[casi] News, 24-31/8/02 (1)

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

News, 24-31/8/02 (1)

IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

*  Schroeder and Stoiber spar on TV over Iraq
*  Indian Firms Probed for Alleged Weapons Technology Sales to Iraq: Report
*  Iraqi FM Visits Shanghai
*  Use of force unhelpful in solving Iraq issue: China
*  Belgium warns Blair over US relationship
*  Germany Slams U.S. Remarks on Iraq
*  Stoiber attacks US Iraq policy
*  France, Netherlands Call for European Common Position on Iraq
*  Germany Steps Up Criticism of U.S. Call for Iraq Strike
*  France shifting stance on Iraq
*  Japan, U.S. united on Iraq threat
*  Musharraf Critical of Attack on Iraq
*  Germany may remove tanks from Kuwait
*  We'll send Australians home in bags, says Iraq
*  Ukrainian help for upgrade?

INSIDE IRAQ

*  In Baghdad streets, they're not quaking in their boots
*  Saddam's dark star rising



IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

http://www.iht.com/articles/68721.html

*  SCHROEDER AND STOIBER SPAR ON TV OVER IRAQ
by John Vinocur
International Herald Tribune, 26th August

Germany watched its first-ever televised debate between candidates for
chancellor Sunday night as the incumbent, Gerhard Schroeder, and Edmund
Stoiber clashed over the country's stance on a possible invasion of Iraq and
how to raise the German economy from its sickbed.

The debate between Schroeder, a Social Democrat, and Stoiber, the Christian
Democratic challenger, who is minister-president of Bavaria, turned sharp
when the colloquy turned to Schroeder's campaign assertion that Germany
would not join the United States in any attack on Saddam Hussein.

With a facility that was thought to be Schroeder's strength, Stoiber
attacked the chancellor for putting Germany in what he called a "fully
irresponsible position" on Iraq.

Stoiber said that when Schroeder announced that Germany would take no part
in an invasion, Schroeder had contributed to taking pressure off Saddam.

"That is not clever," the challenger said. It also meant, Stoiber argued,
that Germany would not be ready to participate if the United Nations were to
decide to enforce a return to Iraq of weapons inspectors through military
means.

Schroeder, in reply, tried to differentiate between an invasion, which he
rejected, and the issue of Iraq's refusal to allow inspections for weapons
of mass destruction.

Stoiber focused on Schroeder's willingness to use the phrase "the German
way" in elaborating foreign policy. He said: "There's only a European way.
Not a separate German way."

A moderator specifically asked the challenger if he would allow German
forces to participate in an invasion of Iraq. His reply was a dodge. "No
German chancellor will be involved in an adventure," he said. "That's
obvious."

Stoiber referred to Saddam as a criminal and accused Schroeder of taking his
no-invasion position "for electoral reasons."

Asked by one of the two moderators of the 75-minute program - the candidates
had 90 seconds each to reply - if Germany would come to Israel's aid if it
were attacked by Saddam, Schroeder answered, "When friends are attacked,
it's clear, we help."

And he again underscored the difference between situations when no
verifiable military provocation exists and when the United Nations might be
attempting to return weapons inspectors to Iraq.

[.....]


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/27/02&Cat=4&Num=1

*  INDIAN FIRMS PROBED FOR ALLEGED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY SALES TO IRAQ: REPORT
Tehran Times, 27th August

NEW DELHI -- India is investigating five companies over allegations that
they supplied technology and equipment to Iraq for its missile and chemical
weapons programs, a report said Monday.

The five firms -- all part of the Delhi-based company Nec Engineers PVT. Ltd
-- are being investigated by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI),
India's External Intelligence Agency, Raw, and U.S. agencies,  The Hindustan
Times  said.

A nationwide customs alert had been issued against Nec Engineers, which said
the company "may be actively assisting (the) Iraqi missile and chemical
weapons program", according to the report.

The export of technology and equipment to Iraq was made directly or
indirectly through Jordan and Dubai, the paper said.

According to the DRI, which comes under India's Finance Ministry, equipment
such as titanium vessels, filters and titanium anodes -- used in the
production of rocket fuel -- reached a plant in Iraq through two Persian
Gulf-based companies.

Once the DRI began investigations into Nec Engineers' operations, it stopped
sending the equipment under its name and shipped goods through its sister
concerns -- British Scaffolding India and M/S Euro Projects International
Limited.

The DRI also said the company had kept its vendors in the dark about the
ultimate destination of the shipments, fearing they would withold the
supplies, the report added.

DRI officials were unavailable for comment. Nec Engineers has denied the
allegations, the newspaper said.

According to the company, the exports to Iraq were under the United Nations
oil for food program. It added it was being harassed by Indian agencies to
please a "superpower", according to the report.

The United States has repeatedly threatened to take military action against
Iraq for allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction, a charge Baghdad
denies.

It has also demanded Baghdad allow UN weapons inspectors back in. They fled
the country in December 1998 on the eve of U.S. and British air strikes.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200208/27/eng20020827_102138.shtml

*  IRAQI FM VISITS SHANGHAI
Peoples Daily, 27th August

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Ahmed and his party visited Shanghai and
met with Shanghai Vice-Mayor Zhou Muyao.

Zhou briefed the guests on Shanghai's economic development in recent years.
The Iraqi guests also visited a TV tower.

The Iraqi foreign minister arrived here Monday morning for a three-day
official visit to China at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Tang
Jiaxuan.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_53346,0005.htm

*  USE OF FORCE UNHELPFUL IN SOLVING IRAQ ISSUE: CHINA
Hindstani Times, from Press Trust of India, 27th August

China on Tuesday opposed any "use of force" or "threats of force" against
Iraq and called for political and diplomatic means to defuse tensions with
the US.

"Using force or threats of force is unhelpful in solving the Iraq issue and
will increase regional instability and tensions," Chinese foreign minister
Tang Jiaxuan said here.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China, along with the
international community, would play a positive role in easing the tense
situation between Baghdad and Washington, Tang told his visiting Iraqi
counterpart Naji Sabri Ahmed.

Tang's comments assume significance in the wake of threats by the Bush
administration to attack Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, who
he says poses a threat to American interests due to its Weapons of Mass
Destruction capability.

Tang said China had always been concerned over the Iraq issue and was making
unremitting efforts to urge the international community to lift sanctions
against Iraq at an early date in accordance with Iraq's implementation of
the relevant resolutions of UNSC.

At the same time, Iraq should completely and effectively implement the
Security Council resolutions, cooperate with the UN and actively improve
relations with its neighbours, Tang was quoted as saying by the official
Xinhua news agency.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,781644,00.html

*  BELGIUM WARNS BLAIR OVER US RELATIONSHIP
by Ian Black in Brussels and Jon Henley in Paris
The Guardian, 28th August

Tony Blair got a fresh warning of trouble ahead from Europe yesterday when
the Belgian foreign minister openly attacked him for "submissively"
following the US lead on Iraq.

Remarks by Louis Michel were shrugged off by British officials but found an
echo in a wider Europe increasingly alarmed at signs of US determination to
bring down Saddam Hussein.

The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, yesterday reiterated that he would
not support George Bush in an attack on Iraq if Baghdad does not allow UN
weapons inspectors back in. "Someone who is supposed to be disposed of with
the aid of a military intervention will be hard to persuade to let
inspectors into the country," Mr Schröder told RTL television.

Mr Michel told the Belgian daily Het Laatste Nieuws: "Morally and
politically we could take charge in the world. But the British are blocking
that. They still don't understand that they could play a pioneer role in
Europe instead of submissively following the US."

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said the international
community must maintain "with the greatest possible firmness" its insistence
on weapons inspections but added that if no satisfaction was obtained, no
military action could be taken without a security council decision.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2002/aug/28/082803656.html

*  GERMANY SLAMS U.S. REMARKS ON IRAQ
Las Vegas Sun, from Associated Press, 28th August

BERLIN- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder criticized the United States for
stepping up its call for military action to oust Saddam Hussein, describing
Washington's course as a "mistake" that undermines U.N. efforts to resume
weapons inspections in Iraq.

Asked in a television interview about a warning by Vice President Dick
Cheney against any delay in removing Saddam, Schroeder reiterated Tuesday
that Germany will not take part in such action.

"Someone who is supposed to be disposed of with the aid of a military
intervention will be hard to persuade to let inspectors into the country,"
Schroeder told RTL television. "The change of objective was the mistake that
was made."

Cheney said Monday that it was "deeply flawed" to argue against a
pre-emptive strike to stop Saddam from developing chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons.

"What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful
thinking or willful blindness," he said, in some of the strongest remarks by
a top U.S. official about the urgency of ousting Saddam.

But German Defense Minister Peter Struck insisted Tuesday there is still no
evidence that Iraq is sheltering international terrorists or has obtained
nuclear weapons.

"Iraq is no threat to us," he said at a news conference.

Schroeder, who faces elections in less than four weeks, has said repeatedly
he won't send German troops for any assault on Iraq, warning that it could
wreck the international anti-terror coalition, inflame the Middle East and
hurt the world economy.

His conservative challenger in Sept. 22 national elections, Edmund Stoiber,
criticized that stance Sunday for taking the pressure off the Iraqi leader
to readmit U.N. inspectors, though said he also would balk at committing
troops to a "military adventure."

The White House contends no decision has been made to invade Iraq. The Bush
administration this month sent its ambassador in Berlin, Dan Coats, for
talks with top Schroeder aides after the German leader aired his position on
Iraq.

In an interview with the Muenchner Merkur newspaper, Coats played down
differences between the United States and its European allies while adding
that Europeans would see things differently if attacks such as the Sept. 11
strikes happened here.

"I hope and pray that the Europeans are spared this lesson," the Munich
daily quoted Coats as saying in an interview for its Wednesday edition.
Coats also repeated U.S. urgings for Europe to spend more on defense.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1028186108894&p=1012571727166

*  STOIBER ATTACKS US  IRAQ POLICY
by Hugh Williamson
Financial Times, 29th August

Edmund Stoiber, Germany's conservative candidate for chancellor, yesterday
attacked the US on its threat of military action against Iraq, in an
unexpected policy reversal.

Mr Stoiber, who had previously criticised chancellor Gerhard Schröder for
ruling out German involvement in any US-led attack on Iraq said: "The
monopoly on decision-making and action on this question lies with the United
Nations. Unilateral moves on this issue by a country, without consultation
with, or a mandate from, the international community, are not compatible
with this."


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1028186108935&p=1012571727162

*  ANNAN SNUB FOR US  ASSAULT ON IRAQ
by Carola Hoyos in Washington, James Kynge in Beijing, Ed Luce in,New Delhi,
and Ken Hijino in Tokyo
Financial Times, 29th August

The United Nations does not back a US military attack on Iraq, Kofi Annan,
secretary-general, said yesterday, while Asian leaders added their voices of
opposition to this week's speech by US Vice-President Dick Cheney,
advocating a military campaign to oust Saddam Hussein, Iraq's leader.

Calling for a diplomatic solution to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq,
Mr Annan said: "The UN is not agitating for military action."

Iraq yesterday said a diplomatic solution was still possible. Vice-President
Taha Yassin Ramadan, on a visit to Syria, said that while he believed there
was still room for a diplomatic solution to avert war with the US, Baghdad
had to prepare for conflict because Washington did not want a peaceful
solution.

"We do not consider the American threats a joke, nor do we regard them
fatalistically. We believe in the right of any people to defend themselves,
and in the end we have faith that aggressors . . . must be crushed."

Meanwhile, China, a key member of the UN Security Council, made clear its
opposition to any US war against Iraq yesterday following meetings in
Beijing with the Iraqi foreign minister. Tang Jiaxuan, China's foreign
minister, reiterated that the sovereignty, independence and territorial
integrity of Iraq should be respected.

China has tried to maintain an even-handed policy in the Middle East, upon
which it increasingly relies for oil imports. Traditionally, it has also
been wary of military action undertaken by the world's only superpower
without UN backing, fearing a precedent for unilateralism.

India yesterday expressed strong opposition to any US military action
against Iraq, stressing that confrontation with Baghdad should be conducted
peacefully through "existing UN resolutions".

Yashwant Sinha, foreign minister, said: "We are very clear that there should
be no armed action against any country, particularly with the avowed purpose
of changing a regime."

Privately, Indian officials are also resentful of what they see as a gaping
contrast between Washington's support for the military regime of General
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and its hostility to Iraq's military regime.
Pakistan, unlike Iraq, has a proven stockpile of nuclear weapons with which
Islamabad has publicly threatened India on several occasions.

India's reaction is being watched especially closely, Washington analysts
said, because a military strike against Iraq would set a precedent for
pre-emptive action.

In Japan, a key financier of the 1991 Gulf war, Taku Yamasaki,
secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic party, said yesterday
that Tokyo should oppose any unilateral US decision to attack Iraq.

"I believe an independent decision by the US would create international
mistrust of the US and Japan as an alliance partner should oppose this," Mr
Yamasaki said.

His comments came after talks on Tuesday with Richard Armitage, US deputy
secretary of state, who earlier visited India.

So far, Tokyo, a longtime Washington ally, has not formulated a clear policy
for the possibility of a US attack on Iraq, but Mr Yamasaki's comments
highlight Tokyo's growing vacillation over backing the US.

But Mr Armitage said yesterday the US "expects a fair amount of
international support" from its allies, when Washington makes a public case
against Iraq.

However, Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, indicated the US could do
the job unilaterally if support did not materialise. "It's less important to
have unanimity than it is making the right decision and doing the right
thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome," Mr Rumsfeld said.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200208/29/eng20020829_102260.shtml

*  FRANCE, NETHERLANDS CALL FOR EUROPEAN COMMON POSITION ON IRAQ
Peoples Daily, 29th August

France and the Netherlands agreed that the European Union should have a
common position on the issue of Iraq, visiting Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap
de Hoop announced Wednesday in Paris.

France and the Netherlands agreed that the European Union should have a
common position on the issue of Iraq, visiting Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap
de Hoop announced Wednesday in Paris.

"We are totally in agreement that it is important to reach at a common
position of the 15 (EU nations) on Iraq," said de Hoop following his meeting
with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

On Monday, United States Vice President Dick Cheney made Washington's latest
call for preemptive strikes against Iraq, saying the United States and its
allies can not risk inaction on the issue.

However, the Europeans did not hide their reluctance in supporting
Washington's threats to launch military attacks against Iraq.

On Tuesday, de Villepin said no military action on Iraq should be launched
without a decision of the United Nations Security Council.

"An over-reliance on force did not in itself provide any solutions," said
the French foreign minister.

European foreign ministers will meet Friday and Saturday in Denmark for an
informal meeting, during which they are expected to discuss problems of the
Middle East.


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/29/02&Cat=4&Num=009

*  GERMANY STEPS UP CRITICISM OF U.S. CALL FOR IRAQ STRIKE
Tehran Times, 29th August

BERLIN -- Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany warned Wednesday that
a pre-emptive U.S. attack against Iraq could lead to a new order in the
Middle East, as Berlin stepped up its criticism of U.S. talk of war.

A day after Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder branded as a "mistake" a forceful
call for military action from U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, Fischer said
he did not think such ideas had been "thought through" to the end, AFP
reported.

He told Deutschlandfunk Radio that if Washington nevertheless decided to
strike Iraq, it must take responsibility for the consequences for peace and
stability in the Middle East for years to come.

"It would lead to a new order in the Middle East and there is a big question
mark as to whether this consequence has been thought through and discussed
in the United States," Fischer said.

He said Berlin had made its views clear to Washington because Europe, being
a neighbor to the Middle East, would be directly affected by hasty action.
"That is why we have made our position clear, that we reject mistaken steps
and will not take part in them."

[.....]


http://www.iht.com/articles/69076.html

*  FRANCE SHIFTING STANCE ON IRAQ
by Elaine Sciolino
International Herald Tribune, from The New York Times, 29th August

PARIS: In an important tactical shift, the French government has decided to
stop criticizing the United States for its war planning against Iraq,
according to senior French officials.

It is not that the new government of President Jacques Chirac has suddenly
embraced the American position that a military campaign to oust President
Saddam Hussein of Iraq from power is justifiable and perhaps necessary.
Rather, both Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, have
come to the conclusion that it is wiser for France to stress areas of
agreement with the United States in order to help moderate American policy
and to keep open its options in case the United States decides to wage war
unilaterally, the officials said.

France is also eager to protect its own national interests in Iraq,
including its oil trade, should the United States wage war and win, the
officials added.

"More and more at the highest levels people are saying, 'We don't like a
military operation, but there's likely to be one, so what do we do?'" one
senior French official said. "So the goal is to keep all our options open
and not criticize, not to provoke a backlash. We feel that Washington is
expecting us to react negatively and we have decided not to. It's a tactical
choice."

Another senior official put it more bluntly: "We're driving the Pentagon
crazy by keeping silent."

The tonal change towards the United States was reflected in a speech by
Villepin that opened a conference of French ambassadors at the Foreign
Ministry on Tuesday.

Unlike his predecessor, Hubert Vedrine, who seemed to relish any opportunity
to criticize the United States, de Villepin, who lived and worked for years
in Washington, stressed the positive. He spoke glowingly of American
"dynamism, energy and exceptional enthusiasm," and the need for the United
States and Europe to unite in a "new Euro-Atlantic partnership."

As for Iraq, he branded it a regime that "defies international rules set by
the Security Council, holds its people hostage and threatens security,
particularly that of its neighbors."

"Such behavior is not acceptable," de Villepin added. "We Europeans know too
well the price of weakness in the face of dictatorship if we close our eyes
and play a passive game."

The emerging French strategy is to take diplomatic cover by putting any talk
of war in the context of the rule of international law. Indeed, in his
speech, de Villepin said that the international community must demand the
unconditional return of United Nations inspectors to the country, but did
not say what should be the response if Iraq refused.

As for waging war, he reiterated the French position that "no military
action can be conducted without a decision of the Security Council."

The passage on Iraq was carefully negotiated for hours inside the Foreign
Ministry and with the Elysee Palace. It will be reiterated by Chirac when he
delivers a speech to the ambassadors at the Elysee Palace on Thursday,
according to Catherine Colonna, Chirac's spokeswoman.

"For the moment, the most useful position is to remind people of the
obligations of Iraq and the role of the Security Council," Colonna said.

On Tuesday evening, in a meeting with ambassadors assigned to the Middle
East, de Villepin was peppered with questions that underscored the delicacy
of France's position. "It was a real brainstorming and shows how things are
too hypothetical now to take a stand," said one participant. "People were
asking, 'What do we do if the Americans come up with a UN resolution and we
don't accept it? Do we take part in the drafting? Do we vote for it? If we
vote for it, do we send troops?'"

Other unknowns at the moment are the reaction of Arab countries if the
United States decides to wage war, the goals of a military operation and how
it will be conducted. "There are too many questions, so our idea is to keep
the lock of the United Nations and we have one of the keys to the lock and
not say too much," said one official.

In his speech, de Villepin did not say, as other French officials have said
privately, that the Iraq problem could be dealt with only after the war
between Israel and the Palestinians was resolved.

French officials also seem to be relieved, even bemused, that it is now the
Germans who have taken the lead in taking on the Bush administration for its
Iraq policy.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who is locked in a difficult re-election
campaign, has said more than once that he would not allow German soldiers to
fight in a war to depose Saddam Hussein. On Tuesday he described
Washington's course as a mistake that was undermining UN efforts to resume
weapons inspections in Iraq.


http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20020829wo41.htm

*  JAPAN, U.S. UNITED ON IRAQ THREAT
Yomiuri Shimbun, 29th August

High-ranking Japanese and U.S. officials agreed Wednesday to strengthen the
bilateral alliance to counter threats from Iraq at the first strategic vice
ministerial meeting in Tokyo.

During talks at the Foreign Ministry's Iikura guesthouse held to discuss
diplomatic and security issues, they agreed to take joint measures
concerning Iraq's possible development and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.

The officials agreed that Iraq should obey all U.N. resolutions, including
those urging Baghdad to accept inspections in connection with its alleged
nuclear weapons program.

They also confirmed that the international community should unite to counter
threats from Iraq.

The Japanese officials at the meeting included Vice Foreign Minister Yukio
Takeuchi and Ichiro Fujisaki, director general of the Foreign Ministry's
North American Affairs Bureau.

The U.S. side included Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and James
Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs.

Their discussions lasted for a total of about five hours, including an
official dinner Tuesday evening.

They discussed regional situations concerning Iraq, China, North Korea and
the Middle East, and the Japan-U.S. security alliance from mid- and
long-term perspectives.

Armitage said at the meeting that Washington did not rule out any options
for possible military action against Iraq, but that U.S. President George W.
Bush had not decided on a course of action yet.

Armitage said Washington would have "full consultations with friends and
allies," including Japan, about any military action to be taken against
Iraq.

Takeuchi replied, "It's important for the international community to remain
united" in dealing with Iraq.

He also said, "Japan won't stint on cooperation" toward stabilizing the
situation in the Middle East and in dealing with the problem of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction.

[.....]


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-asia/2002/aug/29/082907218.html

*  MUSHARRAF CRITICAL OF ATTACK ON IRAQ
by Jane Wardell
Las Vegas Sun, from Associated Press, 29th August

LONDON- Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, whose alliance with the
U.S.-led campaign on terrorism was crucial to the war in Afghanistan, has
warned that an American attack on Iraq would cause more turmoil in the
Muslim world.

"We are on their side with whatever is happening," he said of the United
States. "But that doesn't mean that we can start operating or participating
in activities all around the world. Let's deal with what is happening around
our country."

Musharraf's comments were part of a British Broadcasting Corp. interview
that was broadcast Thursday.

"We have got too much on our hands here in this region to get involved in
anything else, especially when one is very conscious that this shall have
very negative repercussions in the Islamic world," he said.

Pakistan would remain a U.S. ally but it had to focus on national concerns,
Musharraf said.

Pakistan was the Taliban government's key supporter before the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks on the United States, but Musharraf withdrew his support
and joined a U.S.-led coalition to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and
destroy his al-Qaida organization.

Musharraf told the BBC that Islam was at the center of several disputes
internationally and he believed military action in Iraq would add to
Muslims' sense of isolation.

"Muslims are feeling that they are on the receiving end everywhere so there
is a feeling of alienation in the Muslim world and I feel that this will
lead to further alienation," he said.

Asked if a war in Iraq would swell the numbers of Osama bin Laden supporters
in his own country, Musharraf said, "Maybe, yes."

[.....]


http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/30/int3.htm

*  GERMANY MAY REMOVE TANKS FROM KUWAIT
Dawn, 30th August, 20 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423

BERLIN, Aug 29: German Defence Minister Peter Struck warned in an interview
to be published on Friday he would withdraw nuclear and chemical weapons
reconnaissance tanks from Kuwait if the United States attacked Iraq.

Germany's six "Fuchs" atomic, biological, and chemical (ABC) reconnaissance
tanks and 52 soldiers stationed in Kuwait would be immediately removed if
there was any danger of being dragged into a conflict with Baghdad, said
Struck in a Berliner Zeitung newspaper interview.

Only a few weeks ago Struck had vowed the Fuchs tanks would stay in Kuwait
because they helped protect US troops and were part of Operation Enduring
Freedom aimed at Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said in another interview to be
published Friday that the United States was now bent on forcing regime
chance in Iraq.

"Facts have been created," said Schroeder told the Muenchner Merkur
newspaper, adding: "We can no longer fall back on the position that nothing
has yet been decided."

The US had given up any idea of trying to get United Nations arms inspectors
back into Iraq and instead wanted to topple the Baghdad regime, he said.

Schroeder expressed skepticism over US President George W. Bush's pledge to
consult its friends over strikes on Iraq.

Allies could not just be told "how" and "when" an attack would take place
but first had to be consulted "as to if it should even be done," complained
Schroeder.

The German leader - who has vowed not to supply German troops for any war
with Iraq - warned Bush the US would have to deal with the consequences of
any war alone.

"If the US takes action without consulting the international community and
its (NATO) alliance partners then it will carry the responsibility alone,"
Schroeder said.

The comments by Schroeder and Struck came in response to US Vice President
Dick Cheney's speech earlier this week which set down a clear case for a war
against Saddam Hussein.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/30/1030508125086.html

*  WE'LL SEND AUSTRALIANS HOME IN BAGS, SAYS IRAQ
by Paul McGeough in Baghdad
Sydney Morning Herald, 30th August

The level of Iraqi anger towards Australia reached a new level here
yesterday, when Dr A.K. Al-Hashimi, an adviser and confidant to the regime
of Saddam Hussein, warned of the hatred with which Iraqis would kill
Australians or the troops of any other country that fell in with a United
States attack.

"Any British or Australian fighters who come here will go home in a plastic
bag or on a stretcher," he said.

"They don't understand the Muslim mentality; God help those soldiers when
they face our anger."

The bitterness over Australia's preparedness to join a US war on Baghdad now
seems to have destroyed any hope of getting Australia's wheat trade, worth
$890 million a year, back to the secure footing of a favoured
trading-partner relationship.

An emergency dash to Baghdad by the Australian Wheat Board earlier this
month extracted an Iraqi agreement to resume grain deliveries. But this
depended on Canberra pushing for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq-US
standoff as Washington tries to assemble a combat coalition.

And soon after the board mission there was a lull in the Canberra rhetoric
that initially had provoked Iraq's trade shots across Australia's bow.

But the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, this week seemed to take the rhetoric
back to the same tenor that first offended Baghdad in July. He said of a
renewed warning by Washington that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring
nuclear weapons that it would use: "Who would suggest that it is reasonable
or rational to wait until the nuclear weapons have been fully developed?"

Dr Al-Hashimi, a former Iraqi ambassador to France, was one of several
advisers to Saddam and his ministers who expressed their disappointment with
Australia this week.

He said: "With this attitude of going all the way with the USA, Australia
should forget about the Iraqi market now and for a long time to come. This
is not a threat; it is commonsense.

"As Iraqis we have the right to say: 'Hell, why should we give you business
when you are working against us? Go see if you can sell your wheat to the
US.' You mean that you want us to do business with you at the same time as
you would slaughter us?"

Hammam al Shamaa, a senior economic adviser to the Iraqi Government, said
that Iraqis had difficulty understanding the role of the Australian and
British governments because of the gap between their rhetoric and public
opinion on war against Iraq. "Iraq considers this stand by the Australia
Government to be very strange indeed because, in the same way that we do not
believe the British people are behind their Prime Minister's aggression
towards us, we do not believe that the Australian people are against us.

"Our decision on Australian wheat was designed to inform Australians of a
mistake by their government. They need to know that we are ready to eat
barley instead of Australian wheat if Australia is the only country from
which we can import wheat."

Warning that ultimately Iraq was likely to sever all relations with
Australia, Dr al Shamaa said: "It would be different if Australia's position
was in harmony with the rest of the world, but it is one of only four
countries against us - the US, Britain, Israel and Australia. Iraq had a
right to impose sanctions too, you know."

Asked about Australia's long-term trade relationship with Iraq, the
economist said there was potential for a significant relationship based on
more than just wheat, "but if the Australian Government persists with this
aggression against us it will be doing great harm to that relationship".

Dr Qais Al-Nouri, an academic who is close to the Government, was indignant.

"I'm amazed by this. Iraq is not a threat to Australia. What is this all
about? Is it a dependent attitude by Australia?

"It seems so irrational that Australia wants to escalate this crisis, even
at the expense of your political and strategic interests. You need to know
that it is a tragic mistake, because US policy is not acceptable to us or to
most countries in the world.

"So blindly boosting US policy will not serve Australia. Do you expect that
we would have any commercial relationship with a country that is hostile to
us? Logic says that any trade between our countries is at risk. How can we
be positive towards people who want to suffocate us?"

Saad Jawad, a professor of politics at the University of Baghdad and an
adviser on foreign affairs, said Australia risked the same fate as Japan,
which had been prominent among Iraq's trading partners in the past, but had
been punished with the loss of most of its contracts because of what Baghdad
saw as the anti-Iraqi bent of its diplomatic activity at the UN.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/31_08_02/art18.asp

*  UKRAINIAN HELP FOR UPGRADE?
Daily Star, Lebanon, 31st August

There have been persistent reports that Iraq acquired four Kolchuga
air-defense radar systems from Ukraine this year through a Jordanian
intermediary. The radars are capable of tracking land and air targets at
ranges of more than 600 kilometers and, more importantly for the Americans,
detecting stealth aircraft. Ukraine denies the alleged $100 million sale in
breach of UN sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in August
1990.

In July, Jane's Intelligence Review reported that the Iraqis had developed a
new mobile SAM system - detected in action by RAF aircraft - using twin
S-125 Neva missiles on a truck-mounted rotating launcher. The S-125s were
provided by the Soviets in the 1980s for use with fixed ground launchers. By
mounting them on six-wheeled trucks the Iraqis have greatly complicated
Allied efforts to monitor Saddam Hussein's air defenses.

By intensifying air strikes now, Bush could be striking the first blow of
the war he seems intent on starting sometime in the months ahead.


INSIDE IRAQ

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/29/1030508075838.html

*  IN BAGHDAD STREETS, THEY'RE NOT QUAKING IN THEIR BOOTS
Sydney Morning Herald, 29th August

Iraqis are united in their contempt for Washington's war threats, writes
Paul McGeough in the capital.

In the bustle of Baghdad yesterday, the impoverished taxi driver condemned
the madness of his leader, but the millionaire businessman Faris El-Hadi
stood right beside Saddam Hussein, staring down the latest Washington war
cry.

Without even being asked a question, the 54-year-old driver exploded. As we
swung past a high-rise bunker that is home to one of Saddam's security
services, he yelled in English: "This time it will be a big war. We have so
much oil - but it is just a bomb to explode; it does not bring us money.

"I fought for Saddam for 12 years. Two wars - Iran and Kuwait. But this time
I must take my family to Africa. I will not have another war."

On the day of Washington's most forceful declaration of intent to wage war
on Iraq - a declaration which has sent shudders through the region and has
Arab governments warning of catastrophe - the taxi driver was the exception
in a city that did not seem to skip a beat.

There was no panic - no queuing for petrol, produce or money. The hotels are
empty, but staff insisted it is the 50-degree heat of summer, not the threat
of war, that is keeping the foreigners away.

And the Iraqis that a foreign reporter can get to - moving among locals is
banned without a minder from the Information Ministry - are blase at the
prospect of another war.

The big surprise was Faris El-Hadi. President George Bush, Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney would fully expect this
millionaire, as Iraq's sole agent for Samsung and a string of other consumer
goods, to believe there would be more for him in the post-Saddam economy and
democracy promised by Washington.

But in his city office, he was a passionate advocate not so much for Saddam
as for Iraq: "You will find people here who don't agree with what the Iraqi
government is doing, but you will not find people who will co-operate with
invaders. Most of my friends and relatives are professional or in business
and they disagree with some of the decisions of our government and its
handling of many things. But they are Iraqis and they love their country, so
they are not about to betray it.

"I don't know what the Americans are expecting. Do they really expect that
the Iraqi people will welcome them? It is ridiculous."

Mr El-Hadi argued the same case as others in Baghdad: the US will have great
difficulty fighting a war in Iraq - there will be a great human and
financial cost.

But he made a particular issue of what he said was Washington's
underestimation of Iraqi nationalism and loyalty. "This army that they send
needs to remember that installing a new puppet regime here will not be as
easy as it was to install Karzai in Afghanistan; we are not weakened like
the Afghanis were.

"And I tell you that even if the US withdraws the protection it now gives to
the Kurds in the north, they too will not co-operate because they know that
in the eyes of all Iraqis they will be seen as traitors.

"The Americans do not care about me. They care about our oil and our mineral
resources, so it will be very difficult for them to find people here who
will co-operate with them or accept this way of dealing with the Iraqi
issue."

Dr Saad Jawad, a professor of politics at Baghdad University and a foreign
affairs adviser to Saddam, brushed off Mr Cheney's tough talk, saying: "The
US would be better to come to terms with us, because we are not a threat to
anyone, certainly not to the US.

"Look at what is happening in Britain, the churches and the media are
speaking against an attack, but Tony Blair wants to do it. In the US, the
Congress does not want to do it, and yet Mr Blair and Mr Bush say they want
to bring democracy to Iraq?

"But why? We don't mind your weapons inspectors. All we are saying is that
there must be a timetable and that the inspectors should not be spies for
America. And there is nothing left to inspect - the US attacks in 1998
destroyed all the factories and the inspection cameras that had been placed
in them."

In the thriving computer district, shopkeeper Ahmed Ezidien mocked the US:
"We are used to it and we enjoy the challenge of getting past these
sanctions ... the US and your sanctions make us stronger. Look around you -
are people queuing for petrol or for money as though they are panicked?

"I will give you something to reflect on. In the last attacks in 1998, I was
at the soccer when the anti-aircraft guns started shooting at US aircraft
over us. I was watching a cameraman recording the game, which did not stop.

"The crowd stayed in the stadium and the camera went up, just briefly, to
get a few seconds of the tracer fire before coming back to the game, just as
your cameramen sometimes record the seagulls at the cricket.

"You tell the Americans that car accidents in this country kill more people
than they do. So we are not frightened of them."


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/30/1030508125031.html

*  SADDAM'S DARK STAR RISING
by Paul McGeough
Sydney Morning Herald, 30th August

A good place to find the spirit of Iraq as it stares at the prospect of its
third war in 20 years is among the mechanical cannibals in the grease and
grime of Baghdad's Sheik Omar Street. Well away from the gaudy presidential
palaces and with not a billboard of Saddam Hussein to watch over them,
hundreds of tiny workshops are grouped according to their specialty - engine
blocks, air-conditioning, gasket cutters, windscreens, panels.

In these cluttered, dirty workshops, no car is allowed to die, no tractor is
abandoned and every truck has another few thousand kilometres in it.
Grease-stained men such as Hisham Ahmed Mohammed are at the cutting edge of
Saddam's war against the world - when the Herald visited his kerbside
workshop, his mechanics were reworking a set of Peugeot pistons to make them
fit a Nissan pick-up.

Mohammed takes great pride in prolonging the life of cars that should have
died years ago for want of spare parts blocked by more than a decade of UN
sanctions imposed on Iraq to force it to allow unconditional international
weapons inspections.

"We can retool the pistons from a Toyota pick-up to work in a VW Passat;
sometimes we make the valves of a Toyota Crown small enough and short enough
to fit the Passat; and we have worked out how to fit Russian crankshafts
into Japanese models," Mohammed said.

A few doors up, Subhi Hassan was chopping up the radiator of a crashed truck
to make several radiators that he said would fit Toyota Corollas. And across
the way Amjad Abdul Ameer was using a pair of surgical scissors to cut a
head gasket from soft asbestos sheeting for a Chevrolet Caprice.

But the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, had just made the strongest pitch
yet for the world to back an American military attack on Iraq and the Herald
was in Sheik Omar Street to talk about war, not car parts.

Mohammed was indifferent: "Another war is normal for us; there is always
another war, but we will just work through it - people will need their cars
fixed." And Hassan the radiator man was pragmatic: "We have been in these
circumstances before, so we are used to it. And we now have four factories
that produce radiator parts, so it will not affect my business."

So much for sanctions. The pace of life in Baghdad has picked up noticeably
in the 18 months since the Herald was last here. As one of the locals said
of the continuing process of post-Gulf War reconstruction: "The power is out
for only a couple of hours each week; the Chinese have fixed the phones; and
there are fewer potholes in the roads."

There are energy and money in Baghdad that were not so obvious in the past,
and the two become fused in the efforts of the sanction busters who now
bring the best of the West to Baghdad.

[.....]

The arguments in Baghdad are consistent and deeply held - the American push
against Iraq is a trumped-up excuse to commandeer Iraq's oil reserves, the
push against Saddam is a US-Israeli plot, if there is to be a war the Iraqi
people will fight against any invaders before they will rise against their
leader.

And they watch with admiration as Saddam and his ministers engage in what
they see as Iraq's use of sanctions against the world, such as its threat to
cut wheat imports from Australia and Baghdad's month-long boycott on oil
sales to the US earlier this year as a protest against Washington's Middle
East policy. But there are mixed feelings about what might be achieved by
the collection of trade deals that Saddam's ministers have been negotiating
around the globe in the hope of winning diplomatic and moral support.

In the past year Iraq has signed 10 free trade agreements with Arab
countries. But the deal that grabbed international attention earlier this
month was a $US40 billion ($72.5 billion) trade agreement with Moscow. A
similar deal is in the pipeline for Turkey, Iraq's northern neighbour.

And as US diplomats were wooing the Chinese in Beijing this week, so too was
an Iraqi delegation, whose brief, according to sources here, was to upbraid
the Chinese who had been seen to falter in their support for Baghdad.

When it steps out internationally, Iraq can command more attention than
other basket case economies that need massive reconstruction, such as
Afghanistan, because Iraq's huge oil reserves arm it with a chequebook as
much as a begging bowl.

It remains to be seen how successfully Iraq can squeeze itself between the
mutual interests of the big power members of the UN Security Council - the
US, Russia and China. But Russia has been courting all three of President
George Bush's "axis of evil" countries - North Korea, Iran and Iraq, which
still owes it $US7 billion in Soviet-era debt.

So there was no subtlety when Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Abass Khalaf,
spoke about the new trade deal with Russia and of Baghdad's expectation that
Moscow will work against Washington to help Iraq. "First of all we need
moral, political and diplomatic support. Because Iraq knows how to defend
itself," Khalaf said. "The main thing for us is that American aggression
does not go through the UN Security Council and that America does not
receive a UN mandate [to attack Iraq]. Let America act [alone] as an
aggressor. It will be condemned from all sides."

In Baghdad yesterday Dr A.K. Al-Hashimi, a former Iraqi ambassador who is
seen in many quarters almost as a spokesman for the regime, said of the
trade deals and Iraq's expectation of them: "It is right for us to use this
to fight those who want to take us over."

But he cautioned that Iraq should not rely on the deals: "Who can Iraq rely
on absolutely? All along, we have learnt the hard way that we have to rely
on ourselves. Whatever we get from others is good, but we have to rely only
on ourselves."

And he warned the nations that might join in a US attack on Iraq: "In 1991
the US failed to achieve its objective when they had 3500 planes, half a
million soldiers and 2500 tanks. Do you think they can do it this time? The
US will have to pay for the war itself and few other countries will give
them soldiers to be send to die before the Americans. Maybe the British?
Perhaps Australia?

"But they need to know that every Iraqi hopes to stand before these
soldiers. Think of the hate that has built up over 12 years - the Iraqis
will kill them three times each."







_______________________________________________
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