediate forcible disarmament. Instead she opted for a course that promised more safety than either side could: to act with the community of nations. Whether wise or not in the final count, it is certainly the more astute move, since it keeps the Philippines from further distinguishing itself in the eyes of those who would avenge themselves on America's friends. At the same time, she gives enough lip service to the US position, which probably resembles her own, to remain in America's good graces.
Many battlefields In the end, however, the Arroyo administration's careful position will not spare the Philippines the economic and political costs of war, and it will probably not save the country from a hail of terror attacks once the war begins in earnest.
There is no mistaking that this is a war that is already being suffered in its threat and will no doubt exact greater suffering in its reality. Most notably, not all its casualties will be Iraqi or American or British. They will include the victims of retaliatory terror attacks. It will be a war fought in proxy throughout the world in numerous undesignated battlefields; not only in the Philippines but in Indonesia, Malaysia, and, most certainly, the United States.
This means that this will be a war with greater stakes than the disarmament of Iraq. Its outcome will influence the future willingness of nations like the Philippines to stick their necks out, even this much, for the United States. For the Philippines, the question is not really whether the US will win or lose but how much it will lose.
-------- russia / chechnya
Russian calls situation 'typical guerrilla war'
By Olga Kryzhanovska
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-27582472.htm
The situation in war-torn Chechnya is far from normal, contrary to official Russian statements, a leading human rights activist and member of the Russian parliament says.
"The war in Chechnya has become a typical guerrilla war, even though there are no open battles and war activities," lawmaker Sergei Kovalev said during a visit to Washington this week.
Mr. Kovalev criticized Moscow's peace plan for the breakaway republic, saying that a democratic referendum on a new Chechen constitution is not possible under the circumstances. Russian troops have clashed with separatists in Chechnya for more than eight years.
Russia has scheduled a March 23 referendum on the new constitution, which will reiterate Chechnya's status as part of Russia. It is to be followed by elections by the end of the year.
Human rights activists have accused Russian troops of atrocities against civilians.
Memorial, a private human rights group in Russia, said that during the first three weeks of January, 22 civilians were killed in Chechnya and 61 detained, 29 of whom have since disappeared.
Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Thursday, Mr. Kovalev said the discovery of mass graves in Chechnya indicates the operation of "death squads" throughout the republic.
Mr. Kovalev said bodies in those mass graves are typically blown up with explosives to complicate identification.
"I think that circumstances of the discovery of these corpses show the planned nature of the atrocities and exclude the possibility of accidents," he said.
Russian officials say civilian deaths in Chechnya are thoroughly investigated and accidental.
"It would be wrong to say that there is a war in Chechnya right now. There are single accidents, and there are groups rivaling and fighting each other," Sergei Yastrzhembsky, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said at the National Press Club during a recent visit to Washington.
Mr. Yastrzhembsky described the situation in Chechnya as stable and improving.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch calls the referendum "strange," in part because Russian troops occupying the region are allowed to vote.
Mr. Kovalev said the expression of free will is impossible in modern-day Chechnya.
-------- space
Space debris remains suspect as cause of shuttle crash
By William Glanz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030215-67477630.htm
Space has become a treacherous junkyard of dead satellites, tools and other astronomical garbage that zip around at speeds up to 17,000 miles per hour.
With an estimated 110,000 pieces of space junk orbiting the Earth, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been unable to discount a collision between orbital debris and the Space Shuttle Columbia as a contributing factor in its fiery crash Feb. 1.
Confirmation by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board Thursday that superheated gas seeped through a hole in the shuttle's exterior lends credence to theories that it was damaged by insulating foam during takeoff or by orbital debris at another time during the 16-day mission.
"Is it possible [that gas seeped in through a hole]? I'd have to say yes, it is possible," NASA flight director Leroy Cain said during a press conference yesterday to discuss what happened inside mission control at Johnson Space Center in Houston during the shuttle's descent.
Investigators said yesterday they are still examining what caused the hole in the shuttle's exterior.
"I don't see how they could rule [orbital debris] out. But then there are myriad things that could be a factor," said Rick Hauck, a former astronaut, chief executive of aerospace firm AXA Space and chairman of a committee that wrote a 1997 report on the risk of orbital debris to shuttles.
Orbital debris has accumulated since 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. A screwdriver, wire carrier and a socket also contribute to the celestial junkyard.
The U.S., Soviet and Russian space agencies are responsible for about 90 percent of the junk.
NASA launched Vanguard I, the second U.S. satellite, in 1958. It functioned for six years becoming space junk in 1964.
One of the most unusual pieces of debris began its accidental orbit in 1965, when Gemini 4 astronaut Edward White lost a glove during the first American spacewalk. It remained in orbit for just a few months.
With the growing volume of junk, collisions between spacecraft and orbital debris become more likely. NASA considers the chance of catastrophic damage to be low right now. Even though shuttles get slammed repeatedly by space junk, the space agency never has been able to point to a single example of debris causing significant damage, said Nick Johnson, NASA chief scientist and program manager for orbital debris.
But the potential for a collision exists, and even tiny debris is cause for concern, according to the 1997 study by the National Research Council. The study, funded by NASA, concluded that tiny objects pose a particular problem because they can cause critical damage to a shuttle but are too small to be tracked.
NASA's shuttles were not built to withstand bombardment from orbital debris. A strike to the leading edge of a wing could cause catastrophic damage, according to the report.
"Impacts that penetrate the leading edge of a wing or the lower surfaces of the wing ... might not be immediately critical - or even detected - but the consequent thermal heating on re-entry could have a 'blowtorch' effect inside the wing that causes loss of flight control or failure of the primary structure resulting in the loss of the vehicle," the report said.
NASA investigators are focusing on Columbia's left wing because sensors indicated multiple problems there.
The only known damage from orbital debris occurred in 1996 when a French satellite was struck - but not destroyed - by a fragment from a European rocket booster that was moving at 31,000 miles per hour.
"That's the kind of scenario we're trying to avoid," Mr. Johnson said.
NASA and the U.S. Air Force Space Command, in Colorado Springs, use radio waves to keep constant watch on space so they can alter the orbit of spacecraft that are on a collision course with space junk.
About 11,000 pieces are large enough to be monitored daily by NASA and the military. Those fragments are at least 4 inches in diameter and include 3,400 fragments from exploded rocket boosters, 2,100 nonfunctional satellites and 1,000 pieces of litter, from straps to covers for sensors.
The problem isn't going away. The U.S. Air Force Space Command estimates the amount of space junk increases about 3 percent a year, said Maj. Bob Rochester, chief of the Space Analysis Center.
And there's no way to retrieve junk left behind.
"There have been lots of ideas, but they're either not technically feasible or not economically viable," Mr. Johnson said.
-------- un
Shifting Sands at the U.N.
Council Resistance Forcing U.S. to Alter Approach
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 15, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10350-2003Feb14?language=printer
The Bush administration went into yesterday's U.N. Security Council meeting believing it was poised to shift the chamber's attention from diplomacy toward imminent war against Iraq. Instead, it was hit by demands for more time and more talk.
Following a glass half full-half empty assessment of Iraqi cooperation by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, country after country declared that even if Iraqi behavior was still far from acceptable, enough progress had been made to warrant extending the inspection effort. A number of countries whose votes the administration thought it had pocketed joined those calling for council unity and patience.
Senior administration officials insisted they would forge ahead with plans to introduce a new resolution at the council early next week. But they acknowledged that the tenor of Blix's remarks and the subsequent outpouring of resistance to early military action may have limited U.S. options.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell "is going to have to come back tonight and we're going to have to think about it," a senior administration official said. Before yesterday, the administration had held out hope that, even if it could not avoid a veto for a resolution to authorize the use of force, or even to declare that Iraq was in "material breach" of the inspections resolution unanimously passed last November, it could achieve the moral equivalent of victory with a solid majority of votes.
Officials said yesterday that the most viable route now may be a resolution that sets a deadline for Iraqi cooperation with a specific set of demands and leaves open the question of what comes next. France, the most adamant opponent of imminent military action, agreed that Iraq should not be given unlimited time, and called for a meeting of Security Council foreign ministers on March 14 "to judge the progress made and what remains to be done."
Blix himself said that the main holdup was a lack of full Iraqi cooperation, and said the inspectors' task could be completed in "a short time" if Iraq would simply provide "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation." But no one else's timeline seemed to be as urgent as Washington's, and President Bush seemed closer than ever to ordering an attack on Iraq without U.N. approval. So far, only Britain and Australia have committed troops to such an effort.
In many ways, yesterday's council session seemed to confirm the worst nightmares of senior administration officials, including Vice President Cheney and the Pentagon's civilian leadership. They argued last summer that any involvement with the United Nations would ultimately hamstring U.S. freedom to launch an attack on Iraq at what it saw as the optimum moment, before the Iraqi summer heat began in late March.
Powell had championed the need to form the broadest international coalition possible, and argued that a strong case against Iraq would bring the world to agreement, as it had done for Bush's father in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
But even Powell seemed on the defensive yesterday, as both Blix and a number of council members challenged the strength of the evidence the secretary put forward in a presentation to the chamber last week. Powell acknowledged yesterday that he was "pleased there have been improvements" in some aspects of Iraqi cooperation. But he insisted, along with Britain and Spain, that no one could argue that Baghdad had complied with last November's demand for "immediate, active, unconditional, full cooperation."
Blix offered two bright spots for the administration. Even with more time and resources, he said, "it is not the task of inspectors" to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or other prohibited items. "Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions" it is being asked, he said.
He also set in motion a series of events that could produce an unarguable, visible violation by Baghdad. He said he would call for the destruction of Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missile, along with 380 newly purchased engines for that missile and additional equipment, which had been found in violation of previous U.N. resolutions.
Blix told the council he intended to "communicate these findings . . . to the Government of Iraq," along with a reference to his authority to order them destroyed. A letter over Blix's signature will be sent to Baghdad early next week, according to one U.N. official.
As the buildup of U.S. and British troops continues on Iraq's borders, the destruction of these missiles would carry serious implications for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ability to resist an invading force. The impact on his military power may be even greater if further inquiry determines that a second missile that is already deployed to Iraqi army units, the Al Fatah, is also capable of exceeding U.N. limits on its range and must be destroyed.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin agreed that "the unauthorized programs must now be dismantled in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions." In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that destruction of the missile system "remains an important test" for Iraq, but was far from the final one.
Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Douri, gave the council a preview of Baghdad's arguments against their destruction, noting Iraq had disclosed the existence of the missiles, along with the fact that they had exceeded the permitted 150-kilometer range in test firings. But he said the missiles that had already been deployed were not in violation, and invited inspectors to conduct random test firings.
All 15 council members, plus Douri, spoke at yesterday's meeting following Blix's presentation. Many foreign ministers and ambassadors expressed alarm over the increasingly public divisions among the council's five permanent members, with the United States and Britain on one side, and France, Russia and China on the other.
Although the Bush administration had expressed increasing confidence it could garner enough votes to claim majority agreement to war, only Britain, Spain and to some extent Bulgaria, seemed ready yesterday to take that step.
Guinea and Chile, which the administration has counted on its side, deplored the international tension that the council's disagreement was causing and referred to a recent call by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan for unity. Angolan Ambassador Ismael Abraao Gaspar Martins, whose president received what administration officials thought was a persuasive telephone call from Bush just this week, said Blix's report was "a beacon of hope that we can indeed save the world from an imminent conflict."
"We were surprised" at Angola's statement, a senior administration official acknowledged.
But Fleischer expressed confidence that personal communications with Bush would have a major influence. "The president has been engaged in consultations and will continue," he said. "As you've seen in the past," Fleischer said, "these typically have led to very fruitful results in terms of the world supporting the United States position or at least not objecting to it."
Yesterday morning, Bush telephoned Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. But just a few hours later, Pakistani U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram told the council Iraq had made progress, and told the council that his government would "like to see every effort exhausted for a peaceful resolution of this crisis."
----
U.S. Meets New Resistance at U.N.
Most on Security Council Favor Giving Inspectors More Time After Arms Report
By Peter Slevin and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10539-2003Feb14?language=printer
Map of permitted missile range: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I8160-2003Feb14
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 -- The Bush administration faced broad opposition in the U.N. Security Council today to its quest for authorization for military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and destroy any weapons of mass destruction.
After hearing a measured presentation of pluses and minuses in recent Iraqi behavior by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, a solid majority of council members said the inspectors should be given more time to do their work before the world body considers the use of force.
The session dealt a severe blow to the administration's carefully calibrated campaign to gain early approval for a U.S.-led invasion. France, continuing to marshal opposition to an attack on Iraq, proposed that inspectors report again to the council on March 14, long after the White House had aimed to have Security Council support.
Blix's report faulted the Iraqis for failing to comply with U.N. demands, but credited the Hussein government with several steps he described as "indicative of a more active attitude."
Blix said the Iraqi missile program was in clear violation of U.N. mandates prohibiting the development of longer-range rockets. He said Hussein's government had failed to account for its past germ and poison gas supplies. Yet he also cited an increased Iraqi willingness to produce documents and provide other help.
In addition, Blix challenged several conclusions presented to the United Nations earlier this month by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and said the U.S. administration was continuing to withhold intelligence information.
U.S. officials had hoped that presentations today by Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei would provide sufficient evidence to persuade the divided council that Iraq deserves the "serious consequences" that were warned of in the council's November resolution on Iraq -- understood as the use of military force to dislodge Hussein.
Instead, almost all the council's members, representing populations opposed to war and resentful of perceived U.S. aggression, indicated the United States had not made its case.
Powell, thrown onto the defensive, discarded his prepared remarks to challenge his counterparts' assessments of the Iraqi government's actions.
"These are all tricks that are being played on us," Powell said. "These are not responsible actions on the part of Iraq. These are continued efforts to deceive, to deny, to divert, to throw us off the path."
British and American sources said late today that they still intend propose a Security Council resolution next week designed to declare Iraq in violation of U.N. requirements and threaten the use of force. They noted Blix's formal assertion about the Iraqi missile program and his continued objection to government monitoring of interviews with scientists.
In Baghdad, Hussein and the Iraqi parliament assented to a long-standing request by the inspectors by banning the import and production of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, along with the materials to manufacture them.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer scoffed at the news. "If one would just want to make believe and pretend that Iraq is a democracy that would pass meaningful laws, it would be 12 years late, and 26,000 liters of anthrax short. It would be 12 years late and 38,000 liters of [botulinum toxin] short," he said. "And it would be 12 years late and 30,000 . . . chemical warheads short."
Maneuvering has intensified in recent days among the 15 Security Council nations as President Bush has insisted that further U.N. inspections will not accomplish the goal of disarming Hussein, whom the White House considers a supporter of international terrorism and a threat to his country's neighbors.
The U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf region will soon reach 150,000 troops, the threshold for effective action, U.S. commanders have said. Plans for humanitarian relief and U.S. military control over the Iraq are nearing completion, as are negotiations with potential allies. A number of decisions, however, await choices to be made by the Security Council.
Blix's much-awaited report criticized the Iraqis for failing to cooperate fully. He said Iraq possesses banned missiles, as well as rocket engines and chambers used to construct new engines.
Blix also said Iraq continues to fail to account for large quantities of anthrax and VX gas -- a point he made in a Jan. 27 presentation to the council. Iraq needs to reveal the weapons if they exist, he said, or present credible evidence of their destruction.
But, in raising the issue, Blix also made a subtle dig at the Bush administration, which has acknowledged this week that it continues to withhold intelligence data from the inspection teams. Inspectors, Blix said, "must base their reports only on evidence, which they can themselves examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise."
Blix questioned several contentions made by Powell in his detailed Feb. 4 presentation to the Security Council, including an allegation that Iraqis had been tipped off to some impending inspections. Blix, noting that inspectors have conducted more than 400 unannounced inspections in the past 11 weeks, said the U.N. teams have uncovered no convincing evidence that the Iraqis were alerted in advance.
The U.N. inspections leader also expressed reservations about the U.S. analysis of a sequence of satellite photographs of a munitions site, which Powell offered as evidence that Iraq likely was moving prohibited weapons out of range of the inspectors. Blix said the reported movement "could just as easily have been a routine activity."
On the question of nuclear weapons, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said the IAEA has finished examining 2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files, ElBaradei told the council.
The documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program, ElBaradei said.
"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said in summing up his findings.
ElBaradei underscored his faith in the value of continued inspections, outlining his plans to expand his operations in the coming weeks. He intends to hire more analysts, trade experts and customs officers to help untangle mysteries associated with Iraq's nuclear weapons program. To finish, he believes, likely would take months.
One after another, foreign diplomats took the comments of Blix and ElBaradei as a reason to give inspections more time. Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin received applause -- rarely offered in the council -- for their remarks.
"There is one point of principle that we all must answer: Must the inspectors continue their work in Iraq in the interest of a political settlement?" Ivanov asked. "Russia answers yes to that question."
De Villepin said U.N. pressure on Iraq is showing "real progress" and argued that a war poses great risks to Iraqis and regional stability alike. He warned against "premature military action."
"No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections," de Villepin said. "No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world."
De Villepin also challenged allegations made by Powell that Iraq has strong ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network. "Nothing allows us to establish such links," he said, citing a French review of its own intelligence and the work of other agencies.
Powell told the council after de Villepin spoke that the United States will soon reveal more evidence of connections between Iraq and terrorists..
One sign of how badly things were going for the Bush administration was the declaration of Chile's U.N. ambassador, Gabriel Valdes, whose government had been moving closer to Washington's line on Iraq: "I think that what the report has underlined is that the inspections are working and therefore inspections should continue."
Only Britain, Spain and Bulgaria spoke in support of the U.S. position. Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Blix's report showed that Iraq is not actively cooperating, and added that the Iraqis have not addressed the complaints in Blix's earlier report.
"In a word," Palacio said, "all the questions remain."
----
U.S. rebuffed on using force in Iraq
By Betsy Pisik and Joe Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-93585473.htm
NEW YORK - Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the United Nations' top two weapons inspectors, gave the Security Council ammunition yesterday in its push to stall a war and continue inspections with a report that brushed aside Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's charges that Iraq has not complied with a resolution to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
The report triggered a vigorous response from Mr. Powell, who forcefully declared, "More inspections, I'm sorry, are not the answer."
Mr. Powell said that "Iraq has failed to comply with [U.N. Resolution] 1441," which the council approved unanimously in November and gave Iraq one last chance to disarm or face "serious consequences."
"The threat of force must remain. Force must always be a last resort," he said. "I have preached this most of my life. But it must be a resort."
France, China and Russia, seizing on the measured assessments for the inspectors on Iraq's cooperation and state of arms, made it unmistakably clear they prefer disarming Iraq through open-ended U.N. weapons inspections rather than the use of force.
The U.N. inspectors offered only faint criticism of the Iraqi regime yesterday, compared with a more robust critique of its compliance two weeks ago.
The mild tone of the inspectors was especially surprising to Washington after an international panel of ballistics experts found Iraqi rockets capable of exceeding U.N.-imposed range limits.
President Bush joined the day's debate with renewed vigor, declaring that the United States will not be deterred.
"Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction and he's used them; Saddam Hussein is used to deceiving the world and continues to do so; Saddam Hussein has got ties to terrorist networks," Mr. Bush said in a speech at the FBI headquarters in Washington, flanked by his homeland security team and senior officials of the Justice and State departments.
"Saddam Hussein is a danger, and that's why he will be disarmed, one way or the other," he said.
But the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Mexico, China, Russia and Syria all stressed that Iraq should be disarmed through open-ended inspections, rather than by military force.
"We should try to do our best with the inspectors. If it doesn't work, then we should consider another option," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France. "The pressure is strong. We are seeing results."
Mr. De Villepin proposed that foreign ministers meet again at the United Nations on March 14 to consider what progress has been made by the inspectors. Later, Mr. De Villepin told the Associated Press that France would not support a U.N. resolution authorizing war.
The French diplomat received an almost unprecedented round of applause from the visitors' gallery of the council chambers after his remarks.
As demonstrators shivered outside in freezing winds, diplomats indicated yesterday that the time is not right for the United States and Britain, its closest ally, to circulate a second resolution that would presumably authorize force if Baghdad does not answer specific questions by a deadline.
Several ministers endorsed the idea of convening another foreign ministers' meeting on March 14 to discuss the Iraqi situation. But Mr. Powell indicated yesterday that Washington would not accept that date.
Last week, Mr. Powell gave the world a rare glimpse into U.S. intelligence capabilities with a briefing on what he described as Iraq's efforts to deceive inspectors.
The briefing appears to have persuaded Chile, Bulgaria and Spain that Baghdad does not intend to voluntarily disarm of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
But it appears to have alienated Mr. Blix, who is reported to have been embarrassed by the public presentation of intelligence that should have been shared first with U.N. inspectors.
Mr. Blix went so far as to contradict Mr. Powell's intelligence briefing last week, and chided Washington for not sharing information with the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC.
Mr. Blix rejected Mr. Powell's assertion that two aerial photographs of a munitions depot showed Iraq sanitizing the site before the inspectors' visit.
"This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect," said Mr. Blix yesterday.
"We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection."
He said Iraq could do more to cooperate with the inspection process.
But Mr. Blix reported progress on some issues of concern.
He said a few Iraqi scientists had agreed to private interviews with inspectors, and that reconnaissance flights by U-2 spy planes were scheduled to begin next week.
He said Iraq had reduced the number of "minders" who accompany inspectors on site visits, and that yesterday it had issued a requested presidential decree barring importation and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Mr. Blix also offered a detailed description of the inspection team's plans for expanding its mission, seen by some as an implication that more time would be welcome.
In a separate report, Mr. ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said his inspectors had found no sign Iraq had resumed its nuclear-weapons program.
"The IAEA's experience in nuclear verification shows that it is possible, particularly with an intrusive verification system, to assess the presence or absence of a nuclear-weapons program in a state even without the full cooperation of the inspected state," Mr. ElBaradei said.
--------
Powell Calls for U.N. to Act on Iraq and Meets Deep Resistance
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/europe/15IRAQ.html
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 - The chief United Nations weapons inspectors today reported some progress in Iraq, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell faced deep resistance to his call for a Security Council decision to authorize military force.
The clash was frontal and impassioned as Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France spurned Mr. Powell's arguments, saying that the inspections had not failed and that there was no cause for armed action yet.
He proposed holding a new meeting of Security Council foreign ministers on March 14 to take stock of Iraq's cooperation.
Drawing a rare burst of applause from the audience in the Council chambers, Mr. de Villepin told Mr. Powell: "In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of conscience. This onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament through peace."
Mr. Powell set aside his prepared remarks, speaking spontaneously and throwing his personal prestige behind his assertion that Iraq had failed decisively to comply with Council's demand that it disarm.
"We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out as Iraq is trying to do right now," Mr. Powell said. "My friends, they cannot be allowed to get away with it again," he added, referring to Iraq's effort to hide illegal weapons.
For some time, the Bush administration has been saying a decision on whether to go to war must come within weeks. Whether it would be prepared to wait until March 14, another four weeks, was unclear today.
Both the chief arms inspectors, Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, cited measures Iraq had taken to allow surveillance flights, provide new documents and open investigations of past arms stocks as indications that its cooperation had improved, even if it fell short of being unconditional.
Mr. de Villepin proposed extending and strengthening arms inspections, and Russia and China - both permanent Council members with veto power - rallied behind the proposal, as did Germany and many other nonpermanent members.
Faced with the unexpectedly resolute opposition, Mr. Powell stopped short of detailing a course of action the United States would seek from the Council.
Early in the day, American and British diplomats said they expected to introduce by the middle of next week a draft resolution to lay the final legal groundwork for war. But Mr. Powell left the United Nations today saying only that he would consult with President Bush and others in Washington and decide "in the not too distant future" how to proceed.
A senior French official said after the meeting that France would not support any resolution that Washington offered next week. He did not say whether France would use its veto.
American officials seemed surprised by the depth of the opposition on the Council to immediate military action. Even countries like Chile and Angola, whose support Washington believed to be locked in, said the more positive report by the chief inspectors made it premature to turn to force.
But an angry rift among European nations was on display, as Spain and Bulgaria disagreed with France and its supporters. Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain rejected Mr. de Villepin's proposals for extending the inspections, saying, "We would be sending a message of weakness" and adding, "therefore this Council would lose its credibility."
Mr. Blix adopted a strikingly different and more positive tone about Iraq's cooperation with his work than he did in his last report, on Jan. 27. At no point did he specifically criticize any Iraqi failure to cooperate, sticking to a cool and technical assessment of the events.
Mr. Blix, the chief biological and chemical weapons inspector, accepted little of the evidence that Mr. Powell presented to the Council on Feb. 5 as proof that Iraq was working to deceive the inspectors and conceal weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Blix took issue with one of Mr. Powell's points, about trucks that American intelligence analysts had identified as working on chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. The arms chief said satellite images Mr. Powell showed of the trucks had been taken two weeks apart, so the movements of munitions they showed "could just as easily have been a routine activity."
Mr. Blix also rejected American assertions that Iraqi officials had obtained advance information on which sites inspectors would examine. "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that we were coming," he said.
As a concession to the inspectors, Iraq adopted a law today - hours before the Council convened - banning all weapons of mass destruction. The law fulfilled an obligation imposed in a 1991 Council resolution. And both Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, said they were satisfied with terms Iraq laid down for overflights by U-2, Mirage and Antonov surveillance aircraft and German pilotless drone aircraft.
Iraq also appointed two commissions to search for evidence of the elimination of weapons it was known to have in the past.
But Mr. Blix by no means presented a picture of vigorous disarmament by Baghdad. He confirmed one clear-cut case of a violation with a current weapon, reporting that the Samoud 2 ballistic missiles that Baghdad has been testing exceed the legal range limit of 90 miles.
He noted that Iraq had constructed special chambers for casting Badr 2000 missiles that the inspectors determined to be illegal. United Nations inspectors had destroyed the chambers before leaving Iraq in 1998, and Iraqi weapons experts rebuilt them.
Mr. Blix said his team was still having difficulties interviewing Iraqi weapons experts in private. He said new documents Iraq provided during his two-day trip to Baghdad last weekend had provided no new evidence concerning Iraq's past anthrax and chemical weapons programs. But he said the papers "could be indicative of a more active attitude" by Iraq to resolve open questions.
The only strong phrase that Mr. Blix gave to support Mr. Powell was his last, when he said the period of disarmament of Iraq "could still be short" if full cooperation "were to be forthcoming."
Dr. ElBaradei was even more upbeat, saying his inspectors have found no evidence of nuclear activity so far.
"It is my hope that the commitments made recently by Baghdad will continue to translate into concrete and sustained action," he said.
After the chief inspectors' reports, the session turned into an unusually free-flowing and highly charged debate before the eyes of the world. The confrontation became so raw that several smaller nations berated the Council powers for feuding and tried to point to avenues for compromise.
Because all nations agreed it was important to keep up the military pressure, some countries hinted that they might support a deadline that would give Mr. Hussein a short period to make a breakthrough in disclosing his hidden weapons.
But compromise seemed elusive. The Russian foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, drew the chamber's second round of applause when he noted that it was Valentine's Day and called for the Council to "get engaged" to continue to seek a peaceful settlement.
The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who was chairman of the meeting as the Council president for this month, scolded the audience, noting that applause was not allowed during its sessions.
In an emotional moment, Mr. de Villepin addressed the public in Europe and the United States.
"To those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear," he said.
But the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said it was time for the Council to increase pressure on Iraq by taking a step closer to war. Summoning the Council to "hold our nerve in the face of this tyrant," he said it had to leave no doubt that it was ready to go to war to enforce its will on Mr. Hussein.
Nations that are not Council members will meet here on Feb. 18 to give their views. Mr. Powell said he expected a new report from the weapons inspectors on March 1.
-------- us
Troops plan to storm Baghdad on first day of battle
By Julian Borger in Washington
February 15 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927804208.html
In new United States war plans, thousands of helicopter-borne troops and paratroopers would be flown deep into Iraq to seize oilfields, dams and banned weapons, and advance as far as Baghdad on day one of fighting, according to Pentagon officials.
President George Bush met his top field commander, General Tommy Franks, on Thursday to review plans quite unlike those used in the last Gulf war. That began with weeks of aerial bombardment, but the US suspicion that Saddam Hussein will try to wreck his country rather than surrender dictates that ground troops would be involved in the fighting on the same day as the air force or even before.
"I think the targets will be aimed at decapitation," one US defence official said. "You want to take away all his capabilities to respond with any WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. You don't want him to blow his dams, set fire to oilfields, or fire Scud missiles at neighbouring countries. You also want to put him immediately in a box in Baghdad and Tikrit."
The US has more than 150,000 troops in the Gulf, including some special forces inside Iraq preparing airfields and communications. There will be six aircraft carriers and 500 US air force planes in the region by the end of this month. Starting this week, 3000 soldiers a day are being flown to the area on chartered civilian planes.
Yet, despite the urgency of US pressure on the United Nations Security Council to give immediate backing for military action, it could be up to a month before some of the units and equipment central to the new strategy arrive in the Gulf.
The 101st Airborne Division and a paratrooper brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division will secure oilfields or dams, but they were only just leaving their barracks on Thursday.
The 82nd Airborne is a light force and can fly its equipment into war, so it can be in position (probably in Turkey and Jordan) in a matter of days. However, the 18,000-strong 101st Airborne, the biggest air mobile force in the world on D-day, has sent its trademark helicopters by ship.
As Mr Bush gave departing troops and sailors a morale-boosting send-off, the Apache gunships, the Black Hawks and Chinook helicopters were still on the dockside, encased in plastic.
Navy officials said it would take three days to load the equipment on to ferries, which would take three weeks to reach Kuwait and 28 hours to unload. It would take another few days to ensure they were in good working order.
"The 101st are exactly what you want if you want to put a force deep inside Iraq, and hit all those targets," Daniel Goure, a Pentagon consultant, said. "It may be we're looking at the middle of March before we're ready."
However, mid-March would coincide with a full moon. US combat troops would prefer to launch their first attack on a dark night, which could necessitate a further delay. But Pentagon officials insist they are capable of launching an overwhelming attack at any time from now, arguing it is not essential that the 101st Airborne be used on the first day of the war.
Defence officials and most analysts said the US would prefer to start the war with the maximum possible force on the first day, to overwhelm the Saddam regime, rather than to try a "rolling start" to the conflict.
"We tried the incremental use of force in Kosovo, but we found it just stiffened Serb resistance," a US official said. "I don't think there's much talk of a rolling start any more, unless Saddam mounts pre-emptive action."
Many pieces have yet to fall into place in the US plans before that full-strength force of 200,000 troops - including more than 40,000 British troops - is ready.
----
Seabees Get Ready To Pave Trail to Iraq
Navy Unit Would Bridge Desert in a War
By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10144-2003Feb14?language=printer
CAMP 93, Kuwait -- Sure, she wanted to see the world and serve her country, but Patricia Cabral said she joined the Navy mainly because her father did not want her to work construction. Turned down for a job at her family's contracting company, the indignant Cabral signed on with the Seabees, the Navy's construction corps that deployed to Kuwait in October to lay groundwork for the military build-up that has been taking place ever since.
"I always loved building things," Cabral, 25, said as she and her platoon practiced assembling a steel bridge at this desert camp 30 miles north of Kuwait City. "My dad wanted me to be an accountant, but it didn't work out that way."
Cabral's persistence and abiding interest are the hallmarks of the unit she joined. The Seabees claim they coined the phrase "can do."
In that spirit, they spend their days turning an inhospitable desert into a place fit for Marines. In three months in Kuwait, two battalions of Seabees have built the camp where the Marines live and train, an enormous parking lot for aircraft at a base in southern Kuwait and the largest air munitions storage facility the Marines have had since the Vietnam War.
While their motto is "We build, we fight," they focus heavily on the former.
"We're here to put in place whatever the Marines need to do their job," said Rear Adm. Charles R. Kubic, who commands the Seabee task force here. "What they've done so far has been Herculean, but what might be ahead will require even more work."
While the Marines and soldiers at neighboring camps prepare for a possible invasion of Iraq, the Seabees are training for their own mission in the event of war: paving the trail north blazed by combat forces and providing infrastructure for ground troops on undeveloped or destroyed terrain.
Two Seabee companies practiced Thursday setting up and removing bridges hundreds of feet long that could be used to span the rivers or ground depressions troops would cross in Iraq. In five hours they built a 30-yard bridge that could support a 70-ton tank. It might take a little longer, they said, if artillery shells were raining down.
Unlike combat engineers, who are heavily armed and lead soldiers across battlefield obstacles like minefields or wire fences, Seabees generally follow a day or two behind an invading force, making bridges, roads and cities for soldiers from the rubble of war. They also come bearing amenities much-appreciated at the front lines, like showers and flush toilets.
"It's not always pretty, but we go where civilian contractors can't, and build under combat conditions," said Capt. Bill Rudich, who leads the 30th Naval Construction Regiment. "Believe me, the Marines are always happy to see us arrive."
Most of the military camps scattered throughout the Kuwaiti desert are full of tanks and artillery pieces. But the Seabees home at Camp 93, named for the United Airlines flight whose passengers fought back against their Sept. 11 hijackers, is stocked with dozens of Caterpillar and John Deere construction vehicles painted in green camouflage, hundreds of yards of stacked pipes and a fleet of flatbed trucks.
"I think of myself as being in charge of a very large construction company," said Capt. David Fleisch, 43, who commands a battalion of some 650 Seabees with non-military-sounding titles like "builder," "steelworker" and "electrician."
"We're trained to defend ourselves if necessary, but our main job is to allow the Marines to do the fighting they're called on to do."
Formed during World War II, Seabees achieved legendary status for leveling ground in the South Pacific to make airfields. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they helped build the 20-lane road that the army used to move soldiers into northern Kuwait for the "left hook" attack on Iraq's Republican Guard.
Maj. Gen. James F. Amos, commander of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing, visited Camp 93 Thursday to thank the Seabees for getting the Al Jaber air base up to speed. They built the munitions armory from the ground up and more than doubled ramp space for aircraft, flattening the terrain and covering some 17 acres of desert with concrete.
"The only reason you all aren't Marines is that they must not have had a Marine recruiter in your home town," he said.
Many of the sailors who make up the unit certainly look combat-ready. Scott Farmer, a construction mechanic from Virginia Beach, still has the broad shoulders of a linebacker, which he was at the University of Florida before he injured his knee in the early 1990s. "I thought about joining a more combat-oriented unit," said Farmer. "But I wanted to use my mind and my body."
Cabral, a builder, said she appreciated Amos's words but added she was happy to be learning a trade that will be useful when she leaves the Navy. Eventually, the East Los Angeles native plans to return to college to study civil engineering.
"It took my father three years to say it, but he finally admitted he's proud of me for what I am doing," she said. "Maybe when I get out we can go into business together."
----
Readers troubled by 'timid' air strategy story
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
February 15, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030215-2105482.htm
Thursday's Page One article, "Officers fault air strategy for Iraq war as 'timid,' " based on the musings of a single anonymous source about classified contingency planning for Iraq, brings to mind one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Rules: "Those who know, don't talk; those who talk, don't know."
I am deeply involved in developing military options for President Bush, should he call upon the armed forces to act against Iraq. This process is - at its very core - collegial, collaborative and joint. Moreover, Gen. Tommy Franks' leadership of Central Command during the global war on terrorism is ample proof of his appreciation of the strengths each service brings to the fight and how we will win, together. Every service has been fully represented in current planning, and all have had the opportunity to vet any concerns freely and openly. The result is one all the services support, and one that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will execute brilliantly, together.
Never before in my 37-year military career has the United States enjoyed an environment of such joint cooperation and interservice communication. The very best minds of each service are working to maximize the combined effects of all our forces in pursuit of victory. On that point - and unlike the shadow critic who violates his or her oath even while presuming to represent other airmen - I am willing to put my name and reputation on record.
GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER Chief of Staff Air Force Washington
I'm really concerned by the views presented in the article, "Officers fault air strategy for Iraq war as 'timid.' " For one thing, it disturbs me that military commanders would be willing to secretly (anonymously) discuss (leak) the virtues and drawbacks of their strategies with the press. Notice that most of the article's quoted sources desired anonymity, for obvious reasons. Even though the desire to rectify the perceived undesirable consequences of strategies by talking about them is understandable, discussing specific military plans with the media is reckless and totally antithetical to a commander's responsibilities and code of conduct, regardless of motivation.
What specific plans? For example, "[plans for the air campaign] would largely spare infrastructure ... ." Or the real gem: "The current war plan calls for less than 10 days of air strikes before a ground force of 60,000 to 80,000 invades Iraq from Kuwait and Turkey." That's fairly specific. Plus, given the highly publicized fact that military planners have placed an almost paranoid emphasis on protecting Iraqi civilians and infrastructure, it should come as no surprise when we find ourselves in a possibly protracted form of door-to-door urban warfare. Where else would we expect Saddam Hussein to locate his weapons and loyalist fighters?
Hopefully, The Washington Times is privy to inside intelligence relating to any specific military leaks because they already are known by Saddam Hussein's strategists and, therefore, safe to print. However, if that's not the case, why publish them? I hope most of the various leaks are calculated misinformation from the Defense Department, but I have a gut feeling to the contrary.
I believe the motives behind running articles based on anonymous leaks are like that of the sources - that is, to influence war planners by voicing their concerns - as well as to inform the public. Just make darn sure that no article you publish will ever compromise our goals in any way. I implore The Times (actually, the entire media) to prudently and responsibly filter the news in accordance with America's best interests.
DOUG HARP Greencastle, Pa.
Editor's note: The article in question, by Rowan Scarborough, was based on interviews with several senior Air Force officers. Their names were withheld at their request.
----
Troops plan to storm Baghdad on first day of battle
By Julian Borger in Washington
February 15 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927804208.html
In new United States war plans, thousands of helicopter-borne troops and paratroopers would be flown deep into Iraq to seize oilfields, dams and banned weapons, and advance as far as Baghdad on day one of fighting, according to Pentagon officials.
President George Bush met his top field commander, General Tommy Franks, on Thursday to review plans quite unlike those used in the last Gulf war. That began with weeks of aerial bombardment, but the US suspicion that Saddam Hussein will try to wreck his country rather than surrender dictates that ground troops would be involved in the fighting on the same day as the air force or even before.
"I think the targets will be aimed at decapitation," one US defence official said. "You want to take away all his capabilities to respond with any WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. You don't want him to blow his dams, set fire to oilfields, or fire Scud missiles at neighbouring countries. You also want to put him immediately in a box in Baghdad and Tikrit."
The US has more than 150,000 troops in the Gulf, including some special forces inside Iraq preparing airfields and communications. There will be six aircraft carriers and 500 US air force planes in the region by the end of this month. Starting this week, 3000 soldiers a day are being flown to the area on chartered civilian planes.
Yet, despite the urgency of US pressure on the United Nations Security Council to give immediate backing for military action, it could be up to a month before some of the units and equipment central to the new strategy arrive in the Gulf.
The 101st Airborne Division and a paratrooper brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division will secure oilfields or dams, but they were only just leaving their barracks on Thursday.
The 82nd Airborne is a light force and can fly its equipment into war, so it can be in position (probably in Turkey and Jordan) in a matter of days. However, the 18,000-strong 101st Airborne, the biggest air mobile force in the world on D-day, has sent its trademark helicopters by ship.
As Mr Bush gave departing troops and sailors a morale-boosting send-off, the Apache gunships, the Black Hawks and Chinook helicopters were still on the dockside, encased in plastic.
Navy officials said it would take three days to load the equipment on to ferries, which would take three weeks to reach Kuwait and 28 hours to unload. It would take another few days to ensure they were in good working order.
"The 101st are exactly what you want if you want to put a force deep inside Iraq, and hit all those targets," Daniel Goure, a Pentagon consultant, said. "It may be we're looking at the middle of March before we're ready."
However, mid-March would coincide with a full moon. US combat troops would prefer to launch their first attack on a dark night, which could necessitate a further delay. But Pentagon officials insist they are capable of launching an overwhelming attack at any time from now, arguing it is not essential that the 101st Airborne be used on the first day of the war.
Defence officials and most analysts said the US would prefer to start the war with the maximum possible force on the first day, to overwhelm the Saddam regime, rather than to try a "rolling start" to the conflict.
"We tried the incremental use of force in Kosovo, but we found it just stiffened Serb resistance," a US official said. "I don't think there's much talk of a rolling start any more, unless Saddam mounts pre-emptive action."
Many pieces have yet to fall into place in the US plans before that full-strength force of 200,000 troops - including more than 40,000 British troops - is ready.
--------
20,000 More Troops Sent to Persian Gulf; Jets Hit Iraqi SAM's
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/middleeast/15MILI.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The Pentagon has ordered 20,000 additional Army troops to the Persian Gulf, including an armored unit from Colorado, as part of the steady buildup for a potential war with Iraq, military officials said today.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed a deployment order to dispatch the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, based at Fort Carson, Colo., to Kuwait, Pentagon officials said.
The regiment, which has more than 320 M1 tanks and Bradley armored vehicles, as well as Apache helicopter gunships, is a mobile force that can conduct reconnaissance, security and attack operations.
In addition to the regiment's 4,700 troops, the deployment order also dispatched about 15,000 other Army forces to the region, a Pentagon official said. The official said he did not have details about the other units involved.
The United States now has about 150,000 air, land and naval forces in the gulf region or nearby, a total that will approach 200,000 by the end of the month, Pentagon officials said.
As the buildup continued, American and British warplanes attacked Iraqi missile systems today, the fifth strike on Iraqi assets in a week, the Pentagon said. Allied jets struck two Iraqi mobile surface-to-air missile systems located near Basra.
-------- propaganda wars
Iraqi reporter expelled; Baghdad orders Fox out
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-26117950.htm
The U.S. government has ordered an Iraqi journalist to leave the country, saying he has been engaged in "activities considered harmful to U.S. national security" - language that typically means espionage.
The Iraqi government swiftly retaliated by ordering Fox News correspondents in Baghdad to leave.
Iraqi News Agency reporter Mohammad Hassan Allawi, who has been based at the United Nations for two years, denied any wrongdoing yesterday.
"I have done nothing wrong," he said to reporters yesterday, even as the Security Council debated Iraq behind closed doors. "I have covered the Security Council, the United Nations. I haven't left the United Nations. I haven't done anything bad."
Mr. Allawi received a letter Wednesday from a diplomat at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations on Wednesday, ordering him and his family to leave the country in 15 days.
The longtime INA correspondent, 38, and previously based in Baghdad, has five children and lives in a midtown Manhattan apartment supplied by the Iraqi government.
The INA is the government's official news agency and is operated by the Ministry of Information. There was no mention of the incident on its English-language Web site yesterday evening.
"The United States, after consultations with the United Nations, has requested the departure of a correspondent for the Iraqi News Agency," said Patrick Kennedy, a diplomat at the U.S. Mission who deals with host-country matters such as expulsions. "The correspondent was engaged in activities outside the scope of his job functions. These activities were considered harmful to U.S. national security."
Mr. Kennedy declined to say exactly what Mr. Allawi is accused of doing. Mohammed Aldouri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, defended Mr. Allawi's work yesterday, saying he is a professional journalist and not a spy.
Fox News reporters in Baghdad were told yesterday they have 48 hours to leave the country.
----
Timely Anti-war Quotes
From: Zoiritsa@aol.com
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:21:55 EST
http://www.psywarrior.com/quotes.html
Lincoln Harter used to be my instructor -- he was a Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania too.
PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS QUOTES
"If your opponent is of choleric temper, try to irritate him. If he is arrogant try to encourage his egotism. (If the enemy troops are well prepared after reorganization, try to wear them down. If they are united, try to sow dissension among them."
General Tao Hanzhang, translated by Yuan Shibing, Sun Tzu's The Art Of War
"To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence."
Sun Tzu
"The first casualty of war is truth."
Rudyard Kipling
"One need not destroy one's enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage."
Sun Tzu
"There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind."
Napoleon Bonaparte
"In War, the moral is to the material as three is to one."
Napoleon Bonaparte
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I
"...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, 'and this will always be the man in the street.' Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology...Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals."
H. Trevor-Roper (ed), The Goebbels Diaries, p. XX, cited in Regan, Geoffrey. 1987. Great Military Disasters. New York: M. Evans and Company.
"Capture their minds and their hearts and souls will follow"
Author Unknown
"PSYOP...was a great threat to troop morale, second only to the coalition bombing campaign."
Iraqi General after Operation DESERT STORM
"The mind of the enemy and the will of his leaders is a target of far more importance than the bodies of his troops."
Brigadier General S.B. Griffith, II, USMC
"To seduce the enemy's soldiers from their allegiance and encourage them to surrender is of special service, for an adversary is more hurt by desertion than by slaughter."
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, c. 378 AD
"For a strong adversary (corps) the opposition of twenty-four squadrons and twelve guns ought not to have appeared very serious, but in war the psychological factors are often decisive. An adversary who feels inferior is in reality so."
Field Marshal Carl Gustav Baron Von Mannerheim, 1953
"As the excited passions of hostile people are of themselves a powerful enemy, both the general and his government should use their best efforts to allay them."
Lieutenant General Antoine-Henri Baron de Jomini, 1838
"The real target in war is the mind of the enemy command, not the bodies of his troops. If we operate against his troops it is fundamentally for the effect that action will produce on the mind and will of the commander; indeed, the trend of warfare and the development of new weapons - aircraft and tanks - promise to give us increased and more direct opportunities of striking at this psychological target."
Captain Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart, 1944
"In most campaigns the dislocation of the enemy's psychological and physical balance has been the vital prelude to a successful attempt at his overthrow."
Captain Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart, 1944
"It is your attitude, and the suspicion that you are maturing the boldest designs against him, that imposes on your enemy."
Frederick the Great, 1747
"The enemy bombards our front not only with a drumfire of artillery, but also with a drumfire of printed paper. Besides bombs, which kill the body, his airmen also throw down leaflets which are intended to kill the soul."
Field Marshal Paul Von Hindenburg, 1847-1934
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws."
President Abraham Lincoln
"In the sphere of leaflet propaganda the enemy has defeated us . . . The enemy has defeated us, not as man against man in the field of battle, bayonet against bayonet; no, bad contents poorly printed on poor paper have paralyzed our strength."
German Army report, WW I
"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."
Sir William Francis Butler
"The mind of the enemy and the will of his leaders is a target of far more importance than the bodies of his troops."
Mao Zedong
"Without a doubt, psychological warfare has proven its right to a place of dignity in our military arsenal."
General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In this war, which was total in every sense of the word, we have seen many great changes in military science. It seems to me that not the least of these was the develoment of psychological warfare as a specific and effective weapon.
General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Modern war has become a struggle for men's minds as well as for their bodies".
Brigadier General Robert McClure, Korean War
"If we do go to war, psychological operations are going to be absolutely a critical, critical part of any campaign that we must get involved in."
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf III, Operations Desert Shield - 1990
"I knew theoretically what PSYOP could do - I'd learned that in school. But having experienced it firsthand, I found they're far more valuable than I knew. In the future, I would be out looking for PSYOP support before deployment."
503rd MP Bn Operations Officer during operations in Haiti
"On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days and other fields will bear the fruits of victory."
General Douglas MacArthur
"One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda."
General Douglas MacArthur
"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."
General George S. Patton
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war."
Israel's Mossad
"If you give a man the correct information for seven years, he may believe the incorrect information on the first day of the eighth year when it is necessary, from your point of view, that he should do so. Your first job is to build the credibility and the authenticity of your propaganda, and persuade the enemy to trust you although you are his enemy."
A Psychological Warfare Casebook Operations Research Office Johns Hopkins University Baltimore (1958)
"Psychological forces exert a decisive influence on the elements involved in war."
Carl von Clausewitz
"War does not belong in the realm of arts and sciences; rather it is part of man's social existence...Politics, moreover, is the womb in which war develops."
Carl von Clausewitz
"Killing the enemy's courage is as vital as killing his troops."
Carl von Clausewitz
"The mind has no firewall."
Timothy L. Thomas, PARAMETERS, Spring 1998
"Psychological Warfare has always rested as an uneasy activity in democracies, even in wartime. It is partly to do with the suspicion that using the mind to influence the mind is somehow unacceptable. But is it more unacceptable to shoot someone's brains out rather than to persuade that brain to drop down their weapon and live?"
Dr. Phillip M. Taylor, Author of "Munitions of the Mind", Manchester University Press, 1995
"Psychological warfare does help save lives on both counts. On the count of the American soldier who isn't going to be killed trying to dig the enemy soldier out of his foxhole or bunker, and on the other count, the enemy soldier whose life is saved."
Dr. Al H. Paddock, Colonel,U.S. Army Retired, former Commander 4th Psychological Operations Group (Airborne) and Author, US Army Special Warfare, Its Origins: Psychological and Unconventional Warfare, 1941-1952. , Published by National Defense University Press, Washington D.C., 1982
"Truth is the best PSYOP"
Colonel Fred Walker, USSOCOM
"Psychological warfare employs age-old ideas in twentieth century dress."
D. Lincoln Harter and John Sullivan, Propaganda Handbook, 20th Century Publishing Co., 1953, p. 198
"PSYOP is the most powerful weapon in the SOF inventory."
General Carl Stiner, Former CINCSOC, 14 April 1993, speaking at the AUSA Symposium
"Strategic PSYOP proved to be the instrument through which the U.S. and Coalition Forces were successfully able to isolate the enemy and deny him acceptance by the world community."
General Carl Stiner, Former CINCSOC
"The great 19th century strategist Carl von Clausewitz famously observed that: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Yugoslavia's release Sunday of the three American POWs suggests a corollary for the 21st century: Television is the continuation of war by other means."
Kenneth Allard on MSNBC News, May 5, 1999
"There's a war out there old friend, a world war, and it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information: about how we think, how we see and hear, how we work. It's all about information".
"Sneakers", MCA Universal Pictures, 1992
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Bush Aims to Blend Counterterrorism Efforts
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10238-2003Feb14?language=printer
President Bush unveiled broad new plans yesterday to place FBI and CIA counterterrorism operations under one roof, prompting immediate objections from lawmakers and civil liberties groups who fear the CIA will gain too much influence over domestic intelligence issues.
Under the plan, the FBI's entire counterterrorism division would be moved into a secure building along with the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, bringing operational FBI agents and CIA analysts into a closer working arrangement.
Bush, during an appearance at FBI headquarters, said the "goal is to develop a comprehensive picture of terrorist activity."
"All our successes in the war on terror depend on the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work in common purpose," Bush said. "In order to better protect our homeland, our intelligence agencies must coexist like they never had before."
The reorganization, first mentioned in Bush's State of the Union address, comes after sharp criticism from lawmakers over intelligence and communication missteps by the FBI and CIA before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some lawmakers, including Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), want to strip the FBI of its domestic intelligence responsibilities and create a domestic intelligence agency akin to Britain's MI5.
Under the administration's plan, the FBI would retain control over its counterterrorism division. George J. Tenet, the CIA director who also oversees all government intelligence as director of central intelligence, would run both the counterterrorism and threat centers.
Civil liberties advocates say the arrangement would give the foreign intelligence agency too much access to domestic affairs. Some FBI agents also view it as an unfair encroachment on the bureau's turf.
"These latest developments confirm our concerns that putting the CIA in charge of an analysis center would inevitably lead to CIA direction of intelligence gathering in the United States," said Tim Edgar of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Edwards said in a statement that the Bush plan is "only a half-measure at best" that does not acknowledge the FBI's fundamental failures in combating terrorism, while Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the plan raises questions about Tenet's role in domestic intelligence.
A senior FBI official said such fears were misplaced because FBI spying would still be conducted under Justice Department guidelines and court supervision. Although CIA analysts within the threat center could suggest U.S. spying targets, decisions to seek such authority would still be made by the FBI and Justice, the official said.
"There are functions that the agency has that the bureau won't participate in, and there are functions the bureau has that the agency won't be involved in," the senior FBI official said.
But, the official added, "there's going to need to be oversight on this to make sure that we're operating appropriately."
The threat center, which will start out with a staff of about 60 at CIA headquarters in Langley, will eventually swell to about 300 employees. FBI staff in the same building could total 1,200 or more, officials said.
----
BRITAIN - Six arrested in airport security sweep
World Scene
February 15, 2003
Washington Times
Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-17212310.htm
LONDON - British police said yesterday they have arrested six persons during a major anti-terror security operation at airports around the country.
Four men were held in west London directly under the flight path of Britain's busiest airport, Heathrow, while two others were arrested Thursday near the perimeter fence of Leeds Bradford Airport in northern England.
Heathrow has been ringed by police and troops for the past four days amid intelligence-led fears that al Qaeda extremists may target the capital. Part of a terminal was evacuated - and later reopened - yesterday after the discovery of a suspicious package.
-------- homeland security
Ridge cautions against panic
By Jerry Seper and Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030215-38255146.htm
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge yesterday cautioned against panic over the government's decision to raise the national threat assessment to the second-highest level, saying preparing for a possible terrorist attack was proper but warning citizens not to "start sealing the doors and windows."
Mr. Ridge, who announced an increase in the threat level to "orange," or high, on Feb. 7, said there was no plan to either raise or lower the level.
"We have not received any additional intelligence that would lead us to either raise or lower the threat level at this time," he said. "We assess all the available information several times a day.
"The information we had to work with more often than not is very vague. It does not tell us when, where or how. I assure you, however, that if we get detailed credible intelligence we can act upon, we will certainly let authorities know," Mr. Ridge said.
His comments came after information that some of the intelligence data used to justify the rise in the threat level is now believed to have been bogus, although U.S. intelligence sources and others said yesterday it did not form the basis of the government's decision to raise the alert status.
A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said one source of the intelligence data - a captured al Qaeda member - may have provided "some information which was bogus" but added that it was "immaterial to the decision to raise the threat level."
A law enforcement officer, who also asked not to be identified, said the fabricated information involved the potential use of a "dirty bomb" in Washington, New York City or Florida. The story was ruled false after a polygraph test, the officer said.
Some intelligence officials had debated whether to raise the level because of concerns it would create "warning fatigue" and lead to skepticism among the public. Their concerns were overruled.
The U.S. official also noted that information from the questionable source was a mixture of good and bad intelligence. The information warned of a terrorist attack.
The good information was corroborated by other sources, the official said.
"The volume and nature of the threat information is what drove the decision, not statements by one individual, some of which were right," the official said.
Most of the information gathered by U.S. intelligence agents related to the threat of an al Qaeda attack is very worrisome, the official said, noting that the very nature of intelligence data is that they often include information of questionable veracity.
Mr. Ridge said people should not seal doors and windows with plastic and duct tape, but rather should have the supplies on hand in the event of a terrorist attack.
On Monday, the administration reviewed guidelines issued last year by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prompting a nationwide run on these and other supplies.
Critics warned that sealing up rooms cuts off oxygen, which could cause suffocation.
"I want to make something very clear at this point. We do not want individuals or families to start sealing their doors or windows," Mr. Ridge said, adding that duct tape and plastic are "very appropriately" listed as emergency supplies in certain kinds of terrorist attacks.
"Frankly, a lot of folks around the country have taken our suggestion to build up that supply kit ... but we want to emphasize again that it's part of an emergency supply kit," he said. "God forbid, there may come a time when local authorities or national authorities or someone will tell you that you've got to use them, but for the time being, we just don't want folks sealing up their doors or sealing up their windows."
The guidelines also recommend the storage of three days of water, along with batteries, cell phones, radios and flashlights. The kit should be used for a "worst-case scenario" and replenished if it is used during an expected snowstorm this weekend.
CIA Director George J. Tenet and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said at Senate hearings this week that the decision to raise the threat level was based on "multiple sources" with strong al Qaeda ties. They described the information as the "most specific" collected by intelligence officials since the September 11 attacks.
They said the new intelligence data focused on possible plots targeting two major fronts, sites within the United States and other U.S. targets located on the Arabian Peninsula. Of major concern, they said, was the possible use of a radiological-dispersion device, or "dirty bomb," as well as poisons and chemicals.
Mr. Mueller said the al Qaeda network had the ability and intent to inflict significant casualties with little warning, using "sleepers cells" federal agents have yet to identify. He described the highest priority targets as high-profile government or private facilities, commercial airliners, famous landmarks and critical infrastructure, such as energy-production and transportation facilities, but said "softer targets" would be more likely.
Those targets would include dams, power lines, banks, shopping malls, supermarkets, apartment buildings, schools and universities, churches and places of recreation and entertainment.
•Audrey Hudson contributed to this report.
----
Democrats Criticize Homeland Security Budget
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10202-2003Feb14?language=printer
Democratic congressional leaders yesterday called on President Bush to submit an additional budget request for homeland security within seven days, saying Bush has dangerously shortchanged efforts to protect the nation from terrorism.
Flanked by some of the firefighters who responded to the attack on the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, they said at a Capitol Hill news conference that Bush has not included enough for homeland security in his budgets and should file a supplemental request amounting to billions of dollars more.
Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) of the House and Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) of the Senate made the request for more money in a letter they sent jointly to Bush earlier in the day.
Pelosi and Daschle were backed by the International Association of Fire Fighters, whose general president, Harold Schaitberger, said local fire departments "have yet to see a dime of the money that has been promised by this administration" after the 2001 attacks.
Daschle said: "It is shameful that the heroes who rushed to defend the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 have to come to Washington over and over, hat in hand, and beg this administration for resources they need to do their jobs."
Daschle and Pelosi said Bush and congressional Republicans have repeatedly rejected Democratic proposals for increased security funding, most recently rejecting a proposal to add $5 billion to the omnibus spending bill that passed Congress late Thursday. Now the nation faces new terrorism threats and the administration is still not budging, they said.
"It is indefensible that you have not made funding for homeland security your top priority," they wrote Bush. "Instead you have advised Americans to buy duct tape, plastic sheeting and bottled water."
Without putting a price tag on their requests, Pelosi and Daschle called for a new block grant to improve capabilities of first responders along with money to ensure inspection of all cargo containers entering the United States, beef up the Coast Guard and Border Patrol, strengthen visa and passport processes and enhance information-sharing among government agencies. They also urged money to improve security at nuclear plants, oil refineries and chemical plants and for transportation systems and food and water supplies. Schaitberger said the administration's budget amounted to little more than a "reshuffling" of funds.
Some Democratic presidential candidates are making similar criticisms. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) yesterday called for an additional $16 billion in spending for homeland security, far more than the administration's request.
"We remain in too much danger today," he said in a speech at George Washington University.
Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), in a floor statement Thursday, said Bush "is failing the test on homeland security." He introduced legislation to create a new Homeland Intelligence Agency to collect foreign intelligence within the United States. It was one of six bills Edwards has offered this year on homeland security.
Staff writer Dan Balz contributed to this report.
----
President Seeks to Assuage Fears
Ridge Explains Steps in Setting Threat Level
By John Mintz and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10518-2003Feb14?language=printer
President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge set out to calm an uneasy American public yesterday, saying that the government is doing all it can to protect the country from a terrorist attack. Some government officials suggested the threat of a strike may even be abating slightly.
Two government officials who have reviewed intelligence on the terrorist threat said that if there were no incidents over the long holiday weekend, the government might begin to consider retreating from the eight-day-old orange alert level, which indicates a "high risk" of terrorist attack. The officials stressed, however, that authorities remain concerned about signs of an attack and are maintaining heightened vigilance. They said the public should do the same.
Speaking for the first time since Bush raised the nation's terrorism threat index from yellow on Feb. 7, Ridge said, "We haven't received any additional intelligence that would lead us to raise or lower the threat level." Intelligence officials review the threat alert "constantly, hour by hour," he added.
"I'd like to remind people that the information we have to work with is very vague," Ridge said. "There are occasions you learn it was not as accurate or was inaccurate."
In an appearance at FBI headquarters to announce details of a new terrorism threat analysis center, Bush said, "We're working overtime to protect you. We're doing everything in our power to make sure the homeland is secure."
He added that "there is no such thing as perfect security against a hidden network of cold-blooded killers." Flanked by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and CIA Director George J. Tenet, Bush said that "last week's decision to raise our national terrorist threat is a stark reminder of the era we're in, that we're at war, and the war goes on."
The Department of Homeland Security escalated the terrorism threat level last week for just the second time since adopting the five-step, color-coded system, citing new intelligence that sparked concerns about attacks with chemical, biological and radiological weapons. The Homeland Security Department held a briefing Monday to suggest that the public follow some civil preparedness precautions, including stockpiling food, water, batteries and adopting a family communication plan.
In subsequent appearances on Capitol Hill, Mueller and Tenet stressed the danger that the al Qaeda terrorist network continued to pose for U.S. interests here and abroad. As if to buttress those assertions, a new audiotape that officials said almost certainly contained the voice of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden called for Iraqi suicide attacks against Americans, and was broadcast by a Qatari-based satellite television network.
Authorities in New York and Washington, which were mentioned as possible targets, heightened security visibly. In New York, hundreds of police officers were added to street patrols and in Washington, the military activated ground-to-air missile launchers, among other measures, around the District.
Yesterday, government officials said that a detainee who had told interrogators to expect an attack sometime soon had failed a polygraph examination, and that they had concluded he was lying.
Some said that determination, first reported by ABC News, was one factor prompting officials to weigh reducing the threat level back to "elevated risk," the mid-point of the scale.
But others said that the threat of attack remains acute, and that it would be a mistake to expect a reduced threat level. Officials stressed that the tipster was only one of many sources of information -- including electronic intercepts -- on which intelligence analysts relied when they raised the alarm about a possible attack.
Officials relied on six or seven major pieces of intelligence information in raising the threat level, a law enforcement official said. The detainee's information was not given as much weight as intelligence from other sources, the officials said.
"Yes, people may be breathing a little easier, but mostly because of the passage of time" without an attack, one U.S. official said. He noted that U.S. intelligence authorities had overheard conversation about the possibility of an attack on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, immediately after the conclusion of the hajj, a ritual pilgrimage to Mecca that is an obligation for all Muslims.
Some of the information leading to the higher threat level -- including intelligence officials' concern that al Qaeda could use toxins such as ricin or cyanide in an attack -- came from interrogations of alleged al Qaeda operatives arrested in Europe in recent weeks. Bush said that information provided by the United States helped European officials make those arrests.
Some of the detainees said there would be two major attacks in the northeastern United States, followed by smaller attacks in other parts of the country, according to one official. The witnesses also said Saudi Arabia was a target.
Other information came from intercepted "chatter" -- presumably e-mails and telephone conversations -- that dropped off precipitously on Wednesday, sources close to law enforcement said. Officials are concerned that the volume has died down because an operation might be underway or about to begin.
"That's not a good sign," said one source. But he noted that in April 2001, counterterrorism officials were similarly worried about a spike in threatening chatter that died down ominously. In that instance, no attack occurred. Officials are also concerned that bin Laden's message could foreshadow an attack.
Ridge said one reason officials recommended the purchase of emergency provisions is to give people "a sense of personal control. . . . It's for the unlikely event of a terrorist attack. . . . Dealing with those possibilities is part of the new reality we're in."
Addressing the recommendation that has captured the most public attention -- that people consider purchasing plastic sheeting and duct tape to create a safe room in case of a chemical attack -- Ridge told reporters that "we didn't want individuals and families to start sealing their doors and windows." Duct tape and plastic sheeting are "appropriately listed as [among] the emergency supplies" to have in the event of a chemical attack, along with food, water and batteries, he said.
Next week the Homeland Security Department will unveil a major public education campaign, one year in the planning, that will instruct Americans on various types of potential terrorist weapons and what can be done to protect against them, Ridge said yesterday. The effort will be called the "Ready Campaign."
"Knowing what to do can and will save lives," Ridge said. "We can't always predict, but we can prepare."
Homeland Security officials yesterday also outlined plans to work closely with private industries that comprise the nation's critical infrastructure -- including utilities, the electrical grid, nuclear plants, water systems and major agricultural interests -- to develop security standards that they will be required to meet.
While some sectors, or some companies within sectors, have instituted aggressive security measures, others have not done so, and the government wants them to tighten security, said Robert Stephan, a top aide to Ridge working on infrastructure issues. Government regulation will be a last resort, he said.
"There is a lot of unevenness" among various critical private industries in their track record on tightening security plans, Stephan said. "We need to iron out the unevenness."
Experts in security said a number of these industries appreciate the need for aggressive anti-terrorism measures, but have hesitated to institute them because they fear competitors will save money and gain an advantage by not taking the same steps.
Government might end up offering some industries "incentives" to spur security investment, including government grants, or, for example, a government effort to encourage lower insurance premiums for firms that tighten security, Stephan said.
Staff writers Susan Schmidt and Allan Lengel contributed to this report.
----
N95 Masks Flying Off Shelves, but They Offer Scant Protection
By Don Oldenburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10373-2003Feb14?language=printer
The latest hype and misinformation coming out of our latest Code Orange emergency preparedness is about a disposable dollar mask made with white cloth and an elastic strap - the N95.
Sold at medical supply and hardware stores, they're the lightweight, nose-and-mouth respirators designed for medical settings and good for blocking allergens when mowing the lawn. Which begs the question: Can a mowing aid fend off a weapon of mass destruction? How effective would they be in a biological, chemical or nuclear attack?
"Not much, but better than nothing," says Victor Utgoff, a defense analyst at the Alexandria-based private Institute for Defense Analysis who has studied gas masks. "They generally protect you from getting particles into your lungs, paint chips and things like that."
Although anthrax spores and smallpox aren't paint chips, the masks do provide protection against bioterrorism, since the most likely used bacterium would be dispersed in particle form, Utgoff says. In fact, the anthrax mail attacks first spotlighted the N95, as office mailrooms scurried for protective gear.
The N95 is made by various manufacturers under different names, from MSA's "Affinity Foldable Respirator" to 3M's "Particulate Respirator." Look for "NIOSH N95" on the package; the "N95" is a government efficiency rating that means the mask blocks about 95 percent of particles that are 0.3 microns in size or larger.
The N95 rating meets the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for protection against tuberculosis and anthrax spores, as well as the most foreseeable bioweaponry, which ranges in size from 1.0 to 5.0 microns. So the N95s are more than capable of preventing their inhalation.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a physician and public health expert, upped the masks' visibility even more recently when he advised that people keep a mask rated N95 or better on hand for each member of the family in his book "When Every Moment Counts."
Then came Code Orange.
"We've had so many people in here, it's not funny," says Gloria Stallworth, manager of In-Home Medical Supply in Alexandria, estimating that 20 customers came by Thursday to purchase N95s and, based on calls, even more were expected yesterday and today.
In-Home Medical is selling the cheapest 3M model of N95 masks individually, in one size only, for $2.75. Stallworth says many customers are looking for reassurance about what the mask will do.
"We don't give recommendations," she says, directing those customers to the manufacturer's phone number on the packaging. "People are very afraid. But most of them know it is a temporary fix."
But N95s are no fix if terrorists use chemicals, Utgoff says: "Against chemical attack and gas, worthless."
Patrick Breysse, an industrial hygienist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says: "There are respirators that would protect you in those cases, but they are much more expensive and sophisticated."
Dirty bombs?
"If it's a dirty bomb with a lot of dust, the respirator would help," Breysse says. "It would stop you from inhaling those particles. But . . . you can also get exposed without inhaling anything."
Even in a biological attack, the masks have major shortcomings. Like fit.
"Does it have a nose piece like a metal clip you can bend over your nose? That's a better model because the big kicker here is getting a good fit," Utgoff says.
Bad fits are deadly. Contaminated air breathed from around the unfiltered edges instead of through the N95-rated material undermines the purpose of a mask.
And, got a beard? "Shave it," says Breysse, who recommends duct-taping the mask to your face to make a good fit.
"For you to take a respirator and put it on without any training or fitting probably wouldn't give you the protection you are expecting," says Ron Herring, general manager of the Safety Products Division at Pittsburgh-based MSA.
MSA, a safety gear manufacturer that has been making gas masks and other equipment since 1914 for the military and first responders, recently entered the civilian safety market with its MSA Safety Works do-it-yourself products sold at Home Depot and other stores.
Herring says public interest in respirators has spiked dramatically. Sales of N95 masks on Amazon.com aren't ranked, but sales of MSA's $179 civilian Gas Mask Hood, basically a getaway respirator, are: Last week, hood sales ranked about 11,000 on the list. Earlier this week, it was up to 4,600. Wednesday, it rose to 300, Thursday, 30, and yesterday it ranked 13.
Another huge shortcoming is that you don't know when to wear a mask. There are no reliable early warning signs that a biological agent has been released. No big air-raid warning horn goes off. News reports will be after the fact. "So here I am, I've got a mask, and I don't know when to use it," Utgoff says.
The solution? If there was a biological attack tomorrow, say, in Los Angeles, he says, he might start wearing a mask nonstop. "If you think there's a good chance of a biological weapons attack, wear it as much as you can," he says. "Do I? No! Because I don't think it's very likely."
Another problem is that the single-use masks don't last. "They are disposable because they deteriorate with sweat and wear and age," Breysse says.
He keeps N95 masks around the house for doing odd jobs. "If there were an event tomorrow, and I was in my home, I would seal my home as best I could," he says, "and if I had one of these masks, I would put it on. Because why not?"
-------- immigration / refugees
Congress Funds INS Registration System but Demands Details
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10197-2003Feb14?language=printer
Congress has agreed to fund a controversial administration program under which male visitors from Muslim countries are registered and fingerprinted, but is demanding a detailed explanation of the program's origins, its efficacy and the reasons for a large number of resulting detentions.
The registration program has stirred fears of deportation among visiting foreign nationals across the country and sharp criticism from Democrats in Congress, who say it has led to a wave of apparently unjustified arrests and incarcerations, especially in California.
Justice Department officials have defended the program, saying it has already proven successful in apprehending people who would have posed a risk to the public. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said more than 400 "known criminals" and seven "known terrorists" have been taken into custody as a result of the new system.
The administration had asked for $362 million to cover the costs of the special registration system for the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1. The program is administered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and will soon be transferred, with INS, to the new Homeland Security Department. The INS says it is needed to track the 35 million non-immigrants who come to the United States each year as well as "some non-immigrants already in the U.S."
Called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), the system imposed several requirements, including periodic in-person interviews at INS offices and check-ins with INS officers at specially designated exit points upon leaving the country.
The most controversial aspect of NSEERS is its application to males older than 16 from 25 countries, most of them predominantly Muslim, who were already in the United States last Sept. 30. The requirement caused widespread fear and confusion among foreign nationals, and hundreds suspected of immigration violations were at least temporarily detained.
Pakistan's foreign minister warned on a visit here two weeks ago that the requirement would bolster the cause of radical extremists there if it results in widespread deportations.
On Friday, the Justice Department announced it had extended the deadline for visa-holders from seven countries, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to register.
The Senate last month refused to appropriate any money for the NSEERS and called instead for development of an automated system to track visitors at ports of entry. The administration called the denial of funds unacceptable.
House-Senate conferees handling the omnibus appropriations bill approved late Thursday agreed to provide the entire $362 million, on the condition that the Department of Homeland Security develop a plan to replace the INS's "current paper-based system and stove-piped databases."
At the same time, the conferees required delivery by March 1 of a large number of documents on the program to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Among them are documents that assess the program's effectiveness "as a tool to enhance national security" and explain why some people with pending applications for green cards were detained.
Senate Democrats cited one report about a businessman from Iran who was arrested and jailed even though he has had a permanent resident application pending with the INS for five years.
Corallo said he was not familiar with the businessman's case, but that "most of the people with pending applications were held just for national security checks and released fairly quickly." Although exceptions can be made, he said, "we do not have the luxury any more of letting people go free while we do the check."
--------
Government Extends Deadline for Foreign Students to Register
February 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/politics/15INS.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The Justice Department extended by one month today the deadlines for thousands of visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries to register with immigration authorities.
About 15,000 men ages 16 and older from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have until March 21 to be fingerprinted, photographed and present required documents at offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The deadline had been Feb. 21.
A group of 19,000 men from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Kuwait will have from Feb. 24 to April 25 to register, four weeks beyond the original March 28 date.
The extensions were issued after a wave of protests over the program has largely subsided. Hundreds of men were detained when they showed up at immigration offices to comply. Officials of the Justice Department say that they have 139 in custody and that many will be released on bond while their cases are processed.
The registration is part of an effort to tighten border security and track foreign visitors with expired visas or who may be here illegally. Seven people suspected of being terrorists have been identified because of the program, along with 401 criminals or others who should not have been in the country, a spokesman for the Justice Department, Jorge Martinez, said.
A spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic relations, Hodan Hassan, said that the detentions stopped last month but that many Muslims continued to regard the program as discriminatory and ineffective in capturing terrorists. "There's still a lot of confusion and uncertainty about who applies," Ms. Hassan said. "It still stigmatizes the American Muslim community."
About 46,000 students, tourists, executives and relatives from 25 countries are required to register if they expect to stay in the United States for an extended period. Other countries will be added.
The requirements do not apply to American citizens, legal permanent residents, people who are seeking asylum or diplomats.
Deadlines have passed for people from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria, all considered by Washington as state sponsors of terrorism, and visitors from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
-------- police
F.B.I. and C.I.A. Set for a Major Consolidation in Counterterror
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/politics/15THRE.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - In a major organizational shift, the entire counterterrorism sections of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. will move into a single complex as a way of better coordinating the analysis and tracking of information, the White House said today.
Under the reorganization, the two agencies will each maintain control of their own counterterrorism staffs, totaling more than 2,000 people.
But a joint intelligence center to be created at the same location, probably in Northern Virginia, will report to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. That arrangement in particular has prompted civil liberties advocates to warn that lines of authority could become blurred, giving the Central Intelligence Agency a new role in domestic spying.
President Bush announced details of the reorganizing in an appearance today at headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He said the move was "an important advance" in creating a better, more integrated system for analyzing intelligence about terrorists.
"All our successes in the war on terror depend on the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work in common purpose," Mr. Bush said. "In order to better protect our homeland, our intelligence agencies must coexist like they never had before."
The failure of American intelligence to detect warning signs before the Sept. 11 attacks has been a focus of Congressional inquiries and has led to calls for the creation of a new domestic intelligence agency modeled on Britain's MI-5.
But officials said the White House plan could slow the push by some members of Congress for a more severe overhaul. The reorganization laid out by the White House today is itself more extensive than the plan that the president hinted at just two weeks ago, when he first announced that he wanted to create a new interagency center to assess terrorism intelligence.
Initially, the new arrangement was expected to be limited to the creation of that center, which, it was thought, would employ perhaps several dozen analysts. But within days of the president's speech, officials began discussing in earnest the possibility of a much more sweeping reorganization that would mean relocating, to one site, all the counterterrorism personnel from the C.I.A. and the F.B.I.
After many years of sometimes bitter mistrust between the two agencies, a number of F.B.I. officials have grumbled that the reorganization threatens to cede some of the bureau's authority over domestic intelligence to the C.I.A.
Bush administration officials moved quickly today to try to dispel that idea.
"I don't see each entity losing its identity," said a senior F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The F.B.I. will not become the C.I.A., and the C.I.A. will not become the F.B.I."
"I think people are going to look back at this," the official continued, "and say: `This is visionary. Why didn't we do it a long time ago?' "
Civil liberties advocates said they were concerned that the plan, especially the creation of the joint center with the director of central intelligence in charge, would give the C.I.A. an active role in the gathering of intelligence within the United States.
Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview that despite pledges by the Bush administration to honor the longtime separate roles of the two agencies, "we think it will be difficult for them to hold that line."
Bush administration officials said the new joint center's primary focus would be to act as the hub for analyzing terrorism-related intelligence and getting it into the hands of the right people.
But the officials acknowledged that the center would have potential influence over operations as well. For instance, if analysts at the center saw a suspicious pattern that they thought needed to be pursued, the center could then go to the F.B.I. to ask that an investigation be undertaken or surveillance warrants sought.
Still, they said, the final decision would rest with the F.B.I.
"We're not talking about the C.I.A. collecting intelligence in the United States," the senior F.B.I. official said, adding: "Is this something that's going to have to be watched? Yeah, there'll have to be oversight to make sure we're operating with the proper authority."
The new center, which will be known as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, is to begin operations on May 1 and will be run initially out of the C.I.A. complex in Langley, Va.
In addition to the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., the new Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon and other agencies with intelligence operations will be represented.
The center will be expanded in three stages, ultimately growing to as many as 300 employees from different agencies, officials said.
No timetable has been set for the completion of the overhaul.
--------
As Man Lay Dying, Witnesses Turned Away
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10391-2003Feb14?language=printer
D.C. police released a startling surveillance tape yesterday that shows a daylight killing at a Northeast Washington gas station and witnesses doing nothing to report the crime or tend to the victim as he lay bleeding on the concrete.
The videotape, from the Hess station in the 500 block of Florida Avenue, shows in gruesome detail the Jan. 31 slaying of Allen E. Price, 43, of the 2100 block of Fourth Street NW. Police said they were shocked by the apathy of those who were there, including one man who continued pumping kerosene after looking briefly at Price's body.
At a time when homicide detectives are struggling to solve cases, police officials said the tape depicts the astounding levels of meanness and indifference they confront on the city's streets. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, police and prosecutors watched numerous cases collapse as witnesses were shot or intimidated. In this instance, several people at the gas station did not appear to be frightened but seemed not to care after the shot was fired and the gunman ran.
"That's just one of the worst things I've ever seen," Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared yesterday after screening the tape at police headquarters. "There just aren't words to describe something like that."
The shooting happened quickly and with no apparent warning near the large Florida Avenue market complex, in a crime-ridden area just blocks from Gallaudet University. The snippet of color videotape that police released -- taken by a camera positioned atop the gas station -- begins at 9:08 a.m., with traffic passing steadily on the avenue and several cars in view at the station.
At 9:09 a.m., the shooter appears at a distance, walking up Sixth Street on the far side of Florida Avenue. He appears to be a man in a black coat, but the image is blurry. He weaves through traffic on Florida Avenue and appears to run the last few feet toward the kerosene pump where Price was standing. Police have analyzed the video frame by frame, and Ramsey provided a running commentary, stating: "Boom! That's the gunshot."
Price then drops from view, and the gunman runs back across the Florida Avenue and disappears from sight.
A homicide lieutenant said yesterday that the killer is believed to have targeted Price. Police have announced no motive or suspects.
After the shooting, one witness -- who was just feet away from the gunman -- looked for a moment at Price's body and then turned away. Not only did he finish pumping his kerosene, but the man paid for the purchase and drove off, giving the camera its clearest look at Price lying by the pump. Police have not found that customer.
For the next few minutes, the camera records a series of cars pulling away from the station, with at least one new car pulling up to the kerosene pump where Price lay. But it is not until about 9:13, more than three minutes after the shooting, that the gas station's manager is seen approaching the body.
The manager, Philip Donkorsaid yesterday that he did not hear the gunshot from his bulletproof booth and was not aware of the shooting until a customer told him. He said he found Price on his back.
"He's dead. His eyes open. His mouth open," Donkor said. "Right then, I saw that he was dead."
Police said that someone in the area finally flagged down a police car, and it arrived about seven minutes after the shooting.
The first 911 call was not made until 9:36 a.m., but police did not reveal who made it. Donkor said he tried to call 911 immediately after he was told about the shooting but got a recording and hung up.
Ramsey has been criticized by D.C. Council members and others for rising homicide totals and for homicide clearance rates that are lower than the average for other cities. The chief has contended that witnesses who could help police get killers off the streets do not come forward.
"This is the kind of thing that we're up against," Ramsey said. "To have someone walk by as if nothing occurred is frustrating."
U.S. Attorney Roscoe C. Howard Jr. echoed that complaint, saying that relatively few slayings in the District occur in secluded spots. But witnesses simply won't come forward, he said, adding, "If you've got 262 murders in a year, and you're not able to solve half of them," reluctant witnesses must be an issue. Still, former D.C. police chief Isaac Fulwood Jr., who oversaw the department when crack cocaine led to a surge in killings in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said the reaction to Price's death amazed him.
"Something's wrong, I mean, something's very wrong and callous, and [it] is getting worse," Fulwood said.
Julia Dunkins, chief executive of Survivors of Homicide Inc., said people from across the city have become desensitized to death. "We have to stop saying, 'My community isn't like this. This kind of thing could not happen in my area,' " Dunkins said.
Louis R. Mizell Jr., a security consultant who maintains a 40,000-category database on crimes, said similar episodes have unfolded throughout the country.
"We record hundreds of cases nationwide each year in which people witnessed horrible crimes but react with depraved indifference, refusing to intervene or even call 911," Mizell said. "The encouraging news, however, is that we record thousands of cases in which people did get involved, often heroically and at their own peril."
Along Florida Avenue, other merchants said they were not shocked by the crime or the behavior of the witnesses.
At Coast In Liquors, a clerk said he could remember an attempted robbery two years ago in which a man came after him with a stick and then threw bricks at his windows.
Outside the store, people stopped to watch but did nothing to intervene, he said.
"Nobody [was] trying to help," said the clerk, who wouldn't give his name. "They were looking. You know how people do."
-------- spying
INTERNET SECURITY
White House Scales Back Cyberspace Plan
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/technology/15CYBE.html
WASHINGTON, Feb 14. - The White House today scaled back plans for a more active government role in protecting cyberspace from attacks from terrorists, criminals and nation states, emphasizing voluntary industry initiatives instead.
The revamped national strategy on cyberspace security was a response to lobbying from industry groups that were worried about an overly heavy-handed approach by government regulators. The latest draft of the document acknowledges a role for government but generally suggests that industry should take the lead in securing the Internet, which has a diffuse infrastructure that is under considerable private control.
Previous drafts of the report suggested that Congress could enact legislation to advance its cybersecurity strategy. This final version, which was released today, suggests mainly that Congress could finance cybersecurity initiative,s giving only a limited role to the federal government.
The federal government essentially has three main methods to influence cybersecurity: procurement, regulation and investment.
The government has previously used its power as the world's largest buyer of information technology, with an annual budget of some $40 billion, to influence the technology sector. In 2001, for example, a regulation that limited federal agencies to buying technologies that can be used easily by people with disabilities, known as Section 508, went into effect and left everyone from Canon to Microsoft scrambling to re-evaluate product lines to accommodate the blind and those in wheelchairs. Although there is a significant portion of this cybersecurity report devoted to government agencies' setting up secure practices, it falls short of using its buying power to nudge businesses to improve their security standards.
Another government strategy is to set up regulations enforced by civil or criminal penalties. But companies have recoiled at any suggestion of government meddling, arguing that technology is too dynamic to be constricted by something as static as federal regulations. "We do not want government to mandate or regulate its way in this area," said Mario Correa, vice president for security at the Business Software Alliance, an industry lobbying group. "Industry has to lead the way."
The majority of the revised White House document focuses on improving cybersecurity by encouraging investment in research and standards. It proposes a large role for the domestic security department on numerous fronts: setting up a national cyberspace monitoring system, pushing more secure Internet protocol standards, creating a reliable system for vulnerability disclosure, and improving the quality of cybersecurity training.
The original version of the report was scheduled for release in September at a Stanford University ceremony with Silicon Valley executives. But shortly before the release, the White House withdrew the document for more "industry input."
Previously, Richard Clarke, who resigned recently as the cybersecurity chief, had traversed the country lecturing the technology industry about its responsibility. He described companies who sell consumer Internet connections without firewalls as akin to "selling cars without seat belts."
Even so, when consumers get cable modems or D.S.L. connections, they see little, if any, information warning them of malicious hackers who try to break into computers.
Instead of requiring Internet service providers to issue firewalls and antivirus protection, the new White House proposal stresses consumer education.
The proposal was applauded by technology companies. "The previous version talked about levels of responsibility," Mr. Correa said. "We think this is a much stronger document. It has shifted the focus to end goals."
Many security experts still voice skepticism about the significance of the "voluntary" security model that advocates "a new paradigm of cooperation and partnership."
"The plan is all about consensus," said Bruce Schneier, the chief technology officer of Counterpane, a security company. "Consensus is the lowest common denominator. Security is not achieved by consensus."
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- environment
Toxic Gas Vented from Lake
Associated Press
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10655-2003Feb14?language=printer
YAOUNDE, Cameroon -- Scientists began venting gas from a volcanic lake in northwestern Cameroon that released toxic fumes in 1984, asphyxiating 37 people.
A team of scientists from Japan, France, the United States and Cameroon switched on a fountain in Lake Monoun to pull carbon dioxide from the bottom of the lake to the surface, where it will dissipate harmlessly, the project's chief, Gregory Tanyileke, said by telephone from the region.
Tanyileke said the fountain should also alleviate pressure building since the 1984 explosion in the flooded volcano, 500 miles northwest of the capital, Yaounde. The three-year, $400,000 project is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the government of Cameroon, Tanyileke said.
The 1984 explosion in Lake Monoun was followed by a similar one two years later at nearby Lake Nyos, which killed 1,700 people.
-------- genetics
We hardly knew ewe
By Emma Ross
ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 15, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030215-4468195.htm
LONDON - Dolly, the world's first mammal cloned from an adult cell, was put to death yesterday, after premature aging and disease marred the sheep's short existence and raised questions about the practicality of copying life.
The decision to end Dolly's life at age 6, about half the life expectancy of her breed, was made because a veterinarian confirmed that she had a progressive lung disease, according to the Roslin Institute, the Scottish lab where she was created and lived.
"We must await the results of the postmortem on Dolly in order to assess whether her relatively premature death was in any way connected with the fact that she was a clone," said Richard Gardner, a professor of zoology at Oxford University and chairman of the Royal Society working group on stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning.
"If there is a link, it will provide further evidence of the dangers inherent in reproductive cloning and the irresponsibility of anybody who is trying to extend such work to humans."
Ian Wilmut, the leader of the team that created Dolly, said it was not likely her illness was attributable to being a clone.
"The most likely thing is an infection, which causes a slow, progressive illness, and for which there isn't an effective treatment," he said. "Sadly, we have had that in some of the sheep on the farm, so that's the most likely explanation, but we don't know."
Harry Griffin of the institute said Dolly had suffered from a virus-induced lung cancer that in the past few months has been diagnosed in other sheep housed with Dolly.
"The most likely thing is, she caught it from that sheep, and it's an unfortunate result of having to be housed in order to give her security and so that we could observe her," Mr. Wilmut said.
Mr. Griffin said Dolly had been coughing for about a week before the vet came Friday afternoon and conducted a CT scan.
She was born July 5, 1996, in a research compound of the Scottish institute, and the achievement of her creation, announced Feb. 23, 1997, created an international sensation.
Researchers had cloned sheep from fetal and embryonic cells, but until Dolly it was not known whether an adult cell could reprogram itself to develop into a new being.
The Dolly breakthrough heightened speculation that human cloning would become possible.
But one of the biggest fears was that Dolly was born prematurely old.
It was feared that using adult genetic material to make a clone would produce an animal whose cells were aged. Scientists hoped the genetic clock would be wound back to its starting point.
Dolly, a Finn Dorset sheep named after the singer Dolly Parton, bred normally on two occasions with a Welsh mountain ram called David, giving birth to Bonnie in April 1998, then to three lambs in 1999.
The births were good news, showing that clones can reproduce.
But in 1999, scientists noticed that the cells in Dolly's body, cloned from the breast cell of a 6-year-old adult ewe, had started to show signs of wear more typical of an older animal.
In January 2002, her creators announced that she had developed arthritis at the relatively early age of 51/2, stirring debate over whether cloning procedures might be flawed.
Some geneticists said the finding showed that researchers could not manufacture copies of animals without the original genetic blueprint wearing out.
There are hundreds of animal clones around the world, including cows, pigs, mice and goats, many of them appearing robust and healthy.
But many attempts to clone animals have ended in failure. Deformed fetuses have died in the womb with oversized organs, while others were born dead. Others died days after being born, some twice as large as they should have been.
"It's important to remember just what she did contribute," Mr. Wilmut said. "She made biologists think totally differently about the way cells develop for all of the different tissues. The experiments that led to her birth are one of the things that are making people think very differently about how to produce cells to treat Parkinson's disease and other unpleasant diseases."
Dolly's body has been promised to the National Museum of Scotland and will be put on display in Edinburgh, the Roslin Institute said.
-------- health
Tradition May Lead To AIDS Vaccine
Antibody Search Shows Promise
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9974-2003Feb14?language=printer
BOSTON, Feb. 14 -- For the first time in years, AIDS scientists are finding promising paths to follow on the traditional route to a vaccine.
Virtually all vaccines work by stimulating the immune system to make antibodies -- small proteins that target invading microbes and toxins in a highly specific way, coat them and tag them for destruction. Vaccines against diseases such as influenza and tetanus stimulate antibody production with such efficiency that the pathogen never has a chance to take hold, or if it does, only momentarily.
In the case of AIDS, it has been very hard to identify what type of antibody, if any, actually protects a person against infection, not to mention how to get the immune system to make such a substance. For that reason, much of AIDS research in recent years has focused on vaccines that do not prevent infection, but instead prime the body to fight a permanent war of suppression through "cell-mediated" immunity.
At the 10th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew about 4,000 AIDS researchers here this week, it is clear that vaccine scientists have not given up on finding a vaccine that stimulates so-called "neutralizing" antibodies, just as traditional vaccines do. And, at least in laboratory studies, they're finally getting traction.
"There's a shifting of the pendulum," said Carol D. Weiss, a vaccine researcher at the Food and Drug Administration. "We've had the most experience with antibody, and we know that antibody can give 'sterilizing' immunity in many diseases."
Traditionally, vaccine-makers used some version of the disease-causing microbe itself as the vaccine. It was either killed or weakened to the point where it could not cause disease, and then introduced into the body. (In some vaccines, such as the one against hepatitis B, only a piece of the offending virus is used.) At that point, the immune system takes over and decides what parts of the microbe's structure are the best targets. Specific immune-system cells then churn out trillions of antibody molecules custom-fitted to those targets.
In the case of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), however, this strategy has not worked. Live, weakened virus is deemed too dangerous to use as a vaccine. Killed virus has been tried as a way of boosting the immune system of already-infected people, but it did little good. Some AIDS vaccines using harmless pieces of the virus (such as parts of its outer shell) are being tested in large trials, and their effectiveness is unknown.
In the new research presented here, vaccine scientists are betting they can give the immune system better instructions on what kind of antibody to make than it has been able to come up with on its own.
"We're not playing by the same rules as natural infection," said Dennis R. Burton, a vaccine researcher at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.
HIV is a highly variable microbe. One the many problems is that for a vaccine to be useful, it must protect against many different strains of virus. In the research described here this week, scientists are targeting minuscule regions of HIV's surface structure that never vary because they play essential roles in the virus's act of docking on a cell under attack.
Identifying those regions is very difficult. Burton today described how his team found in a "library" of antibodies from HIV-infected people that, in cell cultures, prevented infection by almost all HIV strains. The team then identified exactly where the antibody slipped between virus and cell to block attachment. The scientists are now designing a compound that when injected into human beings -- they hope -- will stimulate antibodies of precisely that shape.
Similarly, Weiss described how she and colleagues at the FDA made small proteins that mimicked a tiny part of HIV called gp41 involved in the step where the virus and cell membranes fuse, allowing the virus to dump its contents inside. When injected into rabbits, those proteins stimulated the production of antibodies that blocked fusion under some -- although not all -- conditions.
While these strategies look promising, Weiss believes a successful vaccine will ultimately contain substances that both stimulate antibodies and cell-mediated immunity.
"Personally, I think the more, the better," she said.
----
Media Frenzy: How Mold Got Sold as a Top Health Hazard
By Barry Stone
Saturday, February 15, 2003
Washington Post; Page H16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A491-2003Feb12?language=printer
Q DEAR BARRY: Do you think the mold issue has been exaggerated? I do. Mold has been on the earth for millions of years. How is it that all of a sudden mold became so toxic that people are tearing down their homes, ripping out sheetrock, pulling out their hair, and spending untold millions annually on mold inspections and repairs? What is the source of this crazy new scare? Could you offer a more logical, even-handed response? -- Martin
A One does wonder how a naturally occurring, ubiquitous substance suddenly became a deadly scourge.
Mold typically grows where there is excessive or persistent moisture caused by such things as leaky plumbing, ground moisture under a building, or lack of adequate ventilation.
Airtight home construction exacerbated the problem in recent years. Construction that was intended to conserve energy also promoted the growth of spores and moisture.
In most cases, visible stains or musty odors alert homeowners to the presence of mold. But some mold can be detected only by professional testing, and the cost of a mold survey is often prohibitive.
As with other indoor environmental hazards of the past 30 years, such as asbestos, radon, formaldehyde, lead and electromagnetic fields, reality is often overpowered by media-induced hysteria. That is not to say that those things do not pose significant health hazards for specific individuals in certain situations. However, overreaction is possible, and excess abounds.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, homebuyers routinely canceled escrows at the mere mention of asbestos or radon. In the mid-1990s, lead paint sent buyers running for the hills.
Responses exceeded the risk. In the case of asbestos, most residential forms (some types of ceilings and vinyl flooring) posed no direct or immediate health hazard. In most cases of radon gas, mitigation was simple and relatively inexpensive. Lead paint is also manageable: Keep your children from teething on the woodwork, and use proper methods when stripping.
Now comes mold, the environmental and economic bombshell. Detonation occurred when some extreme cases of mold infestation were given high-profile treatment by TV magazine shows. An avalanche of mold-related lawsuits and insurance claims followed, causing major insurance carriers to stop doing business in some states.
The real estate, pest inspection and home inspection industries began searching for what to say and what not to say in the new liability environment.
Some, no doubt, will read this and say I'm whitewashing a significant environmental health hazard, exposing readers to catastrophic illness by disseminating misleading information.
In the interest of heading off such misunderstandings, let's clarify a few essential points:
• Toxic forms of mold exist and can harm some people.
• Some homes were so seriously infested with mold that mitigation was not possible, requiring demolition.
• The statistical likelihood of serious mold growth does not warrant the current levels of anxiety, mitigation, litigation and expense.
In the "good old days," about two years ago, a mold stain on a windowsill or below the kitchen sink could be cleaned with bleach, primed and repainted. Now we must hire costly certified industrial hygienists for an in-depth analysis, and all affected materials (drywall, wood, carpet) must be replaced.
A more sensible approach would be to balance the costs with the risks.
The risks are real. Mold might someday invade your home, just as a drunk driver might someday cross the double line in your path of travel. But to what extent should we be stressed over these potential threats? How much must we spend and what procedures must we employ to protect ourselves?
Eventually, the emotional dust of mold hysteria will settle, as it has with previous residential environmental panics. Then, we might return to a place where mold, toenail fungus and the common cold occupy their customary positions among the adversities of everyday life.
Barry Stone is a professional home inspector. If you have questions or comments, contact him through his Web site, www.housedetective.com, or send mail to 1776 Jami Lee Ct., Suite 218, San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401
Distributed by Access Media Group
-------- ACTIVISTS
Protests Take Some Unlikely Routes
Rallies Planned in Smaller Cities
By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10289-2003Feb14?language=printer
LAS VEGAS -- The tourists keep e-mailing Liz Moore, thrilled that they'll be able to squeeze in an antiwar rally while they're in town.
Most are planning to be here this weekend for a Phish concert at the University of Nevada. Others will be here to get married or attend a wedding. (It is, after all, Valentine's Day weekend, the most popular time for weddings in the most popular city for weddings in the country.) Still others are here simply to lose their money in the blink of an eye. But they all tell Moore, one of the organizers of an antiwar rally on the Strip, that whatever else they do, they want to attend the protest here and be a part of the antiwar events taking place this weekend around the globe.
"They're surprised that we're having one," said Moore, an organizer with the Coalition to Protect Human Rights. She was surprised that the last antiwar rally the coalition organized on the Strip, on Jan. 18, drew 800 people, several hundred more than they expected. "Of course, the bigger surprise is that local people managed to bring themselves to the Strip," she said. "Most locals avoid it like the plague, so it shows the depth of feeling on this issue."
And so it is that Las Vegas, so identified as the capital of get-rich-quick fantasies that people tend to forget it is also a real, live city, is joining 600 cities worldwide planning rallies against a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
The rally here, which outsiders usually find out about through the unitedforpeace.org Web site, will mix the real and surreal. Placard-carrying protesters will meet at the Bellagio hotel's fountains, which dance to the tune of Sinatra hits. Then they will march past the most fanciful citadels of gambling in the world.
But the Vegas Strip is not the only unlikely place for a peace rally. In a display of widespread dissent over the Bush administration's approach to Iraq, the more than 250 cities and towns nationwide holding rallies and marches today against a unilateral war include some that have not held protests since the Vietnam War, if ever. They include places such as Watertown, N.Y., 10 miles from the Fort Drum Army base, where the temperature at night dips to 30 degrees below zero and three feet of hard snow covers the ground. Or St. Augustine, Fla., the country's oldest city (founded in 1565), now best known as a nice place to retire. Or other unobtrusive, lay-low cities such as Fort Wayne, Ind.; Bisbee, Ariz.; Hilo, Hawaii; Sitka, Alaska; Fargo, N.D.; Fresno, Calif.; Reno, Nev. There are so many small rallies taking place that organizers for the unitedforpeace.org Web site were still adding them up.
"A lot of people don't post on the Web site until the eleventh hour," said Jason Mark, a spokesman for Global Exchange, which created the Web site to list peace rallies and events, and co-founded United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 120 antiwar groups.
"The small places are often too busy organizing to post their rallies," Mark added. "In fact, I think that's where the real story is: The people who are organizing in their own local communities because they want to express their dissent and they can't attend the big, national rallies."
Watertown, about 35 miles from the Canadian border, will be host to its first rally against war on Iraq. The organizers, Ken Price and Kelly Arsenault-Price, former Army National Guard members, left their jobs in protest of the impending war, and decided to hold a rally here because they couldn't get to one in New York City.
"We don't know how it'll turn out because it's supposed to snow tonight," Price said yesterday.
He said he requested a discharge from the National Guard in December after 19 years and four months -- eight months shy of retirement. He and his wife, who left the Guard in January when she decided not to reenlist, believe President Bush lacks the legal or moral authority to wage this war, he said. But, he added, they have had some trepidation organizing the rally "because of the overwhelming presence of the military" in Watertown. When Arsenault-Price listed the rally in an online community bulletin board a couple of weeks ago, the e-mails she received in return were almost all negative, her husband said.
"It is kind of scary, but something's got to light a fire for people," he said of the rally. "I think people have been scared to speak out against the war. But the closer we've gotten to the rally, the more people have expressed interest. We've gotten people from Syracuse, 70 miles away, who say they want to come."
Steve Mitchell, a real estate agent in St. Augustine, said he had never known of a protest movement in town before he started writing letters to editors and getting in touch with others who wrote to oppose a war. "Virtually none of us even knew each other," he said. Now they are a group, "People for Peace and Justice," part of a peace coalition in St. Augustine, along with Grandparents for Peace, Women for Peace and other new groups. They hold peace vigils every Friday, forums, and rallies, including one in January that drew 250 people.
"That was more than we expected," Mitchell said. "For very little advertising, and St. Augustine being only 13,000 people, I thought that was pretty good. Northeast Florida is very conservative, so for this to happen is unusual."
In Fort Wayne, Cat Voors, an organizer, has helped make the antiwar movement part of everyday life. Her group, part of the Center for Non-Violence, has been holding peace vigils at the Courthouse Green, the city's busiest intersection, every week since before October. ("We had one right after 9/11," she said.) The group has also held peace rallies coinciding with national rallies on Oct. 6 and 26 and Jan. 18. For the last rally, 250 people showed up. Voors predicted 350 protesters for Saturday. "We're expecting a blizzard -- 8 to 11 inches tonight," she said yesterday. "So we'll see."
Moore, with the Coalition to Protect Human Rights in Las Vegas, was so optimistic about the rally that she held a sign-making meeting Thursday with other organizers. She, Lisa Stiller, and Ardis Coffman, were working on slogans to put on posters.
"How about 'Hobbits for Peace'? " said Coffman, a retired journalist for the Las Vegas Sun.
"Stop Mad Cowboy Disease," Moore wrote in black magic marker. "That's one of my favorites," she said.
"I like 'What would Jesus do?' " said Stiller, a writing consultant. A native New Yorker, Stiller said she was very active against the Vietnam War. "So how's this for a sign?" she asked: "Make Love, Not War."
----
Doves ascending
February 15 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927802144.html
Even before the first shot is fired, a powerful international protest is gathering against war on Iraq. Tomorrow, writes Andrew Stevenson, it takes to Sydney's streets.
Every month in Sydney a rebellious rump protests about something - the oppression of Palestinians, the tyranny of the World Trade Organisation or the Howard Government's higher education policies. A ragged crowd of a few thousand attend, chant slogans and go home, their anger somewhat appeased, to leave the world to go on its merry way.
Every few years, however, an issue enters Sydney's suburban heartland and beside the Trots and the dread-locked students march the mums and dads, proving that protest remains a form of social expression still popular beyond the radical fringe.
On November 30 last year about 10,000 people marched in Sydney, their presence all but ignored. Tomorrow, from midday, they'll all march again with the same demand - no war against Iraq - only this time, organisers confidently predict, their ranks will be at least five, perhaps 10, times larger.
The rally is part of a co-ordinated campaign linking opponents around the globe - and across Australia. The Reverend Jesse Jackson will address a massive rally in the centre of London. Last night opponents of the war gathered for a peace picnic outside the Civic Centre in Ulladulla. Peace groups are reforming after years of inactivity, their banners dusted off once more.
A co-convener of Walk Against The War, Bruce Childs, has no doubt a huge shift in public sentiment has taken place. "When ordinary people, as they are, are ringing me from every possible place, including the country areas, you know that it is not the organisations themselves that are driving it. It's gone beyond them. There's no question it's already gone mainstream."
Maybe next week there'll be an office. Maybe next march there'll be enough money to hire the Domain rather than Hyde Park. This time, however, the rally is being organised from living rooms and advertised by the good grace of churches and unions. Photocopiers at the offices of a federal Labor MP, Tanya Plibersek, the Greens, the Democratic Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Australia and the NSW Labor Council have all been working full-time, says another co-convener, Hannah Middleton.
Posters have been going up for weeks and flyers handed out all over the city. Activists such as Middleton have been arguing their case for months. Now, they sense a surge of interest.
"I'm not sure if there's been a change in views since November but there's certainly a groundswell. We're seeing the formation of so many local peace groups around Sydney and we haven't seen that since the '80s with the anti-nuclear marches of Palm Sundays," she says.
"Two things are very different about this movement. For us with long backgrounds this is the first time we've had a movement of this size and strength before the bombs start dropping. It's quite unique in that sense.
"The other thing is the level of awareness. It is widely accepted that control over or access to [oil] and the price of oil is the reason, or a major reason for the war. Everybody says this to us. Everybody is quite clear this is a war of profound self-interest and I think that is one of the reasons why people are so anxious about it."
That strong opposition to a war has arisen before the war itself begins has been remarked upon by many, including Noam Chomsky, who says it is without precedent.
It was certainly not the case when the Menzies government committed the first Australian battalion to the Vietnam War in 1965 with majority support. In 1968 Australians still favoured bombings of North Vietnam. It was not until 1970 that the pendulum finally started to swing. Then only 43 per cent favoured Australia fighting on. In a year it was down to 37 per cent.
A Newtown bookseller, Bob Gould, a peace activist whose contribution is noted in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, remembers the years of struggle. "By the end it was extremely unpopular and now you don't find anyone who admits to having supported it," he says.
This time is different, as is Australia, he says, noting increased educational standards and the transformation in Australia's ethnic mix.
"I think there's enormous hostility to this particular war and it's compounded by the extraordinary arrogance of Bush and the Americans. I was never their friend but it's my perception there are a heap of ordinary people angry about that."
In a sign of strange times even the RSL's national president, Major-General Peter Phillips, acknowledges common ground. "Personally, I would agree with those who are protesting that we don't go without a UN mandate; I would be against those who say peace at any price," he says.
"We're 100 per cent behind the troops. If the Government sends them off without a political mandate in this country or a UN mandate that's the Government's issue, not ours and not the troops'. [But] we would condemn any attempt to vilify our troops for what is essentially a political issue."
Official support for the Sydney protest comes from a broad church, ranging from the Lebanese Communist Party to the Flight Attendants Association and Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice and Peace Centre.
----
Anti-war protesters take to streets
Anti-war marchers in London
The march has passed off peacefully so far
Saturday, 15 February, 2003
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2765041.stm
Protesters against a possible war with Iraq have taken to the streets in what is one of the biggest demonstrations ever seen in Britain.
Police said numbers were "well beyond" the half a million predicted before the event, while organisers put the figure closer to two million.
I thought I needed to show that we were against the war so the prime minister can't say that he has the backing of his people
Other protests were held in Glasgow - where an estimated 30,000 marched - and Belfast, with similar demonstrations being staged around the world.
They come as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair used a Labour conference speech in Glasgow on Saturday to defend his policy on Iraq.
He said he "respected" and understood the desire to march.
But he added: "I ask the marchers to understand this: I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour.
"But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction."
Shortly after he spoke a tide of banner-waving protesters began surging through central London.
Open in new window : Anti-war protest March routes and rally details
They cheered, shouted, sounded horns and banged drums, waving signs with slogans 'No War On Iraq' and 'Make Tea, Not War'.
Contingents arrived in the capital from about 250 cities across the UK.
The three-and-a-half mile march - organised by Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the Muslim Association of Britain - was started early by police, over concern at the number of people gathering.
Two separate meeting points were used before the streams converged in Piccadilly Circus and made their way to Hyde Park for a rally. Christian message
Organiser John Rees said the turnout had been fantastic with an "electric atmosphere but also very serious and determined".
Leading the demonstrators into the park was Italian student Giancarlo Suella, 29, who held a banner reading: 'Bush And Blair, A Good Christian Will Never Kill'.
He said: "I came to England to make my point to Mr Blair, it's hard to believe what he is doing."
Police said so far the event had passed off peacefully, although there were a handful of arrests for minor offences.
Andy Todd, assistant deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said the crowd had been tolerant and patient and "the biggest I have experienced."
While hundreds of thousands took to the streets, one man mounted a lone protest outside the Iraqi section of the Jordanian embassy in central London, holding a placard proclaiming his support of military action to bring down Saddam Hussein.
Jacques More, 44, a writer from Croydon, south London, said: "War is a last resort and it's a necessary resort when evil dictators rule and murder their own people."
At the rally, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy told the crowd he was not persuaded by the case for war.
With "misleading" evidence provided by the government, "it's no wonder that people are scared and confused".
Former US presidential candidate the Rev Jesse Jackson also spoke and led the crowd chanting "give peace a chance, keep hope alive".
Among other high-profile supporters were ex-minister Mo Mowlam, London's mayor Ken Livingstone, actress Vanessa Redgrave, human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger and former MP Tony Benn.
Writer Tariq Ali and playwright Harold Pinter both used their speeches to attack Tony Blair, although some of the crowd voiced their opposition to such sentiments.
Hollywood actor Tim Robbins, also attending, told BBC News the crowds were "what democracy looks like".
If Mr Bush and Mr Blair ignored them "they are not rightful leaders of a democracy", he said.
All police leave in the capital has been cancelled and 3,500 officers drafted in from the Met, the City of London force and British Transport Police to control the event.
Roads around the route will be closed to traffic until the rally finishes at around 1700 GMT.
----
Global Protests Add to Diplomatic Push Against War
By REUTERS
February 15, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
LONDON (Reuters) - Demonstrators turned out in their hundreds of thousands across the world on Saturday to try to prevent a war on Iraq after key members of the United Nations urged Washington to give peace a chance.
The protests kicked off in New Zealand and Australia, where tens of thousands of people poured on to the streets, and were expected to spread to more than 600 towns and cities stretching from Antarctica to Iceland.
Organizers expected large crowds in New York and London, while protesters in Rome predicted more than a million people would take part in the biggest global demonstration of ``People Power'' since the Vietnam War.
``What the United States is doing now is wrong. We are on the brink of World War Three,'' Japanese housewife Mariko Ayama said at a Tokyo rally, echoing sentiments expressed elsewhere.
The demonstrations followed a dramatic showdown at the U.N. Security Council on Friday, when Russia, France, China, Germany and others told Secretary of State Colin Powell to let U.N. weapons inspectors continue their work in Iraq.
The chief U.N. weapons inspectors had held out hope that their work to ensure Iraq does not have banned weapons of mass destruction could be successful, depriving Washington of fodder to rally world support behind an early invasion.
But Powell told CNN that Washington was still thinking of giving Iraq just weeks to comply with U.N. disarmament demands.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that if it came to a conflict, Washington would have at least as many allies as during the 1991 Gulf war to drive Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
He said nearly every country in the Gulf region had given private assurances that it would back U.S. action against Iraq, but that they were reluctant to express open support until a firm decision was made to invade Iraq.
He won fresh backing from Washington's closest allies.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that the United Nations would lose its authority forever if Iraq were not disarmed soon peacefully or by force, while Australia said a change in Iraq's attitude was more important than further inspections.
``WHOLE WORLD'' AGAINST WAR
Protesters around the world thought differently.
``The whole world is against this war. Only one person wants it,'' said Muslim teenager Bilqees Gamieldien as she protested in the South African city of Cape Town.
Demonstrations in Iraq itself were relatively small, with several thousand protesting in Baghdad and other cities.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz, in the Italian city of Assisi to pray at the tomb of St. Francis, drew comfort from the worldwide protests.
``This is a day all good women and men in the world will show the protest against the war of George W. Bush,'' he told Reuters. ``Our hearts are with them.''
The crisis over how to disarm Iraq caused one of the most damaging divisions in NATO's 54-year history after France, Germany and Belgium refused to allow the alliance to start defensive planning for Iraq's neighbor Turkey in case of war.
Diplomatic sources said on Saturday that a compromise was likely to be agreed next Monday or Tuesday.
At the Security Council, however, the divisions expressed on Friday seemed set to slow the introduction of a resolution that the United States, and especially Britain, want to authorize the use of force.
British officials were no longer sure when a document might emerge. Powell said he would consult with President Bush ``and make a judgment in the not too distant future.''
Friday's eagerly awaited report to the U.N. Security Council by chief inspector Hans Blix, while critical of Iraq's failure to deliver information in vital areas, had lacked the bite of his previous assessments.
Consequently, wavering council members from various regions of the world said it was premature to take military action.
AID CONFERENCE DRAWS CONTROVERSY
British diplomats were still hopeful nations would sign on to the use of force if given time. But with U.S. military leaders suggesting combat operations need to take place by mid-March, successful negotiations may not meet that deadline.
Neutral Switzerland organized a weekend meeting in Geneva to discuss the humanitarian consequences of a war, an initiative snubbed by the United States and received coolly by some aid groups, who say they have already made extensive preparations for the humanitarian fallout of a conflict in Iraq.
But the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation said United Nations aid agencies, the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were expected to attend.
Iraq was not invited and Swiss officials insisted the meeting would not be a forum for political debate over a possible war.
While Bush has considerable domestic support for a conflict, Blair faces hostility among a large section of the public, especially if a war effort fails to secure U.N. endorsement.
The British leader tried to pre-empt a large demonstration by telling a conference of his ruling Labour party in Glasgow that even if the numbers reached 500,000, that was still less than the number of people whose deaths Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been responsible for.
Kuwait, invaded by Iraq in 1991, began sealing off its northern half to allow its military to step up training to defend against any attack from Baghdad in the event of a war amid heightened tension across their common border.
----
1 million Italians march against Iraq war
By Eric J. Lyman,
Feb. 15, 2003
From the International Desk (UPI)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-084019-6304r
ROME -- More than a million marchers took to the streets of Rome Saturday to protest the prospect of a U.S.-led war against Iraq, the largest public protest in Italy in a decade and proof that a large and visible portion of the Italian population is opposed to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's support of Washington's hawkish stance toward Baghdad.
Estimates of the crowd size varied widely, with most television media and local law enforcement agencies using figures ranging from around 1 million to as many as 1.5 million. Organizers estimated the crowd at 2 million. But whatever number is used, it is far more than the 500,000-person figure police said they were expecting in the days leading up to the march.
On the four-lane city streets, predominantly young and vocal crowds stretched for nearly two miles, in many cases spilling into roadside parks and onto nearby roads and alleys.
Protesters carried colorful signs calling for an end to the U.S.-led aggressive stance toward Iraq, with one large red sign near the front reading "Stop the war on Iraq, no excuses." Further back in the crowd, a small group of students from the central Italian city of Bologna carried signs reading, "Who is like Hitler? Saddam is not like Hitler, Bush is like Hitler" -- a reference to President George W. Bush's charge that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein represented a threat similar to the one from Nazi leader Adolf Hitler leading up to World War II.
"It is easy to say that someone is against Hitler, but our point is that Saddam is not the Hitler of this situation," Marco Scarpiti, 29, one of the members of the group from Bologna, told United Press International. "Hitler ignored international accords, Hitler did what he wanted to do with no regard for anyone else. That is exactly what Bush is trying to do."
Scarpiti and most other protesters stressed that the protest was not against the United States, but in favor of peace.
"Nobody is saying that Saddam is a saint, but we are saying that war should be the absolute last option," 22-year-old Silvia Santi, another marcher, told UPI.
Two days before the march, the U.S. Embassy in Rome distributed information "strongly" warning U.S. citizens to stay away from the 6-mile protest route on the grounds that they could become targets for violence. But hundreds of Americans ignored the warning, and participated in the march or watched from the sidelines.
"I love my country, but I also know that my country is part of the world community," said John Miller, 45, who was in Rome on vacation from Ellicott City, Maryland. "I don't have all the information [about the threat represented by Iraq] that President Bush has, but I do feel that we should be working within the context of our allies." There were no signs of violence along the protest route, with most protesters in good spirits in the mild and sunny weather. In addition to signs against war, they carried multi-color flags represented more than 400 political parties, trade unions, universities and other organizations. Media reported that around 130 members of Italy's parliament -- mostly from the Socialist, Communist and Green parties -- were among the protesters.
According to pollsters, around 70 percent of Italians are against Italian participation in any war against Iraq, and more than half oppose a U.S.-led attack even if it doesn't include Italy.
But despite that, Berlusconi has been one of Washington's strongest supporters in this area, already granting U.S. access to Italian military bases and air space and possibly even the use of Italian troops and technology.
----
Antiwar protests rally for peace
From the International Desk UPI
2/15/2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-084406-4430r
Millions of antiwar protesters -- vocal, impassioned but in gatherings for the most part orderly -- surged through the streets of the world's major cities Saturday for a weekend of demonstrations against the prospect of war in Iraq.
More than a million marchers converged on Rome, twice as many as police had expected. Hundreds of thousands also gathered in London's Hyde Park and in Damascus, Syria, with other demonstrations of a few to many thousands taking place elsewhere. Paris, Berlin, Beirut, Baghdad, Seoul and several cities in Australia and New Zealand as well as the United States are among them.
Rome's demonstration was the largest public protest in Italy in a decade and proof that a large and visible portion of the Italian population is opposed to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's support of Washington's hawkish stance toward Baghdad.
On the four-lane city streets, predominantly young and vocal crowds stretched for nearly two miles, in many cases spilling into roadside parks and onto nearby roads and alleys.
"Nobody is saying that Saddam is a saint, but we are saying that war should be the absolute last option," 22-year-old Silvia Santi, another marcher, told United Press International.
Two days before the march, the U.S. Embassy in Rome distributed information warning U.S. citizens to stay away from the 10-kilometer (6-mile) protest route on the grounds that they could become targets for violence. But hundreds of Americans ignored the warning, and participated in the march or watched from the sidelines.
"I love my country, but I also know that my country is part of the world community," said John Miller, 45, who was in Rome on vacation from Ellicott City, Maryland. "I don't have all the information (about the threat represented by Iraq) that President Bush has, but I do feel that we should be working within the context of our allies."
In Paris, the anti-war demonstration took off shortly after 2:30 p.m. local time under azure skies, winding from Place Denfert Rochereau on the city's Right Bank to the Place de la Bastille.
Albert and Genevieve Le Guern, both 75, were among the throng of several tens of thousands waiving pro-peace and anti-Bush banners.
"These demonstrations are decisive," asserted Albert Le Guern, from the Paris suburb of Orly. "If there's still a chance to prevent a war its through the weight of public opinion -- people who are rarely listened to by the powers-that-be."
He added, "This demonstration isn't against the American people. It's against the U.S. government. Mr. Bush is a dangerous man. He's an enemy of humanity. We're convinced that if Mr. Bush was isolated it would be in the best interest of the world and of the U.S."
As in Rome, Americans were also among the demonstrators. Some chanted, "hey hey, ho ho, Bush and Cheney have got to go!" Others, like 37-year-old Christian Mayer, from Taos, N.M., walked along quietly.
"I wish there were more Americans like us," said Mayer, who brandished a red banner with "Don't Attack Iraq" written on it. "I think there are a lot of things motivating the Bush administration to go to war. Including Iraqi oil."
"I think it's very good to have so many Americans present," said Dominique Verignolle, who walked just behind Mayer. "I think most of the American public has been hoodwinked into believing the Bush administration."
Politicians and major personalities from the political Left to the Rght joined in the demonstrations. Among them: Former Education Minister Jacques Lang, a top Greens Party member Noel Mamere, and anti-globalization protester Jose Bove.
In an impassioned appeal to Saturday's demonstrators, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he respects the demonstrators' good intentions, but insisted leaving Saddam in power would allow more misery and death for Iraqis.
"Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity," Blair said. "It is leaving him there that is inhumane.
"I simply ask the marchers, however well intentioned, to understand this," Blair said. "I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honor, but sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction."
Arab capitals such as Beirut and Amman attracted crowds around 10,000 demonstrators, but streets of the Syrian capital Damascus rippled with an estimated 300,000 marchers raising the Iraqi flag for the first time in 20 years. Syria and Iraq severed ties because of a wave of bombings in Syria in the 1980s that were blamed on Baghdad.
Syria, which restored economic ties with Baghdad in 1997 but have so far refrained from any political normalization, strongly oppose U.S. war on Iraq and expressed fears of possible widespread chaos and forced changes in the region.
"For the sake of oil, the new Nazis are depriving our children of their dream," one banner read. "No to U.S. terrorism. No for the invasion of Iraq and yes to U.N. inspections."
The Syrian protestors shouted: "All Arab people support Baghdad and struggle against terrorism" and "Down Down U.S.A., we don't fear the CIA."
Some protestors burned Israeli and U.S. flags while one of them was disguised in a black outfit, with a terrifying mask and a U.S. hat while holding an effigy of oil barrel. They kept away from the well-guarded U.S. Embassy where security measures were reinforced, however, and respected official guidance for their march.
The global rallies began Friday in Melbourne, Australia, where more than 150,000 protesters poured into city streets, and moved west with the sun.
In South Korea, some 2,000 protesters marched through central Seoul, carrying purple balloons they said symbolized peace and banners that read, "No war, Peace now!" and "Drop Bush, not Bombs." Thousands of riot police were deployed around the U.S. Embassy building, but there were no major clashes.
"We don't want bloody war!" said Kim Kwang-shik, a 21-old college student. "The war with Iraq cannot be justified by any means," he said.
South Korea is a key U.S. ally in Asia and is home to 37,000 U.S. troops who have been stationed to help defend South Korea from a potential conflict with North Korea under a bilateral defense treaty signed after the Korean War.
American timezones were among the last to gear up for demonstrations. New York authorities expected the largest group of marchers, with San Francisco, Washington and other major cities anticipating turnouts as well.
New York, target only 16 months ago of the worst attack in history on U.S. continental soil, was tense Saturday after Washington raised the national terror alert earlier this week. The orange, or high, level has called up police patrols armed with machine guns and special anti-terror arrangements for bridges, tunnels, railroads and airports and many hotels or gathering places.
But neither security measures nor bitter cold deterred several tens of thousands of protesters, who flooded New York's East Side as the march's start time of noon approached. Both young adults and older, some of whom remembered their days of protests against the war in Vietnam, were in the crowd.
"This is a kind of a last big push to prevent this war," Alex Cheney of Boston Mobilization, a grassroots peace group, told UPI. "We're really running out of time. It seems like a race to see who can build more support the quickest."
In Baghdad itself, the focus of the rallies, thousands of Iraqis filled the streets to protest both U.S. and British military deployments in the region and threats to invade their country.
Angry demonstrators gathered on the two banks of the Tigris River in the Iraqi capital, with hundreds waving Russian-made Kalashnikov automatic rifles and carrying banners denouncing the United States and Britain. Others marched with banners calling on the people of the world to support Iraq against the U.S.-British stance or waved Iraqi and Palestinian flags.
----
S. Koreans stage anti-war rally
By Jong-Heon Lee
UPI Correspondent
From the International Desk
2/15/2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-055736-9505r
SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Thousands of civic activists and students staged rallies across South Korea Saturday to protest the United States' threatened attack on Iraq.
The street demonstration, organized by a coalition of about 700 civic groups in South Korea, was the first rally against the U.S.-led war on terrorism in South Korea, a key U.S. ally in Asia.
Some 2,000 protesters marched through central Seoul, carrying purple balloons they said symbolized peace and banners that read, "No war, Peace now!" and "Drop Bush, not Bombs."
"We don't want bloody war!" said Kim Kwang-shik, a 21-old college student. "The war with Iraq cannot be justified by any means," he said. Thousands of people also held anti-war rallies in the country's five major cities.
At the "peace rallies," protesters urged their government not to help the United States stage the war on Iraq. "We oppose any support for the war," said Lee Young-hwa, a 25 year-old protester. Government officials said they have no plans to troops to join the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq. War opponents also blasted the U.S. military pressure on North Korea and its refusal to negotiate with Pyongyang over the nuclear standoff. "The United States must stop war threatens on the Korean peninsula," protesters shouted.
Some South Koreans insist the United States is hindering an inter-Korean thaw in a bid to establish "military domination" in the world. "Preventing the war on Iraq will lead to avoiding the war crisis on the Korean peninsula," said Won Kyong-hwan, a 30-year-old civic activist.
Hundreds of anti-war protesters later joined an anti-American candlelight protest near the U.S. Embassy in central Seoul to mourn the deaths of two South Korean schoolgirls run over by a U.S. army vehicle.
Thousands of riot police were deployed around the U.S. Embassy building, but there were no major clashes with demonstrators.
Some South Koreans expressed concerns that the anti-war and anti-U.S. protests may hurt their country's security arrangement. "War is not good, but North Korea's nuclear threats should also be blamed," said Lee Byong-hoon, a 38-year-old medical doctor.
South Korea is a key U.S. ally and is home to 37,000 U.S. troops who have been stationed to help defend South Korea from a potential conflict with North Korea under a bilateral defense treaty signed after the Korean War.
----
Peace demonstrators flood N.Y.
By Nicholas M. Horrock
UPI Chief White House Correspondent
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
2/15/2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030214-090024-4484r
NEWYORK, N.Y., Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Tens of thousands of demonstrators flooded into New York's East Side Saturday to protest President George W. Bush's plan to disarm Saddam Hussein by war.
Eric Hegstrom of Hunterdon , N.J., said he didn't know if worldwide peace demonstrations would stop Bush's plan.
"We can only do a little and hope all those little bits add up to something."
The peace marchers gathered under the watchful eye of New York Police and National Guardsman on new patrols because of the high alert status announced by the federal government on Feb. 7.
The crowds of demonstrators came by bus, train, car and plane. New York's famous Grand Central and Pennsylvania railroad stations became rally points for groups gathering their members.
The crowd was half 20-somethings and half people who had protested against the Vietnam War. Hegstrom remembered his first peace march was in 1972 from the Hunterdon High School to the courthouse in Flemington, New Jersey.
Police have blocked off the United Nations Plaza backed by a federal court order, but have issued a permit to One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza a few blocks north.
The impending war with Iraq has revived the moribund U.S. peace movement. Planners say the day's protest in several countries will involve 10 million people.
The New York rally will be followed Sunday by a major demonstration in San Francisco and rallies, marches or peace events in hundreds of cities around the world.
"This is a kind of a last big push to prevent this war," Alex Cheney of Boston Mobilization told United Press International. "We're really running out of time. It seems like a race to see who can build more support the quickest."
In other cities as far afield as Christchurch, New Zealand, and as close to the White House as Alexandria, Va., there have been town meetings, vigils, and church services against the war.
March planners hoped for 300,000 people in New York Saturday, but bitterly cold weather and a federal court order supporting a police ban on a march may limit the number who attend. The high state of alert in New York, the so-called "orange" level, has left the city with machine gun-armed police patrols and special anti-terror arrangements for bridges, tunnels, railroads and airports and many hotels or gathering places.
By Friday night, however, it was clear that thousands were heading for New York. Students at Oberlin College in Ohio had first planned to hire two buses to attend and now hired three. Peace supporters from the Boston area have lined dozens of buses to get to New York and Mike Prokoch of the Dorchester, Mass., group People for Peace told UPI that the "pressure for bus space has been intense."
The New York rally began at noon at 49th Street and First Avenue several blocks north of the United Nations where Friday U.N. weapons inspectors reported Iraq was cooperating on some issues and a push began to give them more time to finish their work.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to negotiate with the demonstrators. The city, target only 16 months ago of the worst attack in history on U.S. continental soil, is tense with the new threats of danger reported by Washington.
Jones said she wouldn't "second guess" the police and found for NYPD's contention that "it cannot responsibly undertake the facilitation of this march without great risk to the participants themselves, the public and its own officers." Lawyers for the demonstrators pointed out that on March 17 the city will allow the St. Patrick's Day Parade where annually a 100,000 or more gather.
Whether the numbers of demonstrators will issue a political warning to Bush may not be as important as the signs that a new antiwar movement, from labor unions to college students, to housewives to senior citizens is beginning to form. For most of the 1980s and 1990s, the antiwar movement was dominated with what New York's Village Voice called then the "hard left." Earlier marches and outcries have been dominated by such figures as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has represented Iraq and other major opponents of the United States.
The new coalition looks a lot more like the Vietnam era. United for Peace and Justice is the umbrella group managing the worldwide demonstrations. It has participants like the World Council of Churches as well as major colleges and participants from old-line labor unions. The Internet is clearly a modern tool of organizers, allowing worldwide coordination in a way that was not possible during the Vietnam era. Each peace group has a Web page and issue instructions, keep their faithful informed and recruiting new members through the World Wide Web and e-mail.
----
Anti-War Protesters Hold Global Rallies
Millions Gather in Cities Around the World to Protest Iraq War
By Robert Barr
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 15, 2003; 2:25 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11790-2003Feb15?language=printer
Millions of protesters - many of them marching in the capitals of America's traditional allies - demonstrated Saturday against U.S. plans to attack Iraq.
In a global outpouring of anti-war sentiment, Rome claimed the biggest turnout - 1 million according to police, while organizers claimed three times that figure.
In London, at least 750,000 people joined in the city's biggest demonstration ever, police said. Berlin had up to half a million on the streets, and Paris was estimated to have had up to 100,000.
Peace activists hoped to draw 100,000 demonstrators in New York City later for a protest near the United Nations.
"Peace! Peace! Peace!" said Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who led an ecumenical service near U.N. headquarters. "Let America listen to the rest of the world - and the rest of the world is saying, `Give the inspectors time.'"
London's marchers hoped - in the words of keynote speaker Rev. Jesse Jackson - to "turn up the heat" on Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been President Bush's staunchest European ally for his tough Iraq policy.
Rome protesters showed their disagreement with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's support for Bush, while demonstrators in Paris and Berlin backed the skeptical stances of their governments.
"What I would say to Mr. Blair is stop toadying up to the Americans and listen to your own people, us, for once," said Elsie Hinks, 77, who marched in London with her husband, Sidney, a retired Church of England priest.
"You don't fight terrorism with a preventive war," said Tommaso Palladini, 56, who traveled from Milan to Rome. "You fight terrorism by creating more justice in the world."
Several dozen marchers from Genoa held up pictures of Iraqi artists. "We're carrying these photos to show the other face of the Iraqi people that the TV doesn't show," said Giovanna Marenzana, 38.
Some leaders of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government took part in the Berlin protest, which turned the tree-lined boulevard between the Brandenburg Gate and the 19th-century Victory Column into a sea of banners, balloons emblazoned with "No war in Iraq" and demonstrators swaying to live music. Police estimated the crowd at between 300,000 and 500,000.
"We Germans in particular have a duty to do everything to ensure that war - above all a war of aggression - never again becomes a legitimate means of policy," shouted Friedrich Schorlemmer, a Lutheran pastor and former East German pro-democracy activist.
In the Paris crowd at the Place Denfert-Rochereau, a large American flag bore the black inscription: "Leave us alone."
Gerald Lenoir, 41, of Berkley, Calif., came to Paris specifically to support the French demonstrators. "I am here to protest my government's aggression against Iraq," he said. "Iraq does not pose a security threat to the United States and there are no links with al-Qaida."
In southern France, about 10,000 people demonstrated in Toulouse against the United States, chanting: "They bomb, they exploit, they pollute, enough of this barbarity."
Police estimated that 60,000 turned out in Oslo, Norway, 50,000 in bitter cold in Brussels, while about 35,000 gathered peacefully in frigid Stockholm.
About 80,000 marched in Dublin, Irish police said. Crowds were estimated at 60,000 in Seville, Spain; 40,000 in Bern, Switzerland; 30,000 in Glasgow, Scotland; 25,000 in Copenhagen; 15,000 in Vienna; 10,000 in Amsterdam; 5,000 in Cape Town and 4,000 in Johannesburg in South Africa; 5,000 in Tokyo; and 2,000 in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
"War is not a solution, war is a problem," Czech philosopher Erazim Kohak told a crowd of about 500 in Prague.
In Baghdad, tens of thousands of Iraqis, many carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles, demonstrated to support Saddam Hussein and denounce the United States.
"Our swords are out of their sheaths, ready for battle," read one of hundreds of banners carried by marchers along Palestine Street, a broad Baghdad avenue.
In Damascus, the capital of neighboring Syria, an estimated 200,000 protesters chanted anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans as they marched to the People's Assembly.
Najjah Attar, a former Syrian cabinet minister, accused Washington of attempting to change the region's map. "The U.S. wants to encroach upon our own norms, concepts and principles," she said in Damascus. "They are reminding us of the Nazi and fascist times."
In Ukraine, some 2,000 people rallied in snowy Kiev's central square. Anti-globalists led a peaceful "Rock Against War" protest joined by communists, socialists, Kurds and pacifists.
In the Bosnian city of Mostar, about 100 Muslims and Croats united for an anti-war protest - the first such cross-community action in seven years in a place where ethnic divisions remain tense, despite the 1995 Bosnian peace agreement.
"We want to say that war is evil and that we who survived one know that better than anyone," said Majda Hadzic, 54.
In divided Cyprus, about 500 Greeks and Turks braved heavy rain for a march that briefly blocked a runway at a British air base.
Several thousand protesters in Athens, Greece, unfurled a giant banner across the wall of the Acropolis - "NATO, U.S. and EU equals War" - before heading toward the U.S. Embassy.
U.S. Ambassador Thomas Miller said the Greek protesters' indignation was misplaced. "They should be demonstrating outside the Iraqi embassy," he said before the march.
Police fired tear gas in clashes with several hundred anarchists wearing hoods and crash helmets, who smashed store windows and threw a gasoline bomb at a newspaper office. Thirteen youths were arrested, while five policemen and two protesters were injured.
In Moscow, 300 people marched to the U.S. Embassy, with one placard urging Russian President Vladimir Putin to "be firmer with America."
Between 3,000 and 5,000 people marched through a suburb of Canberra, the Australian capital, to protest government support for U.S. policy. Australia has already committed 2,000 troops to the Persian Gulf for possible action.
----
Zimbabwe Arrests Protesters
Associated Press
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10655-2003Feb14?language=printer
HARARE, Zimbabwe -- Two Valentine's Day peace parades by women clutching roses and singing hymns were broken up by baton-wielding police who arrested at least 88 people and eight journalists, organizers and witnesses said.
Authorities said the protests by a group called Women of Zimbabwe Arise had been declared illegal under security laws. The police issued a warning, but the women issued a statement saying they would go ahead with the parades to call for peace and an end to political violence.
The group said it wanted to deliver to the U.N. offices in Harare a letter addressed to Secretary General Kofi Annan as a symbol of love and peace marking Valentine's Day.
The group had previously staged small demonstrations in which they banged pots and pans to protest the country's deepening economic woes and acute food shortages.
----
Huge crowds worldwide protest Iraq war
Saturday, February 15, 2003
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html
NEW YORK CITY -- Huge crowds of antiwar protesters jammed into downtown New York on Saturday as demonstrators in dozens of U.S. cities joined hundreds of thousands of people worldwide in voicing opposition to war with Iraq.
In New York, a giant puppet depicting President Bush holding buckets of blood and oil towered over the cheering crowd that was pressed against police barricades near U.N. headquarters. The main demonstration stretched for 24 blocks down First Avenue -- overflowing onto Second and Third avenues as more people tried to reach the rally.
Organizers said they expected up to 100,000 people to join the protest, but there were no official attendance figures.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu and actors Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover were among the speakers at the event.
CNN's Maria Hinajosa said the crowd was very diverse, with older men and women in their fur coats, parents with young children, military veterans and veterans of the antiwar movement.
Adele Welty, whose son was a firefighter killed in the September 11 attacks said she believed Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, but said the United States should work with the U.N. to find a peaceful solution to the problem.
"Timothy was at the World Trade Center on September 11 to save lives," she said. "I don't feel that he would sanction innocent lives either in this country or in Iraq being shed in his name."
Besides protests in major cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, rallies were scheduled across the United States in smaller towns such as Gainesville, Georgia; Macomb, Illinois; and Juno, Alaska, according to the antiwar group United for Peace and Justice.
Organizers said they expected several million people to join demonstrations in dozens of cities. There were no official figures for actual attendance.(Full story)
The White House said Saturday that Bush still hopes there's a peaceful way to disarm Saddam Hussein.
"The president views force as a last resort. He still hopes for a peaceful resolution and that it is up to Saddam Hussein. The president is a strong advocate for freedom and democracy. And one of the democratic values that we hold dear is the right of people to peacefully assemble and express their views," White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said.
U.S allies see opposition at home
Protesters took to the streets in 80 towns and cities across France and police said that as many as 300,000 are participating in protests in Berlin, Germany.
Protests were peaceful, but violence broke out at a rally in Athens, Greece, when dozens of hooded demonstrators among a large crowd threw rocks and gasoline bombs at police, who responded by firing tear gas.
A police spokesperson blamed the violence on anarchists, who had splintered off from the main group. (Full story)
Turnout in London was huge, boosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair's ready enlistment in Bush's "coalition of the willing" against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which has pitted Great Britain against European heavyweights France and Germany.
Several lawmakers from Blair's Labour Party were among the protesters, including former Northern Ireland secretary Mo Mowlam, reflecting unease felt by many of Blair's center-left and labor union supporters.
Leaders of railway, firefighters and general workers' unions were addressing the London event, alongside U.S. civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson, playwright Harold Pinter, activist Bianca Jagger, the leader of Britain's opposition Liberal Democrats Charles Kennedy, and the ex-president of Algeria, Ahmed Ben Bella.
In a message to those taking part in the demonstrations, Blair said: "I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process."
But he added: "As you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this: If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for." Angry worldwide reactions
In Istanbul, Turkey, protesters angrily denounced the United States and called for it to leave the Middle East. CNN's James Martone reported that polls show Turks are overwhelmingly opposed to war.
Meanwhile in Moscow, antiwar protesters braved the cold Moscow weather to march to the U.S. Embassy against a possible war. Interfax put the figure at nearly 1,000.
Interfax said Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov, addressing the crowd, said the U.S. was preparing a "war against humanity, against the Arab and Islamic world, united Europe and, first of all, against Russia," addressing fears that a possible oil market crisis will ruin Russian economy after the war.
Tens of thousands demonstrated in Melbourne on Friday -- the biggest peace march the city has seen since the Vietnam War -- and on Saturday tens of thousands of antiwar campaigners flocked to other Australian and New Zealand cities. (Melbourne's rally http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/02/14/aust.protest.ap/index.html)
----
Huge Europe protests move to U.S.
Saturday, February 15, 2003
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.europe/index.html
LONDON, England -- Millions took to the streets of Europe to protest against a rush to war with Iraq in huge demonstrations later repeated in the United States.
In London Saturday, police said the turnout was 750,000, the largest demonstration ever in the British capital. The organizers put the figure at 2 million. Half a million protested in Germany and 300,000 in 60 towns and cities across France.
CNN's Alessio Vinci said that the turnout in Rome -- where PM Silvio Berlusconi has publicly backed the stance of U.S. President George W. Bush -- was also said by the organizers to be one million. It was certainly in the high hundreds of thousands, he said, with many marchers trapped in traffic on the city outskirts.
Later on the scenes were repeated in the U.S. with crowds of antiwar protesters jamming into downtown New York. (Full story) The huge demonstration in London came on the same day Prime Minister Tony Blair said he "would not shrink" from military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. (Full story)
Nearly all the marches were peaceful though in Athens, Greek riot police fired tear gas at demonstrators who threw stones and petrol bombs when dozens of hooded protestors splintered from a main body of up to 50,000 demonstrators. A parked car was burned but police said there were no arrests or reports of injuries. (Full story)
The biggest demonstrations seen in Europe for years were part of marches by millions across the globe, from the Antarctic to Iceland.
"This war is solely about oil. George Bush has never given a damn about human rights," London mayor Ken Livingstone said in London.
"Give peace a chance, give peace a chance," American peace activist Jesse Jackson chanted to the cheering throng. (Jackson: Not too late)
Hollywood star Tim Robbins, reflecting on the global reach of the protests, said: "The peace movement is acting as one."
In France, one of the staunchest opponents of war, one woman protester said: "The Americans were stressed by September 11 and now they are going completely overboard."
"The biggest threat to peace is the United States, not Iraq," said one pensioner in Finland.
"The war... would only make the Iraq people weaker and would keep Saddam Hussein in power," said Belgian social worker Roselyne Laforge.
The protesters received a boost on Friday when U.N chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gave a mixed report to the United Nations giving hope arms inspections in Iraq could begin to work better. (Full story)
The rallies offered a boost to Iraq's own cause. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in the Italian city of Assisi to pray at the tomb of St. Francis, said: "This is a day all good women and men in the world will show the protest against the war of George W. Bush," he told Reuters. "Our hearts are with them." (Full story)
In a message to those taking part in the demonstrations, Blair said: "I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process."
But he added: "As you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this: if there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. London protest Protesters march through London towards Hyde Park
"If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started."
A dissenting note was struck by one lone demonstrator in London who mounted a protest outside the Iraqi section of the Jordanian embassy, holding a placard proclaiming his support of military action to bring down Saddam.
Jacques More, 44, a writer from Croydon, south London, said: "War is a last resort and it's a necessary resort when evil dictators rule and murder their own people."
Speaking about the peace marchers, he added: "They have lots of good intentions, they don't want the horrors of war but neither do I. The military don't want to hurt the innocent but it's sometimes necessary to go in and stop a murderer."
CNN's Jim Bittermann reported from Paris that tens of thousands had turned out in the French capital with hundreds of thousands of others expected in 60 towns and cities. More than 100 separate French organisations were taking part and there was "a lot of very intense feeling" against a war, he said.
Peace march organiser Pierre Villard told him: "This is a message to George Bush. People are here because they do not think this war against Iraq is good for the world.
"It is also a message to the French government -- go to the United Nations Security Council and if you can, use your veto." An anti-war protester makes his way to the march in London. An anti-war protester makes his way to the march in London.
In Berlin, CNN's Matthew Chance said up to 500,000 protesters had gathered in the city's historic center to demonstrate against a war with Iraq and bolster German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's calls for a peaceful solution.
In Istanbul, Turkey, 5,000 people angrily denounced the U.S., demanding America stay out of saying the last Gulf war had cost their country millions. Foreign ministry Yasar Yakis was on Saturday finishing talks in Washington over an aid package tied to support for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
CNN's James Martone reported that the mood of the demonstrators in a country where the people are overwhelmingly opposed to war was "angry" with the crowd demanding America leaves the Middle East
Meanwhile in Moscow, anti-war protesters braved the cold Moscow weather to march to the U.S. embassy against a possible war. Interfax put the figure at nearly 1,000.
One of their banners signs implored Russian President Vladimir Putin to "Be Firmer With America," while others said "U.S. -- International Terrorist Number One."
Another showed a photograph of the U.S. president with the words: "Butcher: Get out of other people's lands."
----
Violence at Greek antiwar rally
Saturday, February 15, 2003
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.europe.greece.reut/index.html
ATHENS, Greece (Reuters) -- Greek riot police fired tear gas at demonstrators who threw stones and several petrol bombs at them on Saturday during a rally in Athens against a U.S.-led war on Iraq.
Dozens of hooded protestors splintered from a main body of up to 50,000 demonstrators gathered in the Greek capital for what was supposed to be a peaceful protest, smashing several windows and burning a parked car.
Police said there were no arrests or reports of injuries during the march to the U.S. embassy.
In the main northern city of Thessaloniki, protesters threw stones at the U.S. consulate and police also used tear gas.
In Athens, the violence broke out in the main Syntagma square across from the Greek parliament.
A police spokesman described the splinter group of violent protesters as "anarchists."
"One car was burned and several had their windows damaged," he said. "The windows of several banks and shops were also broken. Two newspaper offices were also attacked."
Police fired volleys of tear gas which wafted through the area sending shoppers scurrying for safety.
A Greek government spokesman denounced the violence: "The unacceptable attacks and incidents which were provoked today during a grand peaceful demonstration must be condemned by all."
Greece, as a nation and as current president of the European Union, strongly opposes military action against Iraq and says U.N. weapons inspectors should get more time to do their job.
On Monday, Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis presides over an EU summit in a bid to get a consensus for on Iraq policy among the bloc's divided members.
----
BRITAIN
Antiwar Marchers Are Hoping They Can Change Blair's Mind
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By ALAN COWELL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/europe/15PROT.html
LONDON, Feb. 14 - Hundreds of thousands of peace demonstrators have gathered in European capitals to march on Saturday against the United States-led campaign that threatens war in Iraq. But nowhere is a huge turnout so politically fraught as it is in London.
In Berlin and Paris, marchers will be in step with governments opposed to Washington's war plans. But in London a large turnout could undermine Washington's staunchest European ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, denying him a show of consensus in his own country.
"Tomorrow the world will say no to war in rallies across the globe," Andrew Murray, the head of the Stop the War Coalition said in a newspaper article today. "But London will be the most important, because ours is the war leader who can be broken. And if he remains deaf to a nation's plea for peace, he will be."
Britain is committing 40,000 troops to join American forces in the Persian Gulf, far more than any other European country, so it is central to America's desire to be seen as not acting alone.
"We feel that in Britain we do have the historic responsibility," said Lindsey German, another leader of the Stop the War Coalition, formed after Sept. 11, 2001, as a grouping of hundreds of organizations, from pro-Palestinian Muslims to hard-core leftists, with a leavening of pacifists, politicians, celebrities, environmentalists, intellectuals and labor union figures.
"If Blair did change his mind, Bush would find it very difficult to go to war," Ms. German said. "People in the United States are very reluctant to go to war without allies."
So close have those two men become, in the eyes of many Britons, that the Daily Mirror - a sponsor of the march to be held on Saturday - rigged a Valentine's Day front-page photograph in a heart-shaped frame showing President Bush and Mr. Blair kissing, with the headline "Make Love Not War."
The inclusionary sweep of the antiwar coalition has made some people uneasy about marching alongside organizations with different long-term aims. One of the official slogans of the London march is "Freedom for Palestine," raising fears among some protesters that the march will be seen as anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.
"What we have always said is that this is a criticism of the state of Israel, not a criticism of Jewish people," Ms. German said.
The march here is co-sponsored by the Muslim Association of Britain, which has differences with other groups in the march.
"These are not permanent alliances," said Assam Tamimi, a Palestinian organizer. "These are alliances on issues where we might find common ground with the left - the far left, even - like foreign policy, Palestine and Iraq. We don't see eye to eye on many other issues."
Ms. German said, "The coalition is about stopping the war on terrorism, the war that Bush launched after Sept. 11."
So will that give succor to Saddam Hussein? That is not the intention, Ms. German said, but "if Saddam Hussein feels that he's in a stronger position after tomorrow, the British government has only got itself to blame."
The breadth of the alliance is one reason organizers are anticipating a big turnout, in excess of the 400,000 who marched last year to support hunters and other rural Britons against proposed restrictions on hunting of foxes and other animals.
But another aspect is the sense that many people who would not usually march in protest have decided to do so this time, reflecting a wider unease.
"People do feel it can make a difference in a way that in some countries it would not affect the international stage," Ms. German said. "People feel very strongly that the evidence has not been convincing, conclusive enough to go to war.
"But I also think it fits into a more general discontent. Transport and health services are underfunded, but there's endless money for going to war."
Such discontent was also reflected in some skepticism about a high security alert at London's airports, one of the biggest in memory.
At Heathrow Airport, the police briefly evacuated part of a terminal today because of a suspicious-looking package. On Thursday at Gatwick Airport, an entire terminal was closed for hours after a man arrived on a flight from Colombia with a hand grenade in his luggage. Two people arrested west of London on Thursday were released today, the police said.
The alert appears to have been prompted by fears that Al Qaeda is planning an attack on a civilian airliner. But the authorities have not given an explanation, and that has left people to ponder the real extent of the terrorist threat.
"The threat that has led to this unprecedented security is not from terrorists but from the peace march," said a letter to The Guardian signed by Simon Whitehead of Suffolk. "I wasn't going to go, but I will now."
--------
War Protesters Prepare for Rally, but No March
February 15, 2003
New York Times
By JAMES BARRON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/nyregion/15PROT.html
Spelling out phrases like "war is terrorism" on protest signs and making arrangements for demonstrators to ride trains and buses into Manhattan, antiwar organizers spent yesterday preparing for today's rally on the East Side, a few blocks from the United Nations - a gathering they said should have included a march.
A federal judge ruled earlier in the week that the city had the right to refuse a permit for about 100,000 people to march. The judge endorsed the city's counteroffer of a stationary rally for 10,000 in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza with room for the overflow crowd north of the plaza. The judge agreed with police officials who said that a march past the United Nations would pose security risks.
Organizers of the protest, the New York leg of a worldwide day of antiwar activities that they said would take in more than 200 cities across the country and 600 around the world, questioned that ruling yesterday as they warned of confusion among people trying to reach the rally. It starts at noon, and the stage for speeches will be north of the plaza, on First Avenue between 51st and 52nd Streets.
The organizers said that despite the judge's order, people were free to walk to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza in groups, as long as they stayed on the sidewalk and did not spill over into the street.
"People understand there's a moment here to try to stop this war," said Leslie Cagan, an organizer of the demonstration. "There will be people who'll never get to the rally site, but they're part of the protest, just being out on the sidewalks. We're going to have to figure how to count them."
The weather may also play a part. The forecast is for unusually cold weather, with a high of 24 degrees. But another organizer, Bob Wing, said he was keeping his fingers crossed that the National Weather Service was right when it dropped its prediction of snow.
As they worked on final preparations for the rally - preparations that another organizer described as "five months of work pressed into five weeks" - several members of the City Council and officials from the New York Civil Liberties Union demanded public hearings on the Police Department's claim that an antiwar march would raise security issues that the police could not handle.
"Clearly," City Councilman Bill Perkins of Manhattan said in a statement, "anti-civil rights actions taken by the city have revealed how new security measures restrict our freedom to protest."
But the judge who blocked a large march, Barbara S. Jones of United States District Court in Manhattan, said the city had not violated the demonstrators' free-speech rights because it had proposed the rally as an alternative. The request for a march came from United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of local and national organizations that are opposed to war in Iraq.
The group sought permission for 50,000 to 100,000 people - and perhaps more - to march down First Avenue past the United Nations.
"It's an irony to say you're going to war to defend democracy at the same time you curb democracy at home by not letting people have a march," said Mr. Wing, the editor of an antiwar newspaper. "It increases the likelihood there will be problems when nobody knows the rules."
But a police spokesman, Deputy Chief Michael Collins, said the rules would be the same as on any other day. "The bottom line is, people are free to walk on the sidewalks," he said. "Nobody's going to be bothered walking as a group to a demonstration. We share the same wishes as the organizers in seeing a peaceful, successful demonstration."
The protesters say the Bush administration has not made a convincing case for going to war right now, or a clear case that Iraq and Al Qaeda are partners in terrorism. "And what if there is a link?" Mr. Wing asked. "Does that justify this war? When we bombed Afghanistan, did that take away Al Qaeda? We're making all these people suffer."
The police prepared for the demonstration by moving metal barriers on First and Second Avenues - barriers that they will use to keep people in place as the crowd builds. Outside the General Assembly building yesterday, United Nations guards told tourists to keep moving and not to pose for photographs.
Nearby, several women wearing pink ponchos with the words "no war" stood on the sidewalk as another woman chained herself to a fence. That protester, Sylvia Diane Wilson, of Seadrift, Tex., was issued a summons for disorderly conduct.
Some of the organizers of today's demonstration are old enough to remember the protests of the 1960's. Now they use technology that was not available in those days to spread word of their plans and coordinate rides to Manhattan.
Ms. Cagan said that the Web site www.unitedforpeace.org had registered 1.8 million visitors on Thursday.
But some of the predemonstration activities yesterday did not involve laptop computers and Internet connections - a teach-in at the Community Church, 40 East 35th Street, for example. "Everyone who will be on the streets is opposed to the U.S. carrying out a new major war against Iraq," said Sarah Sloan, 22, who was one of 40 people who attended the session. "The U.S. wants to have a neo-colonial relationship with Iraq and control 10 percent of the world's oil."
----
Canadians send anti-war message
By WOJTEK DABROWSKI
Sat, February 15, 2003
CP
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/02/15/26809-cp.html
A man waves a partly burned and upside down United States flag during a demonstration Saturday in Quebec City. (CP/Jacques Boissinot)
Thousands of chanting and singing Canadians in centres across the country took to the streets Saturday to protest a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq.
Bitter temperatures didn't cool the tempers of more than 100,000 peace activists in Montreal, who flocked to the city's core to get their message across. The huge march wound from Dorchester Square to Complexe Guy Favreau, the city's main federal building.
For Deborah Lloyd, a native of Windsor, Ont., and mother of two, the demonstration recalled the era of the Vietnam war.
"I protested in the border area of Windsor-Detroit 30 years ago to help draft dodgers," she said. "We're just going to have to keep doing this every 30 years or every 10 years until there's no more war. We can't have war in the 21st century."
In Vancouver, organizers estimated as many as 20,000 marched through the downtown core, at one point packing both lanes of Robson Street for about 10 blocks.
The cheering crowd made its way to the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery, where young people and longtime activists stood shoulder-to-shoulder, jamming the grassy area and surrounding streets.
In Toronto, about 10,000 people hit the pavement in a peaceful march that snarled Saturday afternoon traffic.
"George Bush is a terrorist," the crowd shouted as a rapper kept the crowd's spirits up with a song.
"No to war on Iraq!"
Jack Layton, the newly minted leader of the federal New Democrats, also attended the Toronto rally. He said in an interview he hopes Ottawa hears the cries of protest from millions of people around the globe.
"Surely, after the demonstrations this weekend, we're going to see a stiffening of the spine and see our Canadian government issue a clarion call for peace to (U.S. President George W. Bush) and to the United Nations Security Council," Layton said as thousands of Torontonians gathered in a downtown square.
The call for peace was echoed in about 70 other Canadian cities and hundreds of others around the world on Saturday, called an international day of action by peace organizers.
In Ottawa, some demonstrators wore costumes and carried signs ranging from the curious to the comical. They started in Gatineau, marching across the Ottawa River to the capital.
Carrying signs with messages such as Morons Make War and Terrorists Wear Suits, the initial crowd of 2,000 began to swell as marchers chanted, drummed and danced their way through the downtown streets, stopping twice at the U.S. Embassy before making their way to Parliament Hill.
One man, wearing a plastic wolf mask and with a sheepskin rug draped over his shoulders, bore a sign with the slogan: U.S.: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.
Political science student Idil Ismail, 23, said the Iraqi people shouldn't have to suffer a war just because they have a corrupt leader.
"They shouldn't have to pay the price for (Saddam Hussein's) actions," she said.
"Just because the UN says it's all right to go ahead and do this doesn't mean that it's going to be any safer for the people of Iraq. They're the ones who are going to suffer."
A march in Quebec City attracted approximately 3,000 people, according to police.
Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe was among the Montreal marchers who felt the United States cannot act alone against Iraq.
"The United States defence minister told us last week how it was unfortunate they can't use chemical weapons, and that the use of atomic weapons was a possibility," Duceppe said. "My God, it makes no sense for people who are supposedly responsible to use such language. I am very happy the (UN weapons) inspectors showed there's not enough proof to go to war with Iraq."
Duceppe said the Bloc opposes the fact that a decision on Canada's involvement in a possible war would be made by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his cabinet, and not voted on in the House of Commons.
Layton said Saturday's turnout shows the anti-war movement is gaining momentum rather than dying down.
"There's no question Canadians are beginning to become worried and fearful," he said. "But more and more of them expressing their views like this opens up the door to some hope."
In Edmonton, as many as 12,000 protesters of all ages marched through downtown in a procession that stretched for five blocks. They chanted, stamped their feet in the -10C cold and carried signs with messages such as "Let Exxon Send Their Own Troops," "World Peace is Suffering from Colin Cancer" and "Smart Bombs are Stupid."
The demonstrators wound up outside the Stanley Milner Library, where Canadian nationalist and publisher Mel Hurtig told them a U.S.-led war on Iraq would lead to dangerous destabilization all over the region.
"Mr. Bush, you are behaving in a paranoid, reckless, aggressive and totally irresponsible manner," Hurtig said to cheers.
"Canadians are with you in your efforts to thwart terrorism, but we are not with you in your aggressive, unjustified, imperialistic behaviour."
Hurtig called on Canada to press for more UN weapons inspectors and more time to disarm Iraq without resorting to force. He warned Chretien and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham there could be a high political price to pay if that doesn't happen.
"Canadians will never, ever forgive you if you obsequiously bow to American pressure."
In Halifax, where temperatures dipped to -30C with wind chill, between 1,000 to 1,500 people marched through the city's downtown, chanting "This war is not for missiles, it's for oil" as they stamped their feet to anti-globalization rap songs sung by a man on a makeshift bike cart.
The march was the third in which Margaret Haliburton, a retired school teacher, had taken part in since the Bush administration threatened military action against Iraq.
"I feel very, very strongly that we won't gain anything by war. It's just endangering too many people," said the mother of six children, who said she will continue to march until the threat of war is over.
"You have to do something, what else can you do? Pray and show your support. I hope it works."
The U.S. has accused the government of Saddam Hussein of supporting terrorism and rebuilding its banned weapons of mass destruction program.
A similar march in January in Halifax drew a slightly larger crowd of 1,500.
Lindsey Pendleton, a university student from New Brunswick, said the sheer size of the rallies is forcing decision-makers to listen.
"I'm really excited to hear that there was almost a million people out in London and they're expecting half a million people in New York," she said. "Just to have all the people out and marching for the cause. It's definitely having an impact on the world leaders."
Protesters also hit some of Canada's smaller locales including Meadow Lake, Sask., with a population of about 5,000.
About 45 marchers joined the global protest by mainly sticking to the sidewalks and snaking through the town.
"I came out to stop the war so no one will die," said Barbara Merasty, 11, from the Flying Dust reserve next to the town.
----
Initial Report: Anti-War Demo in Berlin
IndyMedia-UK,
by asdföjkl
Sat Feb 15 '03
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=53726&group=webcast
Half a million people take to the streets of Berlin in opposition to a war on Iraq. Demo and rally continues...
NTV (a German corporate media company) are reporting that upto half a million people are currently attending a demonstration in Berlin against a way on Iraq.
In a similar arragement to the demo currently taking place in London, two demos met in separate parts of Berlin at 12 noon today to protest against a war in the Gulf. The demos both headed to the same destination. A rally with music and speakers is currently taking place.
The demo was made up of many different groups of people. Some thanking or praising the SPD and Green Party's "anti-war" positions, and others criticising them for not going far enough (eg: still allowing the US/UK to use bases in Germany and granting them fly-over rights). Others said that their rhetoric empty and that self-interest fuelled their anti-war position.
Many political parties, trade unions, NGO's and left-wing and peace groups took part in the demonstration - along with thousands of unaffiliated individuals.
The NPD (Nationalist Party of Deutschland)had threatened to openly attend the demonstration, but (as far as I am aware) were nowhere to be seen.
An 'autonomous bloc', or rather - several small autonomous/radical blocs, took part in the demonstration, hanging banners with slogans such as "Fight Capitalist War! Fight Capitalist Peace! Hallucinations Burst - Disolve Germany!", "Domination Creates War", "Against Capitalist War - No God, No State, No Patriarchy". A war memorial (not sure which one, a big statue that was a tribute to some General or other I think - but not too sure????) was paint-bombed and some (but very little) graffiti was sprayed, including slogans such as "No War But The Class War!", "No War - @" etc...
The police pressence on the demo was fairly low (compared to on other demos in Berlin, anyhow!), beside their blocking the roads to the American and British Embassies.
The demo is still going on and there is a plan for people to converge on the Reichstag at 6pm to spell out an anti-war message with tourches....
add your own comments many other small towns of germany dit protest by W,G.Herrmann 5:40pm Sat Feb 15 '03 wg.herrmann@t-online.de
in many other towns of germany thousands of people dit protest against war in iraq. for a sample: in my hometown with a population of 50.000 people over 1000 citizen dit protest. fotos by Spintlaus 5:56pm Sat Feb 15 '03
fotos from Berlin -> web adress
de.indymedia.org/2003/02/41511.shtml stuttgart: 50.000 by ein schwabe 10:33pm Sat Feb 15 '03
50.000 people demonstrate in stuttgart, in the south of germany
-------
Giving Christianity A Bad Name
Sat, 15 Feb 2003
From: Gary Kohls - gkohls@cpinternet.com
Item: Today, George W. Bush was introduced as "our friend and brother in Christ." Appearing at the National Religious Broadcasters convention, before a backdrop that read "Advancing Christian Communications," the president [sic] was hailed as a man who "unapologetically proclaims his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."
What kind of Christian, what kind of Christianity and what kind of "Christian" broadcasters are gleefully supporting a president who is unapologetically planning the un-Christ-like mass slaughter of innocent Iraqi children? Isn't slaughter of innocents the job of people like Herod?
What kind of god do these "pious" people think they are praising and worshipping?
What kind of scripture passages are they reading that justify their participation in an evil so monstrous that only the forces of the satanic could easily approve? It certainly isn't Jesus' Good News manifesto - the Sermon on the Mount.
Certainly that type of Christian, that type of Christianity, that type of Christian radio broadcasting and that type of god are not of the same divine spirit of the nonviolent Jesus, who would have nobody radiated by uranium shells, nobody suffering when the cruise missiles explode and nobody thrown into the flames.
Certainly their type of god is not the true God as revealed by Jesus - the holy, unconditionally loving, everlastingly merciful and endlessly forgiving spirit of goodness.
Certainly Jesus is spinning at the right hand of God as his so-called followers do their diabolical thing, pushing for their mythical nuclear Armageddon (their crony Ronald Reagan missed his golden opportunity with the nuclear button 20 years ago). These pro-violence religious are banking on the theoretical Rapture which will whisk them up to heaven, leaving us heathen and pagans, even us Christian peacemakers to roast in the burning aftermath for a millenium or so.
It's no wonder that the right-wing, theologically punitive Christianity of George W. Bush (the original form of which was all about love and nonviolence and Christ-like pacifism) is so despised by the rational world. That "Bad News" Christianity is even resented by most centrist Christians here in America, although one wouldn't be able to tell from the silence of their leaders.
Well, the world has waited long enough to hear the authentic body of Christ stand up and say NO! to those who proclaim by their deeds the existence of a wrathful God, a pro-violent Jesus, the justification for war. This Hanging Judge president and his minions, who are quite ably representing the Principalities and Powers, must be exposed - and rejected - for what they are.
The body of Christ needs to stand up and refute the silence of its military chaplains who consistently refuse to say word one about their soldiers' willing participation in mass slaughter and other monstrous evils.
The body of Christ needs to loudly proclaim what Jesus proclaimed 2000 years ago: "Violence is forbidden for those who wish to follow me." "Be compassionate to these least." "Forgive 70 X 7." "Love your enemies and feed them if they are hungry." "Thou shall not kill anybody - friend, neighbor or enemy - for violence is counter-productive to my mission." "And don't listen to any false prophets who justify killing and war, for they only mislead you into the way of the satanic." "And prayerfully read Matthew 25: 31-46, the Last Judgment Passage, where the blueprint for living the godly life is so clearly laid out. It is not how religious you were, nor how often you prayed, nor even how often you went to church that will judge you, but whether you were merciful or not to the least of these."
Then Jesus might say to George W. Bush and others who claim to be followers of Jesus: "And right now, your final judgment test is going to be how you treat my beloved Iraqi children."
Gary G. Kohls, MD, Duluth, MN, for Every Church A Peace Church (www.ecapc.org)
--
What Would You Do If You Saw Your Nation Going Fascist?
OK, so you call yourself a patriot. But what exactly do you think that word means?
Is it the patriotism that says "My Country, May She Always Be Right; But My Country, Right Or Wrong?"
Is it the patriotism of the 16th Century's Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and Philip Melancthon of Augsburg Confession fame (1530) that believed that every leader of a nation was ordained by a pro-violent, justified war theory god who endorsed the beheading of criminals ("punishment by the sword") and was OK with the participation of his children in the mass slaughter of those perceived to be God's enemies?
Or are you the type of patriot that loves his or her country so much that you won't let tyrants or the super-rich or godless mega-corporations take it over out of their greed for more power and wealth? Are you willing to have a lover's quarrel with your country?
In order to find out which type of patriot you are, read the following hypothetical situation, and you can judge for yourself.
Suppose that you were a white, God-fearing, church-going citizen in a country that prided itself in its inventiveness, its literacy, its art, its culture, its honored military history, its glory in past wars and its current superpower status and you saw your democratic institutions and the human rights of your neighbors being degraded and taken away.
Say that you saw a bunch of powerful corporate types, who lied consistently to enrich themselves and were obsessed with the desire to wage aggressive war. Say that they started to grab control of your country's government, judiciary and military. Say these cunning politicians and their ruthless financiers, without winning the popular vote in any fair election, gained control of the highest office in the land, and then, in rapid succession, started decimating the rights of its citizens, declaring liberal causes illegal, purging all minority groups and socialists, silencing the liberal press, working to destroying all political opposition, censoring the media and marginalizing and silencing the artists, the poets, the writers and creative thinkers.
You would be in 1930s Germany and the tyrants would have been Adolf Hitler's cunning and cruel henchmen. And what would you, or any of us, have done in that situation?
If you were an average white, affluent, employed citizen, with all the privilege and power granted to you by that majority status, you would have said nothing in opposition to the leaders of Germany, even as the rights of their targeted minority groups were rapidly being taken away and people started disappearing into the gulag of prison institutions.
As an average Christian, you would have obeyed your German military veteran bishop or pastor, almost all of whom had pledged a loyalty oath to their Fuhrer so that they felt duty-bound to follow him instead of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Because of a out of context single passage in the Epistle to the Romans (if you regarded the Bible as the inerrant word of God), you would have been inclined to obey St. Paul and the existing rulers of your nation in this time of crisis rather than the great truth that all humans deserve freedom, liberty and mercy.
If you were an average white lawyer, physician or psychiatrist, for example, you would have readily joined Hitler's Nazi Party, for doing otherwise would have jeopardized your practice. And you would have kept your mouth shut when witnessing the anguish of your Jewish, Slavic, Gypsy, socialist, liberal or homosexual clients and patients as they were forced to steadily march toward the concentration camps and gas chambers.
But the title question wonders if you would you have been a "good" patriot. Would you have been on the wrong side of history by being obedient to the local fuhrer and to the flag that symbolized his rule?
Knowing that any German citizen seen helping out the outlawed "enemies of the state" was guilty of treason, on whose side would you have lined up? Would you have taken the side of the oppressed and outcast or the side of the rulers?
Knowing that saluting the Swastika was regarded as a crucial act of patriotism and that flag-burning was a crime, would you have stood with the victims or would you have taken the side of the victimizers?
On which side would you have been, the "terrorist" organizations courageously and patriotically trying to save their beloved nation from fascism, or would you have been on the "safe" side with the militarists and corporatists who looked like they were going to be the winners? Your answer will describe your politics - and your theology.
Now fast forward to 2003...but I suppose that we won't have to do that. The point has probably been made.
Gary G. Kohls, MD,
Duluth, MN
Gary Kohls is a Duluth area physician, a peace and justice activist and a founding member of the faith-based organization, Every Church A Peace Church (www.ecapc.org).
--
"The project of the conservative throughout the ages is the search for a higher moral justification for selfishness" is still worth every word of political philosophy written since the war, as well as being a damn good explanation of why self-styled "Libertarians" and traditional conservatives stick together. -- JK Galbraith, economist and ambassador
"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace... They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their duty but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches."--Eugene V. Debs
"Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others."--Emma Goldman
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.