[casi] News, 16-23/04/03 (3)

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

News, 16-23/04/03 (3)

NEW WORLD ORDER

*  Bush call to lift sanctions on Iraq leaves EU cold
*  France and Russia prepare for battle over UN sanctions
*  Blair is in thrall to the myth of a monolithic modernity
*  Open the books on oil-for-food
*  William Safire: Will Chiracism hold back Iraq?
*  France Meets U.S. Halfway on Iraq Sanctions Lift 

NERVOUS NEIGHBOURS

*  Powell plans talks with Syrian president
*  American pressure on Syria dominates regional press
*  Turkey's Iraq odyssey ends in tragedy
*  US has no legitimate right to Iraqi oil and lifting of sanctions must
wait, say neighbours
*  Israeli writer calls for Iraqi-Palestinian-Jordanian merger under
Hashimites


NEW WORLD ORDER

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2793&version
=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258

*  BUSH CALL TO LIFT SANCTIONS ON IRAQ LEAVES EU COLD
aljazeera.net, 17th April

A United States call to lift United Nations sanctions on Iraq drew cool
reactions on Thursday, including a Russian warning against the plan.
Diplomats warned that securing an accord may be difficult.

European Union leaders urged the US to let the United Nations and EU help
rebuild Iraq. The leaders, eager to bring international organisations back
into play in the Iraq crisis called for "a central role" for the UN and a
significant EU part in reconstruction that Washington is determined to
dominate.

Moscow, a fierce opponent of the US-led war, said the US suggestion appeared
"mercenary". French President Jacques Chirac, who also opposed the war,
insisted that the United Nations must decide exactly how sanctions on Iraq
should be lifted, after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's government.

The two-day informal EU summit in Athens, meant to welcome 10 new members to
the bloc, sought ways to work with the United States now that the fighting
has passed. Anti-war states France and Germany said they were ready to be
pragmatic.

In general, the EU and its leaders gave a cautious welcome to the Bush
suggestion of lifting sanctions on Iraq, but their comments were littered
with words like "conditions" and "modalities", codewords that signalled
there would be no simple wave of the pen to end the 13-year-old sanctions.

 The European Union's Greek presidency said the sanctions should be lifted
once the situation had "normalized" on the ground.

"Obviously, the embargo has to be lifted," Greek Prime Minister Costas
Simitis told reporters after two days of EU meetings in Athens. But before
this happens he said there has to be a "general normalisation" on the
ground.

But in Moscow a foreign ministry official said Russia will oppose the
proposal until UN inspectors confirm the country has no weapons of mass
destruction.

"Regime change in Baghdad is not a condition for lifting economic sanctions
on Iraq," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Some pointed out that it will be difficult to fully lift the sanctions until
a new and internationally recognised government takes control over Iraq. "We
should determine just what the United State is after -- something seems
wrong, the approach is too mercenary," he said.

Chirac, speaking in the sidelines of an EU summit in Athens, also reiterated
his desire to proceed "pragmatically" now the war is all but over. "Faithful
to its principles, France will naturally broach these questions in a
pragmatic manner, case by case," he said, adding that he had discussed the
issues with United Nations chief Kofi Annan.

Asked how France expected to work with the US and British forces in Iraq,
Chirac replied "in the way which will be defined by the UN."

On the issue of lifting sanctions, one diplomat warned, "This issue could
prove very divisive right now. If you lift sanctions you lift the control of
the United Nations in what is going on in Iraq."

The sanctions are the main leverage that Security Council members, including
anti-war France, Germany and Russia, have to persuade Washington to give the
UN a political role in turning shattered Iraq into a prospering democracy.

Analysts say Washington wants to lift the sanctions quickly so Iraq can sell
oil and pay for reconstruction, but UN resolutions say this depends on the
world body certifying that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. ---
Al Jazeera with agency inputs


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=398255

*  FRANCE AND RUSSIA PREPARE FOR BATTLE OVER UN SANCTIONS
by Anne Penketh
The Independent, 18th April

Russia and France served notice yesterday that they would not be
steamrollered into lifting United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

The leaders of the anti-war camp remain a force to be reckoned with because
of their veto power within the UN Security Council.

The US President, George Bush, set the scene for weeks of negotiations on
Wednesday when he called for the 12-and-a-half year old economic sanctions
to be lifted. Although it must pain his administration to do so, America is
obliged to go through the UN to legitimately exploit Iraq's oil revenues and
to secure international recognition for the post-Saddam government that will
eventually emerge in Baghdad.

Russia's Foreign Minister, Ivan Ivanov, reacted to Mr Bush's demand by
retorting yesterday: "This decision cannot be automatic. It demands that
conditions laid out in corresponding UN Security Council resolutions be
fulfilled. For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be
certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not."

The French President, Jacques Chirac, also hinted of the battle to come by
stressing: "Now it is up to the United Nations to define the modalities of
the lifting of sanctions."

Russia, backed by France, has long called for the sanctions to be lifted on
the ground that Iraq no longer holds enough weapons of mass destruction to
constitute a threat.

France and Russia can play the spoilers on two fronts. They can set their
terms for the lifting of sanctions and, in the meantime, continue to argue
over contracts for the humanitarian oil for-food programme which is
administered by the UN pending any change to the embargo.

A virtual guerrilla war is going on in the UN sanctions committee, which
decides which humanitarian contracts can be honoured, with the UK and US on
one side, and Russia and France on the other. The current phase of the
programme runs until 12 May, at which point the Security Council will have
to take an urgent decision on whether the roll the programme over for
another few weeks or months or whether to bite the bullet and lift the
sanctions.

Until now, it has always been the US which argued that sanctions needed to
be kept in place. Now that France and Russia's views must be sought for a
new UN resolution, they are likely to argue for the return of UN weapons
inspectors to certify that weapons of mass destruction have been eliminated,
in line with international law as enshrined in UN resolution 687. That will
put them at loggerheads with the US which has already despatched a parallel
team of US experts to Iraq to hunt for banned weaponry.

Under the sanctions regime that has been in place since the 1990 invasion of
Kuwait, the oil embargo can only be lifted when the Council is satisfied
that all weapons of mass destruction have been eliminated.

When the Council is united, it can rewrite its own decisions with hardly a
backwards glance, as it did when it suspended sanctions against Libya. But
with tension in the UN so high, such a scenario smacks of wishful thinking.

France and Russia, which have pushed for the UN to retain a central post-war
role in Iraq, may use the opportunity to address the post-war situation, and
to push for a resolution authorising the UN to rule the country through a
special representative, as happened in Kosovo and East Timor.

The US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said officials in Washington
are still discussing the specifics of lifting sanctions. "We visualise some
kind of a step-by-step procedure with respect to post-conflict resolutions,"
he said. "Certainly one of the issues we're going to have to deal with early
on is sanctions."

France and Russia also have financial considerations to be settled, stemming
from Iraq's pre war debt to them which runs into billions of dollars.


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,939512,00.html

*  BLAIR IS IN THRALL TO THE MYTH OF A MONOLITHIC MODERNITY
by John Gray
The Guardian, 19th April

Tony Blair's unswerving support for the US attack on Iraq may not seem to
have anything much to do with his determination to remould Britain's public
services, but they are both applications of a single big idea. Like the
neo-conservatives in Washington, Mr Blair believes there is only one way of
being modern and it is American.

The prime minister's incessant mantra of modernisation is sometimes seen as
an alibi for unprincipled pragmatism. In fact it is testimony to a deep
conviction. He believes that modernisation is a process that can have only
one result, the universal spread of American style market states - and that
anyone who resists this happy outcome is struggling against the
irresistible forces of history.

The belief that modernisation is a unilinear historical process is not new.
The neo conservatives are only the latest in a long line of thinkers. Karl
Marx and John Stuart Mill had very different visions of what it means to be
modern, but they were at one in believing that it would be the same
everywhere. They absorbed this belief from the Positivists - an early
19th-century intellectual movement founded in France by Henri de
Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte that is almost forgotten today, but which was
enormously influential.

The Positivists believed the motor of historical change is the growth of
scientific knowledge. As science advances and new technologies are
invented, the religions and moralities of the past are cast off. Humanity
is free to use science to achieve unprecedented levels of prosperity in a
new kind of civilisation based on reason and secular values.

The Positivists were an exotic bunch, who saw themselves as creating not
only a new kind of science but also a new religion, complete with its own
liturgy. Followers were instructed to cross themselves several times a day
by touching their foreheads at the points where the pseudo-science of
phrenology located the impulses of benevolence, progress and order. New
costumes were invented, including some with buttons up the back. If people
had to seek the help of others in putting on their clothes and taking them
off, the Positivists believed, humanity would become more cooperative and
altruistic.

In these and other ways Positivism had a good deal in common with the
cranky cults so common in the late 19th and 20th centuries. At the same
time it had a profound influence on politics and social science, shaping
the prevailing faith in modernisation. For the Positivists - as for Mr
Blair - modernity can only mean one thing: and it is always good.

In fact there are many ways of being modern, some of them monstrous. Hitler
was an uncompromising modernist who used new technologies to commit
genocide. Stalin created a terrorist state in Russia in a desperate attempt
to turn it into a modern industrial society. Al-Qaida is commonly described
as a throwback to pre-modern times, but actually it has more in common with
the Baader-Meinhof Gang than it does with the mediaeval Assassins. The idea
that the world can be remade by terror is not peculiarly Islamic. If
anything it is distinctively western.

All this may seem an exercise in intellectual history remote from current
events, but it is not. The war in Iraq was masterminded by neo-conservative
ideologues who believe that global terrorism is the result of the failure
of Arab societies to modernise. Paul Wolfowitz's grandiose scheme for
remaking the Middle East embodies the dangerous myth that the only way to
peace in the region is to emulate America - in the American deputy defence
secretary's eyes, as in Mr Blair's, the very paradigm of modernity.

By seeking to impose a monolithic modernisation on Arab countries, the US
is preventing them from finding their own paths to development. As can
already be seen, the result can only be to boost fundamentalism. Far from
fostering secularism and liberal values, the destruction of Saddam's
Ba'athist regime is strengthening radical Islam. As things stand it looks
as if postwar Iraq may suffer the fate of Lebanon and become a chronically
weak, fragmented state. But if it does hold together it will not be a
democracy on the Washington or Westminster model. It could well be more
like Iran after the fall of the Shah.

If the neo-conservatives' vision of modernisation in the Middle East is
based on a misreading of conditions in the region it also embodies a
bizarre view of America. They never tire of repeating that a combination of
free markets with democracy is the only sustainable model of modern
development. They seem not to have noticed that the US became what it is
today behind a wall of tariffs.

Protectionism is a venerable American tradition that is fully honoured by
President Bush, whose administration is implementing a version of Reaganite
military Keynesianism. Moreover, it came to power as a result of electoral
processes that can hardly be described as a model of democracy.

Most seriously, the neo-conservatives have a blind spot regarding the
singularities of American development. This paradigm of modernity is like
no other advanced industrial society. Nowhere else is religion so pervasive
or so politically powerful. In which other country has the head of state
felt it necessary to declare himself neutral in the quarrel between
Darwinism and creationism?

In the monocular neoconservative view of modernisation, every society in
the world will eventually follow America in becoming a secular democracy.
In reality, the US is a less secular regime than Turkey. If America is at
the cutting edge of modernity, so is fundamentalism.

By embracing the neo-conservatives' distorted view of the world, Mr Blair
has implicated Britain in a dangerous military adventure whose end is
nowhere in sight. At the same time he has impoverished politics. We can all
see that public services have collapsed and are in need of urgent reform.
But why must that mean injecting market forces and private capital into
practically every corner of health and education?

The crisis in the public services is partly the result of just such
policies. Again, contrary to some liberal commentators, rising crime is a
real problem. But does this mean that - unlike any other European country -
Britain must follow the US in banging up ever-increasing numbers of people
behind prison bars?

The advance of science and technology is an unstoppable process, but it has
no built-in end or purpose. In every area of policy there are collective
choices to be made. Thinking of modernisation as a single unidirectional
process has the effect of narrowing these choices.

When Mr Blair came to power he promised an end to ideology. In the event,
by embracing the neo-conservative view of modernisation he has renewed it.
History has not come to an end, but serious politics very nearly has. It is
not only in the Middle East that a monolithic view of modernity is
dangerous.

John Gray is the author of Al-qaida and What It Means to Be Modern (Faber
and Faber)


http://www.iht.com/articles/93832.html

*  OPEN THE BOOKS ON OIL-FOR-FOOD
by Claudia Rosett
International Herald Tribune, 21st April

NEW YORK: President George W. Bush's call to lift economic sanctions against
Iraq would mean the end of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which
has overseen the country's oil sales since 1996.

Not only are France and Russia likely to object, but they may well support
efforts by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to modify the oil-for-food system,
which is due to expire on May 12, and give it a large role in rebuilding the
country.

Whatever Annan's reasons for wanting to reincarnate the operation, before he
makes his case there's something he needs to do: open the books.

The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only does it
involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates with alarming
secrecy.

Intended to ease the human cost of economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell
oil and use the profits for staples like milk and medicine, the program has
morphed into big business. Since its inception, the program has overseen
more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports
combined.

It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel - more than $1
billion to date - that is supposed to cover its administrative costs.
According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year
have held balances upward of $12 billion.

With all that money pouring straight from Iraq's oil taps - thus obviating
the need to wring donations from member countries - the oil-for-food program
has evolved into a bonanza of jobs and commercial clout.

Before the war it employed some 1,000 international workers and 3,000
Iraqis. The Iraqi employees - charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's
imports and distribution of relief goods - of course all had to be approved
by the Ba'ath Party.

Initially, all contracts were to be approved by the Security Council.
Nonetheless, the program facilitated a string of business deals tilted
heavily toward Saddam's preferred trading partners, like Russia, France and,
to a lesser extent, Syria.

About a year ago, in the name of expediency, Annan was given direct
authority to sign off on all goods not itemized on a special watch list. Yet
shipments with Annan's go-ahead have included so-called relief items such as
"boats" and boat "accessories" from France and "sport supplies" from Lebanon
- sports in Iraq having been the domain of Saddam's elder son, Uday.

On Feb. 7, with war all but inevitable, Annan approved a request by the
regime for TV broadcasting equipment from Russia. Was this material intended
to shore up Saddam's propaganda machine?

It is impossible to find out for certain. The quantities of goods involved
in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract
lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless.

For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the
contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption of
project." Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What
were they promised in payment? That's secret. Putting a veil of secrecy over
billions of dollars in contracts is an invitation to kickbacks, political
back-scratching and smuggling done under cover of relief operations.

Of course, with so little paperwork made public, it is impossible to say
whether there has been any malfeasance so far - but I found nothing that
would seem to contradict General Tommy Franks' comment that the system
should have been named the "oil-for-palace program."

Why, for example, are companies in Russia and Syria - hardly powerhouses in
the automotive industry - listed as suppliers of Japanese vehicles? Why are
desert countries like Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia delivering powdered
milk?

As for the program's vast bank accounts, the public is told only that
letters of credit are issued by a French bank, BNP Paribas.

Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, entitled to goods funded by 13 percent of
the program's revenues, have been trying for some time to find out how much
interest they are going to receive on $4 billion in relief they are still
owed. The UN treasurer told me that no outside party, not even the Kurds,
gets access to those figures.

Lifting the sanctions would take away the remaining UN leverage in Iraq. If
the oil-for-food operation is extended, however, it will have a tremendous
influence on shaping the new Iraq. Before that is allowed to happen, let's
see the books.

The writer, a former foreign correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, is
writing a book on dictatorships and democracy.


http://www.iht.com/articles/93930.html

*  WILLIAM SAFIRE: WILL CHIRACISM HOLD BACK IRAQ?
by William Safire
International Herald Tribune, from New York Times, 22nd April

WASHINGTON: Why do you suppose France and Russia - nations that for years
urged the lifting of sanctions on oil production of Saddam Hussein's Iraq -
are now preventing an end to those UN sanctions on free Iraq?

Answer: The Chirac-Putin bedfellowship wants to maintain control of the UN
oil-for-food program, under which Iraq was permitted to sell oil and
ostensibly use the proceeds to buy food and medicine for its people. (In
reality, Saddam skimmed a huge bundle and socked it away in Swiss, French
and Asian banks.)

Iraqis now desperately need all that the country's oil production can buy.
But President Jacques Chirac cares little about reconstruction of basic
services. He is more concerned about maintaining UN control - that is,
French veto control - of Iraq's oil.

"Sophisticated international blackmail" is what Senator Arlen Specter,
Republican of Pennsylvania, called it on Sunday. Blackmail is the apt word:
Unless the United States and Britain turn over primary control of Iraq to
the United Nations - none of this secondary "vital role" stuff - Chiracism
threatens to hobble oil sales and prevent recovery.

This extortion is greeted with hosannas by the thousand or more UN employees
and contractors involved in the present oil-for-food setup, many beholden to
France for their jobs. And so long as the UN bureaucracy handles the
accounting, it is as if Arthur Andersen were back in business - no questions
are asked about who profits from the sanctions management.

My Kurdish friends, for example, who are entitled by UN resolution to 13
percent of the oil for-food revenues, believe their 4 million people are
owed billions in food and hospital supplies. I wonder: In what French banks
is the money collected from past oil sales deposited? Is a competitive rate
of interest being paid? Is that interest being siphoned off in "overhead" to
pay other UN bills?

Secretary of State Colin Powell apparently believes that Chirac's new
fondness for sanctions could tie up Iraqi oil production with litigation for
years. His advice to President George W. Bush is to pay the ransom but
nibble away at the sanctions with limited resolutions. I think America
should confront the extortion scheme head on and let Chirac use his veto to
isolate France further.

What other money trails need to be followed? Few doubt that vast Iraqi
assets have been secretly transferred out of the country for years, and
especially in the prewar months. This is done through cut-outs, phony
foundations, numbered accounts, intelligence proprietaries, leveraged
currency speculation through proxies in unregulated hedge funds and a
hundred other financial devices. Taken together, Saddam's huge haul is now
terrorism's central bank account.

This kind of money moves not in satchels but over wires. Bush and Prime
Minister Tony Blair of Britain should create a task force of the best
computer sleuths at Treasury, the Exchequer, the Defense Intelligence
Agency, the Fed, Interpol and the Bank of England to ferret out the hidden
billions that belong to the Iraqi people. (Here is how Admiral Poindexter
can find gainful employment.)

Start with the 200,000 barrels a day of Kirkuk oil that Iraq smuggled to
Syria, an illegal pipeline flow ignored by the United Nations but stopped
recently by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Then follow the money: We know that President Bashar Assad of Syria turned
an ophthalmologist's blind eye to Saddam's use of the Syrian port of Tartus
to import missile fuel components from China and night vision goggles from
Russia. In return, Saddam sold Syria oil at a bargain price - say, as little
as $5 a barrel. That adds up to more than a billion bucks over a few years
in Saddam's personal pocket, placed - ?

Money recaptured from the Thief of Baghdad should be used to build new
villages for those Arabs he transferred north in his campaign to ethnically
cleanse Kirkuk of troublesome Kurds. That would allow a peaceful return of
Kurds to their ancestral homes without displacing Arab or Turkmen families.

And here's the way the government of New Iraq can save some of the money it
now loses by Russia's eager participation in blackmail in the Security
Council: Declare that the $10 billion owed by Iraq under Saddam to Russia
for unused tanks and planes will be repaid on the day President Vladimir
Putin repays the debt incurred by Russia under the czars.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15655-2003Apr22.html

*  FRANCE MEETS U.S. HALFWAY ON IRAQ SANCTIONS LIFT
by Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff
Washington Post, 22nd April

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In a surprise move, France on Tuesday backed an
immediate suspension of U.N. sanctions against Iraq, meeting the United
States half way in its drive to get the embargoes lifted.

But France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said the U.N.
oil-for-food program, which collects Iraq's oil revenues, should be kept
under U.N. control for the time being but adjusted to Iraq's current needs.

"We should immediately suspend the sanctions," de la Sabliere said. "And
about the oil-for food program, we think there should be some adjustment to
the program with a view to phasing out this program."

De la Sabliere said that financial and some trade sanctions needed to be
suspended to enable Iraq to get back on its feet.

The Bush administration wants the sanctions lifted entirely and reacted
coolly to the French proposals.

Unlike Russia, France did not insist that U.N. arms inspectors first verify
Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction before there could be
movement on sanctions.

"The lifting of the sanctions, which is, I think the objective of all of us,
is linked to the certification of the disarmament of Iraq," de la Sabliere
said. "Meanwhile we could suspend the sanctions and adjust the oil for food
program with the idea of phasing it out."

The embargoes were imposed in August 1990 shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The oil-for-food program, which comes up for renewal in June, is the key to
Iraq's spending oil revenues for reconstruction after the U.S.-led invasion
that deposed President Saddam Hussein's government. Oil proceeds are
deposited in a U.N. escrow account out of which food, medicine and other
civilian goods for Iraq are purchased.

The French ambassador made the comments to reporters after a closed-door
Security Council meeting called to hear a briefing by chief U.N. weapons
inspector Hans Blix and discuss the Iraq crisis for the first time since the
end of the war.

But the United States, in contrast to other council members including
Britain, is cool to Blix, who will retire on June 30. Instead it is
recruiting former U.N. inspectors from the United States, Britain and
Australia to verify any discovery of banned weapons by the military.

John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said sanctions
should be lifted rather than suspended as soon as possible and "we look
forward to working together with the delegation of France and other
delegations toward that end."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was cooler, saying, "It may be a
move sort of in the right direction, some beginning of understanding that
the situation is different. But the situation is so much different that
there is no reason for the sanctions any more."

Negroponte reaffirmed that the return of the U.N. inspection unit Blix
heads, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC), was not foreseen.

"The coalition has assumed responsibility for disarming of Iraq," Negroponte
said. "Now that there is a somewhat more permissive military environment the
coalition effort will be substantially increased and expanded."

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergei Lavrov made it clear that Security Council
resolutions tie the lifting or suspension of sanctions to verification by
inspectors that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs.

"We are not at all opposing lifting of sanctions. What we are insisting on
is that Security Council resolutions must be implemented," Lavrov told
reporters. But he said he was "ready to discuss the French proposal."

"We all want to know that there are no WMDs in Iraq, and the only way to
verify it is to have inspectors in Iraq and to see for themselves and to
report back to the Security Council. As soon as they deliver their report
the sanctions could be lifted," he said.

With the Bush administration ignoring a U.N. role in postwar Iraq, Blix has
been faulted by U.S. officials for not coming up with a "smoking gun" on
Baghdad's dangerous weapons, a prime reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"We may not be the only ones in the world who have credibility but I do
think we have credibility for being objective and independent," Blix told
reporters.

He denied he was in competition with whatever the United States planned on
inspection in Iraq but noted that UNMOVIC had an enormous database with
information on what had been said and found in Iraq in the past.

Blix said inspectors called in by the United States would be objective.

"But at the same time I am also convinced that the world and the Security
Council (would) like to have the inspection and verification bear the
imprint of independence and of some institution that is authorized by the
whole international community," Blix said.


NERVOUS NEIGHBOURS

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/107/nation/Powell_plans_talks_with_Syrian_
president+.shtml

*  POWELL PLANS TALKS WITH SYRIAN PRESIDENT
by Barry Schweid
Boston Globe, 17th April

WASHINGTON, AP: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday the Bush
administration had begun a ''very vigorous diplomatic exchange'' with Syria
and he intended to go to Damascus for talks with President Bashar Assad on
tensions with Iraq's wartime ally.

Insisting anew that Syria expel officials of the fallen Iraqi government who
crossed the border, Powell said, ''Syria does not want to be a safe haven in
the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom.''

But rather than distancing the Bush administration from the Arab government
that aligned itself with Saddam Hussein, Powell said, ''Lots of messages
have been passed back and forth'' between Washington and Damascus through US
Ambassador Theodore Kattouf, and via Britain, France, and Spain.

In fact, Powell told Associated Press Television News he had spoken earlier
in the day with Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio ''about messages she
might deliver'' when she goes to Damascus this weekend.

Beyond that, Powell said, ''I would expect to travel to Syria to have very
candid and straightforward discussions with my foreign minister colleague
[Farouk al-Sharaa] and with President Bashar Assad.''

He did not say when he intended to visit Damascus, but indicated the stop
would be part of a broader trip designed to spur peacemaking between Israel
and the Palestinians.

For three decades, US presidents have sought to engage Syria in peacemaking
with Israel.

Even during a recent flurry of US accusations that Syria was assisting
Hussein with military technology and providing refuge to Iraqi officials,
Powell spoke of such hopes.

He has been to Syria twice in what so far has been an inconclusive Bush
administration attempt to reopen Mideast peace talks.

In Damascus, a Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Syria has been
continuing a quiet, constructive diplomacy with the United States that
belies the tone of US accusations that Syria is sheltering members of the
toppled Iraqi regime and harboring chemical weapons.

''Things are not so bad. ... The diplomatic channels are much quieter and
much more constructive,'' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bouthayna Shaaban
said. ''I really take all these statements with a positive tinge to them.
The objective is to engage and talk about issues rather than to threaten.''


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/17_04_03_i.asp

*  AMERICAN PRESSURE ON SYRIA DOMINATES REGIONAL PRESS
Lebanon Daily Star, 17th April

ARAB PRESS

Aseyassah (Kuwait)

The Kuwaiti-based daily Aseyassah, in opposition to the majority of the Arab
press, has joined ranks with the United States and Israel in attacking
Syria's stance on the war in Iraq. Columnist Ahmed Al-Jarallah wrote: "The
pressure being slowly applied on Damascus is an indication the next step
will be 'Operation Syrian Freedom.' Senior Syrian officials are haunted by
nightmares due to this pressure. However, such thoughts could be eradicated
if these officials follow a rational policy, different than that which led
to the fall and the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime." He added, "The
Syrian leadership should not be a replica of the eliminated Iraqi
leadership. Syria should not downplay the capabilities of its enemy, if it
considers the United States and Britain enemies. It should deal with the
international situation and facts on the ground. Syrians must learn a lesson
from Iraq. Arabs, who have been deceived by Saddam's capabilities and huge
army, were disappointed and felt they were victimized by Saddam's propaganda
and slogans. They discovered Iraqis received allied forces with flowers
because they sought freedom.

"The international coalition forces, which liberated Kuwait in 1991, should
have completed the mission at the same time to liberate Iraqis. These forces
will not commit the same mistake in 2003. This is a strong possibility. We
hope Syrian President Bashar Assad is aware of this dangerous situation. We
hope he will be able to rationally contain this critical situation."

Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon)

Al-Mustaqbal's columnist Marwan Mahayni wrote that the recent threats made
by Washington's hawks against Syria have come as no surprise to Damascus. If
anything, the threats are now "louder and more arrogant." He said that
Damascus had always drawn the international community's attention to
"Israel's significant arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

Damascus, which has often called on Washington to "stop its double standards
and view things objectively," was not surprised by Washington's stance of
"continuing to overlook Israel's arsenal," its violations of international
law and its occupation of other people's land, he wrote. He claimed that
Zionist hard-liners now were deeply influencing the decision making process
within the US administration and its "oil-soaked President, (George W. Bush)
who is up to his ears in his companies and the maze of his monopolies," the
paper said. He added that the charges laid against Damascus represented a
challenge not only to Syria, and the Arabs, but to every nation concerned
about its sovereignty.

Asharq al-Awsat (Lebanon)

Columnist Ahmad Rabhi, of Asharq al-Awsat, found it strange that young
people, "in the prime of their life," were misled by the former Iraqi
regime, of President Saddam Hussein, into fighting the US-led forces. "How
can people, belonging to Islamic movements across the Middle East fight and
engage in Jihad under Saddam Hussein's banner?" he asked. The implication
here is that Saddam never really cared about Islam and only used religion as
a tool to advance his causes. Rabhi asks, "How can nationalist fighters do
the same?" He claimed that the Iraqi youth were the victims of misleading
fatwas (edicts) by religious leaders whose pockets were full of money and
couldn't care less about the average citizen.

Al-Gomhoureya (Egypt)

According to this government paper's editorial, "the Iraqis are waking up
after the horror of their shock. Demonstrations are being staged all over
the country. Martyrdom operations have resurged. The Iraqis do not miss
their days under Saddam. However, what they do look for is to achieve
security, stability and freedom. The Americans, on their side, believe that
setting fire everywhere is essential to burn Iraqi flesh, to destroy the
people's property and to lay to waste the country heritage. Afterward, they
can congratulate the Iraqis on their newly-won freedom. They will give them
foreigners to rule them, telling them this is better, much better than any
national government; that this is the surest guarantee against a repeat of
the Saddam era. All the signs indicate that Washington is presently working
to empty the Iraqi character of its very identity, so that it may be easily
led. Will they achieve their goal? I say they will not. Not in a million
years. Only the future will provide proof of this. Even though they stand
weak and enfeebled at present, soon the Iraqis will regain their strength.
Israel will have only itself to blame. The fact will dawn upon it that
notwithstanding its plots against a strong regional power, the Arab body,
now ailing, will be healed once Arabs reunite their ranks. Only then will we
be able to distinguish the white thread from the black."

Tishrin (Syria)

Government daily Tishrin wrote in its editorial of the US-Israeli "plan" for
the Middle East. "They cannot change our history, our geography, our
culture, our beliefs, our skin, and more than anything else they cannot
erase our memory. They said they came to bring democracy, freedom and
justice to the region. They themselves, do not believe that. Deep down they
confess that they came to occupy Arab land, hand it over to their agents who
will maintain full control and usurp peoples' rights and resources." What
attests to this plan is the nature, attitudes and loyalty of the people who
will be in charge of the interim government in Iraq, the paper argues.

The editorial used the example of US General Jay Garner: "the retired
general, a very close friend of Sharon and others like the CIA director
James Woolsey who was a "famous CIA director, an active member in the
Zionist-Jewish lobby in the US who would also do Israel's bidding. He will
be backed by  Deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who is a member of
the Likud party in Israel and another known Zionist supporter. This is the
plan in its naked form," the editorial said.

ISRAEL PRESS

Haaretz

Gideon Samet writes in one of Israel's English-language dailies about US
President George W. Bush's intentions to seriously push for the
implementation of the "road map" in light of the recent victory in Iraq and
the soon-to-be formed Palestinian Cabinet. "The test of that determination
will be in the near future, when the White House responds to Israeli
attempts to erode the diplomatic initiative with dozens of proposed
amendments to the road map. If the White House sticks up for itself, the
initiative will have a good chance. If it hesitates, that will be the end of
it. The problem with the White House is not improperly reading the data
about a political struggle with Jerusalem over an Israeli-Palestinian
agreement. The danger is that it might prefer another set of data, the one
regarding the president's political safety and his chances for re-election. 
Bush does not need to make any commitment to the Israeli prime minister. The
only commitment he should make is for the welfare of the Israelis. And on
that score, they have been expressing their opinion for many years - not in
holiday interviews that create a passing spin of moderation, but in
consistent polls. In them there is clear support for deep withdrawals,
settlement removal, and, in effect, any compromise that would bring a
gradual end to the conflict. If the American president is not totally
decisive about this mission, he will betray the Israeli interest. And if
Bush does so because of his personal interests - to enhance his re-election
with the help of Jewish votes behind a mask of a flowery vision of peace -
he will not find any atonement."

Jerusalem Post

The Jerusalem Post claims that it is not the US that threatens Syria, but
Syria that threatens the US. "Coalition efforts to rebuild Iraq along stable
democratic lines will not succeed if the peace of the country cannot
reasonably be guaranteed, or if US troops are forced to take stern
precautionary measures for their own safety. And an Iraq that descends into
anarchy is at least as dangerous, if not more, as an Iraq that remains in
the grip of a tyrant. How, then, to deal with Syria?" Shutting down the
Iraq-Syria oil pipeline is a useful start, the post said. "A more effective
strategy would be to deploy elements of the US Army's Fourth Infantry
Division aggressively to patrol the Syrian-Iraqi border. As infiltrators are
apprehended, it would give the lie to Syrian claims not to be interfering in
Iraq. It would also have a wonderfully clarifying effect on the minds of
Syria's military leadership who, unlike Assad, better understand their
regime's fragility. Next, the Bush administration should draw up a list of
demands on Damascus, specifying the penalties to be inflicted if the demands
are not met. The administration should also lay great public stress on
Syria's occupation of Lebanon, using UN Security Council Resolution 520 as
its touchstone." The newspaper argued that dictatorships understand the
difference between rattling one's saber and drawing one's sword, even if
democracies often don't. The sooner and more convincingly Bashar Assad is
stared down, then, the less likely the chance of war. Then again, should it
come to war, that would only mean one awful regime less, not a bad outcome
in a region that still has too many of them.

TURKISH PRESS

The Star

Speaking on oil politics in the Middle East, Columnist Zeynep Gurcanli 
said, "Here's the outcome of the war: With the US invasion of Iraq and the
downfall of the country's regime, all of the oil agreements Russia and
France made with Saddam Hussein in the past have now been rendered null and
void." And Israel has replaced Russia and Germany, two countries dead set
against the US war, in the Iraqi oil bazaar. The Israeli government has
already begun laying the necessary groundwork to pump oil extracted in the
northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk to its own soil. The plan is very
simple, namely reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the
Mediterranean port of Haifa in northern Israel. "Apparently the US-led
invasion of Iraq meant for Israel killing two birds with one stone. After
getting rid of its old foe Saddam Hussein, Israel is now likely to enjoy an
opportunity to reduce the nation's energy bill through replacing expensive
Russian imports with oil from northern Iraq." However, the Israeli plan is
not without its difficulties. There is one obstacle, and a very serious one:
the existing administration in Syria.

IRAN PRESS

Tehran Times

The English-language daily wrote in its editorial about the recently
concluded meeting in Nassiriyeh that brought together opposition groups
including some Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to pave the way for the
establishment of a temporary administrative body in Iraq. The editorial
titled: "Nassiriyeh summit reveals the United States' real intention,"
pointed out that the United States has no intention to share power with the
opposition, and if it does accept some sort of power sharing scheme, it will
be minimal. "Apparently what was top on the agenda of the meeting was not
today's critical condition of Iraq, but to accurately and clearly convey
some of Washington's schemes and plans to the Iraqi opposition forces. Thus
the United States had in effect imparted to the Iraqi forces that they would
be given a small share of the power in the future administration of Iraq."
Meanwhile, other meetings similar to the Nassiriyeh are to be held in the
southern, central, and northern Iraq. Political analysts believe that the
future meetings will unveil the real objective of White House leaders of
breaking up Iraq into separate regions. "The Nassiriyeh meeting was just an
American political show and had nothing to do with the problem of future
administration of Iraq."


http://www.gulf-daily
news.com/arc_Articles.asp?Article=49366&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=26029

*  FIRM TO SUE ANNAN OVER LOST TRADE
Gulf Daily News (Bahrain), 18th April

A Bahraini trading and marketing company is planning to sue UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the loss of millions of dollars worth of
business in Iraq.

Samih Rajab, the owner of Al Jazeera trading and marketing company, said he
was acting jointly with a number of GCC firms which held Mr Annan personally
responsible for losses linked to the UN "Oil for Food" programme.

He told our sister paper Akhbar Al Khaleej that his company had signed
agreements with the UN programme to deliver food and medicine to UN
representatives at points of entry to Iraq.

But he claimed he was now facing huge losses following the start of the war
on Iraq and the withdrawal of UN officials and weapons inspectors.

Mr Rajab advised companies not to take part in Iraq reconstruction
programmes without proper guarantees.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/18_04_03_b.asp

*  TURKEY'S IRAQ ODYSSEY ENDS IN TRAGEDY
by Mohammad Noureddine
Lebanon Daily Star, 18th April

For the last 10 years, Turkey has been busy building a new reality in
northern Iraq - and in the country altogether - to avoid negative
consequences similar to those that came to light after the 1991 Gulf War.

That was why Ankara established strong economic links with Baghdad and a
permanent military presence in northern Iraq. The Turks fell into the habit
of sending their troops over the border to chase rebel Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK) fighters, as well as to dissuade the Kurds from even thinking of
founding their own independent state. Turkey used the estimated 1 million
Iraqi Turkmens as a bargaining chip to stifle Kurdish ambitions.

With the eruption of the latest Iraq crisis, Ankara drew several lines in
the sand: it declared it would not tolerate the seizure of the northern
Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk by the Iraqi Kurds; that it would oppose
Kurdish control of Iraq's rich northern oil fields; that it would oppose
Kurdish domination of its Turkmen allies; and, finally, that it would oppose
the founding of any sort of independent Kurdish entity (including a federal
arrangement) in northern Iraq.

When talks about opening a second front against Iraq began between Ankara
and Washington, the Turks introduced more conditions: the US must not
provide the Kurds with heavy weapons, and that the Kurds are prevented from
taking part in fighting against Iraqi forces.

These talks ultimately failed when the Turkish Parliament rejected a
government bill asking it to agree to the deployment of American forces on
Turkish soil in preparation for moving into northern Iraq. The Turkish
refusal was originally the result of American failure to provide sufficient
guarantees about the role the Kurds would play in a future Iraq.

The Turks were suspicious that the Americans had their own hidden agenda
concerning the future of Iraq - that of the north especially - and that they
had already promised the Kurds an independent state of their own.

Ankara realized Washington's calculations on the Kurdish question were
different to Turkey's. Ankara has always considered the issue of northern
Iraq from the standpoint of its own 12-million-strong Turkish Kurd
population. Washington, however, looked at the issue from a different angle
- that of its effect on the Iraqi situation and the future of the country
after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Washington saw the Kurds as their most reliable allies in Iraq over the last
several years. They were the only players on the Iraqi stage who could be
used to pressure and threaten others. Washington therefore wanted to
guarantee that the Kurds could take part in future negotiations from a
position of strength. That, consequently, was why the Americans allowed the
peshmergas to capture Mosul and the strategically and ethnically crucial
city of Kirkuk, and to seize control of the whole of Iraqi Kurdistan. The
rich northern Iraqi oil fields are now in Kurdish hands. The Kurds,
moreover, have the only organized military force in Iraq at the moment,
after the collapse of the Iraqi Army.

In all this, Washington has merely been rewarding its faithful Kurdish
allies. The Kurds will become America's tools for carrying out US policies
in Iraq. That was why the United States maintained intense pressure on
Ankara to dissuade it from intervening militarily in northern Iraq.

There is no doubt that by allowing the Kurds to transgress Ankara's red
lines, the Americans were punishing the Turks for letting them down. But the
Iraqi dimension in the American supported Kurdish action forced Ankara to
lower its expectations. Instead of intervening in the north, the Turks
agreed to a token Kurdish withdrawal from Kirkuk and Mosul to assuage their
public opinion.

The transgression of Ankara's red lines were not its only failure; in fact,
the entire Turkish policy failed. Turkey was unable to intervene in northern
Iraq. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan lamely declared that Turkey had no
serious worries about the situation in northern Iraq.

Perhaps Ankara had exaggerated; maybe it should never have set conditions on
a situation taking place in a foreign country. It is entirely possible that
even Ankara's final red line (that the founding of an independent Kurdish
state would lead to war) would be ignored as well. After all, Turkey's
Kurdish problem lies not in northern Iraq but inside its own borders.

The Americans reacted violently to Turkey's refusal to open a northern
front. New York Times columnist William Safire, who is widely perceived as
speaking for the US administration, threatened Turkey with dire consequences
after the war is over.

Its efforts to open a northern front stymied, the US was forced to wage war
on one front only. But initial failure in the south caused the Americans to
think of reviving the northern front. That was why Secretary of State Colin
Powell traveled to Ankara on April 2. As a result of Powell's visit, Turkey
was declared part of the "coalition." In exchange for extending logistical
support to the Americans in northern Iraq, Washington gave an undertaking
that the Kurds would not be allowed to seize Kirkuk and Mosul.

The two sides had momentarily avoided a clash of interests. Yet it was as
soon as April 9 that Baghdad suddenly fell with the disappearance of the
leaders of the Iraqi regime.

The war between Washington and Saddam Hussein was officially over - but a
new one was already beginning. Only hours after Baghdad fell, Kurdish
peshmerga fighters entered Kirkuk. A day later, they seized Mosul. Ankara
was "shocked and awed" at these developments. Was this the "settling of
scores" between Washington and Ankara predicted by Safire? Have Turkey's
worst fears been realized?

In short, the answer to all these questions is "yes!"

Turkey's lines in the sand were crossed in hours, and the Kurds captured
Kirkuk and Mosul. The entire area of Iraqi Kurdistan was in their hands, and
so was the fate of the Turkmens. Kirkuk is nearer than any other time to
becoming the next Kurdish capital. Turkey was unable to carry out its threat
of military intervention.

Turkey realized too late that its real battle was not with the Kurds, but
with the Americans.


http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=3823

*  US HAS NO LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO IRAQI OIL AND LIFTING OF SANCTIONS MUST
WAIT, SAY NEIGHBOURS
Asian Tribune, 19th April

Doha, April 19 (Al Jazeera: with agencies): The US-led forces that invaded
Iraq had no right to exploit its oil and UN sanctions on Iraq should end
only when it has a legitimate government, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud
al-Faisal said on Saturday.

Speaking after a meeting of eight regional states on post-Saddam Hussein
Iraq, he said the invading forces must reestablish security and withdraw as
soon as possible, allowing Iraqis to form their own government.

The group of eight ­ including all six of Iraq's neighbours ­ have been
meeting in Saudi Arabia on a day marked by huge anti-American demonstrations
throughout occupied Iraq.

In a joint statement released early Saturday morning, Prince Saud Al-Faisal
said that the US led forces who invaded Iraq had no legitimate right to
exploit its oil. He added that UN sanctions should end only when Iraq has a
legitimate government.

"Now Iraq is under an occupying power and any request for lifting sanctions
must come when there is a legitimate government which represents the
people... and which can comply with its duties towards lifting sanctions,"
Prince Saud told reporters after the meeting of eight regional states.

"(The ministers) affirmed that the Iraqi people should administer and govern
their country by themselves, and any exploitation of their natural resources
should be in conformity with the will of the legitimate Iraqi government and
its people," the prince said, reading from a joint statement after the
talks.

The Riyadh meeting consisted of Iraq's neighbours and other Arab states
concerned about the political ramifications of a long-term US occupation.
They held talks on Friday and into early Saturday morning aimed at coming up
with a united position on a national government that will hasten the
withdrawal of US forces.

The foreign ministers of Iraq's six neighbours ­ Syria, Jordan, Turkey,
Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ­ along with Egypt and current Arab League
chairman Bahrain, asked that US troops leave Iraq "as soon as possible" even
as they disagreed on other key points.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher hinted at the differences among the
participants. "There could be divergent analyses (of the situation)," he
said without elaborating.

The differences relate to the status of the Kurds in the north, Turkish
demands on oil from the city of Kirkuk and the identity of certain figures
tipped to become members of a future Iraqi government, a participating
diplomat said.

Participants in the meeting hoped it would provide a consensus that will
help start negotiations with the US and give the region's countries a
greater say in the running of Iraq.

The Saudi Foreign Minister said in an opening address that the closed-door
talks would focus on "certain principles that would serve as the basis for
contacts with the international parties" that are now players in Iraq.

"We call on the occupying authority, which we hope will withdraw from Iraq
as soon as possible, to quickly put in place an interim government with a
view to putting in place a constitutional government," Prince Saud said.

"Iraq's territory and wealth belong to Iraqis," he said, adding that the
United Nations must play a key role in the country.

Washington's threats against Syria were also criticised by the opening
statement.

"We absolutely refuse the recent threat against Syria which can only
increase the likelihood of a new circle of war and hatred, especially in
light of the continuing deterioration of the Palestinian situation," said
the statement, read out by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal.

"We call on the United States to use dialogue with Syria and to activate the
(Middle East) peace process," it said, welcoming a possible visit to Syria
by US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Iran, a member of US President George Bush's 'axis of evil', said it remains
unworried about being attacked by Washington.

"We do not have such a concern because the situation in Iraq was a totally
different story," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said.


http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20030421670.2
_5e4200379690f3c6

*  ISRAELI WRITER CALLS FOR IRAQI-PALESTINIAN-JORDANIAN MERGER UNDER
HASHIMITES
Hoovers (Financial Times), 21st April
Source: The Jerusalem Post web site, in English 21 Apr 03

Text of commentary by Yosef Goell in English entitled "Jordan is Palestine
and Iraq" published by Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post web site on 21
April

As America's dramatic blitzkrieg victory at the eastern end of the fertile
crescent segues into pressure for the implementation of the "road map to a
solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" at our end of that ancient
arc, I would like once again to press for an idea I raised last December,
which is even more pertinent today.

The main rationale advanced for the nexus between the brilliant American
military victory in Iraq and the urgency of imposing the road map on Israel
and the Palestinians is the need to repay Britain's [Prime Minister] Tony
Blair for his steadfast loyalty to President George W. Bush, in opposition
to nearly all of Europe and a large segment of his own Labour Party.

This is hardly a persuasive argument for the effectiveness of the road map
as a solution to a conflict that has lasted for more than three quarters of
a century and intensified to new heights in recent decades. Nor is it as yet
clear whether Bush is merely playing Blair along while remaining committed
to his own vision of last June, which is clearly at odds with many aspects
of the road map.

Looking at the conflict in long-term perspective, the current question of
whether or not Palestinian [National] Authority Prime Minister-designate
Mahmud Abbas (Abu-Mazin) actually succeeds in wresting meaningful governing
power from Chairman Yasir Arafat becomes relatively meaningless. The basic
fact that remains unchanged and that has been dramatically and depressingly
proven over the past 18 months is that no diplomatic trade off on
boundaries, settlements, sovereignty or refugees could possibly overcome the
venomous hatred of the Palestinian people and its leadership for Israel as
the state of the Jewish people.

Despite Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's politically courageous acquiescence to
the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, it is obvious that Israel
could never agree to the emergence of such a state until there is firm
evidence that the Palestinians have overcome their feral hatred for Israel,
will have recognized Israel as a legitimate state of the Jewish people,
forfeited their demand for the return of the Palestinian refugees to that
Israel, and effectively reined in and disarmed their terrorist groups.

Could the mere supplanting of Arafat by Abu-Mazin, which shows no signs of
happening as yet, signify a tectonic change in that hatred and Palestinian
attitudes to those goals? Hardly.

Does that mean that no solution to the conflict is possible in the short and
medium term? In the philosophical sense that prolonged conflicts fuelled by
deep-seated ethnic animosities and fears have no effective solutions the
regrettable answer is yes.

The direction that should be sought, however, is attaining a viable
middle-range accommodation, something like the non-peace we have with Egypt
since 1979. This would mean differentiating between the need to get Israel
off the backs of the overwhelming majority of Palestinians in the
territories which fell into Israel's hands in June 1967, and that of
granting them a sovereign state which they would only exploit to intensify
their attacks on Israel.

Such an accommodation would entail Israel's getting out of the overwhelming
majority of the territories in favour of their re-incorporation into Jordan,
from whom we acquired them in the 1967 war and with whose ruling family we
have had an impressive peace since 1995.

The initial problem is that, to King Abdallah and his Hashimite ruling
family, the addition of the Palestinian territories and population would be
a burden rather than an advantage. What is needed is a persuasive sweetener
that would reverse Jordan's inexorable descent into the status of a desert
kingdom basket case.

Which is where a reconstituted post-war Iraq comes in. After creating an
independent or autonomous Kurdistan in the north, the southern two thirds of
Iraq should be merged with Jordan under the Hashimite crown as payment for
its own readiness to incorporate the Palestinian territories and population.

That would constitute a fulfilment of the post-World War I dream of the
Hashimites who were driven out of Hijaz by Ibn-Sa'ud and his family, and out
of Baghdad in 1958 by a royal assassination to rule a major Arab state
extending from the river Jordan in the west to Iran in the east.

The gigantic Iraqi oil reserves could turn such a Hashimite Iraq-Jordan with
a population of over 20 million, including the highly educated and
technologically advanced Palestinian and Iraqi Sunni populations, into a
pro-Western economic powerhouse in the Middle East. It could in time also
serve to resettle the Palestinian refugees from their sordid, dehumanizing
camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria, a problem the road map
fails to address.

Many would argue that all of the above is crazy thinking. I would argue that
it is thinking big and certainly provides a more viable solution to our
conflict than that contemplated by the road map. When an opportunity for
such a solution comes along, due to the Bush administration's audacity in
Iraq, it should be seized.




_______________________________________________
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