[casi] News, 6/9-13/9/02 (2)

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

News, 6/9-13/9/02 (2)

UK OPINION

*  Regime change vital to stability of the Arab world
*  John Monks interview
*  NATS [National Air Traffic Services] at risk if Iraq war breaks out
*  Rail Unions Oppose Action on Iraq
*  September 11 has turned out to be a good thing for America and the world
*  Join anti-war campaign, says Ken
*  Briton volunteers as 'human shield' for Iraq
*  My Greatest Mistake: Gavin Esler, presenter for BBC News 24
*  Tony Blair's speech to the TUC
*  US sets out to redraw map of Middle East
*  Labour membership drops 40,000war on Iraq
*  Parliament to be recalled after Blair bows to pressure for debate
*  Iraq: Recall of Parliament agreed
*  SNP embarrassed by Iraq debate criticism
*  Brown backs Blair over confronting Baghdad

NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN

*  Iraqi Kurds close ranks
*  Turkey sends troops into north Iraq
*  Iraqi Turkmen Want To Have Equal Rights In Iraqi National Congress
*  3-16: The day the world woke up and went back to sleep again
*  Mala Krekar [the leader of Ansar Al-Islam] arrested in Iran
*  Mala Krekar arrested in the Netherlands
*  Tariq Aziz: We helped PUK fight Ansar Al-Islam


UK OPINION

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=994762002

*  REGIME CHANGE VITAL TO STABILITY OF THE ARAB WORLD
The Scotsman, 7th September

TODAY, the Prime Minister is in Washington for talks with President George
Bush over the impending action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
On Thursday, large numbers of American and British aircraft were destroying
Iraqi air defences as a prelude to ground incursions. In the next few weeks,
Mr Blair is likely to begin a round of diplomatic visits, as he did before
the Kosovo intervention, to win support for the overthrow of the Iraqi
dictator. The die for war is now cast. However, never has there been an
issue where Tony Blair seems so isolated from his party, the British public,
the Arab world, or Europe, than on supporting the United States' decision to
topple Saddam Hussein. There was similar - if less vehement - opposition
before Kosovo, although that country's successful liberation, and the
overthrown of the fascist Slobodan Milosevic, has caused the memory to fade.
Mr Blair was right over Kosovo, but his detractors do not care to remember
they were wrong. He is also right over Iraq.

The removal of Saddam Hussein is not really about the evils of the man
himself; it is only partly about the prospect of his gaining nuclear
weapons, although that would be sufficient cause in itself for pre-emptive
action. Rather, the necessity of a regime change in Baghdad is premised on
the need to begin to bring stability to the Arab world before its desperate
ills become the cause of permanent global crisis over the next generation.
To be blunt, the Arab zone is the world's poorest, most backward area, and
the frustrations this generates, inside and outside that zone, are a
constant threat to world peace. Because of that, there is no possibility of
a policy of containment being successful, in the manner of the Soviet Union
during the cold war.

Many will disagree with this assessment, thinking it smacks of western
arrogance. But the truth is found in a recent report on the Arab world
prepared by the United Nations Development Fund and the Arab Fund for
Economic and Social Development. The report is the outcome of 30 Arab
researchers' efforts for over a year. It portrays the real picture of the 22
Arab countries with their 280 million people (the same population as the
United States).

The report says Arab people enjoy the least freedom compared to any other
region in the world - less even than sub- Saharan Africa. It says that Arab
women get the least opportunity to participate in the economic and political
activities compared to any other place in the world. The level of education
among Arab women literally is the lowest in the world. More than 50 per cent
are illiterate, in a culture that venerates its religious books.

One of the most revealing aspects of the report is the dangerous
backwardness of the Arab nations in the field of education and science.
Their per capita spending on scientific research is the lowest in the world.
In 1996, it was 0.4 per cent of the gross national product, which is
one-third of what tiny Cuba spent. By contrast, Israel allocated 6.35 per
cent of its GNP for research. Only 0.5 per cent of Arabs have access to the
internet, again the lowest in the world. More than 65 million Arab people,
which accounts for 43 per cent of the entire Arab population, are illiterate
- a fact that for ever locks the region into poverty. The total number of
works translated into Arabic in the last ten centuries is the same as the
number of books translated annually into Spanish. The pitiful number of 220
books translated to Arabic ever year is only one-fifth of the works
translated into Greek. Remember that, and you understand the genesis of the
misconceptions and hatreds of the west in Arab society.

As a result of this intellectual isolation, economic growth in the Arab zone
over the last 20 years has averaged 0.5 per cent. At this rate, it takes 140
years to double the national income in these countries, while it takes only
ten years in most other parts in the world. Although oil-rich nations form
part of the Arab region, the entire output of the 22 nations is less than
that of Spain, which has only one-seventh of their population.

The cause of this intellectual and economic poverty is not the Arab peoples
themselves; nor is it their ancient religion, which shares with Judaism and
Christianity a profound respect for the rule of law and property, and which
demands its adherents read its holy books. Rather, the Arab nations are held
in the thrall of despots, hereditary monarchs and military strongmen who
connive to keep each other in power lest the bacillus of democracy is let
loose. There is no division between state and personal wealth, with the
treasury of Arab nation after Arab nation merely a synonym for the personal
bank account of its ruler.

This is a powder keg waiting to explode. The demented and frustrated Saudi
intellectuals who committed suicide in the Twin Towers attack last September
are an example of what could come unless democracy, literacy and normalcy
are brought to the Arab nations. Why start with Iraq? Because it is the
weakest link, and its sad people hate Saddam with a vengeance. Why now?
Because 11 September has destroyed the containment policy. Why not work
through the United Nations? We should, if the Security Council will act; but
alone if necessary. Will it not create a dangerous precedent? Not if they
cheer Saddam's downfall on the streets of Baghdad.


http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=5165601

*  JOHN MONKS INTERVIEW
The Scotsman, 8th September

TUC General Secretary John Monks Told the GMTV Sunday Programme: "I don't
Think There Is Any Widespread Support among the People of Britain, Or Indeed
in Europe and Possibly the United States as Well, for Military Adventures in
IRAQ."

He welcomed Mr Blair's pledge to produce a dossier but added: "There is a
long way to go before he convinces people generally that the war is worth
fighting in this area."

Mr Monks said unilateral action was not an option as far as the unions were
concerned.

He added: "Tony Blair does act in a presidential way, particularly on big
decisions, and I accept that that's very much the impression that's being
given at the moment.

"I think the Cabinet would have to be consulted on any decision to commit
British troops. It's not always been the case that Parliament has been
consulted in advance of that.

"Tony Blair needs to see this as part of the process of taking people along
with him, if indeed the eventual end is to commit British troops, because at
the moment public opinion is a long, long way from that position."

Mr Monks said British prime ministers had been presidential during times of
war, but pointed out that even Churchill was reined back by his War Cabinet.


http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=331378

*  NATS [National Air Traffic Services] AT RISK IF IRAQ WAR BREAKS OUT
by Clayton Hirst
The Independent, 8th September

Air traffic controllers have warned the Government that a war on Iraq could
plunge the part privatisation of the system deeper into crisis.

In a private meeting on Thursday with Transport Secretary Alistair Darling,
the controllers' union Prospect said that another £300m of public money was
needed to safeguard National Air Traffic Services (NATS).

But Prospect warned the amount needed would be much higher if there was a
war. Its national secretary, David Luxton, told Mr Darling that NATS'
revenue growth dropped more than 10 per cent in the first month of the 1991
Gulf War, as air travellers postponed flights. The data showed that it took
10 months after the first air strikes for NATS' revenues to recover.

NATS, which is 46 per cent owned by BA, Virgin, easyJet and British Midland,
fell into financial difficulties after the 11 September terrorist attacks.

Already, the Government has been forced to dip into its pockets and offer
NATS a short term loan to prevent the business collapsing.

The company's future now rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. Later this
month, the regulator will rule whether NATS can scrap planned reductions in
its fees. If it says yes, then the airports operator BAA will pump £65m into
NATS, to be matched pound-for-pound by the Government.

At the meeting, Mr Luxton also presented the Transport Secretary with a
dossier on NATS. An extract reads: "Unless there is an end to the current
financial turbulence, we firmly believe that safety will be compromised.
This is not scaremongering ­ it is the experience of the controllers and
engineers that we represent."


http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=5165697

*  RAIL UNIONS OPPOSE ACTION ON IRAQ
by Alan Jones, Industrial Correspondent, PA News
The Scotsman, 8th September

Rail unions are trying to force a debate at this week's TUC Congress on
whether military action in Iraq should be totally opposed, it emerged today.

The train drivers' union Aslef has tabled an emergency motion which makes it
clear that there should be "unequivocal opposition" to military action.

The move is supported by the Rail Maritime and Transport Union.

TUC officials will meet to decide whether the motion will be accepted and
when it can be debated.

The conflict in the Middle East is expected to be discussed on Wednesday
when a statement will be submitted by the TUC General Council which warns
against any unilateral action against Iraq.

The conference, which opens in Blackpool tomorrow, will debate the crisis in
Iraq later in the week after an address on Tuesday by the Prime Minister
Tony Blair.

The other topics set to dominate the week include pensions, public services
and Labour's relations with unions.


http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/bruce_anderson/story.js
p?story=331679

*  SEPTEMBER 11 HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A GOOD THING FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD
by Bruce Anderson
The Independent, 9th September

In his memoirs, Henry Kissinger recounts a conversation with Jim Callaghan
back in 1974. Both men were waxing melancholy about the ills of the human
condition, and they finished on a grim note. Callaghan: "I think life is
getting worse, Henry." Kissinger: "I think you are right." Callaghan: "I
don't know what sort of age we're ... going to pass through, but historians
like yourself ought ... to tell us how ... this next half century is going
to look.'' Kissinger: "I'll tell you ... I'm glad I'm not going to be
running part of it. It's going to be brutal.''

Almost at the mid-point of Lord Callaghan's half-century, 11 September
appeared to vindicate Dr Kissinger's conclusion. The casual slaughter of so
many innocents in a great Western city was sanguinary testimony to the
frailty of our civilisation. It also seemed to prove that life was indeed
getting worse.

Yet that is only part of the story. September 11 was a tragedy, but not a
disaster. Intended as a threat, it turned into a warning. Long before the
end of James Callaghan's 50 years, historians may have concluded that by
alerting America to the dangers it faced at a moment when it was still
possible to take effective counter-measures, Bin Laden did mankind a
service.

On 10 September, America was no less powerful than it is now. The Bush
foreign and defence teams were no less able: among the most formidable set
of advisers any President had ever assembled. But all that potential
strength seemed to be going nowhere. Donald Rumsfeld's attempts to sharpen
defence policies had merely brought him into conflict with pen-pushing,
risk-averse generals and their pork-barrelling allies in Congress. Over at
the State Department and the National Security Council, meanwhile, all the
intellectual talent appeared to be devoted to care and maintenance.

Mr Bush had no background in foreign affairs and had seen his father lose an
election, despite the triumphs of the Gulf War, because he had neglected the
home front. George Bush Jnr was also contemptuous of the way in which Bill
Clinton had used foreign affairs to distract attention from dry-cleaning
bills. The President was determined to avoid futile, grand-standing
gestures. Although he might have assembled a strong foreign affairs team, he
himself was still concentrating on domestic issues. It was not clear whether
this Bush administration would have much of a foreign policy.

After 11 September, that was no longer an option. Al-Qa'ida had forced Mr
Bush's hands while eliminating isolationism from the American political
agenda. The bombers compelled Americans to recognise the new defining
paradox: that the US was both immensely powerful and immensely vulnerable.
Americans knew that they faced a global threat. But they also had the
reassurance of knowing that their military possessed a global reach.

Post-11 September, grief was quickly transmuted into resolve. America
prepared to fight back, and part of that preparation was hard thinking about
the future of US foreign policy, an exhilarating process which is by no
means complete and which will have radical outcomes. Suppose, however, that
there had been no 11 September: that Bin Laden had decided to wait for a
more propitious moment. He could easily have found one.

With every passing year, the risk of al-Qa'ida acquiring weapons of mass
destruction would have been greater and, even if that danger had been
avoided, Iraq would have posed a grave threat. It should not have taken 11
September to quicken American unease about Saddam into a campaign for his
removal, but it did.

No 11 September, and there could have been a number of hideous outcomes,
including an Israel/Iraq war, with both sides using weapons of mass
destruction. The brutality of 11 September made Americans aware that they
faced multiple risks. As those risks could so easily have involved the
deaths of many more than 3,000 people and the destruction of much more than
the buildings of Ground Zero, 3,000 lives was a cheap price to pay for an
early warning. America had the shock it needed.

This is not a simple task, nor is it possible to guarantee success. There is
no easy way to fight asymmetrical warfare, in which opponents with a minute
fraction of America's strength are still able to inflict hideous damage. In
the short run, we shall have to see whether we can get through this
anniversary week without a major terrorist onslaught. (If we do, there are
grounds for modest optimism. A successful outcome would suggest that
al-Qa'ida's fangs have been drawn.)

The Americans know what they have to do. They can no longer tolerate rogue
states which try to acquire weapons of mass destruction while providing
terrorists with safe havens. Nor can the US tolerate failed states, which
merely become enclaves of anarchy and whose perpetually disaffected
populations provide endless foot soldiers for the recruiting sergeants of
terrorism. America is beginning to realise that in order to eliminate the
threat to itself, it has to clean up the globe.

This is among the best news that the world's poor have ever had, for in
order to make the world safe for Americans it will be necessary to ensure
that the wretched of the earth can enjoy some of the benefits which
Americans take for granted. Though it would be easy to parody all this as a
mission to evangelise on behalf of Coca-Cola and McDonald's, much more is
involved. The US has always believed that societies which enjoy the benefits
of democracy, the rule of law and the free market will tend to live at peace
with their neighbours, breed relatively contented populations and maintain
internal security within their own boundaries.

Sometimes this simple faith can lead to naive outcomes, as in Vietnam. In
Henry Kissinger's words: "The United States had entered Indochina for highly
moral reasons: the conviction that democratic institutions, being
universally applicable, could be transplanted successfully to half of a
divided country 8,000 miles away in the midst of a murderous civil war and
that the principles that had restored Europe would prove equally applicable
to the fledgling politics of South-east Asia.''

But occasional excesses do not invalidate either the principle or the
generosity which lies behind it. Most Americans believe that over the past
two and a half centuries, they have learned to make a human society work
almost as well as is possible, within the constraints of original sin. They
now feel that it is time for the Third World to profit by their example.
That is a daunting exercise; then again, the Americans have never lacked
optimism.

This is a week to mourn last year's victims, but the Bush administration
knows that mourning is not enough. It is determined to take the necessary
steps to ensure that there will be no second 11 September. If this proves
successful, those who are still grieving will have one consolation. Last
year's victims will not have died in vain.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=691881&in
_review_text_id=664648

*  JOIN ANTI-WAR CAMPAIGN, SAYS KEN
by Hugh Muir and Justin Davenport
London Evening Standard, 9th September

Ken Livingstone has demanded that Tony Blair halt the march towards war with
Iraq.

In a rare show of unanimity, his stance is echoed by Steve Norris, the
likely Tory candidate for Mayor, who attacks the concept of the "war on
terror" as "intellectually and practically flawed".

Mr Livingstone said: "London has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to
gain from peace and global stability. There is now a growing and powerful
international consensus that a war against Iraq must not happen. From former
presidents of the US to leaders of the Arab world, there is a clear warning
that attacking Iraq could disastrously destabilise the whole of the Middle
East. I am pleased to be adding my voice to international consensus by
speaking at the Stop the War rally and I would urge Londoners to add their
voices by joining the march."

Mr Norris, in an article for the Camden New Journal, describes Saddam
Hussein as "one of the nastiest pieces of work on the planet". But, he says:
"Saddam does not present the threat that Hitler posed. This is Tony Blair's
biggest challenge. If he can persuade George Bush to stay his hand he will
earn not only my respect but the gratitude of millions."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2246438.stm

*  BRITON VOLUNTEERS AS 'HUMAN SHIELD' FOR IRAQ
BBC, 9th September

It's not only Iraqi lives that could be at stake if the UK goes to war with
Baghdad. One British peace activist is planning to put his life on the line,
as a "human shield". In the UK there is little appetite for a war with Iraq,
according to the opinion polls. But few who oppose military conflict would
go to the same lengths as Matt Barr. If Tony Blair gives the green light for
bombing raids, the 21-year-old peace activist plans to be on the first
flight out to Baghdad.

As part of a "peace delegation", Mr Barr hopes his presence would deter
American and British bombers. His primary role would be to "show solidarity"
with the Iraqi people and "bear witness" to the war. But with plans to visit
key installations such as power stations and sewage works, the 21-year-old
from Chichester, West Sussex, could also become a "human shield" against the
Western forces. The scenario harks back to the Gulf War of 1991, when Saddam
Hussein detained hundreds of British expatriates and placed them at key
installations as human shields. Oppose sanctions So far, Mr Barr is the only
British volunteer to sign up to the mission. He expects to be joined by
about 200 American peace volunteers.

The delegation is being organised by Voices in the Wilderness, a charity
which campaigns for an end to economic sanctions against Iraq. "When you are
participating in a non-violent resistance movement there comes a point
where, personally, I have to be willing to put your whole self into the
firing line," says Mr Barr. Having visited Iraq in December last year and
met many "ordinary people", Mr Barr says he feels "passionately that I
couldn't just stand by and watch this happen". "The mass of people in
Britain are opposed to this war but that's not having any effect on Tony
Blair, which is not how democracy works." 'Many would die' Sanctions imposed
on Iraq following the Gulf War of 1991 have had a devastating effect on its
people, according to Voices in the Wilderness.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died as result of being denied
adequate food, clean water and medical facilities, the charity says.
"Another war with Iraq would be catastrophic for the ordinary people," says
Mr Barr. "Tens of thousands of people, whose livelihoods are already hanging
by a thread, would suffer. The people of Iraq are as human as we are, and
yet many would die." Mr Barr rejects claims that he is signing up to a
suicide mission. Whether he would simply visit key destinations, such as
water purification plants, or stay there longer term has yet to be decided
by the charity, he says. But a campaign co ordinator in the United States,
Kathy Kelly, has said volunteers should be prepared to face up to the fact
"this could be the last year of their life". Saddam 'hands-off' The planned
trip has the reluctant sanction of Mr Barr's parents.

"It's difficult for my family. Obviously my parents are worried about what
might happen to me. But they know my strength of feeling on this and that
it's what I have to do." Voices in the Wilderness grew out of the Gulf War
when Western peace activists opposed to the war camped in the desert on the
border with Iraq. A committed human rights activist, Mr Barr, who is a
trained sound engineer, devotes much of his time to volunteer charity work.
Is he worried the delegation could be "hijacked" by Saddam Hussein and
activists such as himself used as hostages? No, he says. The fact that those
peace activists on the border were not allowed into Iraq into 1991, says Mr
Barr, leaves him confident Baghdad will keep a hands off attitude to the
delegation, letting them go about their own business.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=331926

*  MY GREATEST MISTAKE: GAVIN ESLER, PRESENTER FOR BBC NEWS 24
Interview by Charlotte Cripps
The Independent, 10th September

"I was the chief North America correspondent of the BBC in Washington in
November 1990. I had been up a mountain in Colorado with Margaret Thatcher
in August, 1990, when she was meeting George Bush and Kuwait was invaded by
Iraq. It was increasingly likely that we were going to war. As part of the
political preparations for going to war, there were a series of
congressional hearings held in Washington about Iraqi atrocities. At one
hearing, a young girl, about 16, appeared and testified in the most
incredibly moving fashion about scenes that she had witnessed in a hospital
in Kuwait. She was a Kuwaiti and had seen some of the terrible things that
Iraqi soldiers had done. She said that they had taken babies out of
incubators and shipped the incubators back to Baghdad, leaving the Kuwaiti
babies in great distress. It was bloodcurdling stuff, and very emotional. I
filed a piece for the BBC's Nine O'Clock News that night.

Everybody wrote stories ­ The Washington Post and The New York Times ­ about
these brutal Iraqis. How could they do this to babies? Congress then moved
to vote for the war, and war started in January 1991. Sometime in the late
spring of 1991, when the war was over, we all discovered that this Kuwaiti
girl was actually the daughter of the Ambassador of Kuwait. She had been in
Washington at the time, had witnessed none of this, and the story had been
made up through a public relations agency. There is an old American saying
that Bill Clinton used to quote: 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me.' As journalists we are sceptical by nature, but there are some
things you take on trust. When you see a 16-year-old girl breaking down in
tears about babies under oath, you tend to believe it ­ but not again.

[.....]


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1031119207119&p=1012571727159

*  TONY BLAIR'S SPEECH TO THE TUC
Financial Times, 10th September

[.....]

On September 11 last year, with the world still reeling from the shock of
events, it came together to demand action. But suppose I had come last year
on the same day as this year ­ 10 September. Suppose I had said to you:
there is a terrorist network called Al Qaida. It operates out of
Afghanistan. It has carried out several attacks and we believe it is
planning more. It has been condemned by the UN in the strongest terms.
Unless it is stopped, the threat will grow. And so I want to take action to
prevent that.

Your response and probably that of most people would have been very similar
to the response of some of you yesterday on Iraq. There would have been few
takers for dealing with it and probably none for taking military action of
any description.

So let me tell you why I say Saddam Hussein is a threat that has to be dealt
with.

He has twice before started wars of aggression. Over one million people died
in them. When the weapons inspectors were evicted from Iraq in 1998 there
were still enough chemical and biological weapons remaining to devastate the
entire Gulf region.

I sometimes think that there is a kind of word fatigue about chemical and
biological weapons. We're not talking about some mild variants of everyday
chemicals, but anthrax, sarin and mustard gas ­ weapons that can cause hurt
and agony on a mass scale beyond the comprehension of most decent people.

Uniquely Saddam has used these weapons against his own people, the Iraqi
kurds. Scores of towns and villages were attacked. Iraqi military officials
dressed in full protection gear were used to witness the attacks and visited
later to assess the damage. Wounded civilians were normally shot on the
scene. In one attack alone, on the city of Halabja, it is estimated that
5,000 were murdered and 9,000 wounded in this way. All in all in the North
around 100,000 kurds died, according to Amnesty International. In the
destruction of the marshlands in Southern Iraq, around 200,000 people were
forcibly removed. Many died. Saddam has a nuclear weapons programme too,
denied for years, that was only disrupted after inspectors went in to
disrupt it. He is in breach of 23 outstanding UN obligations requiring him
to admit inspectors and to disarm.

People say: but containment has worked. Only up to a point. In truth,
sanctions are eroding. He now gets around $3 billion through illicit trading
every year. It is unaccounted for, but almost certainly used for his weapons
programmes.

Every day this year and for years, British and American pilots risk their
lives to police the No Fly Zones. But it can't go on forever. For years when
the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam lied, concealed, obstructed and
harassed them. For the last four years there have been no inspections, no
monitoring, despite constant pleas and months of negotiating with the UN. In
July, Kofi Annan ended his personal involvement in talks because of Iraqi
intransigence.

Meanwhile Iraq's people are oppressed and kept in poverty. With the Taliban
gone, Saddam is unrivalled as the world's worst regime: brutal, dictatorial,
with a wretched human rights record.

Given that history, I say to you: to allow him to use the weapons he has or
get the weapons he wants, would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we
should not countenance it.

Up to this point, I believe many here in this hall would agree. The question
is: how to proceed? I totally understand the concerns of people about
precipitate military action. Military action should only ever be a last
resort. On the four major occasions that I have authorised it as Prime
Minister, it has been when no other option remained.

I believe it is right to deal with Saddam through the United Nations. After
all, it is the will of the UN he is flouting. He, not me or George Bush, is
in breach of UN Resolutions. If the challenge to us is to work with the UN,
we will respond to it.

But if we do so, then the challenge to all in the UN is this: the UN must be
the way to resolve the threat from Saddam not avoid it. Let it be clear that
he must be disarmed. Let it be clear that there can be no more conditions,
no more games, no more prevaricating, no more undermining of the UN's
authority.

And let it be clear that should the will of the UN be ignored, action will
follow. Diplomacy is vital. But when dealing with dictators ­ and none in
the world is worse than Saddam ­ diplomacy has to be backed by the certain
knowledge in the dictator's mind that behind the diplomacy is the
possibility of force being used.

Because I say to you in all earnestness: if we do not deal with the threat
from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and
engulf us this month or next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it
will at some point. And I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the
threat, saw it coming and did nothing. I know this is not what some people
want to hear. But I ask you only this: to listen to the case I will be
developing over the coming weeks and reflect on it.

And before there is any question of taking military action, I can
categorically assure you that Parliament will be consulted and will have the
fullest opportunity to debate the matter and express its view. On Kosovo, on
Afghanistan, we did not rush. We acted in a sensible, measured way, when all
other avenues were exhausted and with the fullest possible debate. We will
do so again.

But Saddam is not the only issue. We must restart the Middle East Peace
Process. We must work with all concerned, including the US, for a lasting
peace which ends the suffering of both the Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories and the Israelis at the hands of terrorists. It must be based on
the twin principles of an Israel safe and secure within its borders, and a
viable Palestinian state.

This must go alongside renewed efforts on international terrorism. That
threat has not gone away. I cannot emphasise this too strongly. Put it
alongside India and Pakistan, climate change and world poverty, and it is a
daunting international agenda.

[.....]


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2696996&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=dialogue

*  US SETS OUT TO REDRAW MAP OF MIDDLE EAST
by Robert Fisk
New Zealand Herald, 10th September

Just as Americans are recovering from their harrowing television re-run of
the September 11th attacks, their president is going to launch the biggest
re-shaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the
Arab lands after the 1914-18 War.

When he addresses the United Nations on September 12th, he will be
threatening not only Iraq ­ which had absolutely nothing to do with the
crimes against humanity in New York and Washington ­ but Syria, Iran and, by
extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting
"terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will
follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizballah
as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al
Qaeda.

Like Iraq, the Hizballah had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks ­
indeed, they were among the first to condemn them ­ but the White House now
seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus
of evil.

Only "The Nation" among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared
to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working
within the American administration and that the Bush plans for the Middle
East ­ which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world ­
fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region.

The magazine listed Vice President Dick Cheney ­ more hawkish than the hawks
in the US administration -- and John Bolton, now Under-Secretary of State
for Arms Control, along with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive
at the Pentagon as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) before joining the Bush
government.

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an
adviser on JINSA, along with former CIA director James Woolsey. Michael
Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential JINSAns in
Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" ­ with "regime
change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority.

Perle advises Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ­ who refers to the West
Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories" ­ and arranged the
anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec which so outraged
the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great
danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt seize more power for
themselves in advance of the final departure of the dying King Fahd.

JINSA's website says that it exists to "inform the American defence and
foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play
in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle
East."

In October, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American
Enterprise Institute ­ who referred to the outgoing UN human rights
commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism" ­ joins the US
Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".

According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who
has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as
well as a director of JINSA.

President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these
pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the
United Nations on Thursday. Nor will he give the slightest indication that
the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of
resentment and anger.

The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing
violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on
leading his country, along with his loyal British ally.

Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman
Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War and
Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a
Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the
region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon ­ itself
created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community.
The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives
before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.

Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the
region for another military and political adventure ­ ostensibly to spread
"democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran)
but in fact more likely to increase US control of an increasingly
anti-Western Arab world.

The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and
widespread violence. The Israelis ­ and their allies in the US
administration ­ are hell bent on the whole shebang.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1031119188929&p=1012571727159

*  LABOUR MEMBERSHIP DROPS 40,000
by Cathy Newman, Chief Political Correspondent
Financial Times, 10th September

Nearly 40,000 Labour members left the party last year, amid a growing cash
crisis at the 102-year-old organisation.

Labour's annual report for 2002, published yesterday, revealed a drop in
membership from 311,000 in 2001 to 272,000 this year.

Tony Blair faces opposition from the rank-and-file over Iraq and the
involvement of the private sector in reforming public services.

David Triesman, who was appointed general secretary a year ago, has promised
to stabilise the party's membership and sort out its finances.

Yesterday's annual report showed an operating deficit of £8.9m, against
£4.4m the year before. The party has overdraft and loan facilities totalling
£6m.

Development costs, including campaign expenditure on the general election,
soared from £8.8m to £18.1m.

[.....]


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1031119188872&p=1012571727159

*  UNIONS SPLIT OVER NEED TO WAGE WAR ON IRAQ
by Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent
Financial Times, 10th September

Fierce opposition to war against Iraq and a call for Britain to withdraw its
support for the US yesterday split unions at their annual conference - and
nearly derailed a compromise aimed at narrowing differences with Downing
Street.

Nearly 2.4m trade unionists, or about 40 per cent of the movement, voted to
adopt a position that opposed outright any US attack, but they were defeated
by a block of unions loyal to Tony Blair, including Amicus, the GMB and TGWU
unions.

Nevertheless, the scale of union opposition surprised loyalists and suggests
Mr Blair faces an uphill task to persuade the Labour party of the need for
an attack.

Senior Trades Union Congress officials intervened after a show of hands
indicated unions had backed a statement urging the government to withhold
support for any US attack because it was against international law and would
destabilise the Middle East. To groans from delegates, they ordered a formal
vote on the statement.

Unison, the biggest public sector union with more than a million members,
led the show of force. The rail unions Aslef and the RMT, the Public and
Commercial Services Union, the National Union of Journalists, the
Communication Workers' Union, the NATHFE college lecturers' union, and
Unifi, the banking union, also voted for the controversial amendment on Iraq
that was pegged to a motion opposing US plans for a national missile defence
system.

To nods of approval, RMT leader Bob Crow declared: "I bet your bottom dollar
if there was no oil in Iraq, there would be no sabre-rattling taking place
out there." Mark Serwotka, the leftwing PCS leader, said: "Iraq today; which
regime will Bush want to change next? We have a proud tradition. We do not
sympathise with Saddam's regime. We abhor it and will rejoice when it is
replaced with a democratic one. But it was the US administration that
supported Saddam and allowed him to gas his own people."

The protest vote demonstrated the growing strength of the "awkward squad"
generation of union leaders, a group of leftwingers that is prepared openly
to defy both the government and the TUC's own moderate wing.

However, the normally outspoken John Edmonds, general secretary of the GMB,
swung behind a compromise TUC statement that opposed unilateral US action,
urged Mr Blair to seek United Nations support and did not rule out the
possibility of war. This was carried too. Mr Edmonds said: "The movement has
sent a clear message that it will have no truck with the international
adventurism of either George Bush or Saddam Hussein."

He warned Mr Blair that as long as he stood along-side the UN, he would have
the Labour party and the movement with him. But if he allowed himself to be
drawn into unilateral action, he would be "dangerously isolated".


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=332248

*  PARLIAMENT TO BE RECALLED AFTER BLAIR BOWS TO PRESSURE FOR DEBATE  
by Andrew Grice and Ben Russell
The Independent, 11th September

[.....]

Graham Allen, a Labour MP, was refused permission yesterday to hire the
Commons chamber for an unofficial session of Parliament. Parliamentary
authorities declined the request on the basis that the House of Commons was
the only body that could hire the chamber.

Instead, Mr Allen has called a meeting of MPs at Church House, Westminster,
on Thursday next week. It will be chaired by Lord Weatherill, a former
Commons Speaker, and televised live on the BBC Parliament channel. Hiring
the room will cost the BBC up to £2,800, on top of broadcasting costs.

Mr Allen, MP for Nottingham North, said: "We are actually moving into a war
situation and people are standing on ceremony in order to deny Parliament
the right to meet. The person doing the most of that is the Prime Minister."


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=694129&in
_review_text_id=666975

*  IRAQ: RECALL OF PARLIAMENT AGREED
London Evening Standard, 12th September

Parliament is to be recalled from its long summer recess to discuss the
growing crisis over Iraq, it has been confirmed.

House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin's office says he has agreed "in
principle" to a request from Prime Minister Tony Blair for Parliament to be
recalled, although no date had been fixed yet.

Mr Blair has been under mounting pressure to allow MPs to debate possible
military action against Baghdad, with Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith and
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy both giving their support to the
idea.

In a letter to Mr Martin, Mr Blair said he wanted, with the Speaker's
permission, to recall Parliament for a one-day debate on the adjournment of
the House.

The debate - during the week beginning September 23 - will be led by Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw but preceded by a Prime Ministerial statement.

Downing Street made clear that there will not be a vote at the end of the
debate.

In his letter to Mr Martin, Mr Blair wrote: "As I have said in recent days,
Parliament must and will be at the heart of the national debate on the issue
of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and I thought it would be helpful
if I set out my thinking on the recall of Parliament.

"I would like, with your permission, to recall Parliament for a one-day
debate on the adjournment, led by the Foreign Secretary, and preceded by a
statement by me, during the week beginning September 23.

"By then, important discussions at the UN will have taken place.

"And the Government will be in a position to publish the dossier that is
being prepared on what we know of the Iraqi regime and its WMD programme.
This should allow Parliament to debate the issue with the fullest possible
knowledge."


http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1012452002

*  SNP EMBARRASSED BY IRAQ DEBATE CRITICISM
David Scott Scottish Government Editor
The Scotsman, 12th September

THE US representative in Scotland last night stepped into the row over the
parliament's debate on Iraq by saying it might have been better if it had
taken place another day.

Liane Dorsey's comments were an embarrassment for the SNP, which insisted in
discussing US policy on Iraq during a debate which was originally intended
to concentrate solely on links between Scotland and America.

Ms Dorsey, the US Consul General in Edinburgh, was present in the parliament
during the discussion.

MSPs solemnly voiced their sympathy for the people of the US following the
atrocities. However, the debate was marred by controversy over the SNP's
decision to table an amendment which urged the US administration to publish
incontrovertible evidence to justify any military action against Iraq and
obtain a fresh UN mandate before going ahead with any offensive. The
amendment was defeated.

Asked about the debate, Ms Dorsey said: "I probably would have wished that
it had not taken place."

But she added that all the statements made by the MSPs had been heartfelt
and were welcome.

On the issue of whether a debate on Iraq should have happened on a different
day, she said: "My original thoughts were that would have been advisable,
yes. But I consistently find this parliament to be honourable and
distinguished in its statements."

During the debate, rival parties rounded on the SNP, accusing the
Nationalists of insensitive action.

Jim Wallace, the justice minister, and the deputy leader of the Scottish
Tories, Annabel Goldie, insisted that the anniversary of the 11 September
atrocities was not an appropriate occasion on which to debate foreign policy
and military issues. But the leader of the SNP, John Swinney, said that, at
a time when the parliament was remembering the suffering of many people as a
result of 11 September, it was important to reflect on the values of
democracy and justice.

He went on: "That's why we in the SNP, and many others across the world,
argue that a fresh, specific United Nations mandate is required before any
new military offensive is launched against Iraq.

"Action can only be morally justified, as it was in the Gulf War, when a new
Security Council resolution is debated and approved...it can only be
justified when incontrovertible evidence is brought forward to prove the
threat posed by Iraq and the case for action."

The SNP has been accused of breaking a cross-party agreement that
yesterday's debate, marking the 11 September anniversary, should have been
restricted to the Executive's motion calling for the further development of
educational, historical, cultural and economic links between Scotland and
the USA.

The Nationalists, unhappy with the content of the motion, moved an amendment
cautioning the US against military action in Iraq, but rejected claims they
had broken an agreement. The left-wing Labour MSP, John McAllion, broke
ranks with his party by attempting to put forward another amendment voicing
the "deepest possible concern over the increasingly isolationist stance of
the US" but this was rejected by the Presiding Officer, Sir David Steel. Mr
McAllion claimed his amendment had the backing of MSPs from four different
parties.

Tommy Sheridan, the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, also tried
unsuccessfully to move his own amendment calling on MSPs to oppose a war.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1031119287887&p=1012571727085

*  BROWN BACKS BLAIR OVER CONFRONTING BAGHDAD
by James Blitz and Ed Crooks
Financial Times, 12th September

[.....]

On Iraq Mr Brown said: "The international community should not - and cannot
- tolerate or leave unaddressed the issue of a regime that proliferates
chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons in absolute defiance of
international agreements and decisions that have been made over 10 years.

"I fully support the prime minister in all these issues and I think that is
well understood."

There are signs of growing discontent within the cabinet over Mr Blair's
support for a US-led strike against Iraq. Robin Cook, the leader of the
Commons, on Thursday refused to rule out resigning from the government if
military action proceeds without United Nations support. Asked whether there
were divisions in cabinet, Mr Brown said: "I believe the government will act
as one. I am not going to speculate beyond that. But I think you're pretty
clear where I stand, that's been clear throughout."


NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2244999.stm

*  IRAQI KURDS CLOSE RANKS
BBC, 8th September

The leaders met for the first time in nearly two years

Two of the main Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq have signed an agreement to
resolve their differences and commit themselves to a democratic Iraq.

Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) signed the agreement
with Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) when they met
in the region's main town, Arbil.

A senior PUK official told the BBC that both parties were in full agreement
on a democratic future for Iraq and a BBC correspondent says Kurdish unity
is seen by the United States as key to any operation against Baghdad.

Sunday's agreement also re-established the parties' joint parliament and
paved the way for clearing up any disputes left over from a peace deal
brokered by the United States in 1998.

That deal had been aimed at ending a bitter civil war which last nearly five
years, leaving about 3,000 people dead.

 The two parties agreed to form a committee to deal with any outstanding
disputes between them.

The BBC's Tabitha Morgan says the move to reconcile the rival Kurdish groups
will have been undertaken with the encouragement of the Bush administration.

At a time when the United States is considering how best to remove Saddam
Hussein from power, she notes, unity among the Kurds is seen as essential.

The head of the PUK's administration, Barham Salih, told the BBC from
Washington that the two parties were in "complete agreement" on Iraq's
future.

"It [Iraq] will have to be a democratic, federal and parliamentary system,"
he said.

They also agreed to "combat terrorism" and revive the joint parliament,
which was elected in 1992 but suspended during the subsequent fighting.

The chamber, which is evenly divided between the parties, will reconvene on
4 October.

The party leaders had not met for two years and the agreement came after two
days of negotiations in the mountain town of Salahadin, where the KDP has
its headquarters.

Mr Talabani had just returned from a visit to the US for talks with
President George W Bush.

Northern Iraq has been out of Baghdad's control since the Gulf War in 1991,
enjoying the protection of an air exclusion zone maintained by US and
British aircraft.


http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=1328422.

*  TURKEY SENDS TROOPS INTO NORTH IRAQ
by Ferit Demir
Swissinfo.org, 10th September

TUNCELI, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkey has sent 1,000 more troops to Iraq's
breakaway Kurdish north, bringing the total to 5,000, a Turkish military
official says, as speculation mounts over possible U.S. military action
against Iraq.

Turkey regularly pursues the Turkish Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) into
northern Iraq, outside of Baghdad's control since the end of the Gulf War.

"The soldiers are in the region with the aim of watching and controlling the
activities of PKK militants," the official said on Tuesday.

"Separately, Turkey is ensuring the peace and security of the local people
in northern Iraq with this military force and is providing stability in the
region," he said.

Ankara and Iraqi Kurds have traded barbs in recent weeks over fears Turkey
could intervene to block the Kurds from setting up an independent state in
the enclave they have administered since rising up against Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein in 1991.

Iraqi Kurdish leaders have said their aim is not statehood, insisting they
want a united, federal Iraq in the aftermath of any U.S. military offensive
to topple Saddam.

The Turkish official denied the deployment of 1,000 troops near the town of
Kani Masi across Turkey's southeastern border had stoked tension with the
regional authority, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which jointly runs
the enclave.

While warning Turkey not to resort to threats to solve problems, KDP leader
Massoud Barzani sought on Tuesday to ease tension with Ankara by saying his
recent remarks that appeared in a German newspaper had been distorted.

Die Zeit newspaper last week quoted Barzani as saying Iraqi Kurds would
launch an "intifada (that) would turn our streets into a graveyard for
Turkish soldiers." Turkey has allowed the United States to use its air bases
to patrol a "no-fly" zone over northern Iraq that protects the Kurds from
any reprisals from Baghdad.

Both sides would be key allies if U.S. President George W. Bush decides to
strike Iraq for its alleged development of weapons of mass destruction.

PKK guerrillas, part of an armed movement that aims to carve out an ethnic
homeland in southeastern Turkey, largely withdrew into Iraq after their
commander was captured in 1999.


http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=7022

*  IRAQI TURKMEN WANT TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN IRAQI NATIONAL CONGRESS
Turkish Press, 10th September

ANKARA - Iraqi Turkmen people said that they had welcomed revival process of
the Iraqi opposition, and stressed that they should be presented at the
Iraqi National Congress with equal rights.

Releasing a statement, Iraqi National Turkmen Party Honorary Chairman
Mustafa Kemal Yaycili said on Tuesday, "we hope that Iraqi opposition would
find reasonable and lasting solution. Political status of Turkmen community
in Northern Iraq should become clear. Turkmen people account for 13 percent
of the population in the region."

"However, the National Congress claimed that the Turkmen accounted for 6
percent of the population. This serious mistake should be corrected as soon
as possible," he added.


http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1043

*  3-16: THE DAY THE WORLD WOKE UP AND WENT BACK TO SLEEP AGAIN
by Dr Fereydun Hilmi
KurdishMedia.com, 11th September 2002

[.....]

 ... the Halabja 5000 murdered become quite worthless but the US and Britain
nevertheless try to milk its propaganda value by saying: Saddam has used
weapons of mass destruction on his "own" people. Now, isn't that clever?
Those Kurds had no honour and were made of a different matter than the
Western man but in this way we use the crime but ignore the victim. Even in
today's atmosphere of anti-Saddam euphoria we find a deliberate and
religious avoidance of the screening of the Halabja victims, or any mention
of them, perhaps the best proof of Saddam's evil if proof is necessary, in
case that would offend the sensitive Arab feelings who inwardly hate and
loath all that is American or British anyway.

However 3000 beautiful American people (100% human) were murdered by filthy
terrorists and that requires the entire world to remember them and honour
them and cry over their loss. Note all coefficients are full 100% if not
more in this case.

[.....]

The meeting and apparent cordiality between the KDP and PUK leaders,
although appearing like a commiseration party judging by the solemn and
depressed looks on their faces was welcomed in all Kurdish circles, although
I doubt if any other nation in the region was happy about it. It was a
little late in the day and as usual our leaders managed to do things back to
front.

No one for example remembered that Talabani had left via a different route
and avoided meeting Barzani before he went on to the US to be told to go
back and make peace with Barzani. In fact his behaviour once in Turkey and
abroad was quite markedly divisive and all his utterances were counter
productive. The right thing to do would have been to go to Hewler (Arbil)
first and meet with Barzani. A single strategy should then have been worked
out and then presented a united front to everyone including the Turks and
the US. Instead he had to get told to do what he did by the Americans and he
immediately obliged. He also claimed the Americans had told him the Kurds
will have a federal state but produced no written evidence or guarantees as
usual, depending instead entirely on word of mouth. That is why many are
sceptical about this new agreement and accord especially since it is not the
first and neither will it be their last.

[.....]


http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=2871

*  MALA KREKAR [THE LEADER OF ANSAR AL-ISLAM] ARRESTED IN IRAN
KurdishMedia.com, 13th September

Tehran (KurdishMedia.com) 12 September 2002: Mala Krekar, the leader of
Ansar Al-Islam, a hard-line Islamic fundamentalist group based in south
Kurdistan, has been arrested in Tehran Airport, carrying a Swedish passport,
sources close to KurdishMedia.com revealed today.

It is believed that Krekar returned to Iran from Germany, after reports
appeared in the world media about his whereabouts. It is believed that the
Iranian authorities have deported him to Sweden.


http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=2875

*  MALA KREKAR ARRESTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
KurdishMedia.com, 13th September

Amsterdam: Mala Krekar, the leader of Ansar Al-Islam, has been arrested in
Amsterdam airport earlier today, the Dutch media confirmed.

He was not allowed to land in Tehran yesterday and was sent to Sweden. The
Swedish authorities handed him over to the Dutch authorities. It is not sure
why Krekar was handed over.

The Dutch, American and the Norwegian authorities are in touch to decide
Mala Krekarıs fate. The US authorities are content with the recent
developments.

It is believed that he will be handed over to the US authorities.

Kurdish activists are compiling his case to be tried for crimes against
humanity.

Kurdish activists were outraged to hear that the media termed Krekar ³a
Kurdish leader². ³He has never been accepted by the Kurdish society. Krekar
was forced on the Kurds by outside powers,² KurdishMedia.com was told.


http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=2878

*  TARIQ AZIZ: WE HELPED PUK FIGHT ANSAR AL-ISLAM
by Bryar Mariwani
KurdishMedia.com, 14th September

London: The Iraqi deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, revealed on Friday that
the Iraqi government supplied the PUK with weapons to fight Ansar al-Islam,
the hard-line Islamic group in South Kurdistan.

He was asked if his country was supporting Ansar Al-Islam, Aziz replied that
Jalal Talabani asked for weapons from the Iraqi government during the PUK
clashes with Ansar Al-Islam. Aziz said that the Iraqi government had nothing
to do with the terrorist Islamic groups in South Kurdistan.

Aziz also mentioned that Iraq were not to accept the unconditional return of
the weapon inspectors. He insisted that the Iraqi army were ready to fight
"man-to-man" and "face-to face" with the Americans.

Aziz denied that the Iraqi government had used chemical weapons against the
Kurds in the town of Halabja, saying that the Americans in the pentagon
accused the Iranians, according to a report issued by the US government in
1989.

Recently Udai Saddam Hussein, Saddam's older son, accused the Iranian
government of supporting Ansar Al-Islam.

Observers find it difficult to believe that neither the Iraqi nor the
Iranian regimes support this Islamic group. Ansar Al-Islam is responsible
for destabilising the democratic de facto State in South Kurdistan.

It is very clear and obvious that Saddam Hussein and his government are
behind all the atrocities that took place in Iraq including the Halabja
chemical attack. Saddam Hussein's days in power are numbered. This arrogant
and brutal dictator is ready to kill his people by fighting "man-to-man" or
more likely "man against B-52 bombers".




_______________________________________________
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