[casi] News, 20-27/7/02 (1)

[Peter Brooke <pbrooke@DELETETHISukonline.co.uk>]

News, 20-27/7/02 (1)

WILL WE, WON'T WE? (Britain)

*  Tough standing shoulder to shoulder
*  Defence chief replaced for being 'off-message' over Iraq invasion
*  Opposition grows to new war on Iraq
*  Commons to have no say on Iraq
*  Parliament and Iraq: Blair must be accountable not evasive

WILL WE, WON'T WE? (Europe)

*  EU pessimism over impasse on Iraqi weapons
*  Europe can overrule US on Iraq, Mideast

WILL WE, WON'T WE? (US)

*  Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq
*  Farrakhan warns U.S. on Arafat, Saddam
*  The clash of battling war plans
*  Gore Questions Iraq Invasion Timing
*  Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq

IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (Australia, Russia, Japan)

*  [Australian] Farmers keep faith on Iraq wheat trade
*  Australians puzzled over government's support to war on Iraq
*  Baghdad May Turn to Moscow for Grain
*  Japan's ambivalence on war with Iraq
*  Russian envoy voices support for lifting sanctions on Iraq
*  [Australian] Wheat board may send delegation to Iraq


WILL WE, WON'T WE? (Britain)

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=316886

*  TOUGH STANDING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER
Sunday Independent, 21st July

Tony Blair's resolve to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States
in the war against terror remains unshaken ­ only last week he laid out the
case for a pre-emptive military strike on Iraq once again. But as plans are
drawn up, evidence of Saddam's nuclear weapons capability awaits publication
and the US champs at the bit, the Prime Minister is cautious.

Behind his tough talk lie complex political and military realities that do
not seem to afflict George Bush. Mr Blair is not the President of the US, he
cannot simply give the word and watch the biggest fighting force in the
world go into battle.

First, the Prime Minister has to deal with British MPs anxious to be given a
say about any potential attack. A significant number of Labour backbenchers
including Tam Dalyell, the father of the House of Commons, and the anti-war
campaigner Alice Mahon are opposed to action in principle. So far they have
been denied a Commons vote on the issue.

Their response has been to warn of revolt at this autumn's Labour Party
conference, intense open criticism of the Government and a concerted
campaign backed by MPs from other parties, peace campaigners, trade
unionists and, significantly, representatives of Muslim communities. Street
protests unlike any seen in the US will certainly follow if Britain goes to
war again.

The dissidents point to fears that invading Iraq could fracture
multiculturalism in the UK and trigger civil unrest. They also warn that it
could provoke violence in and between other nations. Despite their
protestations, Mr Blair remains unmoved.

Downing Street insiders stress his determination to deal with Iraq's
capability to create "weapons of mass destruction" was absolute before 11
September. The events of that day merely demonstrated to the Prime Minister
the dangers of failing to act.

However, there are also questions over Britain's ability to take part in an
invasion. The UK's armed forces are hugely overstretched already, military
experts agree, with troops stationed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, the
Falkland Islands and elsewhere.

There is no question of the armed forces refusing to follow orders, but they
would be under "severe pressure" according to Major Charles Heyman, editor
of Jane's World Armies if they had to field the likely armed division of up
to 25,000 men supported by a further 15,000 logistic troops.

The cost of a campaign in Iraq would also be significant. Major Heyman
believes the Chancellor would have to set aside £1bn to fight an initial
campaign. The final cost could be "a lot more than that", he says.

Toppling the regime could be achieved in between three and six months, but
Major Heyman warns: "There will be serious opposition to this in the Muslim
world."

The longer a campaign goes on, however, the tougher Mr Blair's task of
taking the British public and his own party with him will be. Standing
shoulder to shoulder with his much more powerful friend across the Atlantic
could mean turning his back on some old allies back home, increasing the
Prime Minister's sense of isolation.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=317840

*  DEFENCE CHIEF REPLACED FOR BEING 'OFF-MESSAGE' OVER IRAQ INVASION
by Kim Sengupta
Independent, 24th July

Admiral, Sir Michael Boyce, is to be replaced as Chief of the Defence Staff,
the Government announced yesterday.

The move follows reports of disagreements between Sir Michael and the
Government on a number of issues, especially proposals for a war in Iraq.
Sir Michael is among a number of senior British commanders who are said to
question Britain's backing for a US invasion of Iraq, and are sceptical of
Pentagon claims about Saddam Hussein's links with the al-Qa'ida terror
organisation and his stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction

Sir Michael is said to have displeased Downing Street by being "off-message"
at times during the Afghan war. On one occasion he described some US
commanders as a "20th-century posse". These were hardly the words that Tony
Blair, so keen to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with George Bush, wanted to
hear.

Last autumn Downing Street decided that it wanted to control media briefings
about the Afghan war because military commanders were being too open with
some journalists. This followed a number of incidents which led to what
Downing Street considered to be "inappropriate" headlines. Asked about the
possible course of the war, Sir Michael told a group of defence journalists
that the conflict might last as long as four years, and the broader war
against terrorism might last as long as 50. On another occasion he wondered
whether Britain should follow America so unconditionally.

Soon afterwards senior officers taking part in operation Saif Sareea II in
Oman, seen as a precursor to deployment in Afghanistan, were asking what
exactly would be their mission. Those who urged caution and asked for more
clarity, including Brigadier Roger Lane, later to command the Royal Marines
in Afghanistan, received reprimands.

The Ministry of Defence was told that Alastair Campbell, Downing Street's
director of communications and strategy, would henceforth organise news
dissemination. There followed a series of "spun" reports from Downing
Street, often wildly inaccurate on military matters. The Chief of the
Defence Staff was said to be exasperated.

What made the situation more difficult was that Sir Michael's predecessor,
General Sir Charles Guthrie, had become exceptionally close to the Prime
Minister. Even after his retirement from an unusually long tenure of four
years, he remained in close contact with Mr Blair. During the war in Kosovo
and the Sierra Leone conflict, Defence and Foreign Office ministers often
found that Sir Charles had briefed the Prime Minister before they could. The
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, also clashed with Sir Charles on the issue of
women serving on the front line.

In the run-up to the Afghan war, Sir Charles became the Prime Minister's
unofficial adviser, even being sent as an unofficial emissary to the Middle
East and Pakistan.

Mr Hoon had built up a rapport with Admiral Boyce and the two, until
recently, played squash together. But they discovered that they were
sidelined to an extent by Mr Blair during the Afghan war.

The Government will say the normal term in office for the Chief of the
Defence Staff is two years and Sir Michael will fulfil that timescale. But
it is highly unusual for a replacement to be named so far in advance.

Downing Street may find, however, that the new Chief of the Defence Staff,
General Sir Mike Walker, is not someone they can order around. The general
is known for keeping his powder dry and his thoughts on politics much to
himself. But he does not suffer fools gladly, however well connected they
are.


The successor: A wise man with common sense
by Terri Judd

General Sir Michael Walker, the new Chief of Defence Staff, has been
described as a wise man with a relaxed, common sense approach.

The 58-year-old appears to have been a clear favourite to succeed Admiral
Sir Michael Boyce next year. Since becoming Army Chief of General Staff in
2000, the former commander of the multinational IFOR force in Bosnia has won
praise for his adroit handling of a series of complex operations in Sierra
Leone, Macedonia and Afghanistan.

Recent reports have suggested that, with the possibility of British forces
taking part in an US-led land invasion of Iraq next year, it was felt within
government circles there should be a Chief of Defence Staff from the Army.

He is also said to be suited to handling the delicate political
ramifications of the post and adept at keeping is views to himself.

"As head of the army and commander of ARRC (Allied Command Europe Rapid
Reaction Corps), he has experience of hugely political military jobs. He is
diplomatic but not afraid to be forthright ­ quite prepared to stand up and
say his piece but ministers will respect his decisions," said one colleague.

Since his appointment as its head in April 2000, Sir Michael has been in
tune with reforms to the army, such as letting homosexuals join.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=649737&in
_review_text_id=620794

*  OPPOSITION GROWS TO NEW WAR ON IRAQ
by Joe Murphy
London Evening Standard, 25th July

Tony Blair faces a series of disruptions at this year's Labour conference as
a rebellion grows against the prospect of war on Iraq.

Thousands of Labour activists are joining a mass demonstration in Trafalgar
Square on the eve of the conference where they will complain they are being
denied a chance to speak out at the party gathering.

Left-wingers - backed by some senior moderates - will also attempt to put
down emergency motions relating to the Middle East crisis, although Labour
chiefs made clear that any attempt to pass a hostile vote will be ruled out
of order.

The moves follow mounting opposition among Labour MPs to the strong backing
that the Prime Minister has given to President Bush. Senior backbenchers
believe that several ministers will resign in protest if Britain goes to war
to topple Saddam Hussein. A former Cabinet minister said the danger to Mr
Blair is that the revolt had spread beyond Leftwingers, saying: "There is a
very real danger of Cabinet resignations if the Prime Minister presses
forward."

Mr Blair came under a barrage of questions about his plans yesterday, first
at the weekly meeting of backbenchers and then at Question Time in the
Commons.

The battle was focusing on whether the US would require a fresh UN mandate
to carry out an attack. Government lawyers are understood to believe it
would be lawful to act under the UN resolutions passed a decade ago after
the Gulf War, which oblige Saddam to prove he is not making weapons of mass
production-It has now emerged that the intelligence service has advised Mr
Blair to press President Bush to seek a fresh UN mandate before going to
war.

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said today: "The Prime Minister is obfuscating on
whether he will follow international law or unilaterally join a bombardment
of Iraq which would inevitably lead to terrible loss of lives."

Fellow Left-winger Diane Abbott claimed Mr Blair's recent statements
suggested he would not inform or consult parliament before any attack. "That
is simply appalling," she said.

In the Commons, Mr Blair promised to consult parliament but pointedly
refused to say that he would do so before an attack. "If decisions are taken
there will be ample opportunity for this House to be consulted but we cannot
have a situation where Iraq continues to develop these weapons of mass
destruction," he said.


http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=800482002

*  COMMONS TO HAVE NO SAY ON IRAQ
by Fraser Nelson
The Scotsman, 25th July

TONY Blair yesterday made it clear he will not seek the Commons' permission
before agreeing to join the US in any attack on Iraq.

In the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the summer recess, Mr
Blair said MPs would be "consulted" - but indicated that this will happen
after the decision is taken.

His words left several Labour MPs concerned that Britain will already be in
a state of war when they return in October.

The Prime Minister was asked a barrage of questions about Iraq yesterday
from back-benchers - three at the morning meeting of the Parliamentary
Labour Party and then three in the Commons. The issue, he said, is
premature, adding: "We have not got to the stage of military action. If we
do get to that stage at any point in time we will, of course, make sure that
parliament is properly consulted."

When Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, asked whether such consultation
would happen before or after an attack, Mr Blair replied: "When the decision
is made, we will consider the best way to consult the House - in the normal
way and in the normal circumstances."

Later, Mr Blair's official spokesman was asked whether this confirmed that
the decision will precede any consultation. He replied: "The Prime
Minister's words speak for themselves."

He added, however, that Mr Blair's tongue had slipped when he said "when a
decision is made", rather than "if".

Mr Dalyell said afterwards that the Commons had broken up in no doubt about
Mr Blair's intentions.

He said: "It is wrong that this country should, in cold blood rather than as
a reaction to some event, commit itself to using military force without a
very clear debate."

He denied that such a debate would give Iraq a clear warning about Britain's
intention. "They've been talking about attacking Iraq for months."

Mr Blair is under no constitutional obligation to ask the approval of either
parliament or the Queen to take Britain into an armed conflict.

Political assent in the US was secured under President Clinton, who signed
an order committing the country to toppling Saddam Hussein.

No member of the United Nations can declare war formally, or attack another
nation. Under the UN Charter, only its Security Council can authorise the
use of force.

Diane Abbot, one of Labour's main opponents of war on Iraq, yesterday asked
Mr Blair whether he agreed with Dr Rowan Williams, the new Archbishop of
Canterbury, that "it would be wrong to go to war with Iraq without a fresh
and distinct United Nations mandate".

Mr Blair appeared to agree, saying any move on Iraq would be "legally
justified". He added: "We will make sure that, if we get to the point of
action, it is."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,763356,00.html

*  PARLIAMENT AND IRAQ: BLAIR MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE NOT EVASIVE
The Guardian (Leader), 26th July

It was a sign of the times that the first two questions that were posed to
Tony Blair at his latest Downing Street press conference yesterday concerned
Iraq. It was a sign which, having urged a wide national debate on the Iraq
issue, we greatly welcome. Would that we could say the same about the
answers. On Wednesday, in the final prime minister's question time before
the summer recess, three MPs had asked Mr Blair for reassurances on
parliament's role in the event of hostilities against Iraq. On each
occasion, Mr Blair gave replies that left room for uncertainty. Parliament
would be "properly consulted", Mr Blair said, but without saying at what
point of the process the "consultation" - whatever that means precisely in
any case - would take place. In one answer, he even appeared to say that a
decision to commit British troops against Iraq would be taken before any
parliamentary discussion of the subject.

Quite rightly, Iraq was again the first item on the questioners' agenda in
Downing Street yesterday. Yet Mr Blair's answers were no more clear in
response to the journalists than they were the previous day when he was
quizzed by MPs. Asked why he had declined to promise MPs a vote on Iraq, Mr
Blair said it was important to follow precedent, but that such a discussion
about procedure was premature. Later, Mr Blair tried to extend his room for
manoeuvre even further by saying that he was not going to pin himself to any
specific form of consultation on the issue of Iraq.

Mr Blair has been making serious and welcome efforts recently to make
himself and his government more accountable to parliament and to the public
(yesterday's press conference was one example of the process). But he is
being far too evasive here, and he should not be surprised that suspicions
about his intentions are growing. In fact, there are clear principles and
precedents for Mr Blair and parliament to follow, and the prime minister
should have committed himself explicitly to them. Here's what should happen.

First, Mr Blair should make clear that parliament will be kept informed at
every stage about important developments in regard to Iraq; in particular,
he should keep the cabinet, the other party leaders and senior backbench
officials, as well as the Speaker, fully briefed through the recess. Second,
there should be no hesitation about recalling parliament if and as soon as
events with regard to Iraq warrant it. Third, the recall should not
necessarily be limited to a single day, as it was when parliament was
recalled after September 11; the government must be prepared to be
continually accountable to MPs. Fourth, the government should allow both
Houses to vote on policy towards Iraq. Fifth, no decision to commit British
troops should be taken before parliament has had its chance to debate that
possibility. This is not the kind of crisis in which such decisions need to
be made before parliament can debate them. On the contrary, much of the
mobilisation against Iraq is extremely foreseeable, as this week's exchanges
clearly show.

None of these proposals is especially novel. All are based on precedent. It
is another sign of the times that Mr Blair is so cagey about committing
himself to such plain and straightforward lines of accountability if events
warrant it. It may well be that events will not; it was perfectly fair of
the prime minister to warn yesterday against "getting a bit ahead of
ourselves" on Iraq. But true accountability deserves no less. And so does
true political wisdom. For Mr Blair is going to need all the support he can
get.


WILL WE, WON'T WE? (Europe)

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1027434875540&p=1012571727172

*  EU PESSIMISM OVER IMPASSE ON IRAQI WEAPONS
by Judy Dempsey in Brussels
Financial Times, 23rd July

The Europeans are increasingly pessimistic of achieving any kind of
diplomatic breakthrough with Iraq over the return of United Nations weapons
inspectors that could avert US military strikes on the country.

The growing sense of pessimism follows a meeting in Brussels on Monday
between Louis Michel, the Belgian foreign minister who has been active in
trying to keep the diplomatic door open to Baghdad and has the backing of
the leading European capitals, and Naji Sabri, his Iraqi counterpart.

The Europeans, a senior EU official insisted, wanted weapons inspectors to
be allowed back in to Iraq, without preconditions, and for Baghdad to comply
with the UN security council resolutions, which includes the demand for
their return.

"The outcome of the meeting was very disappointing," said a senior EU
diplomat. "There was no flexibility on the side of Iraq even though Mr
Michel warned Mr Sabri it was already past five minutes to midnight," in
terms of the US planning an attack on Baghdad.

The darker mood among European capitals coincides with reports from
Washington laying out possible scenarios for a US-led military attack
against Baghdad. US military action is widely expected in pursuit of the
Bush administration's policy of unseating Saddam Hussein, who the US and
others believe is pursuing efforts to obtain nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons.

Uncertainty has been growing over these weapons programmes, since 1998 when
UN weapons inspectors last were inside the country. The inspectors had found
strong evidence of previous efforts to develop such weapons.

Senior diplomats in several European Union capitals question the US emphasis
on regime change in Iraq. "Regime change for change's sake. Then what?" a
French official asked.

The diplomats said General Joseph Ralston, commander-in-chief, US European
Command as well as Nato's outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Europe, had
during a visit to Ankara last week asked Turkey about the possibility of
providing "thousands of troops to guard its northern borders" if the US
attacked Iraq.

Mr Michel, who has tried in vain to push the EU into adopting a common
position over Iraq, had informed Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, as well
as Paris, Berlin and the EU's Danish presidency ahead of the planned meeting
with his Iraqi counterpart. Mr Sabri had requested it.

Diplomats said Mr Michel had the full support of these countries to explore
every possible diplomatic channel to avert a military confrontation by the
US as well as to try to understand what motivated Iraq.

Mr Michel, known for his plain speaking, was, according to diplomats "firm"
with Mr Sabri. They said he was determined to press home the point that the
Europeans were "100 per cent" behind attempts by the UN to achieve a
diplomatic solution. "Iraq knows full well our reservations about any US
attack on its country," said a senior EU official. "But if Iraq thought it
could split the Europeans from the UN, it was mistaken."


http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Europe_can_overrule_US_on_Iraq_Mi
deast+.shtml

*  EUROPE CAN OVERRULE US ON IRAQ, MIDEAST
by William Pfaff
Boston Globe, 25th July

PARIS: TENSION AND distrust are now overriding factors in Washington's
relations with its European allies. The initial European response to last
September's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - a tightening of
alliance links - has been wasted by the United States.

The US press is given mild and conciliatory messages about the underlying
firmness of trans-Atlantic cooperation in the war against terrorism and the
unimportance of European criticisms, but these reassurances are not borne
out by conversations with European leaders or in analyses in the mainstream
European press. Criticism and apprehension about the consequences of US
policies prevail. In private there is consistent criticism. In public,
nothing serious is said or done by the European governments.

It might seem that Americans could therefore ignore what the Europeans think
or say in the belief that European objections to US policies make no
difference. The Europeans will eventually fall in line. They have no real
alternative. This time, that might be a dangerously complacent conclusion,
because the Europeans do have alternatives, explosive ones. They could
overturn the post-Cold War alignment tomorrow and do so to their own
probable political and economic profit.

They do not themselves understand their power. Few among Europe's leaders
seem to grasp that if the European NATO governments and public indeed object
to a US attack on Iraq, they can prevent it, or block it for many months,
while accomplishing a transformation in the Middle Eastern situation.

Few understand that the European Union does not have to wait until it has
built up its feeble military forces in order to have an independent world
policy with independent international influence to rival that of the United
States. The world today is not one in which military forces are the most
effective means of power.

This is already evident in the commercial and economic relations of Brussels
between Washington. Washington cannot dismiss European corporate strength
and economic competition. It is compelled to deal with the European Union as
a powerful trade rival to whom it has to make concessions.

The same thing could be accomplished in political relations if the European
NATO allies, or even some of them, were to take a simple but decisive step:
reaffirm that, as its founding treaty states, NATO is an alliance of
independent and politically equal countries.

The Europeans could refuse US use of NATO's European assets in an attack on
Iraq on the grounds that such an attack does not fall under the agreements
on countering terrorism that produced NATO's antiterrorism resolution of
last September.

To do this would not destroy NATO. It might even save it by recreating in it
a political equilibrium. Sooner or later the European powers will have to
deal with the consequences of US unilateralism, and if the European public
feels strongly about Iraq (and indeed about the Israeli-Palestine
situation), now could be the best occasion to act.

The fundamental reason that NATO will not be destroyed is that the United
States needs NATO more than Europe does.

NATO no longer serves to protect Europe from any threat. The threat is gone.
NATO provides the indispensable material and strategic infrastructure for US
military and strategic deployments throughout Europe, Eurasia, the Middle
East, and Africa.

NATO gives the United States a military presence, usually with
extraterritorial privileges, in every one of the alliance member countries
and in most of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries that are members
of the Partnership for Peace.

Washington needs NATO because without NATO the United States has no
legitimate claim to a say in European internal matters. Richard Holbrooke
once said (to some European indignation) that the United States is a
European power. So it is, so long as NATO exists.

A polite mutiny by some or all of the European NATO countries on the
question of war with Iraq would certainly produce what Saddam Hussein might
describe as the mother of all trans-Atlantic rows, but in the end the United
State would back down.

After such a mutiny, NATO would be a different alliance. After that, the
European allies would certainly never again have reason to complain that
Washington was paying no attention to them. But do the Europeans really want
this? Or is it all talk?

William Pfaff is a syndicated columnist.


WILL WE, WON'T WE? (US)

http://observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,759158,00.html

*  BUSH RALLIES US FOR STRIKE ON IRAQ
by Peter Beaumont and Paul Beaver
The Observer, 21st July

President George Bush has told US troops to be ready for 'pre-emptive
military action' against Iraq, as security sources warned that a massive
assault against President Saddam Hussein could be likely at 'short notice'.

Whitehall sources confirmed that Tony Blair had decided Britain must back
any US assault and had ordered defence planners to begin the preparations
for a new war in the Gulf.

'President Bush has already made up his mind. This is going to happen. It is
a given,' said one Whitehall source. 'What we are waiting for is to be told
the details of how and when and where.'

Although Britain has not decided on its level of commitment, defence sources
say planners have been told to expect to send 20,000-30,000 British troops.

The sources added that British Challenger II main battle tanks and other key
armoured fighting vehicles were being pushed through a crash servicing and
refit programme. The Ministry of Defence has explained the crash repairs
programme by saying it is for a military exercise planned for Scotland.

However, expectation of a large British involvement in a US-led war to
topple Saddam Hussein has been raised by reports that Britain will issue an
emergency call-up of reservists in September and by reports of other
preparations, including a big increase in RAF training flights.

'The combat indicators are all there,' said one source. 'This is going to
happen. And perhaps sooner than we think.'

Whitehall sources claim, however, that the Prime Minister is hesitating in
declaring his full endorsement of Bush's plans until Washington puts in a
formal request for British troops.

Unlike Bush, Blair is understood to be concerned that Britain can make a
legal case for intervening in Iraq to remove Saddam, because of concern that
his support for the war could split the Cabinet and lose the support of the
Parliamentary Labour Party.

Blair ordered the preparation of a document that would lay out the
justification for attacking Iraq three months ago. Sources say the document
- expected to set out a 'legal framework' for a war - has been completed.

The latest disclosures came as Bush used a visit to the troops that fought
al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan to renew his vow that the United States would
strike pre-emptively against countries developing weapons of mass
destruction, telling troops that 'America must act against these terrible
threats before they're fully formed'.

Surrounded by troops of the 10th Mountain Division, among the first sent to
Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, one of the soldiers yelled: 'Let's get Saddam!'

Bush's address came amid reports of efforts by Iraqi diplomats to court Arab
neighbours in countries that might be used for a US assault.

Iraq began to end a decade of diplomatic isolation in March at the Arab
summit. Since then - according to the Washington Post - it has signed up to
economic agreements with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and discussed
prisoner exchanges with Iran, putting pressure on Washington to act swiftly.


http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020723-32514064.htm

*  FARRAKHAN WARNS U.S. ON ARAFAT, SADDAM
by Andy Olsen
The Washington Times, 23rd July

Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, sharply criticized U.S.
policy in the Middle East yesterday, urging the Bush administration to leave
Yasser Arafat alone and warning that a military strike on Iraq would be an
"attack against God Himself."

He denied again a report by the Iraqi News Agency quoting him as having said
during a visit to Baghdad that American Muslims were praying for an Iraqi
victory over the United States.

Mr. Farrakhan, who returned earlier this month from a "peace mission" to
Africa and the Middle East, told reporters that an atmosphere of American
"patriotism" is trying to vilify him as an enemy of the nation.

"The only victory that I and the people of this mission prayed for was
peace. I would never go on a peace mission and pray for a war."

Mr. Farrakhan said that President Bush's opposition to Yasser Arafat, the
Palestinian leader, had only strengthened support for him and stirred up
anti-American anger.

"If America fails to use her heavy leverage in a positive way to bring about
peace, the conflict will widen and American interests will be damaged," he
said.

Mr. Farrakhan, who advocates a full Israeli pullout from the West Bank,
urged U.S. and United Nations officials to supervise the creation of a
Palestinian state.

Asked about the Palestinian suicide bombings, he condemned what he said were
dire circumstances that left Palestinians with no choice but terrorism.
"When people reach that level of despair, they do what they think they must
do."

Mr. Farrakhan met with high-level Iraqi officials in the latest of several
visits he has made to Iraq over the last decade. He said any military strike
on Iraq "would increase hatred for the American administration" and would
cause a popular uprising.

A spokesman from the White House declined to comment on prospective war
plans. The United States and the United Nations have had sanctions in place
against Iraq since the Gulf war ended more than 10 years ago.

Mr. Farrakhan has decried those sanctions, which U.N. officials say they
will not lift until weapons inspectors are allowed into the country.

He said he would offer a detailed summary of his trip to Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell, along with advice not to attack Iraq and an appeal to
refrain from calling for a new Palestinian leader to replace Yasser Arafat.


NO URL (sent through list)

*  THE CLASH OF BATTLING WAR PLANS
by Arnaud de Borchgrave
The Washington Times July 22, 2002

About 5,000 ships ‹ from battleships to small landing craft loaded with
130,000 troops ‹ and more than 1,000 air transports to drop three divisions
of paratroopers was the Allied plan for the invasion of Normandy scheduled
for early June 1944. Imagine Operation Overlord for D-Day splashed all over
the front page of the New York Times. Unthinkable, you say.

Then imagine the German high command's plans to repulse the Allied invasion
announced by Adolf Hitler himself in a meeting with his closest advisers and
then leaked to a London newspaper. Equally unthinkable.

But this is how the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Saddam's plans
to counterattack have been played out in the New York Times and a Kuwaiti
newspaper ‹ all before a single shot has been fired.

Iraq's longtime dictator read about the U.S. plan to invade his country from
three directions with 225,000 troops courtesy of the New York Times. Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was apoplectic. He was born into an age when
such leaks would have been high treason, punishable by death before a firing
squad. He ordered his staff to find the leaker and scores are now being run
through lie detectors and voice-stress analyzers. But before anyone faces a
court-martial or dismissal from the civil service, perhaps the guilty party
should be praised for having smoked out Saddam's plan courtesy of a leak to
a Kuwaiti newspaper.

We now know Saddam would unleash all his assets on all fronts ‹ e.g.,
terrorist "sleeper" cells in the United States, in Pakistan and in the
oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf and wherever ‹ even in Afghanistan.
The Iraqi ambassador to Pakistan, K.A. Ravi, speaking at a national day
reception in Islamabad, added more juicy details. Raising a glass of orange
juice, he intoned: "The jihad [holy war] in Afghanistan will begin shortly,
and jihadi groups will kick out America from Afghanistan just like what they
did to Russia. The jihadis will also continue to play an important role in
Kashmir [against India]. Pakistan, with the entire Muslim world and Arab
countries, will retaliate against any U.S. intervention in Iraq."

Saddam's man in Pakistan spoke as if President Pervez Musharraf didn't
exist. So assassination of the Pakistani president was presumably part of
the Iraqi plan to counter a U.S. invasion.

The Bush administration's war against Iraq has already become a regional
conflict with blank ammo fired through the media in both camps. With luck,
the coming war will be fought to a Mexican standoff before that first Iraqi
Scud missile with a chemical or biological warhead lands in downtown Tel
Aviv.

This writer can add several more leaks to the mother of all blank wars. The
latest U.S. battle plan includes a precision-guided blitzkrieg against all
strategic targets (including the post office in Basra) and the quick
mobilization of thousands of Iraqi troops the Pentagon assumes will
surrender without a fight. They would then be placed under the command of
the dissident Iraqi generals who met in London recently ‹ and ordered to
march against Baghdad and flush out Saddam's Republican Guard divisions
defending the city. U.S. war planners have no intention of getting involved
in street and Saddam-palace-by-Saddam-palace urban guerrilla fighting.

Assuming these Iraqi deserters still have the stomach to fight and manage
with the fortunes of war to liberate Baghdad, an anti-Saddam Iraqi general
would assume power and prepare to turn the country back to pre-1958 civilian
rule.

After that, the law of unintended consequences kicks in. The liberation of
Baghdad doesn't take place. Instead, the war becomes the prolonged Siege of
Baghdad. Thousands are slaughtered and the Iraqi deserters, now on the U.S.
team, surrender again, back to Saddam's ranks. At the same time, Iraqi
saboteurs (with a little help from al Qaeda's "sleepers") are blowing up oil
installations up and down the Gulf, and violent demonstrations break out in
Muslim capitals from Morocco to Malaysia. Pakistan's Mr. Musharraf falls
victim to an assassin's bullet and an Islamist general ‹ the retired former
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Hamid Gul, who hates America with a
long-burning passion ‹ takes over.

Gen. Gul immediately declares that Pakistan's 35-weapon nuclear arsenal is
now at the disposal of the Islamic "Umma," a global Islamic community. A
500,000 ton-tanker flying a Liberian flag blows up in the Strait of Hormuz.
Terrorist frogmen, on a moonless night, had pulled up alongside the vessel
in a rubber Zodiac outboard speedster and stuck a brace of limpet mines on
the tanker's hull.

The House of Saud is toppled by hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in
the streets of Riyadh, Jeddah and Dhahran shouting pro-Osama bin Laden
slogans. The 24,000-strong royal family (including princesses) race for
airports only to find their fleets of private jets under hostile armed
guard. The Saudi army, led by a dissident prince, switches sides, and Osama
is proclaimed president of the RSA (Republic of Saudi Arabia). Gen. Gul
flies to Riyadh for a summit meeting with Osama and a joint communique is
issued proclaiming the two countries' fusion in the Umma. The Shi'ite regime
of ayatollahs and mullahs across the Gulf in Iran are paralyzed with fear.
But they swallow their pride and issue a communique that damns the new
alliance with faint praise.

By then, of course, the Western world is plunged into economic depression.
It's the unintended exit strategy.

The American planners clearly had not read the history of World War I when
British Gen. Sir Charles Townshend, commanding two Indian Army divisions,
marched on Baghdad to seize the capital of what was then Mesopotamia and
kick out the Turkish army. Townshend was repulsed and fell back on the city
of Kut, where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers meet. After a bloody siege
during which Townshend's troops ate their horses, the Turks prevailed and
Townshend surrendered. The History Channel put it in the category of
"Military Blunders of World War I."

High time to brush up on military history ‹ and for senators to ask the
tough questions.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of
United Press International.


http://www.baghdad.com/p/f3/371bceee98fd.html

*  GORE QUESTIONS IRAQ INVASION TIMING
The Associated Press, 25th July

WASHINGTON (AP) ‹ Al Gore told young Democrats on Thursday that he supports
the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but questioned whether it is a
good idea to invade Iraq now.

"I think the principle of 'first things first' does apply and has to be
followed if we are to have any chance of success," the former vice president
said, suggesting that Afghanistan's stability needs to be assured first.

Gore, the 2000 Democratic nominee for president, made the comments to a
group called 21st Century Democrats at the Dirksen building, where many
senators have their offices. He said it was his first visit to Capitol Hill
since he left office.

In a low-key discussion with more than 500 young Democrats who packed into
the spacious conference room, Gore mixed jokes with his criticism of the
Bush administration's economic plans and foreign policy. He criticized the
president for frequently threatening to topple Saddam.

"I certainly question why we would be publicly blustering and announcing an
invasion a year or two years in advance," Gore said, noting that some
officials had leaked documents spelling out battle strategy.

"What was that all about?" Gore said to laughter. "These guys are supposed
to be good at foreign policy. I don't think they are."

He praised the president's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but
said the administration has made mistakes recently in Afghanistan, notably
in not allowing sufficient international peacekeepers to prevent the country
from drifting back toward the control of warlords.

Gore said he supported the Persian Gulf War, and noted that Arab countries
were united to back the U.S.-led coalition then. He said allies in Europe
and Asia also supported that war against Iraq a decade ago.

"Contrast that with the situation we have today," Gore said, noting that
Arab nations have not indicated they support an effort to overthrow Saddam,
and allies in other parts of the world have not been recruited to back such
an effort.

"I do think the situation our country faces now is fundamentally different
than what we faced on the eve of the Gulf War," Gore said. "If the rest of
the world does not see what it regards as a sufficient provocation to
justify an invasion by the United States, then the diplomatic cost would be
extremely high."

Despite his doubts about the timing of an invasion, Gore said he supports
the eventual overthrow of Saddam. "I felt they made a mistake by not
finishing the job" a decade ago, during the first Bush administration, he
said.

The current president has talked tough about Iraq, but has not yet fully
consulted America's skeptical allies, enlisted political support from
Congress or prepared the American public for a new war. White House
officials did not return calls seeking response to Gore's criticism.

Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke called Gore's comments
"irresponsible" and added, "This is no time to attack the president or
Republicans for their handling of the war for political gain."

[.....]


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10749-2002Jul27.html

*  SOME TOP MILITARY BRASS FAVOR STATUS QUO IN IRAQ
by Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post, 28th July


IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (Australia, Russia, Japan)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/23/1027332378848.html

*  FARMERS KEEP FAITH ON IRAQ WHEAT TRADE
by Daniel Lewis
Sydney Morning Herald, 23rd July

Farmers and the Australian Wheat Board say their relationship with Iraq is
so strong and long-standing that they are confident any trade problems can
be resolved.

Gunnedah farmer and Grains Council president Keith Perrett said that if the
threats were followed through they would cause some problems for wheat
growers, but local and international conditions meant any impact would be
minimal.

Australia has been exporting wheat to Iraq for more than 50 years and is its
main supplier through the United Nations' oil-for-food program.

The Wheat Board sells about 2 million tonnes to Iraq each year. So far this
year the board has shipped about 1.3 million tonnes and was recently
contracted to sell another 500,000 tonnes.

Its managing director, Andrew Lindberg, said that in line with the Iraqi
Minister for Trade's recent comments, the Iraqi Government had put on hold
an order for a further 500,000 tonnes.

"We are at present working with the Iraqi Government on this matter and are
hopeful of being able to find a solution," he said.

"[The board] has enjoyed a strong and special relationship with Iraq based
on mutual goodwill. We have maintained the flow of essential food items
during some very difficult periods and the fact that this trade has
continued through such tough times is testimony to the strength of the
relationship that exists between Iraq and AWB."

Because of the drought, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics last month lowered its forecast for production from the
winter-planted wheat crop to 20.5 million tonnes, 13.7 per cent less than
last season's harvest of 23.7 million tonnes.

The grain industry now believes the harvest will be more like 18 million
tonnes as the drought continues to worsen.

Internationally, other major wheat exporters like Canada and the United
States are also having poor growing seasons, pushing the price of wheat to a
four-year high as demand outstrips supply.

On Monday the Wheat Board increased the price it pays growers for prime
wheat by $10 a tonne to $240 a tonne.

If Iraq did not buy its wheat from Australia as arranged, it would have
great difficultly sourcing it elsewhere, Mr Perrett said, while Australia
would probably not have difficulty finding other buyers.

Of the Australian Government's antagonistic position on Iraq, Mr Perrett
said: "We don't enter that debate in any way, shape or form." Farmers were
happy to trade with the rogue Gulf state "because there are millions of
innocent people in Iraq who need food".


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-07/24/content_496220.htm

*  AUSTRALIANS PUZZLED OVER GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT TO WAR ON IRAQ

CANBERRA, July 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Australians are puzzled over their
government's over-enthusiastic support to a possible US war against Iraq and
questioned what vital Australian interests are atstake in Iraq?

Canberra was the first country in the world to support the Bush
Administration's "preemptive strike strategy on terrorism" and has committed
itself to sending one armed brigade to a brewing war against Iraq when the
United States itself has not yet made up itsmind and the US European allies
were all hesitating.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was even anxious for such a war last week
when he visited Washington. "Only a fool would support a policy of appeasing
Iraq," he said.

But Australian media were puzzled over the stance.

The Australian Financial Review questioned Tuesday "Why is the Australian
government moving with such apparent insouciance on such grave matters? Why,
when other Western governments (and Australia's Islamic neighbors) are
deeply concerned about US tendencies to unilateral action, is Australia yet
again seemingly willing to blindly follow its powerful ally into mortal
peril?"

Famous political analyst Paul Kelly pointed out Wednesday in The Australian
daily, "The Howard government has been unwise in talking up a strike before
Bush has begun to make the case. The upshot is that Australia now suffers
potential trade retaliation from Iraq for a war whose contingency plans
aren't even on Bush's desk let alone requests in the mail to the allies to
participate."

"The core risk for Australia in the entire exercise is that Bush might fail
to build a credible basis for allied support either because such an argument
doesn't appreciated the need. Thatwould leave Australia trapped between the
need to uphold the alliance yet saddled with a partner unable to offer
convincing arguments to justify allied involvement," he commented.

The debate was fuelled by the recent Iraqi threat to reduce wheat import
from Australia. Real concern arose, as Iraq has been among Australia's top
five importers of wheat for the past five years, buying 2.352 million tons
worth 443.5 million US dollars.

Downer despised the threat on Tuesday, saying Australia would not change its
policy on Iraq. On Wednesday, Prime Minister John Howard said, "Our position
is that we can't allow any country to tell us what our foreign policy must
be as a condition of taking our exports."

Opposition Labor Party's foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd expressed a
different view. He warned that rhetoric could cost thecountry hundreds of
millions of dollars in export. The Australian daily criticized in its
Wednesday's editorial that "Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, with his
dangerous and misleading rhetoric on Iraq, could cost Australia dearly."

But these arguments cannot change the government's mind. The Howard
government's policy was carefully planned. It believes Australia's national
interest lies in a close relationship with the sole superpower in the
current era. Though Australia's contributions to any previous US military
actions were all quite limited, expressing loyalty to the alliance itself is
very important.

After the September 11 attacks, the government invoked the Australia-New
Zealand-US Security Treaty, for the first time in its 50-year history. In
the past, Australia was assuming the treaty was about America helping it,
not vice versa. However, in the final analysis it is Australia that counts
on Americans to help in the uncertain world.


http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/07/25/047.html

*  BAGHDAD MAY TURN TO MOSCOW FOR GRAIN
by Julie Tolkacheva
Moscow Times (from Reuters), 25th July

Cheap Russian and Kazakh grain will do well in the Iraqi market if Baghdad
goes ahead with threats to slash high-quality wheat imports from Australia,
but India and Pakistan are seen as serious rivals.

Iraq, which needs to buy 3.2 million tons of grain this year, has threatened
to halve its imports from Australia over Canberra's support for a U.S.
strike against Iraq.

Analysts and traders said Russia, which has a large grain surplus, could
easily fill the Australian gap, although the quality of its wheat was lower.

"Iraq has high quality standards, and the wheat supplied by Australia is of
higher quality than ours," said an official at the Rusagro agricultural
holding. "Quality is one of the most delicate issues in the question of
Russia's ability to replace Australia. Volumes and price are not the
question."

Andrei Sizov of agricultural analysts SovEcon said the quality of the new
harvest was lower than last year's.

Russia, which according to the Agriculture Ministry's estimates has 5
million tons of grain leftover from previous years, is anxious to find new
markets after the European Union introduced import restrictions.

The EU this year increased import duties several times and plans to
introduce quotas on imported wheat by country of origin.

Traders estimate Russia's 2002-03 grain harvest at 83 million tons, slightly
lower than last year's bumper crop of 85 million tons, and say it will
export about 5 million tons.

Iraq, whose food imports run solely under the United Nations' oil-for-food
program, buys around 2 million tons a year from Australia.

Sizov said Russia's only CIS competitor would be Kazakhstan, whose cheap
grain was of better quality than Russia's.

Kazakhstan's food exporting corporation, Prodkorporatsiya, was not
immediately available for comment.

But traders and analysts said Russia could use the advantage of its
historically good relations with Iraq to help it win contracts.

Moscow, keen to exploit lucrative oil deals in Iraq, has encouraged Baghdad
to accept the return of UN arms inspectors to secure the lifting of
sanctions against the country.

"Russia can count on a more preferential attitude from Iraq than Kazakhstan
or Ukraine. We can play this card and get a preferential order," Sizov said.

Analysts said Indian and Pakistani exporters could also compete with Russia
for Australia's Iraqi market share. Transportation costs from India and
Pakistan are lower than those from Russia.

"Pakistan and India are our most serious rivals, unlike Kazakhstan," Sizov
said, adding that the quality of grain from both countries was lower than
Russia's.

Ukrainian traders doubted whether Ukrainian grain would fill Iraq's
food-grain gap, saying the low quality of this year's milling wheat and high
transport costs meant that local companies had little chance of competing
for the market with Russia or Kazakhstan.

"I think it will be Kazakh grain -- high quality, low prices and ridiculous
transport costs -- all these things will help Kazakhstan dominate the
market," one Ukrainian trader said. "But some Russian grain could also find
customers in Iraq due to its very low price."


http://japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=216

*  JAPAN'S AMBIVALENCE ON WAR WITH IRAQ
by Axel Berkofsky
Japan Today (from Asia Times Online), 25th July

Is Japan ready to support a U.S. military strike against Iraq? This question
came up recently during what was supposed to be a secret meeting of Japanese
Foreign Ministry and Defense Agency officials.

Despite the government's earlier "read my lips" statements that supporting
U.S. military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by force would
not be part of the "unconditional support" Prime Minister Koizumi promised
U.S. President George W Bush after Sept 11, Japan is now reportedly
considering continuing to refuel U.S. warships in the Indian Ocean in the
event of a U.S. military strike against Iraq.

Under the Japanese Anti-terrorism Special Measures Law enacted last Oct 29,
Japan's Self-Defense Forces have sent naval vessels and 1,500 troops to the
Indian Ocean to refuel U.S. and British warships as Japan's contribution to
the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

In April, Japan's mission was extended for another six months after the Bush
administration "convinced" Koizumi that sailing home was not an option just
yet, now that, according to Washington, the war on international terrorism
had only just begun.

While political commentators in Japan concluded that officials must have
been out of their minds to invite the United States to put additional
pressure on Japan to get involved in a war against Iraq, the Japanese
government countered that the officials' getting together was nothing more
than part of a "checking all the options" procedure and an attempt to
"balance the relationship with the U.S. and Arab oil-producing nations."

Not much of a balance, however, can be expected when bombs start falling on
Baghdad with all Arab nations opposing military action against Iraq.

Supporting military action against Saddam when nobody else does is surely
the kind of spirit the Pentagon expects from its junior ally, although some
political commentators in Japan suspect that policy makers got carried away
daydreaming about becoming a "real" U.S. ally, securing Japan a place on
Bush's list of "best friends."

Applauding U.S. military action, however, seems to go only so far even in
Japan, and officials were careful to tone down their rhetoric at their
not-so-secret meeting, concluding that Japan's decision to support a strike
against Iraq would depend on the "purpose" of such an attack as well as on
responses from European and Arab countries.

While Bush has repeatedly made clear that getting rid of Saddam once and for
all is on the agenda, the Japanese officials set another precondition for
logistical support for the U.S. military that is unlikely to be taken
seriously by the Pentagon when the bullets start flying:

"Japan would continue to provide logistical support for the U.S. military
against Iraq only if the U.S. promises not to use Japanese fuel for military
operations against Iraq," announced the officials in yet another ill-fated
attempt to explain why self-declared pacifist Japan can have a clear
conscience contributing to U.S.-led wars.

Then again, contradictions and military scenarios that qualify as
unrealistic at best are hardly new in Japanese defense-policy discussions,
although trying to make sure that Japanese fuel will be used for "peaceful"
reasons might turn out to be too much of a challenge even for the country's
policy-makers.

U.S. ideas for Japanese support in the fight against international terrorism
have comprised more than refueling U.S. and British warships in non-combat
zones for some time, and every once in a while US government officials,
including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, show up in Tokyo
urging Koizumi to dispatch Japan's high-tech AEGIS warships to the Indian
Ocean and move on to the Persian Gulf when the time comes.

Although flattered by so much U.S. comradeship and constant "we are in this
together" reminders coming from the White House, Koizumi has so far resisted
U.S. pressure to deploy the AEGIS destroyers to the Indian Ocean and beyond.
The Japanese Navy, on the other hand, seem keen on the idea of sailing
toward danger zones and has done its own share to increase the pressure on
the government to send the sophisticated destroyers closer to the potential
action.

In May it was revealed that high-ranking Japanese naval officers secretly
encouraged their U.S. counterparts and U.S. government officials to ask
Tokyo to dispatch the AEGIS warships, which are equipped with weapon systems
and radar that closely complement U.S. weaponry. Even when it turned out
that Koizumi was the last to know about the Japanese Navy taking over
Japan's defense policy, he casually advised the Japanese press not to make
too much of "navy pals chatting off the record."

Ironically enough, it might be Japan's anti-terrorism law itself that
prevents Japanese vessels from sailing into the Persian Gulf; the law only
authorizes Japanese engagement if the al Qaeda terrorist network is the
target of U.S. military operations.

Hence, as long as there is no clear evidence linking al Qaeda and the Sept
11 attacks with the Iraqi government led by Saddam, Koizumi would have to
call his troops home and get ready for another round of Japan-bashing in the
United States.

Linking Saddam to international terrorism and al Qaeda will be the easy
part, and critics in Japan suspect that it might not be too long before
Koizumi and Japan's defense establishment will be standing alongside Bush
pointing the finger at the "evil folks" in Iraq.

In order to silence the critics and avoid possible legal problems, some in
Koizumi's cabinet and the Defense Agency advocate an additional
anti-terrorism law that would enable the Self-Defense Forces to provide
logistical support for a U.S. military operations in Iraq and all over the
planet.

Whether Koizumi will opt for a new anti-terrorism law, "reinterpret" the
current one or back off altogether remains to be seen, although he can
always count on Washington helping him to make up his mind sooner or later.

Unlike in the United States, sending troops off to war does not boost the
government's public approval ratings in Japan, and
wanna-be-international-big-shot Koizumi might instead find himself replaced
one day soon if his rhetoric on reforms remains empty and the country's
economy stays paralyzed.

Bush, on the other hand, is eager to avoid this fate by any and all means
and seems ready to strike before domestic scandals and economic woes take
over the headlines.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-07/26/content_498423.htm

*  RUSSIAN ENVOY VOICES SUPPORT FOR LIFTING SANCTIONS ON IRAQ

BAGHDAD, July 25 (Xinhuanet) -- Visiting Russian deputy foreign minister
voiced his country's long-term stand of opposing economic sanctions on Iraq
in his meetings with senior Iraqi officials on Thursday, the Iraqi News
Agency reported.

In the meeting with Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, Alexander
Sultanov said the attitudes of the Russian government are "fixed" and will
not be changed, especially concerning the "lifting of the embargo and ending
the sanctions," referring to the punishment imposed by the United Nations on
Iraq for its invasion of neighboring Kuwait in 1990.

"The Russian government works to promote its relations with Iraqand develop
bilateral cooperation in a way that would serve the interests of both
countries," Sultanov was quoted as saying.

Iraq has traditionally been close to Russia, one of the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council, and hopes that Russiawould use its clout
to help end the decade-long sanctions.

"The relations of friendship between Iraq and Russia are historical and
strategical, and based on the principled attitude ofIraqi leadership,"
Ramadan was quoted as saying.

In a separate meeting, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz stressed the
steadfast stand of the Iraqi people and leadership against the political
agenda of the US administration, calling for "political resistance with all
available ways" to counter the US policy, INA said.

US President George W. Bush has branded Iraq as part of an "axisof evil" and
vowed to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with all the tools at his
disposal, a policy opposed by Russia.

On July 16, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed that the Iraq issue
should be settled through political and diplomatic ways.

"Russia is willing to continue its active work to reach a comprehensive
settlement of the Iraq issue through political and diplomatic ways only,"
Putin said in a telegram of congratulations to Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein on the 34th anniversary of the July 17-30 revolution, which brought
the ruling Arab Baath Socialist Party to power in Iraq.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/business/2002/07/item20020727065423_1.htm

*  WHEAT BOARD MAY SEND DELEGATION TO IRAQ
ABC (Australia), 27th July

The Australian Wheat Board says it is considering sending a delegation to
Iraq to try to resolve a dispute over wheat exports to the Middle Eastern
country.

Earlier this week Iraq's senior diplomat in Canberra asked Australia to
reconsider its support for US military strikes, saying Prime Minister John
Howard's position is hostile.

The country has put on hold all imports of Australian wheat.

Trade Minister Mark Vaile says the last shipment of wheat will be exported
as planned.

He is confident the Australian Wheat Board will negotiate a lifting of the
stay.

"That will be taking what's been shipped so far this year to 1.8 million
tonnes," he said.

"We're only actually 200,000 tonnes shy of what we shipped last year.

"The wheat board and my discussions with them are quite confident that they
will be able to negotiate their way through this sensitive issue."




_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk