Here's the Point

In Bush we trust not
By PAUL KRUGMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES

SO IT seems that Turkey wasn't really haggling about the price, it just wouldn't accept payment by cheque or credit card. In return for support of an Iraq invasion, it wanted - and got - immediate aid, cash on the barrelhead, rather than mere assurances about future help. You'd almost think President George W. Bush had a credibility problem.

And he does.

The funny thing is that this administration sets great store on credibility. As the justifications for invading Iraq come and go - President Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons; no, but he's in league with Osama bin Laden; no, but he's really evil - the case for war has come increasingly to rest on credibility.

You see, say the hawks, we've already put our soldiers in position, so we must attack or the world won't take us seriously.

But credibility isn't just about punishing people who cross you. It's also about honouring promises, and telling the truth. And those are areas where the Bush administration has problems.

Consider the fact that Mexican President Vicente Fox appears unwilling to cast his United Nations Security Council vote in America's favour. Given Mexico's close economic ties to the United States, and Mr Fox's one-time personal relationship with Mr Bush, Mexico should have been more or less automatically in America's column.

But the Mexican President feels betrayed. He took the politically risky step of aligning himself closely with Mr Bush - a boost to Republican efforts to woo Hispanic voters - in return for promised reforms that would legalise the status of undocumented immigrants. The administration never acted on those reforms, and Mr Fox is in no mood to do Mr Bush any more favours.

Mr Fox is not alone.

New York's elected representatives stood side by side with Mr Bush a few days after Sept 11 in return for a promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they started to question the administration's commitment, the budget director, Mr Mitch Daniels, accused them of 'money-grubbing games'. Firefighters and policemen applauded Mr Bush's promise, more than a year ago, of US$3.5 billion (S$6 billion) for 'first responders'; so far, not a penny has been delivered.

Then there's the honesty thing.

Mr Bush's mendacity on economic matters was obvious even during the 2000 election. But lately it has reached almost pathological levels. Last week, Mr Bush - who has been having a hard time getting reputable economists to endorse his economic plan - claimed an endorsement from the latest Blue Chip survey of business economists. 'I don't know what he was citing,' declared the puzzled author of that report, which said no such thing.

Despite his decline in the polls, Mr Bush hasn't fully exhausted his reservoir of trust in this country. People still remember the stirring image of the President standing amid the rubble of the World Trade Center, his arm around a fireman's shoulders - and our ever-deferential, protective media hasn't said much about the broken promises that followed. But the rest of the world simply doesn't trust Mr Bush either to honour his promises or to tell the truth.

Can we run a foreign policy in the absence of trust? The administration apparently thinks it can use threats as a substitute. Officials have said that they expect undecided Security Council members to come around out of fear of being on the 'wrong' side. And Mr Bush may yet get the UN to acquiesce, grudgingly, in his war.

But even if he does, we shouldn't delude ourselves: Whatever credibility we may gain by invading Iraq is small recompense for the trust we have lost around the world.

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
A protest against his Govt's race for war

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally.

We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

Will the real Donald Rumsfeld stand up?

Donald Rumsfeld, anthrax and plague- This warmonger did deals with IraqBy Helen Shooter

DONALD RUMSFELD, the US defence secretary, is urging George Bush on to attack Iraq. He demands war because "Iraq has nuclear and chemical weapons capacity". But one of the US's top daily newspapers, the Washington Post, last week underlined Rumsfeld's gross hypocrisy.

It detailed how Rumsfeld played a key role in supporting and arming Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. He was a key part of the project that saw the US supply the Iraqi military with viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague for use against his enemies.

Journalist Michael Dobbs says in the article, "Declassified documents show Rumsfeld travelled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions. "The story of US involvement with Saddam Hussein included large scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors."

Rumsfeld was appointed by US president Ronald Reagan to be his special presidential envoy to Iraq for seven months from 1983 to 1984. The US government had come to back Iraq after Saddam Hussein launched war against Iran in 1980. The US had seen its ally, the Shah of Iran, toppled in 1979, and feared that revolution would spread across the Middle East unless the new Iranian government was smashed.

Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq because he was trusted to follow orders without question. He had been deputy defence secretary under US president Ford from 1975 to 1977, Ford's chief of staff from 1974 to 1975, US ambassador to NATO from 1973 to 1974 and held various jobs in US president Nixon's administration from 1969 to 1973. Rumsfeld's job was to boost US relations with Iraq-despite the regime's use of chemical weapons.

In November 1983, a month before Rumsfeld made his first visit to Iraq, US Secretary of State George Schultz was told intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of chemical weapons" against the Iranians. But when Rumsfeld arrived on 19-20 December, he did not condemn the Iraqi regime.

The message he carried to Saddam Hussein was that the US regarded "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West". Rumsfeld told Saddam Hussein that the US was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation.

Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with Rumsfeld's visit which had "elevated US/Iraqi relations to a new level". "The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret," says Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post.

On 5 March 1984 a US state department issued a statement saying, "Available evidence indicates Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons." The next month Rumsfeld went back to Baghdad to meet Tariq Aziz, then Iraq's foreign minister.

He again did not condemn the regime for using chemical weapons. On the day of his visit a United Nations report said, "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of experts has concluded."

Yet the New York Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." It was not simply that Rumsfeld said nothing about the Iraqi regime using poison gas. He sent out clear signals that Saddam Hussein was a man to do business with.

Dobbs confirms, "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. The US policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show."

Dobbs reports the statement of Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who accompanied Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1983. Teicher admitted in a sworn court affidavit in 1995 that the US "actively supported the Iraqi war effort".

Dobbs says in the Washington Post, "A 1994 investigation by the Senate banking committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-1980s under licence from the commerce department including various strains of anthrax."

The weaponry supplied by the US in the 1980s has almost certainly been destroyed by now. But unlike 20 years ago Saddam Hussein is no longer a US ally. So the same Rumsfeld who brokered deals with Saddam Hussein is ready to murder Iraqi civilians in order to bring about "regime change" and demonstrate US power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The non-governmental organisations, these people stand up and fuss at the United States because there's a baby in the streets who was killed by something."
Rumsfeld on critics of the US war on Afghanistan, from a transcript of an interview with the editorial board of the New York Times, November
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is a millionaire as well

RUMSFELD LIKES to come across as a folksy character and is sometimes portrayed as a bit of a joke. In fact he is a cynical warmonger who is obscenely wealthy. He owns assets worth $217 million. From 1977 to 1985 he was the chief executive officer of G D Searle, the pharmaceutical firm which was later bought out by Monsanto, the company specialising in GM foods.

He cut a third of the workforce, which boosted shares in the company from $12 to around $60. From 1990 to 1993 as chairman and chief executive of General Instruments, which was bought out by Motorola, he carried out another jobs massacre and again shares shot up-from $15 to $50.

His management techniques earned him a place in Fortune magazine's "Ten toughest bosses in America". As a director of Gulfstream Aerospace, his stock in the company was valued at $11 million when the firm was acquired by General Dynamics in 1999. But he likes to claim that he kept his business interests in defence companies separate from his position as US defence secretary.

Rumsfeld is a key figure behind the Star Wars missile plan that would allow the US to launch a first strike against targets all over the world. In 1999 he headed a congressional commission that heavily promoted National Missile Defence.

He was awarded the "Keeper of the Flame" by the right wing organisation the Centre for Security Policy. The group is pro Star Wars. It is funded by corporations which seek to become Star Wars contractors. Rumsfeld is against a ban on chemical weapons.

He opposes nuclear test bans, arguing that this would make it difficult to build new, more powerful weapons.

Which current leader, George Bush, Tony Blair or John Howard make the following statement?

QUOTE:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."


ANSWER:
None of them.

The above statement was attributed to Adolph Hitler's Deputy, Hermann Goering in April 1946, during the Nuremburg War Crime Trial in a book written by Gustave Gilbert entilted "Nuremburg Diary" published in 1947.

The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gustave Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess. Goering's comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary by Gustave Gilbert, pp. 278, Farrar, Straus & Co., 1947.

The full context of the quote was given by Gilbert in his book as follows:

"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Without clear mandate for war by UN, Australia could face International Criminal Court if they took part in a conflict in Iraq

Attack not yet legal, says expert
By Cynthia Banham
February 27 2003

The latest United Nations Security Council draft resolution would NOT be sufficient to authorise a United States-led attack on Iraq under international law, an expert from one of the world's most prestigious international relations schools, Nicholas Wheeler, said yesterday.

Dr Wheeler's comments came as lawyers and academics around Australia called on the Howard Government to "observe the rule of law" in international law, and to publicly reveal any advice it had suggesting a pre-emptive strike against Iraq could be justified.

The call to reveal the legal advice came from the NSW Bar Association, and followed the publication of a letter from eminent legal experts in the Herald who claimed an invasion of Iraq could constitute a war crime.

The experts also warned that Australian military personnel and government officials faced the threat of being hauled before the newly established International Criminal Court if they took part in a conflict in Iraq.

The US, unlike Australia, refused to ratify the ICC statute last year.

Dr Wheeler, a senior lecturer from the University of Wales in Aberystwyth - the site of the world's first department of international relations - said at a talk in Canberra that the draft resolution submitted by the US, Britain and Spain this week merely restated resolution 1441 from November, but what was required was a resolution stating Iraq was in material breach and authorising the "use of all necessary means".

"The language of 'all necessary means' is all you need to say because we've used through the 1990s the language of 'all necessary means' as a euphemism for the use of force - as long as you've got that you have a very clear mandate for war," Dr Wheeler said.

His view was supported by Professor Hilary Charlesworth of the Australian National University - one of the signatories to the Herald letter - who said the latest draft resolution depended "so much" on resolution 1441, about which all the Security Council members had different views, and "just continues the ambiguity".

Professor Charlesworth also said Australians involved in any war in Iraq - including politicians - could find themselves complicit in the committing of war crimes, and so liable to prosecution in the ICC, particularly because Iraq was a highly urbanised country.

She said the definition of war crimes in international law included causing "excessive civilian damage that's disproportionate to the military objective".

"What's excessive? What's disproportionate? These are matters for judgement, but it would seem to me that [with] estimates of a quarter of a million dead ... it's not difficult to say that is excessive civilian damage in light of the military objective of disarming Iraq."

Dr Wheeler also warned that the Bush Administration's request for a legal basis to launch a "preventive war, where there is no imminent danger but where you believe that danger will materialise", was extremely dangerous.

Text of proposals supported by France, Germany and Russia to the Security Council

Following is the text of proposals drafted by France and backed up Germany and Russia that were submitted to the 15-member U.N. Security Council on Monday to challenge a draft resolution by the United States, Britain and Spain.

1. FULL AND EFFECTIVE disarmament in accordance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime.

The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled:

While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;

Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results;

While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi cooperation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.

2. The Security Council must step up its efforts to give a real chance to the peaceful settlement of the crisis. In this context, the following conditions are of paramount importance:

The unity of the Security Council must be preserved;

The pressure that is put on Iraq must be increased.

3. These conditions can be met, and our common objective -the verifiable disarmament of Iraq — can be reached through the implementation of the following proposals:

A) Clear program of action for the inspections:

According to resolution 1284, UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) have to submit their program of work for approval of the Council. The presentation of this program of work should be speeded up, in particular the key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq pursuant to its obligations to comply with the disarmament requirements of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions.

The key remaining tasks shall be defined according to their degree of priority. What is required of Iraq for implementation of each task shall be clearly defined and precise.

Such a clear identification of tasks to be completed will oblige Iraq to cooperate more actively. It will also provide a clear means for the Council to assess the co-operation of Iraq.

B) Reinforced inspections:

Resolution 1441 established an intrusive and reinforced system of inspections. In this regard, all possibilities have not yet been explored. Further measures to strengthen inspections could include, as exemplified in the French non-paper previously communicated to the chief inspectors, the following: increase and diversification of staff an expertise; establishment of mobile units designed in particular to check on trucks; completion of the new system of aerial surveillance; systematic processing of data provided by the newly established system of aerial surveillance.

C) Timelines for inspections and assessment:

Within the framework of resolution 1284 and 1441, the implementation of the program of work shall be sequenced according to a realistic and rigorous timeline:

The inspectors should be asked to submit the program of work outlining the key substantive tasks for Iraq to accomplish, including missiles / delivery systems, chemical weapons / precursors, biological weapons / material and nuclear weapons in the context of the report due March 1st;

The chief inspectors shall report to the Council on implementation of the program of work on a regular basis (every 3 weeks);

A report of UNMOVIC and IAEA assessing the progress made in completing the tasks shall be submitted by the inspectors 120 days after the adoption of the program of work according to resolution 1284;

At any time, according to paragraph 11 of resolution 1441, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA shall report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspections activities as well as failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations;

At any time, additional meetings of the Security Council could be decided, including at high level.

To render possible a peaceful solution inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they can not continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary. This must include the provision of all the additional and specific information on issues raised by the inspectors as well as compliance with their requests, as expressed in particular in Mr. Blix’ letter of February 21st 2003. The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build-up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq.

The text of the U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution on Iraq:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8 November all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a cease-fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein;

Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,

Noting, that in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,

Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution,

Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states,

Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002).

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

IRAQ War - History of Lies, Deception and Mis-Information by US Propaganda

by Mickey Z; February 25, 2003

Hermann Goering, Hitler's deputy, said at his 1946 Nuremberg War Crimes trial: "Why of course the people don't want war. Naturally. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Seven examples of media disinformation.

1. The US and UK are about to start a war against Iraq.

Reality Check: Firstly, it's not a war; it's a slaughter. Second, no matter what you call it, this "war" began when the Security Council imposed comprehensive sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq invaded Kuwait...and has continued unabated since then. The US and Britain bombed Iraq 62 times in 2002 and 13 times in January 2003. The ostensible reason for this bombing is Iraqi "violations" of the "no-fly zone." However, no UN resolution mentions the creation of no-fly zones, let alone military enforcement of any such zone. The war has also continued unabated since August 6, 1990 because sanctions kill 5000 Iraqi children per month. That's 166 per day...about 1 every 10 minutes.

Former Secretary of State Madelaine Albright, when asked to comment on the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of the US sanctions, answered: "We think the price is worth it."

2. This non-stop war is, in part, possible through dehumanization.
The dehumanization of Iraq began with a report that Iraqi soldiers had ripped Kuwaiti babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990. In October 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti "refugee" named Nayirah tearfully described witnessing Iraqi troops stealing incubators from a hospital, leaving 312 babies "on the cold floor to die." When the Senate voted to give support Daddy Bush's war-by a margin of only five votes-seven senators recounted Nayirah's story in justifying their "yes" vote.

Reality Check: Of course, it wasn't true. Nayirah's false testimony was part of a $10 million Kuwait government propaganda campaign managed by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton. Rather than working as a volunteer at a hospital, Nayirah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. "We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," claims Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser. But, he added, "It was useful in mobilizing public opinion."

3. Endless stories about the Iraqi government deliberately withholding and stockpiling food and medicine...and using money intended for humanitarian purposes to build palaces and enrich themselves.

Reality Check: While it is hardly beyond any State to cheat its populace in the name of self-interest, this is an easy case to investigate since funds from Iraqi oil sales are not at the discretion of Saddam Hussein, but are kept in a UN escrow account with the Bank of Paris in New York. In addition, the UN conducts frequent inventories and heavily monitors food and medicine stored in Iraq Tun Myat, humanitarian coordinator and head of the UN's "oil-for-food" program in Baghdad from 2000-2002, told the New York Times: "I think the Iraqi food-distribution system is probably second to none anywhere in the world. It gets to everybody whom it's supposed to get to in the country."

4. Iraq is hiding WMD and kicked out inspectors in December 1998

Reality Check:UNSCOM director Richard Butler, prior to the December 1998 US/UK bombardment of Iraq, removed inspectors. Furthermore, the US government admitted that it had been using UNSCOM to spy on Iraq. Since Iraq pays for the entire UN operation through oil revenues, Iraq was (and probably still is) financing UN workers to spy under US cover.

As for WMD, who has them, and who might use them, it's instructive to recall that the US used WMD on Iraq: 940,000 small depleted uranium (DU) armor-piercing shells from planes and 14,000 larger shells from tanks in 1991.

For those unfamiliar with DU, consider this: When fired, the uranium bursts into flame and sears through steel armor. The heat of the shell causes any diesel fuel vapors in the enemy tank to explode, and the crew inside is burned alive. DU burns on contact, creating tiny aerosolized particles of radiation less than five microns in diameter, small enough to be inhaled. These minute particles can travel long distances when airborne.

The widespread use of DU in the Gulf War has be linked to the Gulf War Syndrome: A 1994 study found that 67 percent of the children conceived by Gulf War veterans in Mississippi since the end of the war were born with severe illnesses or birth defects. DU was also used by the US in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. In other words, the US has conducted 4 nuclear wars: Japan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan but is trying to convince the world that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world.

5. US and UK plans to attack Iraq have nothing to do with oil interests.

Reality Check: Four quick points to ponder:
(a)Iraq possesses the world's second largest proven oil reserves, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, about 11 percent of the world total

(b)Iraq may have additional undiscovered oil reserves, which might equal that of Saudi Arabia.

(c)President-Select Bush, VP Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and others all have strong ties to oil companies.

(d)Chevron once named a tanker after Rice as a gesture of thanks.

6. Hussein has used chemical weapons and even gassed "his own people."

Reality Check: The current debate ignores some relevant points:
(a) On March 5, 1984, State Department spokesperson John Hughes addressed Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran: "The United States strongly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons wherever it occurs." By year's end, the US had established full diplomatic relations with Iraq for the first time since 1967. Six months after that, the Reagan administration authorized the sale to Iraq of 45 dual-use, US-made Bell helicopters.

(b) Former Iraqi officer, General al-Shamari, told Newsweek that he was in charge of firing chemical weapons from howitzers against Iranian troops, and that US satellite information provided the targeting information. A former CIA official confirmed to Newsweek that the US provided military intelligence to Iraq, including on chemical warfare. General al-Shamari now lives safely in the U.S., running a restaurant outside of Washington DC.

(c) The US and UK continued support for Hussein after the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja in 1988.One possible reason for this support: 24 US corporations supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The list includes Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Eastman Kodak, and Bechtel.

(d) If the Kurds are Hussein's people, the Tibetans are Hu Jintao's people; the Zapatistas are Vicente Fox's people; the Chechens are Putin's people; the Palestinians are Sharon's people; the Seminoles were Andrew Jackson's people; and the Puerto Ricans being bombed and radiated with DU in Vieques are Bush's people.

(e) There is documented proof that one nation has used WMD on its own people. In late 1993, then-Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary released documents about secret nuclear experiments by the US government on US citizens. Immediately after the "success" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear researchers wanted to study the effects of plutonium on the human body. They performed two kinds of experiments: (i)The first targeted some 800 African-American prisoners, mentally retarded children, and others who were induced, by money or by verbal subterfuge, to submit to irradiation. (ii)The second test exposed large civilian populations to intentional releases of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. These experiments were not a momentary lapse in judgment: The declassified documents on US radiation experiments stretch three miles long.

"Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."
A report prepared in 1996 by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’

(The thrust in the report was to dissuade the Israelis from going along with the Oslo accord, and outline a new Israeli strategic vision that would not only rid them of their Palestinian problem, but give them "breathing space. The authors of this paper were addressing themselves to then Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but their prescription for a new Israeli policy bears an eerie resemblance to America's post-9/11 stance in the Middle East, and the world at large. )

The Document
A Clean Break:A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform.

To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

-- striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

-- paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

-- striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT:
Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

Text of the speech by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad
At the opening session of the XIII Summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Kuala Lumpur on 24th Feb 2003

THIS Summit Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the first to be held in the new century, indeed the new millennium, is taking place at a most crucial time. The world now lives in fear. We are afraid of everything. We are afraid of flying, afraid of certain countries; afraid of bearded Asian men, afraid of the shoes airline passengers wear; of letters and parcels, of white powder.

The countries allegedly harbouring terrorists, their people, innocent or other-wise, are afraid too. They are afraid of war, of being killed and maimed by bombs being dropped on them, by missiles fired from hundreds of miles away by unseen forces.

They are afraid because they would become the collaterals to be killed because they get in the way of the destruction of their countries.

The preparations and the measures taken to ensure security go on frantically. Trillions of dollars are spent by the world on new weapons, new technology, new strategy; the deployment of forces and inspectors worldwide.

Those who cannot afford these security measures must simply await their fate and trust in God. Yet despite all this, terrorist attacks have taken place where they are least expected, killing the collaterals again.

There is still no guarantee that the well-dressed, clean-shaven family man next door might not become another hijacker, crashing his aircraft into buildings and killing collaterals.

In the meantime, the economy of the world has slowed down and in some instances has been reversed, with huge deficits burdening countries. Jobs are lost and poverty is increasing even in the rich countries. No new investments in foreign countries or at home.

With the threat of war oil prices have shot up, increasing further the economic and social burdens of the poor countries.

Aid for the poor has practically stopped and loans are not available as the poor countries default and default again.

Truly, the world is in a terrible mess, a state that is worse than during the EastWest confrontation, the Cold War. All the great hopes following the end of the Cold War have vanished. And with the terrorists and the anti-terrorists fumbling blindly in their fight against each other, normalcy will not return for quite a long while.

Surely, at some stage, we must ask ourselves why this is happening to the world. Why is there terrorism? Is it true that the Muslims are born terrorists because of the teachings of a prophet who was a terrorist? How do we explain the pogroms, the inquisitions and the holocaust which characterised Christian Europe for almost 2000 years? Why did the Jews choose to seek haven in Muslim countries whenever Christian Europeans persecuted them? Do people seek safety in the land of terrorists? Does not sound very likely.

The Christians too were terrorised, not by Muslims but by fellow Christians who condemned them as heretics. They were persecuted, tortured, burnt at the stake for their beliefs and forced to migrate.

Seems that the Muslims did not have a monopoly of terrorism, certainly not on the scale of the holocaust, the pogroms and the inquisition.

So it cannot be that Muslims are the sole cause of all these problems. If they are not then is it a clash of civilisations, a clash of the Muslim civilisation with the Judaeo-Christian civilisation, that is responsible? Frankly, I do not think so. Frankly, I think it is because of a revival of the old European trait of wanting to dominate the world. And the expression of this trait invariably involves injustice and oppression of people of other ethnic origins and colours.

If we care to think back, there was no systematic campaign of terror outside Europe until the Europeans and the Jews created a Jewish state out of Palestinian land. Incidentally, terrorism was first used by the Haganah and the Irgun Zvai Leumi to persuade the British to set up Israel.

The Palestinians were actually ejected from their homes and their country and forced to live in miserable refugee camps for more than 50 years now.

It is the struggle of the Palestinians to regain their land that has precipitated, first conventional wars, then civil protest and, eventually, violent demonstrations. The Israelis demanded European support to atone for European crimes against them in the past. In desperation the Palestinians finally resorted to what is described as acts of terror. Rightly, this is condemned by the world.

But the world does not condemn as acts of terror the more terrifying acts of the Israelis; the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, the shooting and killing of children, the use of depleted uranium-coated bullets, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes while the occupants are still in them, the helicopter gunships, etc. And Israel is now threatening to use nuclear weapons.

This blatant double standard is what infuriates Muslims; infuriates them to the extent of launching their own terror attacks. If Iraq is linked to al-Qaeda, is it not more logical to link the expropriation of Palestinian land and the persecution and oppression of the Palestinians with Sept 11? It is not religious differences that anger-ed the attackers of the World Trade Center. It is simply sympathy and anger over the expropriation of Palestinian land, over the injustice and the oppression of the Pales-tinians, and Muslims everywhere.

If the innocent people who died in the attack on Afghanistan, and those who have been dying from lack of food and medical care in Iraq, are considered collaterals, are not the 3,000 who died in New York and the 200 in Bali also just collaterals whose deaths are necessary for the operations to succeed? Actually, the life of any human being is sacred, no matter if the person is a friend or an enemy. That is why war is not a solution. A contest based on who can kill more people in order to establish who is the victor and who the loser, worse still in order to determine who is right and who is wrong is primitive and does not speak well of the so-called high level of civilisation we have achieved.

The greatness of a nation should be based on a culture that values high moral qualities, aesthetics, learning and advancement in the sciences. Unfortunately, thousands of years after the Stone Age we still measure the greatness of a nation by the capacity to slaughter the greatest number of people.

But the oppression and injustice is not confined to waging war and killing people; there is oppression in ideological propagation. We are now allowed only a democratic system of government.

We admit it is by far the best system of government. But applying sanctions, starving people, denying access to medicine in order to force the acceptance of democracy hardly seem to be democratic.

Actually, millions have died because they have not converted to this new religion. And millions more are suffering because they are unable to make democracy work, because of the resulting anarchy.

Relieved of the need to compete with the Communists, the capitalist free traders have ceased to show a friendly face. Their greed knows no bounds. They want countries that fought hard to gain independence to give up that independence, to do away with their borders, to allow the capitalists free access to do what they like to the economies of these countries. They call this free competition.

As they merge and acquire each other, they become monstrous giants against whom the small businesses in the developing countries will not be able to compete. What is the meaning of competition if you cannot win at all? In the end, a few of these monsters will control the economy of the whole world.

The sad thing is that they are not above cheating and corruption. And we know they can fail. We have seen how spectacularly they fail, losing 100 billion dollars in one year. And that is only one corporation.

Then there are the rogue currency traders who destroyed the economies of half the world, threw tens of millions out of work, bankrupted banks and thousands of businesses, caused the collapse of governments and precipitated anarchy; all so that half a dozen individuals can make billions for themselves.

Now the rich give no more aid. They do not lend either. And all the time the international agencies they control try to strangle the debt-laden poor countries which had been attacked by their greedy market manipulators.

The disparities between rich and poor widen daily. The rich have per capita incomes of more than 30,000 US dollars, the poor only 300 US dollars. Still the rich want to squeeze out literally the last drop of blood from the poor.

It is this that plagues the world today, this oppression of the poor by the rich; this injustice, this inequality. To rub salt into the wound, the poor are always being told that they lack transparency and good governance, they don't respect human rights, they don't uphold freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on and so forth, when in fact it is the rich who lack transparency, who do not respect human rights, who curb our right to speak the truth about what they are doing, who use their media to hide their misdeeds and spread lies.

How else can we interpret the operations of the hedge funds and the currency traders, sanctions and the systematic bombing of certain countries, the impoverishment of the already poor, and the censorship of news as well as distorted and fabricated reports about the South? The fact is that the poor countries have been and are being oppressed and terrorised by the rich countries. Naturally, the poor are bitter and angry and have lost faith in justice and honour. And the last straw which caused them to resort to futile and destructive terror attacks is the blatant support for state terrorism as practised by Israel and others.

If Israeli terrorism is a response to Palestinian terrorism, then Palestinian terrorism, and terror acts by their sympathisers must be due to the expulsion of Palestinians from their land, the further occupation of Palestinian territory and the open support for Israeli intransigence and terrorism by the Europeans.

But the developing countries must admit that we are also responsible for the mess the world is in today. We have not used our independence and freedom to develop our countries for the good of our people. Instead, we have been busy overthrowing our governments, setting up new governments which in turn would be overthrown. We have even killed our own people by the millions. And frequently, frustrated with anarchic democracy we resort to autocratic governments, exposing ourselves to much vilification.

The result of this confrontation between the haves and the have nots, the developed and the developing, is a world that is practically ungovernable. Despite all the advances in science and technology, the world is in a terrible state. With more than enough food to feed the six billion people of the world, fully one in six is actually underfed, starving, with hundreds dying daily.

Since Sept 11, the rich and the powerful have become enraged with the poor half of the world. And their extreme measures to ensure security for themselves have only amplified the anger of the oppressed poor. Both sides are now in a state of blind anger and are bent on killing each other, on war.

War solves nothing. War is primitive. Today's war is more primitive than Stone Age wars. The targets are not the fighters, the combatants. The target is the ordinary civilians, the women, children and old people. Whether it is terror attacks or military action, these are the victims.

In primitive wars the carnage is witnessed by the warriors. While the suicidal terrorists die with each attack, the great warriors who press the buttons see nothing of the mangled bodies, the heads and limbs which are torn from disembowelled bodies, the blood and the gore of the innocent people who an instant before were living people like them.

And because they don't see, the button-pressing warriors and the people who commanded them go back to enjoy a hearty meal, watch TV shows or morale-boosting troop entertainers and then retire to their cosy beds for a good sleep.

Tomorrow they will make more sorties, to carpet-bomb more children, women and old people or press more buttons to send missiles to tear off more heads and limbs.

War is about slaughtering people. Newer and more brutal weapons are being invented to kill more people more efficiently. And now there is talk that the use of nuclear weapons is justified. Is it because the people to be slaughtered are chromatically different? Is it because they cannot hit back? Our meeting here today is a meeting of heads of state and heads of government. We must admit that our organisation has not been as effective as it should be. We may want to remain uninvolved and to avoid incurring the displeasure of the powerful countries.

But our people are getting restless. They want us to do something. If we don't then they will, and they will go against us. They will take things into their own hands. Unable to mount a conventional war they will resort to guerilla war, to terrorism, against us and against those they consider to be their oppressors.

They cannot be ignored any longer. We cannot incarcerate them all for we do not always know who they are or where they are.

Sept 11 has demonstrated to the world that acts of terror even by a dozen people can destabilise the whole world completely, put fear into the hearts of everyone, make them afraid of their own shadows.

But their acts have also removed all the restraint in the countries of the north. They now no longer respect borders, international law or even simple moral values. And they are now talking of wars, of the use of military conquests in order to change governments. They are even talking of using nuclear weapons.

It is no longer just a war against terrorism. It is, in fact, a war to dominate the world, i.e., the chromatically different world. We are now being accused of harbouring terrorists, of being an "Axis of Evil", etc.

NAM has a lot of problems and issues which it must tackle. But at the moment the most important threat that we face is the tendency of the powerful to wage war when faced with opposition to the spread of their dominance. We cannot fight a war with them.

Fortunately, many of their people are also sick of war. They have come out in their millions to protest the war-like policies of their leaders. We must join them. We must join their struggle with all the moral force that we can command.

War must be outlawed. That will have to be our struggle for now. We must struggle for justice and freedom from oppression, from economic hegemony. But we must remove the threat of war first. With this Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads we can never succeed in advancing the interests of our countries.

War must, therefore, be made illegal. The enforcement of this must be by multilateral forces under the control of the United Nations. No single nation should be allowed to police the world, least of all to decide what action to take, when.

Globalisation must not be confined to the exploitation of the wealth of the earth only. Globalisation must include the multilateral protection of countries threatened by war or hegemony.

There must be a new world order in which power is shared equitably by all. The United Nations must be reformed. It must no longer be bound by the results of a world war fought more than half a century ago. Everyone must disarm. Weapons of mass destruction must be disallowed for all. And there should be no more research into making conventional weapons more lethal.

If it is right for an international agency in a globalised world to oversee human rights, business practices and the kind of democracy practised by countries, then a truly international agency beholden only to the United Nations General Assembly should oversee the military budget of all countries, big and small.

Trading in arms must come under United Nations supervision. Brutal ethnic cleansing must be stopped by a multinational standing army.

When Japan was defeated, it was allowed to spend only one per cent of its GDP on its armed forces. If such a condition can be imposed on Japan, why can it not be imposed on all countries? In the struggle to outlaw war and control arms, nuclear as well as conventional, NAM will find growing support from among many people in the North. It is a daunting task, nevertheless.

But unless we take the moral high ground now, we will wait in vain for the powerful North to voluntarily give up slaughtering people in the name of national interest.

Again, I would like to say that NAM must struggle to outlaw war. NAM must struggle to outlaw nuclear weapons. NAM must struggle to stop the research and development of more and more lethal so called conventional weapons. NAM must struggle to control the arms trade.

We must work for a new world order, where democracy is not confined to the internal governance of states only but to the governance of the world. We must work for the revival of the United Nations and multilateralism. We must work to do away or modify the powers of the victors of a war fought half a century ago.

We know we are weak. But we also know we have allies in the North. They too want the abolition of wars, the slaughter of people for whatever reason.

They may not agree with us on everything. But in the opposition to war very many will be with us. They are ready to oppose their warlike leaders. We must work with them.

This then is our struggle. We are not irrelevant. We are not anachronistic. We have a vision, the vision to build a new world order, a world order that is more equitable, more just; a world order that is, above all, free from the age-old belief that killing people is right, that it can solve the problems of relations between nations.

For all this we must revitalise the Non-Aligned Movement. And that vitality can only come from our closing ranks and acting together.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before this august assembly. Malaysia pledges to work vigorously to oppose war, including the war against Iraq, and to ensure the success of this, our Movement.

U.S., Britain, Spain Unveil New Iraq Resolution - Groundwork For American-Led Invasion
By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 25, 2003; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 24 -- The United States, Britain and Spain introduced a new draft Security Council resolution today declaring that Iraq has squandered its "final opportunity" to voluntarily disarm and laying the political and legal groundwork for a U.S.-led military invasion.

The introduction of the resolution, which recalls that the 15-nation council warned Iraq in November that it would face "serious consequences" if it did not scrap its banned weapons programs, marked the beginning of what U.S. and British officials characterized as the final push to win council backing for a decision to go to war.

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who have been leading the opposition to an early move to war, responded with their own diplomatic counteroffensive. Meeting in Berlin, they announced a new initiative that would ensure the continuation of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq at least through the middle of the summer. Russian President Vladimir Putin endorsed the proposal.

China Rejects Powell's North Korea Plan Mon Feb 24,
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - Chinese officials rebuffed a U.S. proposal Monday for a regional coalition to pressure North Korea (news - web sites) to end its nuclear weapons program and told Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) that direct talks between the United States and North Korea hold the best hope for resolving the dispute.

Iraq destroyed chemical and biological weapons after the Gulf War, according to defector
By John Barry NEWSWEEK (March 2 Issue)

Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein’s inner circle, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them

Kamel was interrogated in separate sessions by the CIA, Britain’s M.I.6 and a trio from the United Nations, led by the inspection team’s head, Rolf Ekeus.

NEWSWEEK has obtained the notes of Kamel’s U.N. debrief, and verified that the document is authentic. NEWSWEEK has also learned that Kamel told the same story to the CIA and M.I.6. (The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.)

KAMEL WAS SADDAM Hussein’s son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. Kamel told his Western interrogators that he hoped his revelations would trigger Saddam’s overthrow. But after six months in exile in Jordan, Kamel realized the United States would not support his dream of becoming Iraq’s ruler after Saddam’s demise. He chose to return to Iraq—where he was promptly killed.

Kamel’s revelations about the destruction of Iraq’s WMD stocks were hushed up by the U.N. inspectors, sources say, for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more. And Iraq has never shown the documentation to support Kamel’s story. Still, the defector’s tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist.

Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds. “People who work in MIC [Iraq’s Military Industrial Commission, which oversaw the country’s WMD programs] were asked to take documents to their houses,” he said. Why preserve this technical material? Said Kamel: “It is the first step to return to production” after U.N. inspections wind down.

The notes of the U.N. interrogation—a three-hour stretch one August evening in 1995— show that Kamel was a gold mine of information. He had a good memory and, piece by piece, he laid out the main personnel, sites and progress of each WMD program. Kamel was a manager—not a scientist or engineer—and, sources say, some of his technical assertions were later found to be faulty. (A military aide who defected with Kamel was apparently a more reliable source of technical data. This aide backed Kamel’s assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks.)

But, overall, Kamel’s information was “almost embarrassing, it was so extensive,” Ekeus recalled—including the fact that Ekeus’s own Arabic translator, a Syrian, was, according to Kamel, an Iraqi agent who had been reporting to Kamel himself all along.

Australia warned of growing isolation
By Mike Seccombe in Canberra in Sydney Morning Herald February 24 2003

Richard Woolcott, a foreign affairs adviser to seven governments and Australia's last representative on the Security Council, said divisions in the council had sharpened since the last resolution, warning Iraq to disarm, was passed last year.

Australia was isolated internationally, being among the few countries to agree that disarming Saddam Hussein justified "a devastating and very costly war".

In a stinging criticism, Mr Woolcott debunked five "myths" which, he said, the Government relied on to support its position on Iraq.

(1) The first was that Iraq presented a threat to Australia's interests. It had been "perfectly well contained" for more than a decade and, if it presented a threat to anyone, it was not Australia.

(2) Second, that failure to agree to war would render the UN irrelevant. In fact, the Security Council had been hamstrung by superpower rivalries for most of its history and, before Iraq, a number of nations, particularly Israel, had got away with being "serial resolution defiers".

(3) The third myth was that Australia's deployment of troops was not a commitment to war. This was a deception of the people by the Federal Government, more serious than that of the "children-overboard" affair.

(4) The government-sponsored myth was that Australia enjoyed the broad support of the world.

(5) The fifth was that going to war against Iraq was in Australia's national interest.

Mr Woolcott, a former ambassador to Indonesia and the Philippines, said: "I don't think it is in Australia's national interest to get involved in a distant, costly war ... There is no other country in our region of the world - indeed in the southern hemisphere - that I know of which is going to participate in this war."

The cost of the war also came under fire from the leader of the Australian Democrats, Andrew Bartlett, who condemned the Government for its failure to provide figures on the cost of Australia's involvement."They are being dishonest with the Australian people about the actual costs. It is likely to be at least half a billion just for deployment, let alone the flow-on costs to the Australian economy with the increase in the price of petrol and all those things." he said.

IRAQ War -Interview with Noam Chomsky

(1) American Academic Criticizes US Policy on Iraq
February 14, 2003 Excerpts from radio interview with Canada AM
-Noam Chomsky interviewed by Lisa LaFlamme

QUESTION: Before we tackle the future, let's just look at the last ten days if we can. Colin Powell becomes a hawk. Bin Laden is back. Tariq Aziz has an audience with the Pope. And Home Depot is teaching people how to make safe rooms in their homes with duct tape. Can you help us make sense of all of this?

CHOMSKY: First of all, as far as Colin Powell is concerned, he always was a hawk and he remains a hawk. As far as the duct tape is concerned, I don't know what John Ashcroft knows. But it has been predicted by US intelligence and other intelligence agencies that an attack on Iraq, or a planned attack on Iraq, is likely to increase the threat of terrorism in the West -- for pretty obvious reasons. Either as a deterrent or later on as revenge.

So what was anticipated by the intelligence agencies and by independent analysts is that a war with Iraq is very likely to increase the threat of terror, maybe substantial terror. And this threat is taken extremely seriously.

QUESTION: Well, if you look at all the polls, can you help us understand why does President Bush have such overwhelming support here in the United States, seemingly, and such overwhelming opposition in the international community?

CHOMSKY: For one thing, he doesn't have overwhelming support from Americans. It's true that if you look at, say, the international Gallup polls -- which have not been reported in the United States, but they're very instructive -- they do show overwhelming opposition throughout Europe, Asia, Latin America particularly, all of Europe, in fact. And they do apparently show greater support in the United States and other English-speaking countries, higher in the United States than elsewhere.

But those figures are pretty misleading. Because there's another difference between the United States and the rest of the world. And one has to take that into account. Saddam Hussein is despised throughout the world, including the region. And everyone would like to see him disappear from the face of the earth. But there is only one country in which he's feared. And that's the United States. And that's, incidentally, since September. If you take a look at polls since the drumbeat of propaganda about Saddam being a threat to our existence it began in September. Since then on the order of two-thirds of the public in the United States does genuinely believe that if we don't stop him today he is going to kill us tomorrow.

QUESTION: Well, what if George Bush and Tony Blair are right? What if they are welcomed in Iraq as the great liberators? Then would it have been worth it to go in?

CHOMSKY: Would it be worth taking the risk of maybe killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and maybe destroying the country, maybe increasing terrorist threats in the West, because possibly a best-case scenario would work out? That's hardly sane and rational behaviour.

You have to have really strong arguments for the use of violence. The burden of proof for the resort to violence is very high. That's true whether it's personal affairs or international affairs. The argument that "Well, maybe it will turn out fine," that's not an argument for the use of violence.

QUESTION: Well, tomorrow hundreds of thousands of people really around the world, but particularly here in the United States, are going to be protesting a possible war with Iraq. Some of them have told us that they have been accused of being unpatriotic. So, if Americans don't support a war then they are unpatriotic. And if the UN doesn't support a war, it's irrelevant. So I wonder, where does this put the whole question of democracy in the United States?

CHOMSKY: First of all, the talk about patriotism is ridiculous. There are two kinds of patriotism. There is the kind of patriotism which says you follow the orders of your leaders reflexively. And that is one kind. And there's a kind of patriotism that is based on concern and care for the people of the country and of the society, their fate, what's going to happen to my grandchildren and neighbors and so on. That's another kind of patriotism. That's the sensible kind. And, in that sense, the protesters are the greatest patriots. They are the ones who are acting in the benefit of the country as they see it and, incidentally, as I see it, and as most of the world sees it.

As for the UN being irrelevant unless it follows orders, and Europe being irrelevant unless it follows orders and so on, that's kind of an interesting phenomenon. It's an incredible and maybe unprecedented expression of hatred and contempt for democracy on the part of the Anglo-American leadership for which it's pretty hard to think of an analog.

QUESTION: And they would say, "What are you supposed to do, ignore all of the violations that you've seen Iraq commit?"

CHOMSKY: Certainly not. You should in fact do exactly what the inspectors are doing. And the fact that Iraq has to a very large extent lived up to the resolutions, but not entirely, is a good reason to enforce them. And it's also a good reason to enforce Security Council resolutions which are violated massively by other countries.

(2) The Iraq Debate- February 13, 2003
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Carlo Invernizzi

QUESTION: Professor Chomsky, concerning US foreign policy and the War on Terror, what is your view on the current situation?

CHOMSKY: Let me start by making one thing clear: I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase "War on Terror." There can't be a war on terror. That is a logical impossibility. First of all because war is one of the principal means through which terror is perpetuated; and secondly because the USA is one of the leading terrorist states in the world.

QUESTION: Do you think there might be adverse effects from fighting this war?

CHOMSKY: A war on Iraq could have adverse effects on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world. At present the USA is giving a very dangerous lesson to the world. It is about to attack Iraq, which does not really seem to have such weapons of mass destruction. But when North Korea announced that it would leave the treaty of nonproliferation and build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons, George W. Bush said he would treat this as a diplomatic question. What is everybody around the world going to think? If we don't have weapons of mass destruction the USA may well attack us. But if we do develop weapons of mass destruction they are never going to take the risk.

QUESTION: How do you judge the position of Europe in the context of the present conflict?

CHOMSKY: Europe is divided. On one hand the UK, Italy and Spain are in favor of the war. Some European journalists have commented that they are acting as Bush's poodles. I tend to think that they are more like his attack dogs. We must not forget the size of the contingent that the UK has sent in the Middle East in preparation to this war. On the other hand, however, Germany and France seem to have put up a brave front against the war. In Germany, in particular, the Chancellor Schroeder owes much of his electoral success to the firm antiwar stance he adopted during the electoral campaign. It remains to be seen how long these two will be able to stand out and watch the others share the oil concessions amongst themselves.

QUESTION: And what is the perception of this war within the USA?

CHOMSKY: Support for the war on Iraq in the USA is thin. One survey conducted by Time magazine in the USA even found that most Americans believe that the USA is currently the greatest threat to world peace. [NOTE: This last sentence seems to be an error. In a recent talk, Chomsky notes accurately, "A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic."] Various prominent institutions throughout the country, including the Chicago city council and the largest university in the USA (that is, the University of Texas), have passed antiwar resolutions.

It is important, therefore, not to demonize the USA as a monolithic front for war. There is a distinction to be made between what public opinion and civil society want on one hand and what the US administration is doing on the other. The people of the USA are a crucial component in the movement against the war.

QUESTION: Do you really think that this movement can do anything to stop the war?

CHOMSKY: The probability of success of the antiwar campaign depends crucially on the base of its popular support... Let's make a comparison with other antiwar campaigns in the past: compared with the Vietnam War movement... The war in Vietnam started in 1962, publicly, with a public attack on South Vietnam - air force, chemical warfare, concentration camps, the whole business. No protest... the protest that did build up four or five years later was mostly about the bombing of the North, which was terrible, but was a sideshow. The main attack was against South Vietnam and there was never any serious protest against that. Here you've got massive protest before war's even started. It's just phenomenal. Of course, I am not sure whether we will actually be able to stop the war -- the timing is really short. But we can make it costly, and that is important. Even if we don't succeed in stopping the war it is important that the warmongers know it will be costly for them so that perhaps we may succeed in stopping the next one.

Afghan Peace Is Fragile
By CARLOTTA GALL
New York Times -24th Feb 2003

KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 20 — More than a year into his mission here as United Nations special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, the former foreign minister of Algeria and a veteran peacemaker in Afghanistan, has been warning people that the peace here is not yet irreversible.

As the prospect of war in Iraq looms, Mr. Brahimi predicts that in its current weak state, Afghanistan will not be able to withstand the buffeting from all sides. Activity by the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been increasing in the border areas and could garner more support as popular unease over a war in Iraq grows, he said.

But he says that the job is only half done and that full international support is still essential for its survival. Building the state has barely started. Afghanistan has no functioning national army, police force or judicial system yet — all projects that are dependent on foreign aid. A United Nations program for the disarmament and demobilization of armed fighters has not even begun. Reconstruction, essential to create jobs, has not yet reached a point at which it is having much of an effect.

On the political side, the Taliban have refused to accept defeat and still claim a right to rule. Other political parties and groups that were left out in the Bonn agreement are demanding a share of power, and there is interference from neighboring countries, particularly Pakistan.

Furthermore, this country of more than 20 million, mostly illiterate, unregistered citizens, is supposed to organize elections and vote 18 months from now for a new national leadership and constitution.

The United States-led coalition is still fighting a war against rebel forces in various parts of the country, while Mr. Brahimi is trying to manage peace efforts. This creates, in effect, two parallel outside powers in the country, and some United Nations officials complain that the aims of the American military seem to contradict the country's long-term needs for peace and reconciliation.

"If the support of the international community is there for another couple of years, and if our ideas concerning the national army are really moved forward," and then if a police force and a judiciary are created, then success is possible, he said. "And if to put — as it were — the roof over the house, we manage to organize a credible, fair, free election 18 months from now, you will have your state," he said.