The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
NEWS SUPPLEMENT, 815/10/00 * Poll shows sanctions helped grease Milosevic's downfall [comparison between the apparent success of sanctions in achieving US war aims in Serbia and the lack of success in Iraq] * Don't Fear Saddam [by Jim Hoagland, recommending tough action of some unspecified sort] * Saddam gets bolder as U.N. sanctions get weaker By Eli J. Lake [Is the sanctions regime unravelling?] * Six dead in apparent terror attack on U.S. Navy ship in Yemen [though the figure of six is out of date this gives quite a good account of the circumstances] * US closes African embassies * Petro-euro likely to remain a pipe-dream * Oil Experts Say Third 'Predictable' Personality [Guess who?] Could Shape Presidential Election, Send Gas Prices Skyrocketing And Fuel Israeli-Palestinian Conflict * Pavlov, Kurds and Global Containment ! [Overview of the situation of Kurds in Northern Iraq/Southern Kurdistan] * Persian Gulf, U.S. Danger Zone [account of US deployment in the Gulf] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/gotoArticle?text_only=0&slug=sanc09&docum ent_id=134238184&zsection_id=268448413 * POLL SHOWS SANCTIONS HELPED GREASE MILOSEVIC'S DOWNFALL by Norman Kempster Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 09, 2000 WASHINGTON - Just when the world had about concluded that economic sanctions are close to useless against entrenched dictators, the sudden downfall of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia has sent a different message: Sometimes the strategy seems to work. No analyst is claiming that the economic and political isolation imposed on Yugoslavia by the United States and its allies is the only reason Milosevic was forced from power. But there is a growing consensus that the sanctions were more effective than even their staunchest backers had dared to hope just a few weeks ago. A poll taken in Yugoslavia just before massive demonstrations forced Milosevic to quit indicated the sanctions and their consequences were a major force for change. In the survey, commissioned by the U.S. National Democratic Institute, 1,780 Yugoslav voters were asked the most important issue that determined their choice in the Sept. 24 election won by opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica. More than half cited either the economic crisis that was exacerbated by the sanctions, or the sanctions themselves. Policymakers in the United States and Europe are pondering a crucial question: If the sanctions helped topple Milosevic, why have they failed to oust dictators or force policy changes in Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and elsewhere? Critics of sanctions, such as much of the U.S. business community, cautioned that the policy would not necessarily achieve its goals elsewhere. Gary Litman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's managing director for Europe and Eurasia, said: "Yugoslavs found themselves in isolation while the other eastern European countries were getting ready to join the European Union. That showed them that they were on the wrong side of history. We don't have that anywhere else." Based on the Yugoslav experience, U.S. officials and nongovernment experts said sanctions can prove effective when: They are imposed - and rigorously enforced - by most of the world's governments. The target country has nothing that the rest of the world needs, such as Iraq's oil, which encourages evasion. The targeted regime is not an ironclad tyranny and has at least some independent organizations. The policy is carefully designed to hit hard at the government and its leaders through visa bans affecting only named individuals and through restrictions affecting the business interests of the leadership. But some impact on ordinary citizens is inevitable and possibly even desirable. Religious and humanitarian groups frequently oppose sanctions because they say the impact is greater on a country's innocent population than on its government. All of these factors came into play in the case of Yugoslavia, while none pertains to Iraq. U.S.-imposed sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya are not supported by the rest of the world, and North Korea has the sort of dictatorship that seems to enjoy its international isolation, making sanctions ineffective. Most experts, including critics of sanctions, agree that the biggest success for the policy before the Yugoslav experience was in South Africa, where the white-minority government was squeezed until it agreed to hold all-race elections. Like Yugoslavia, South Africa was a police state with democratic trappings, the kind of regime most susceptible to sanctions. And, like Yugoslavia, the isolation - such as exclusion from international sports competition - had a heavy impact. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41007-2000Oct9.html * DON'T FEAR SADDAM by Jim Hoagland, Tuesday, October 10, 2000; Page A25 The savagery of the Palestinian-Israeli violence of the past 10 days blows open new opportunities for deadly mischief by Saddam Hussein and other Arab extremists. The overly cautious effort by President Clinton at containing Saddam is being rapidly overtaken by the new crisis in the Middle East. Fear has been a constant companion and a poor counselor for Clinton on Iraq. Like the raven of Edgar Allen Poe, fear has perched in the Oval Office for nearly eight years, cawing to Clinton: "Don't." In its final days, the Clinton administration has been moving to provide new support to Saddam's democratic opposition and to take baby steps toward dealing with Iran, the dictator's neighboring enemy. Better in extremis than never. But the changes also underscore how needlessly hesitant Clinton was on Iraq while he had a relatively free hand to act. In an atmosphere of Islamic holy war on Israel, trying to maintain a coalition against Saddam becomes infinitely harder. Fearful of being dragged into war by Iraqi guerrilla forces he once covertly supported, Clinton abandoned the guerrillas five years ago. Fearful of being dragged into war over U.N. arms inspections, he abandoned the inspections two years ago. Fearful of international criticism, he has submitted to travel and economic sanctions against Iraq being shredded daily by Russia, France, Turkey and Arab nations "friendly" to Washington. A trickle of international flights, border openings and calls for lifting the economic embargo on Iraq has turned into a flood since violence erupted in the West Bank and Gaza on Sept. 28. Saddam has actively sought to exploit the poisonous atmosphere, promising Arabs he will send guns and troops to help Palestinians exterminate Israelis. What Clinton feared, his policies have helped produce. Fear itself becomes a weapon that foes can learn to wield against America. Saddam has bought two years of unimpeded work on weapons of mass destruction by manipulating Clinton's valid but overdrawn concerns. Those concerns have centered on the (undeniable) dangers of confronting this Arab dictator directly and on the less tangible impact of his fall on the region. The Arabist-leaning bureaucracies of the State Department and the Pentagon fear Iraq's possible disintegration, Iran's rise in the Persian Gulf power sweepstakes and the impact of democracy, should that come to Iraq, on neighboring Arab oil monarchies. Such concerns underpin the roadblocks the administration has thrown up to Republican-led congressional efforts to get money, guns and training to Saddam's foes. Now, some of the roadblocks are being bypassed, under pressure from Vice President Al Gore. After months of stalling, the State Department announced last week agreement to provide $4 million over five months to the Iraqi National Congress, the most significant anti-Saddam dissident organization. Another $4 million grant for the INC may follow early next year. Details of the funding were not released. But they were outlined to me by INC and State Department sources. Getting a satellite television station and a new radio network broadcasting into Iraq this autumn is the INC's most urgent priority in its $1.8 million public information budget. The State Department will also provide $425,000 to fund INC distribution of humanitarian relief in southern Iraq, with food and medicine likely to come from the Pentagon. And State offers the INC $190,580 to open regional offices in Tehran and Damascus. Chicken feed as these things go? Yes. The CIA used to spend $300,000 a month on the INC. But the funding puts out new lines to countries with a serious interest in Saddam's downfall. Syria has a new leader in Bashar Assad, and Iran's leadership has been dancing an increasingly complex minuet of opening to the world, including the United States. The INC will handle all contact with Iran to establish its office. But the U.S. funding for the office will be seen in Tehran--and by Saddam--as a step forward in the U.S.-Iran minuet. It will drive Saddam nuts, which is fine with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright is not cowed by the bureaucracy's Iranophobia, and she seems to understand the perils of allowing fear to dictate policy. So perhaps does Gore, who broke with the Democratic Party leadership to vote for Operation Desert Storm a decade ago. As he gradually gets control of administration policy through the election campaign, it tends to reflect his more hawkish views. Or this may be a ploy, a $4 million investment in reducing Gore's vulnerability: The INC would have nothing today if Senate Republicans had not pushed and harried the Clinton-Gore team to give them support. And George W. Bush's foreign policy advisers include people who have understood and fought Saddam's evil every step of the way, even when others on the Bush team did not. But Gore should get the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Whether he or Bush wins, an era of policy stained by fear should be coming to an end. Saddam should soon be deprived of his most effective weapon. http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=126998 * SADDAM GETS BOLDER AS U.N. SANCTIONS GET WEAKER by Eli J. Lake WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 (UPI) -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, near the top of the U.S. enemies list and the greatest threat to Israel in the region, has become emboldened in recent weeks in the face of the near collapse of the U.N. sanctions against his country. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has repeatedly said that the sanctions have kept Saddam in a metaphorical box, where he does not have access to his oil revenues, remains diplomatically isolated and cannot restock his war machine. And while a case can be made that the bulk of the sanctions remain, the facts on the ground suggest a different story. Jordan's leading newspaper reported Wednesday that Amman was ready to expel Lloyds of London, the auditor in charge of cataloguing Jordan's exports to Iraq at the port of Aqaba. Aqaba is not only a central point for Jordan's shipments to Iraq, but also a point for the reexport of other goods from the region to Iraq. Turkey, a NATO ally, threatened Wednesday to reopen a dormant petroleum pipeline to Iraq if the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the Turk's alleged genocide of Armenians in World War I. The House was expected to vote on the resolution soon. Rumblings from Ankara of reopening relations with Iraq are particularly troubling in light of American dependence on the Incirlik airbase, the Turkish installations American fighter jets use to enforce the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. David Wurmser, an Iraq analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said the Turkish posturing on Iraq is to expected in light of recent U.S. policy. "Either we are serious or we are not and if we are not they'll make their own deals. This is another demonstration of the collapse of an America-centric security structure in the region." These developments take place in the context of 15 "humanitarian flights" to Baghdad from countries including Turkey that have normally observed the strict sanctions against Iraq in the last five weeks. The United Nations prohibits commercial air flights, unless authorized by a special panel. France, Russia, Egypt and Syria did not even bother to ask that committee for permission. And while those flights have contained medical supplies and food, they also brought businessmen and political leaders ready to renew ties with Iraq. Take the Syrian flight that arrived Monday. Saddam rolled out a red carpet for the Syrian delegation and had his trade and communication ministers meet them at the airport. Iraqi Trade Minister Muhammad Mahdi Saleh said the visit would "improve the brotherly relations between the two countries." In an interview Wednesday, the assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, C. David Welch, told UPI, "The recent humanitarian flights and political gestures from some countries toward Iraq do not change the fundamental viability of the sanctions regime." Welch went on to point out that Iraqi leader still does not have unfettered access to revenues from oil sales and that countries are still prohibited from sending uninspected "dual use materials" to Iraq, items that could be used for military purposes but also have domestic uses, such as chlorine filters. But the United Nations has no way of verifying what items are coming in and out of Iraq, according to Ewen Buchanan, the spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMVIC. The commission has been blocked from entering Iraq since 1998. "We are receiving notifications but we don't know what we are not receiving," Buchanan said. "There is concern but that has been there all along, we are now denied the other end of the system in terms of verification. Under the old system if things were not notified and we discovered them we had the right to destroy them." The sanctions and the weapons inspections are linked by a 1999 U.N. resolution, sponsored by the United States, that keeps sanctions on Iraq as long as the UNMVIC is barred from inspecting the warehouses and weapons compounds in that country. While all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have urged Iraq to abide by this resolution, Baghdad remains obstinate. And Saddam's resistance to weapons inspectors has not bore a price diplomatically in the region. Arab leaders last weekend invited Hussein to an Arab Summit to take place later this month to discuss the violence that has engulfed the Jewish State in the last ten days. The invitation was the first time Hussein was invited to an Arab League meeting at the head of state level since the Gulf War in 1991. On Wednesday State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher discounted the invitation and its impact on the peace process. "Iraq's position on the peace process is well known and I think heavily discounted," he said. "The fact is the parties remain engaged. The parties keep working with us, and we keep proceeding despite some of these voices that are trying to tear down the peace process." But on Oct. 3, Saddam had this to say on Iraqi radio with regard to the flare ups in Israel. "We will not wait until the day comes when the blockade is lifted to put an end to [the Israelis]. No, from this day we can put an end to them, and we want nothing from them (other Arabs). If they say this is an honor for everybody, then let us all rely on God and put an end to Zionism. They know that the Iraqi people are great and ready to put an end to Zionism from this moment." http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=127335 * SIX DEAD IN APPARENT TERROR ATTACK ON U.S. NAVY SHIP IN YEMEN By Pamela Hess, Thursday, 12 October 2000 WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 (UPI) -- At least five sailors were killed, with 36 wounded and 12 still missing, in an apparent suicide bomb attack Thursday on a U.S. Navy ship preparing to refuel in a harbor in Yemen. Officially, the U.S. government has not labeled the incident a terrorist attack, but Defense Secretary William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vernon Clark all say it was likely the work of terrorists and vowed to retaliate. "From a personal point of view, and what I know about the ship and the events that have been described to me, I have no reason to think that this was anything but a senseless act of terrorism," Clark said at a Pentagon news conference with Cohen. "If ... we determine that terrorists attacked our ship and killed our sailors, then we will not rest until we have tracked down those who are responsible for this vicious and cowardly act," Cohen said. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack and Cohen would not speculate as to who might be responsible. "I think it's just premature to make any link between Osama bin Laden or anyone else at this point until we have more information," Cohen said. Bin Laden is suspected by the United States of involvement in several acts of terrorism against American targets. Cohen struck a similarly cautious tone when he said that President Saddam Hussein has troops on the move in Iraq. He noted this is a normal training cycle for that country. "But we're watching it very closely, because of the ambiguity of the situation, to make sure that Saddam is not using any training cycle in order to take advantage of any developments in the Middle East or elsewhere," the secretary said. "But we have not seen any specific move that would indicate that he ... intends to cause any major controversy." The destroyer USS Cole had been in the Mediterranean Sea, passed through the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden and was on its way to the Persian Gulf. The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer pulled up to a floating refueling dock at 12:15 p.m. local time in the harbor off Aden. A group of small boats from Yemen's port authority approached to help tie the ship to buoys. One of these small harbor boats tied off a single line, then pulled up along the Cole and apparently detonated a "significant" explosive package, the Navy said. It blew an 800-square-foot hole at the midpoint of the port side of the ship, tearing apart the Cole's half-inch-thick steel hull. The explosion destroyed an engine room and an auxiliary room and damaged the chief petty officers' dining room and the crew galley. The small boat seemed to be part of the local crew that greets large ships and helps them navigate the harbor and tie up, and the commander of the Cole, Kirk Lippold, had no reason to suspect it was out to do harm, according to Clark. These kinds of refueling operations take place on almost a daily basis in foreign ports. Clark said it would be almost impossible to defend a ship from this kind of attack. There was no warning or threat made, he said. "The scenario that I've described to you is that it would be extraordinarily difficult to have ever observed in time to do anything about this kind of situation and to have stopped it," Clark said. Whether the Navy will suspend use of the port is up to the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. Thomas Franks. That the Cole would be refueling in Aden was no secret. A Yemeni "pilot" would have been on the bridge of the U.S. destroyer helping it navigate into the port, the Navy said. Moreover, Clark said the port authority at Yemen had 10 to 12 days' notice from the U.S. Embassy of Cole's refueling. "We don't automatically suspect people that are sent forward to help us in an official way," Clark said. "This kind of support takes the tone of -- the arrangements made -- we send our request to the embassy and they deal with the local people there." The Cole submitted the required "force protection" plan in advance of its port visit, indicating all reasonable measures for security were taken, Clark said. Cohen said force protection is his highest priority as defense secretary. In 1997, he opposed the promotion of the general who was in charge of the U.S. air base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, when a terror attack on the Khobar Towers housing complex took place, killing 19. The casualty toll from Thursday's bombing could have been far higher; because the sailors were on "sea and anchor" detail, performing duties particular to pulling into a harbor, few sailors would have been in the areas damaged. The damage is at the waterline, so the ship's crew was continuing to pump out water. The Cole was listing 4 degrees to port. Clark said the crew was "fighting for their ship." A Navy official added later that the Cole is not yet out of danger, as a bulkhead could still give way. Cohen confirmed that five sailors had died, and more casualties could be found as there are still missing sailors. CNN reported Thursday night that the number of deaths was six. The U.S. military flew in a surgeon and a small medical team from Bahrain, and more medical teams were to follow. Britain and France also provided medical help. Cohen said the attack would not stop the United States from pursuing its interests abroad. "We will continue to protect our national interests around the world, in the Middle East and elsewhere," he said. "No one should doubt our resolve to remain a force for peace and for stability, and no one should assume that they can force us to retreat. No one should assume they can attack us with impunity." He added, "We will take appropriate measures to hold those responsible." Secretary of State Albright said she had been in touch with President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, and the Yemeni government "was being very cooperative in the investigative process." "If it turns out, as it appears, to have been a terrorist act, we will hold those who committed it accountable and take appropriate steps," Albright said Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., said he would support a retaliatory strike against the perpetrators if one were launched when details become clearer, and suggested the magnitude of the attack indicates it was state-sponsored. "It appears the attack could have no origin outside of terrorist activity," Robb told reporters on Capitol Hill. "Because of the level of explosive charges used ... and the structure of the port, it appears that (this act) would have required state cooperation or state sponsorship. Someone in the port authority either failed miserably or was complicit." Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN the attacking craft was not ''put together in a garage overnight. There had to be careful planning.'' The chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman, R-N.Y., called for an armed response to the attack. "It is not enough to make tough speeches and bomb rocks or pharmaceutical factories, as the administration did in response to the attack on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," he said, referring to the 1998 that are among the acts in which bin Laden has been implicated. "Our enemies must understand that they will be found and they will be dealt with, if they attack U.S. troops." Yemeni radio reported that Saleh had said the explosion was caused by an ammunition explosion on the Cole, and not an outside attack. However, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Meghan Mariman told United Press International, "There is absolutely no indication it was an internal explosion." Attorney General Janet Reno said an FBI team was headed for a port in Yemen to investigate. Officials from the State Department were also going. The entire George Washington carrier battle group has been ordered out of port for safety reasons, and troops around the world are on heightened alert, the Pentagon announced. Yemeni security and military forces, contacted by UPI in Aden, refused to give any information on the incident. The authorities in Yemen were expected to release a statement later. Yemen is a known locus of terrorist organizations and has been the scene of a number of terror attacks and kidnappings of Westerners. Terrorist financier bin Laden, who is part Yemeni, is believed to have a training camp in the country, and the militant group Hamas has an office in Yemen. However, Yemen is not on the State Department list of countries suspected of sponsoring terrorism. The Yemeni government vehemently opposed the Gulf War. The Navy has been using the "defense fuel support point" facility in Yemen for just 15 months; it has only been used 12 times by U.S. vessels. Use of the port was initiated by the military's Central Command chief in 1999 as part of a larger effort to improve relations with Yemen. "We have been working to improve our relations with Yemen for some time. And I'm sure that that was at the heart of the motivation of the unified commander as they are improving our relations in that part of the world," Clark said. The Navy considers port visits an integral part of its job. A well-armed ship makes a powerful public statement about U.S. commitment to a region; the Navy calls that mission "presence." It is also a reward to a country, boosting the local economy when sailors go ashore. The Cole is 505 feet long and 148 feet high at its tallest point. It displaces 8,300 tons of water and can reach speeds of more than 30 knots. It boasts an arsenal containing standard missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles and several large guns. The Cole was commissioned in June 1996. Its homeport is Norfolk, Va., where it is part of the George Washington carrier battle group. It carries more than 300 sailors. This appears to be the first attack of its kind on a U.S. naval vessel. In 1987, the USS Stark was hit by Iraqi missiles, killing 37 and wounding five. In 1982, one sailor from the USS Pensacola was killed and three were injured in a terrorist attack on land in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A terrorist's truck bomb killed 241 Marines in their barracks in Lebanon in 1983. In June 1996, a terrorist truck bomb attack killed 19 members of the Air Force in their living quarters in Dhahran. In November 1995, an attack in another Saudi city, Riyadh, killed five Americans working with the Saudi Arabian National Guard. In 1898, the USS Maine sank in Havana harbor, killing 266; the incident is sometimes attributed to hostile action. It was one of the catalysts that led to the Spanish-American War. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_970000/970561.stm * US CLOSES AFRICAN EMBASSIES Friday, 13 October, 2000 The United States has ordered the temporary closure of seven diplomatic missions in Africa as a result of increasing tension in the Middle East. The embassies in South Africa, Kenya,Tanzania, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal and Djibouti closed this morning. A spokesman at the US embassy in Nairobi told the BBC the closures would be reviewed on a day-to-day basis. The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were both bombed on 7 August 1998 in attacks which the US blamed on Islamic militant Osama bin Laden. More than 220 people, mostly Kenyans, were killed in the explosions, and more than 5,000 wounded. On 6 October more than 10,000 members of a Nigerian Islamic movement staged a demonstration in the northern city of Kano burning US and Israeli flags and calling for the government to cut diplomatic links with Israel. In South Africa about 200 supporters of the ruling African National Congress demonstrated in Cape Town on Thursday with placards calling for "Free Palestine". President Thabo Mbeki condemned what he termed Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" use of force against Palestinians. In the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott more than 2,000 demonstrators on Thursday demanded the government break diplomatic ties with Israel. Mauritania supported Iraq in the Gulf War in 1991 and only established relations with Israel in 1999. A US warship in the Gulf of Aden was bombed in a suicide attack on Thursday which some US officials have blamed on Osama bin Laden. In 1998 the US launched a cruise missile attack on a factory in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in retaliation for the embassy bombings. The Sudanese factory bombing sparked major protests. It claimed the factory was involved in the production of chemical weapons and was linked financially to Mr bin Laden. The owner is suing the US Government for compensation saying the allegations were totally without foundation. Anti-American sentiment ran high after the attack. American involvement in the Gulf War also prompted high levels of anti-American feeling in a number of African countries, particularly Nigeria, Niger and Senegal. http://www.gulf-news.com/13102000/BUSINESS/business11.htm * PETRO-EURO LIKELY TO REMAIN A PIPE-DREAM London (Reuters) - European policy-makers wrestling with the weakness of the single currency might appreciate the boost of global oil trade denominated in euros, but that is likely to remain a pipe-dream. Iraq said yesterday it was asking for crude oil payments in euros, rather than dollars, from November. Iraq accounts for five per cent of internationally traded crude oil, and its exports of 2.2 million barrels per day at current prices earn about $57 million a day. Analysts said Iraq's decision, which is dependent on United Nations approval, was politically motivated and would not in itself inspire similar action by other oil producers, particularly while the dollar was strong. But it rekindled memories of past discussions about the pricing of oil in currencies other than dollars, a proposal never implemented due to the dollar's entrenched position as the currency of global energy and commodities trade. "It's not the first time this kind of thing has cropped up," said Paul Horsnell of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. "In the 1980s Opec countries talked about changing to yen, or anything else because the dollar was weak. But once you have come around to a certain way of doing things, it's hard to push people towards something else." The euro could do with the benefits won for the dollar from recent 10-year highs in oil prices. Surging oil prices have gone hand in hand with the euro's decline to record lows against the dollar in recent weeks, and oil priced in euros would at the least remove the currency risk incurred by the euro zone's oil importers. -"You can see the problem in the German trade data - the bulk of the worsening data has been down to oil," said Kirit Shah, chief market strategist at Sanwa International in London. -Data released this week showed Germany's trade surplus shrinking, as oil prices increase and the weak euro drives up the price of imports. Oil trade denominated in euros would also increase demand for the single currency from oil consumers, going some way towards stemming the outward investment and corporate merger and acquisition flows from which the euro has suffered since its launch in January, 1999. "There is certain dollar demand out there to pay for oil, and if dollars were no good to them, people would need to sell dollars and buy euros to buy some of their oil," said Lee Ferridge, head of global currency strategy at Rabobank in London. But analysts said oil producers' outgoings were too closely aligned with the dollar to make it sensible for the producers to switch their invoice currency. "Most of the oil industry's costs are going to be dollar-denominated - expat employees are paid in dollars, rig services and pumps are usually from the United States," said Horsnell. "If your are costs are dollar-denominated, revenues should be dollar-denominated." Meanwhile, the euro will continue to battle with problems of labour market inflexibility, outward merger-related flows and the relative outperformance of the U.S. economy, analysts said. "Two-thirds of global trade is in dollars, and that is even out of the Fed's control," said Shah. "It has developed over the past 100 years." There was only one other place outside Iraq where the euro was ever likely to become a petro-euro, analysts added - the home base of the Rotterdam oil products market, within the heart of the 12 nation euro zone. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/001013/tx_oil_exp.html * OIL EXPERTS SAY THIRD 'PREDICTABLE' PERSONALITY COULD SHAPE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, SEND GAS PRICES SKYROCKETING AND FUEL ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT HOUSTON, Oct. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The depth of Arab animosity toward the West -- and the United States as the clearest target of that animosity -- is exemplified by Thursday's attack on a U.S. warship in Yemen, according to Michael J. Economides and Ronald E. Oligney, professors at the University of Houston and energy advisors to Fortune 500 companies. ``There is a palpable and clearly undesirable sense that Iraq's Saddam Hussein will do something to ignite the situation,'' say the experts. Over a year ago, when oil was $14 a barrel, Economides and Oligney accurately predicted with much skepticism that oil would be going for $30 a barrel by year's end. The two oil and energy experts now feel the current extraordinarily tight energy situation, presidential politics in the United States, the erupting Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one crazy but almost predictable Middle East dictator could spell disaster for the United States this fall. His most potent weapon: oil. According to Economides and Oligney, ``pulling one or two million barrels per day from the world oil supply, even if it would essentially amount to a starvation policy for the hapless Iraqis, would propel the price of oil to $50 per barrel overnight and wreak havoc with the U.S. energy-intensive lifestyle. The U.S. presidential election provides him (Sadaam) with an additional and compelling impetus.'' This, coupled with the fact that, according to the two, ``Saddam Hussein's entire raison d'etre is to appear relevant and powerful both inside his country and in the entire Arab and Moslem worlds'' giving him an even wider agenda of manipulating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two experts have stated publicly that no action by the U.S. Administration short of a military response can really counteract a sudden cut of oil production by Iraq and the credibility of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be questioned: all shaping factors in the Presidential election. Economides and Oligney are currently on an OTEK (Australia) sponsored national media tour for their new book The Color of Oil, with expected November reviews in both the journal Energy and Oil Week Magazine, America's and Canada's most prestigious energy periodicals, respectively. http://members.home.net/kurdistanobserver/11-10-00-opinion-royee.html * PAVLOV, KURDS AND GLOBAL CONTAINMENT ! By Chalak Jewan Royee The Kurdistan Observer , Oct 11, 2000 {I have put in theparagraph divisions in this article which may be a little arbitrary PB] What Pavlov did early in the 20 th Century has given the Western Intelligence branches of each Government an added avenue into the game of manipulation . Pavlov, a Russian Physiologist did his research on dogs, looking for relationships between stomach secretions and the nervous system. His work gave him International recognition and was called ²Conditioning². The methods he used were somewhat more humane than the brainwashing techniques imposed on prisoners of war and slaves. Nonetheless, Pavlov has added a valuable piece to the puzzle of control and manipulation. His basic experiment dealt with a dog under a harness, subjected to several stimulus: a bell, a light in addition to food. The same experiment, when linked to other conditioning discoveries, the outcome became a new weapon, serving the purposes of any intelligence agency which wished to deploy, in manipulating a state or a people. Food played a significant role in shaping the Middle East in the 20 th century. Most Governments (modern Laboratories called states) were encouraged to buy Western wheat, corn and barley at depressed prices. To be used, in tern, by each Government to better control their people! Although depressed prices on the surface suggested humane approach to the growing needs of countries with large populations , but the ulterior motives were, as we learned , very alarming! Conditioning steps were part of a wider scheme of political practices of the provider of that aid, be it from a foreign source or a domestic one. Iraq, especially occupied south KURDISTAN, for example, was considered to be the breadbasket of the surrounding regions prior to 1961. The Kurdish area produced all needed staples with surplus sold to others. State subsidy programs compelled many farmers to work less and become dependent more on the Government handouts. Villagers who did not wish to relinquish their farming and growing practices, because they could produce better crops and products themselves and much cheaper, soon had to face various pressures to end their efforts! It was soon apparent that the Government was not interested in the peoples¹ welfare but in their control. The worst was to come from the central Government which demanded an end to all forms of domestic productions and thus demanded their dependence on the Government. When the people of south KURDISTAN resisted, we all know what the results were. Eventually the Government in Baghdad destroyed over four thousand productive villages! When further resistance to the Government's plot was shown, Baghdad used increasingly more radical courses. For example, mining the Kurdish homeland with millions of mines, maiming farmers, men, women , their children and livestock. Making it impossible for any farmer to return to his fertile land without having to fear the consequences of such calamity which has befallen others before them! Sadly, most people reading about the crisis in Iraq think that Saddam was and is behind it all. He is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a trigger man. A ³dog² who was encouraged to be free in the Laboratory invented by the British called the ³modern² state of Iraq. He was handpicked by the West in late 1959 to destroy the other dogs that went out of control, namely the communists! Ironically, Saddam was permitted to break out of his harnesses, so that Western dog-catchers could have the pretext to further interfere in the Laboratory, Iraq! Pretentious or real, some Western countries are plotting to bring him to International Courts facing charges of genocide and other war crimes! Crimes he committed on their behalf! Better late than never! Pavlovís electric bell worked with his strapped dog in providing useful information, however, the bombing of Iraq failed to achieve a positive end, at least not for the Iraqi peoples. Neither Saddam nor Pavlovís dog were destroyed in the experiments. Both survived the ordeals, may be Saddam for the longest time ! Failure of Saddam to enlist South KURDISTAN in his Arab nationalism agenda, is an indication that he was neither smart nor aware of Pavlovís positive conditioning style. The same position Israel had with the Palestinians. Both the Kurds and the Palestinians where considered lower level life forms! Saddam applied all the negatives he picked up from oppressive Governments. Tactics mostly used by his former Soviet Block friends against Jews and the ³undesirables²! On top of it, most of his biochemical component materials needed to manufacture his weapons of mass destruction came from the Western world! The question is why was this permitted? Western style conditioning appeared more boldly when food, fear, fratricide and sanctions were put to use after the 1991 Gulf War. South KURDISTAN was especially hard hit and that conditioning continues till this day in the new lab called ³Safe Haven². The word CONTAINMENT must be remembered with the word CONDITIONING whenever the West gives aid to a state or a people. Even at the time of a calamity, man-made or natural, these two terms are intended to complement one another. Some times it may be even presented in a blunt way, in a package deal, so to speak, saying your ³oil is for our food and medicine,etc². Refined conditioning and sophisticated methods of delivery have been tried in South KURDISTAN since 1992. The Kurds were given an opportunity, under duress, to become subjects in a new lab called ³Safe Haven², or, remain in Saddam¹s crude lab called the Iraqi state. To accept, the Kurdish region was subjected to shocks ranging from helicopter gun ship attacks to daily killing of opposition people to repeated fratricide wars! Unlike Pavlovís dogs who were exposed to LIGHT, Bell and food as stimuli, the Kurds were and are subjected to life threatening agents. Halabja¹s chemical attack is an historical reminder! Please, visit http://www.halabja.org . When the people continued to resist, Saddam¹s security forces separated the masses by gender, all males were sent to his Laboratories where weapons of mass destruction were being developed. They ultimately ended up as experimental subjects, under full view of the Western Intelligence communities! The Safe Haven region is still being subjected to conditioning experiments. Western political biases, many believe, are behind and encouraging fratricide among the Kurds, especially the on going PKK and PUK infighting. One Washington insider source informed me that the only two happy Governments about this fratricide is Ankara and Washington! In the name of democracy and multi-political parties, one party is encouraged to fight another to further weaken the unity of the Kurdish Nation. The Governments which are behind the disturbances in the Safe Haven region, the ³Lab Masters² (LM) are ever ready to continue experimentations there. For example, when the PUK engaged the Islamists in 1993, the outcome was not to the liking of the LM, it was ordered to stop with a hearty apology from the PUK leadership to the Islamists!. And, when the PUK engaged the KDP, the ³dog² in Baghdad was invited in by the KDP! None of the fallout from these confrontations were fully anticipated by the LM. Nonetheless, America gained over seven thousand professionals, brought in to Guam, then dispersed around the U.S. Capitalism¹s primary objective is to gain from confrontations, be it oil for free or human resources which enriches its labor markets! Therefore, it becomes imperative no lab to be torn down unless another can replaces it. The Kurdish enclave called Safe Haven is only good until capitalism finds a better foothold in the region! They will, however, strongly support it and avert its collapse at present because it is the mini containment lab necessary to have, to justify Western presence there! Periodic interventions by the LM are to be manufactured to insure that LMís ³National Interests² are saved. For instance, the KDP and the PUK were invited to Western Capitals to relief them of their angers toward one another. Unlike those attempts described above, the recent fratricide between the PUK and the PKK shall not see an end until the conditioning criteria is fully met by the LM. After all, the LM declared the PKK to be a ³terrorist² organization! Thus, pleasing the Turkish Lobbyists in all Western capitals! Influenced by kickback money ( in the U.S., taxpayers¹ money given in foreign aid to Turkey, being laundered politically!) and by virtue of other forms of bribery the LM governments turned a blind eye to the excesses of the military in North KURDISTAN! The PKK forces in South KURDISTAN are there to escape terror from Turkey. Being political refugees in south KURDISTAN should give them the protection they were not offered when they were in the north. Political refugees are to be protected and not forced to defend themselves in their new geographical areas! So, if we hear LM governments claiming Saddam is an evil person, why aren¹t they thinking the same way about the military in Turkey, a highly conditioned killer machine producing terrorists?! Concluding this article, Global Containment is a by -product of Conditioning. The problem is that weapon manufacturers are part of the stimuli set up by the LM! The military and their weapons suppliers do not believe in converting their factories to plow shears and construction tools making enterprises, they do however, unfortunately, believe in destruction and creating false hopes in the mind of aggressors and naive people. For this the innocent masses who wish to live in peace are victimized! Chalak Jewan Royee Americans for a Free KURDISTAN (AFK) Contact us : Sarbasti@hotmail.com c.royee@worldnet.att.net The Kurdistan Observer, www.kurdistanobserver.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10189-2000Oct14.html World Health Org. * PERSIAN GULF, U.S. DANGER ZONE by Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 15, 2000 For 10 years, the mission that brought the USS Cole to a Yemeni port has enjoyed an unusual distinction: It has proven to be one of the most dangerous for U.S. troops, and yet it has been virtually immune from the criticism that has surrounded other overseas deployments. Navy ships are always in or near the Persian Gulf, usually in the form of a carrier battle group of about 10 major warships, plus support craft. Dozens of Air Force fighters fly almost daily over northern and southern Iraq, taking off from bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey to patrol two "no-fly" zones and occasionally drop bombs. The Army keeps hundreds of armored vehicles, artillery pieces and attack helicopters at Camp Doha, a 500-acre facility in Kuwait, and has thousands of troops exercising there almost continuously. A second brigade's worth of Army equipment has been stored in Qatar, and a third is kept afloat aboard ships in the Indian Ocean. Overall, the United States usually maintains about 20,000 military personnel in the region, at a cost of at least $1.5 billion a year. The policy of stationing thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen across the Middle East has its origins in the Persian Gulf War, almost exactly a decade ago. Since then it has grown into an open-ended commitment, largely unexamined in public. Scrutiny may grow in the aftermath of the bombing of the destroyer Cole, which claimed the lives of 17 sailors on Thursday. Members of Congress have called for a thorough investigation of the apparent terrorist attack, including whether security precautions were adequate and why the Navy sent the ship to refuel in Aden on its way to the Persian Gulf. "I suspect that most Americans have no sense of the number of personnel we have in the Gulf region, or that they regularly engage hostile targets," said David Segal, a specialist in military affairs at the University of Maryland. Unlike other missions during the Clinton administration, such as interventions in Haiti and the Balkans, the deployment in the Middle East appears to enjoy broad support within the U.S. military. "It is essential to regional stability. . . . Without it, a vacuum would be created--and no one would like who filled it," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Carol Mutter. "So long as our economy remains grounded in petroleum-based energy, we are going to be there for the foreseeable future," added Air Force Col. Charles Dunlap. "To me, U.S. interests in the Gulf in a very real way are about whether or not a grandmother freezes to death in Boston some winter, whether fuel costs drive another family farm out of business, or if a working-class family can afford to send a kid to college." This large and long-term presence is a sharp contrast to just 15 years ago, when the U.S. military operated infrequently in the Mideast, and then only in small numbers. Moreover, the Mideast over the last decade has been far more dangerous for American personnel than other places where the United States maintains troops, such as Korea, Japan, Bosnia and Kosovo. Several radical Islamic groups have said their primary mission is to drive U.S. forces out of the region. In discussing the Cole attack in his weekly radio address yesterday, President Clinton referred to the ever-present threat, saying, "This tragic loss should remind us all that even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day in places where comforts are few and dangers are many." Since the Army went into Bosnia in 1995, only one American soldier has died violently there, from touching a land mine. None has been killed by hostile fire in Kosovo. By contrast, since the Gulf War ended in February 1991, 56 American troops or related personnel have died violently in the Mideast, including the casualties on the Cole: * In April 1994, two U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters were shot down over Iraq by U.S. Air Force jets, killing all 26 people aboard, including 15 American service members. * In November 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killed five American contractors involved in training Saudi security forces. * Seven months later, a truck bomb exploded outside a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 service members. Over the same period, the United States has launched at least six major offensive operations: * In January 1993, 100 U.S., British and French aircraft bombed Iraqi radar and surface-to-air missile sites. * Less than a week later, U.S. warships fired 46 Tomahawk cruise missiles into a nuclear fabrication site just outside Baghdad. * In June 1993, U.S. ships fired 24 Tomahawks into Iraq's intelligence headquarters in retaliation for a plot to assassinate President George Bush. * In September 1996, after Iraq attacked Kurds in northern Iraq, U.S. forces fired 27 cruise missiles against Iraqi military targets. * In August 1998, in retaliation for the terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, U.S. warships in the Red and Arabian seas fired missiles at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. * In December 1998's "Operation Desert Fox," the military dropped more than 600 bombs and launched more than 400 cruise missiles at Iraq in 70 hours of strikes. After Desert Fox, Iraq began firing antiaircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles at American warplanes enforcing the no-fly zones. Throughout most of 1999, the no-fly zones effectively became small wars, with U.S. planes dropping bombs that Iraq claims have killed hundreds of civilians. The latest strike occurred Tuesday afternoon, even as the Cole was steaming down the Red Sea toward Yemen, when U.S. jets launched missiles at what the Central Command described as "a surface-to-air missile support facility in southern Iraq." At first, the U.S. military was strained by the continuing operations in the Gulf region. They were harder on the Air Force than on the Navy and Marine Corps, which already were built around six month deployments. The Navy's adjustments were fairly bureaucratic, such as establishing a new "Fifth Fleet" for the Gulf with a headquarters in Bahrain in 1995. But Air Force pilots, who tired of life in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and complained that patrolling the no-fly zones was boring, began quitting in favor of lucrative jobs with commercial airlines. In response, the Air Force gave up its policy of simply grabbing available forces willy-nilly and restructured its combat units into 10 "Air Expeditionary Forces" that have clear deployment schedules. This new structure does not make the missions any more interesting, but it at least has given Air Force personnel some predictability in their lives. A pilot can know, for example, that he will be at his home base for the next year but on tap to go to the Mideast in 18 months. "As the Gulf presence has become more routine and predictable, it has become more manageable," noted Gordon Adams, a former national security expert at the Office of Management and Budget who now advises the Gore campaign on defense issues. Watching the Pentagon struggle with open-ended deployments, some academic defense experts have argued that the U.S. military should embrace its new role as the world's "imperial constabulary force." The requirement to maintain a large, continuous presence in the Gulf and to execute other nonwar missions, such as peacekeeping in the Balkans, is forcing the military "to rethink its purpose," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University who has become a leading advocate of the "imperial military" view. While the military may find this rethinking disagreeable, it is unavoidable, contends Bacevich, a retired Army colonel. "This issue, not the phony readiness issue, is what the presidential candidates should be addressing," he said. But some inside the military worry that adapting to new roles could distract the military and lead to disaster if a major adversary emerges in a decade or two. They point out that the last military to take on an imperial constabulary mission was the 19th-century British Army, which fought Queen Victoria's small wars in places such as Sudan and Afghanistan. Most of the time its operations were largely ignored by British society. But it was woefully unprepared when World War I erupted and brought a new sort of high intensity, industrialized combat to the European continent. Partly because British generals failed to adapt to this new form of warfare, they led a generation of youth to slaughter. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk