February 17, 2003

CONTENTS     

EDITORIAL

The strong stance of ‘old Europe’ this last week against a rush to war has led to concern about whether political divisions threaten to undermine the UN Security Council, the EU and NATO.  With the inconclusive Blix report, this debate is likely to continue in the immediate future.  Yet, looked at from a different perspective, rather than weakening the institutions this important debate could actually strengthen them. 

Much of the public scepticism about politics comes from a feeling that governing bodies – whether they be national cabinets, the EU, the NATO Council or the Security Council – often act just as rubber stamps.  The real decisions that affect the world are often seen as happening away from the public eye. One of the strengths of these institutions should be that they allow for a plurality of voices to be heard.   We must not forget that these institutions are not entities in themselves, they are made up of individual states.  Too often we highlight splits as damaging, where it should be sometimes seen as healthy that countries take differing views. Well-informed debates should ultimately lead to better decision-making. 

The large anti-war marches across the world this weekend are also a demand from the public to take part in this democratic debate and for their voices to be heard.  It is vital that governments take note of this groundswell of popular opinion. One of the responses to the public protests has been for governments to argue the case more strongly for the 'morality' of war. However, both sides of the debate need to be careful about absolutist judgments about right or wrong being on their side. In practice a consequentialist calculation has to be made. The possible severe consequences of a conflict in terms of the future of Iraq, regional stability and the possible impact on terrorism must also be assessed.

Paul Eavis, Director Saferworld

“Wake up and smell the democracy” Oscar winning actor Tim Robbins after being asked what message the large peace protest in London on February 17 should send to Tony Blair .

 “Considering how any such war would affect the region so dramatically, it is disheartening to observe that backing has not been forthcoming from Arab nations for the position being taken by Russia, France and Germany” Editorial in Dubai’s Gulf News.

“We don’t have the means to attack Israel. We had the (means) in 1991: we don’t have them today. We can’t talk of reprisals when we don’t have the means”  Tariq Aziz

“I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction” Tony Blair, addressing the Labour Party Spring conference.

“Donald Rumsfeld talks about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. What Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t tell you is that he has the receipts for all of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction” Civil Rights campaigner Jesse Jackson.

UN ACTIVITIES

On February 14, the UN Security Council heard an update from Hans Blix on the weapons inspections in Iraq. The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC delivered a mixed report about Iraq’s disclosure of its weapons stockpiles. Coming almost two weeks after the US Secretary of State’s presentation before the UNSC in which he argued that Iraq was not cooperating and was hiding weapons, Blix noted that “Since we arrived in Iraq, 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 in advance that the inspectors were coming”.

Expressing concern about the possible existence of hidden weapons, however, Blix pointed to an Iraqi document that suggested about 1,000 tons of chemical agents were unaccounted for. He emphasized that, “If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented”. 

Mohammed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the IAEA, delivered to the UNSC an update on the status of IAEA's nuclear verification activities. ElBaradei said that “The focus of the IAEA inspection has now moved from the reconnaissance phase into the investigative phase.”  He said that “since the January 27 report, the IAEA has conducted an additional 38 inspections at 19 locations, for a total of 177 inspections at 125 locations. Iraq has continued to provide immediate access to all locations”.

UN inspectors found an Iraqi missile that slightly exceeded range limits set by the United Nations. However, officials in the Iraqi government had apparently cooperated with inspectors and had informed them about the Samoud II missile, which has a range of more than 150 kilometres, or 93 miles.

Inspectors call on governments to share intelligence

Blix called upon governments with intelligence resources to share them with the inspectors: “We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programs continue to exist. The U.S. Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion”.  Noting cooperation from some governments on this front, Blix announced that U-2 surveillance aircraft and French Mirage aircraft would be used to help inspections in the coming weeks. Germany has offered drones and Russia has offered an Anatov aircraft with night-vision capabilities to enhance the inspections process.

Positions harden in UN Security Council debate

Upon hearing the reports of Blix and ElBaradei, the UNSC entered a debate.  US Secretary of State Colin Powell said again that he did not want the inspections process to “be endlessly strung out, as Iraq was trying to do”. On the other hand, Germany, which presently holds the Chair of the UNSC, called for more inspections. Gerhard Schroeder asked, “Why should we now turn away from this path? Why should we now halt the inspections?” He reiterated his support for France’s proposal for a more robust inspections regime. The day after the updates and debates in the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for inspections to continue, but made clear that “the ball is again in the Iraqi leadership’s court”.

Regional and Strategic Impacts

Day of protest sees around 100 million globally on streets to protest against war

February 15 and 16 saw demonstrations against the potential war in Iraq in some 600 cities in 60 countries across the globe. It was the largest coordinated protest action the world has ever seen. London, Rome, Madrid and Barcelona led in size with over a million protestors at each rally. In New York, one of several American cities where protests took place, police clashed with demonstrators as numbers swelled far beyond original predictions. In Baghdad, heavily armed protestors took to the streets in support of Hussein.

Arab dispute over “inevitability” of war

Saudi Arabia has been leading efforts among Arab governments to discuss the possible ousting of Saddam Hussein and provide amnesty for some of Iraq’s top officials. A member of the Iraqi National Council, Muhammad Mozaffer Al Adhami, said "What is happening now shows that no one [of the Arab leaders] cares about Iraq", and that Arab leaders were acting as if "war is undoubtedly going to take place and could not be avoided". However, the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarek, called for Arab leaders to hold a summit by the end of the month in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.

However, on Sunday February 16, at the Arab League in Cairo foreign ministers adopted a resolution to reject “any (US) aggression against Iraq”. The resolution, that is not binding, was more of a symbolic gesture and affirmed that Arab states were “not to provide any kind of assistance or facilities that can be used to threaten the safety and territorial integrity of Iraq.”  Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi showed a willingness on the part of the Arab nations to speak up against the war, saying, “Efforts are focused on finding a way to stem war. These efforts will continue. In the region all nations oppose war and unilateralism. Europe has also similar attitude”.

Many felt that the Arab world was quiet in comparison to the anti-war protests across the world, leading the UAE paper al-Bayan, to comment “more than one million Europeans demonstrate against the attack on Iraq while Arab people and their leaders are in a deep coma”. This was mirrored by the Arab newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi: “It is a disgrace to see the entire people of the world more concerned about Iraq than its people and the sons of this nation”.

Iraqi opposition leaders oppose US plans for post-war Iraq

Secretary of State Powell told Congress last week that a US General would rule a post-conflict Iraq for the first two years – with the help of the Sunni minority, which is currently reflected in the present regime. (USA Today 13/2/03)

Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, said the United States would have five goals if it invaded Iraq: “the liberation of the Iraqi people; the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); the elimination of its terrorist infrastructure; the safeguarding of its territorial integrity; and the beginning of its political and economic reconstruction”. (Some of the key issues the United States is considering are included in updated Congressional Research Service reports on dealing with a post-conflict Iraq and US efforts to change the Iraqi regime.)

The main opposition groups condemned US plans for avoiding the introduction of western-style democracy and leaving Iraq to the present ruling Baath Party. The leading Iraqi opposition group the Iraqi National Congress called the plan, reportedly drawn up under pressure from the Gulf States, “an unmitigated disaster”. (Observer February 16)  The two Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, reacted angrily to the plan and have accelerated moves to hold a conference of opposition parties in Salahudin (opposition headquarters of the KDP) this week. Kurdish leader Hoshyar Zebari said: ”If the US wants to appose its own government regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash…we want to know if we are partners in regime change or not.” (Independent 17/2/03)

Israel prepares for war

Israel was intensifying its preparations for war this past week as it called up reservists to operate anti-missile batteries. Amos Yaron, Director-General of Israel’s Defence Ministry, called on citizens to stockpile food and to prepare for a possible biological or chemical attack in case of an Iraq war. Kuwait also has been preparing for war by sealing-off the northern half of the country and it has started to shift its northern oil rigs that could be in danger once a war with Iraq starts. Iraqi troops set afire Kuwaiti oil fields as they fled coalition troops in the Gulf War of 1991, which caused massive environmental damage.

Troop build-up in region

Fifty thousand US troops are already stationed in Kuwait, where military computer simulation exercises were conducted last week. Tens of thousands more troops are on the way to Kuwait, and British and Australian troops will join them. The Czech Republic and Germany already have a small force in Kuwait to help deal with nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks.   

NATO tensions

In an agreement signed on February 16 NATO will supply missiles, aerial surveillance and equipment to combat nuclear, chemical and biological attack for Turkey. Last week the US had warned that it would proceed without without NATO if necessary when the institution plunged into the worst crisis in its 54-year  history when France, Germany and Belgium refused to sanction the mobilisation of NATO forces within Turkey, arguing that military steps in Turkey now would send the wrong message, namely, that diplomatic efforts to ensure Iraqi disarmament are exhausted. 

Germany and Belgium have now dropped their objections, yet the decison was made by the Defence Planning Committee (of which France is not a member) rather than the North Atlantic Council.  Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO repeated reassurances that, "these decisions do not prejudge any other decisions.  This is not a step towards going to war" (The Independent 17/2/03)

While members of NATO debated whether to protect Turkey in case of war with Iraq, Ankara is negotiating with Washington for economic aid to help the country cope with the fall out from a war. On February 18 Turkey’s parliament is planning to vote on approving the hosting of 30,000-40,000 US troops in the country.

UK and European Debates

Speaking at the Labour Party Conference, in response to the latest UN report, Tony Blair admitted that he risked his political reputation by his continued support for military action against Iraq.  Blair reiterated his desire to achieve disarmament by whatever means through the UN which was why, he said, “there will be more time given to the inspectors”. Blair now has until February 28 when Blix delivers his third report, to build a coalition of the willing in favour of military action and strengthen public opinion. In response to the current public mood of opposition, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted "there appeared to be a majority for taking action if that is endorsed by [a further] UN resolution".  

Humanitarian concerns

On February 12 UK Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, gave evidence to the Commons International Development Committee on humanitarian concerns in Iraq. She made clear that a second resolution would make it easier for the mechanisms of the UN to deal with any potential humanitarian crisis in Iraq.  While admitting that her department was co-operating with the military planners over potential humanitarian issues, she indicated that the risk of a crisis would be much greater without a UN mandate. Short said that any aid would rely heavily on the existing Oil For Food (OFF) programme, already the world’s largest aid distribution system, feeding some 10 million Iraqis and larger than the entire World Food Organisation’s existing budget. 

However, a leaked UN report dated January 7 revealed that in spite of requests to the US, UK and other western governments for emergency aid in case of war, “no funds have been made available to any agencies to date.”  The report gave a bleaker picture of the potential humanitarian crisis than previously reported, saying that 30% of Iraqi children “would be at risk of death from malnutrition” if a war took place due to aid staff withdrawals during conflict. (Guardian 15/2/03)

EU emergency summit

US Debates

Inspections process in doubt

This week the US Administration continued to show impatience with the UN process. Secretary of State Powell said in an interview after the UNSC meeting last Friday that “No matter how robust the inspection regime you make the inspection regime, if Iraq is not cooperating, if Iraq is not complying with the resolution, you're not going to get to the right answer which is the disarmament of Iraq”. 

Nevertheless, some Americans still had faith in an inspections process.  Jessica Tuchman Mathews, the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has argued that,  “If the coercive inspections fail, war would be necessary. But there is one huge benefit that war cannot bring if the inspections succeed. That is a message of unswerving, broad-based, international determination to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It will be heard far beyond Iraq, all the way to Pyongyang”.

US to use nuclear weapons?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, even though he said, "we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities" (The New York Times 14/02/03) The U.S. Strategic Command has prepared a "Theater Nuclear Planning Document" listing Iraqi targets for a nuclear strike. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said in a letter to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that the document "appears to be a fundamental change in the U.S. nuclear policy by explicitly stating that nuclear weapons may be used by the United States to respond to a possible chemical or biological weapons attack".

… and chemical weapons?

According to a February 7 news release from The Sunshine Project top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in any invasion.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5 testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee.  This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use chemical weapons in its campaign to rid other countries of such weapons.

Rumsfeld stated that plans are being made for multiple applications, including use of gas or aerosols on unarmed Iraqi civilians, in caves, and on prisoners. Rumsfeld described applications of a "riot control agent" that clearly imply the complete incapacitation of victims, combatant and non-combatant, in armed conflict - a definition and usages that are at odds with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion – if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere.

In October 2002, Russian Special Forces used an incapacitating biochemical weapon when attempting to rescue hostages held by Chechen separatists. It resulted in the deaths of over 100 hostages and as many as 50 Chechen separatists. 

Alleged links between al-Qaeda and Iraq

The Bush Administration continued to emphasize the link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. After an audio tape allegedly made by Osama Bin Laden was aired, US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said in a press briefing on February 11, in response to the alleged link, “The Secretary made clear that we thought they were bound by a common hatred; that is what brought them together. And I think that's really what you did have bin Laden confirming today in this tape. In the tape, he says it doesn't matter if people are socialist, we're going to fight together with them to destroy everything that we can”.

LATEST POLL RESULTS

American perceptions worldwide

In Gallup polls, last February 2002, 79% of Americans felt that the United States was perceived favourably across the world.  A year on only 57% believe that George Bush and US Foreign Policy are viewed positively worldwide. Although public support for a war is divided at 50-50, the approval ratings for countries such as France and Germany have sharply declined.  At the same time, approval ratings for countries that support military action have risen.

When asked how much longer the US administration should give UN weapons inspectors to conduct their work in Iraq before deciding to attack Iraq, 47% of those Americans polled said inspectors should have a few more weeks, while an additional 28% said they should have a few more months.

UK and European polls

An ICM poll commissioned for the BBC on February 12 showed 45% opposed to war with Iraq with or with out a second UN resolution.  The same poll found 56% of respondents thought there was a link between Iraq and al-Qeada and 43% thought Blair “acts as the foreign minister of the United States”. A poll by the Times on February 11 have shown that the Labour Party’s lead (35%) had slipped to only one point in front of the Conservatives (34%).

A Gallup Europe poll on February 13 saw support for the war with UN backing running at 27% Germany, 55% in France, 46% in Italy and 30% in Spain .

UP-COMING EVENTS

Feb 18: Second NATO vote on whether to allow US combat troops in Turkey. 

Feb 18: EU Emergency summit (European Council)

Feb 18: 108^th Meeting of OPEC Board of Governors - Vienna, Australia.

March 1: Deadline for Pentagon report laying out the strategic nuclear force plans through fiscal 2012. 

March 1: Blix presents fortnightly report to the Security Council.

March 11: 123^rd Meeting of the OPEC Conference – Vienna, Austria.

March 17: UN Commission on Human Rights Session – Geneva, Switzeland.

End of March: Blix submits "key remaining disarmament tasks.”

April 1: Deadline for Pentagon report on weapons to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets.

May 31: Deadline for National Academy of Science study on nuclear and conventional weapons.

June 3: NATO Ministerial meeting – Spain.

If you would like to unsubscribe from these email updates, please email: unsubscribe@iraqconflict.org.

If you would like to subscribe another email address, please email: subscribe@iraqconflict.org and include your name and affiliation (optional).  

We welcome any comments or feedback.