The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
News, 07-14/05/03 (1) THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS * Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse * The secret that Leo Strauss never revealed * U.S. imperialism -- a force for good OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS * Halliburton Unit's Bill for Iraq Work Mounts * Bush ally set to profit from the war on terror * Iraq work beckons for British firms JUNIOR PARTNERS * Burridge interview in full * Poland rethinks troops' mission in Iraq * Queen puts kybosh on Iraq parade * Short's resignation statement THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18038 * STRONG MUST RULE THE WEAK, SAID NEO-CONS' MUSE by Jim Lobe Inter Press Service, 7th May [.....] ''Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat,'' she said in a telephone interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada. ''Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them.'' ''The Weimar Republic (in Germany) was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt,'' added Drury. Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, ''some are fit to lead, and others to be led'', according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that ''those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''. For Strauss, ''religion is the glue that holds society together'', said Drury, who added that Irving Kristol, among other neo-conservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the U.S. republic. ''Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing'', because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits that might encourage dissent, which in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. ''You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty,'' according to Drury. Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. ''Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,'' he once wrote. ''Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people''. ''Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,'' Drury wrote in her book. ''Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the 'evil empire' poses a threat to America's inner stability.'' ''In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time (to survive),'' said Drury. ''In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in.'' Such views naturally lead to an ''aggressive, belligerent foreign policy'', she added. As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often talked about Jonathan Swift's story of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. ''When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.'' For Strauss, the act demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for elites to deceive their citizens, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. ''They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy,'' she said. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EE13Aa01.html * THE SECRET THAT LEO STRAUSS NEVER REVEALED by 'Spengler' Asia Times, 13th May No sillier allegation has found its way into mass-circulation newspapers than the notion that a conspiracy of Leo Strauss acolytes has infiltrated the Bush administration. Supposedly Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, a Strauss doctoral student, and other lesser-known officials form a neo-conservative cabal practicing some sort of political black arts. If anything, the Straussians are dangerous not because they are Machiavellian but because they are naive. First of all, there is no Straussian conspiracy, for the simple reason that no two Straussians agree about what Leo Strauss (1899-1973) really meant to say during his 37 years of teaching in the United States. Anyone who does not believe this should listen to today's Straussians searching for hidden meanings in his works by reference to numerology, comparative word counts, and other far-fetched devices. At the conclusion of this essay I will reveal the secret of the Tower of Straussian Babel. Secondly, there is nothing the least sinister about Strauss himself, who spent his life attempting to square the circle of reconciling traditional values with the modern world. Third, and most important, the questions that preoccupied Strauss have no relevance whatever to the problem which American foreign policy now proposes to address, namely, how to respond to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who want no part of the modern world. Hitler and Stalin, the spawn of modernist despair, were Strauss's life-long concerns. How to prevent democracies from sinking into debilitation and becoming the prey of tyrants was the subject of his political philosophy. He spoke to an academic audience that dismissed religion as a discredited superstition, not to a world of enraged believers. Strauss was a German-Jewish theologian who lost his faith, and came under the spell of the modernists' critique of tradition. On the one hand, he agreed with the critics of Christian civilization from Machiavelli through Heidegger. On the other, he perceived that the end of the old order of things led only to Nihilism and destruction. Nietzsche and Heidegger refuted the absolutes of right and wrong as taught by revealed religion, insisting that men invented their own values as circumstances permitted. The Nazis idolized Nietzsche; Heidegger himself embraced National Socialism. That left Strauss in a profoundly uncomfortable position intellectually, given his fascination with Heidegger, as well as personally, as he had to flee Nazi Germany. Caught between the collapse of tradition and the pyromania of the modernists, Strauss took the well-trodden path back to ancient Athens, that is, to the political philosophy of Socrates. Westerners who reject religion have been doing that since the Renaissance. Strauss, the theologian who began his career writing glosses on Jewish authorities, restyled himself as a classicist, with a fantastic twist. As he wrote to Karl Lowith in 1946: "I really believe, although to you this apparently appears fantastic, that the perfect political order, as Plato and Aristotle have sketched it, is the perfect political order. I know very well that today it cannot be restored." What that means, we shall see below. By all accounts Strauss was a persuasive exegete of classical texts and an inspiring teacher. On American shores, to be sure, he was playing to an easy crowd. "Young Americans seemed, in comparison [to Europeans], to be natural savages when they came to the university. They had hardly heard the names of the writers who were the daily fare of their counterparts across the Atlantic, let alone took it into their heads that they could have a relationship to them," wrote the late Allan Bloom, Strauss's best-known student. Eager young Americans were easily impressed by the erudite German. Much is made by left-wing critics of Strauss's "esotericism", his search for hidden meanings in classic texts. His students bear some of the blame for this, given their scavenger hunts for hidden messages in their teacher's own opus. Some commentators go as far as to allege that Strauss used esoteric exegesis to teach his students the art of political deception. That is silly. What author in what century was free to express himself with unconditional freedom? Heinrich Heine commented that Hegel wrote confusing prose because he did not want to reveal himself as an atheist. Strauss, for example, attempted to show that Machiavelli was an atheist who wished to overturn existing mores, and cloaked himself in commentary upon Roman authors. To whom is this is a surprise? Machiavelli was accused of this for centuries. All the Renaissance humanists were freethinkers of one sort or another. Why does anyone think that there was a Counter-Reformation? Americans want happy endings, and the enterprising Leo Strauss provided them with this one: Reason as taught by the Athenian political philosophers can provide solutions to modern problems of statecraft. His student Harry Jaffa spent a lifetime portraying the Founding Fathers of the United States as well as Abraham Lincoln as master logicians. To Jaffa, Lincoln was "the greatest of all exemplars of Socratic statesmanship". "Never since Socrates has philosophy so certainly descended from the heavens into the affairs of mortal men." And yet there is the nagging problem of Heidegger, who rejected all tellers of absolute truth and Socrates most vehemently. As an impressionable young man, Strauss fell under Heidegger's influence and never quite shook it. Considering Heidegger's grandiose reputation, it is depressing to consider how cheap was the trick he played. What is Being?, he demanded of a generation that after the First World War felt the ground shaky under their feet. It is a shame that Eddie Murphy never studied philosophy, for then we might have had the following Saturday Night Live sketch about Heidegger's definition of Being with respect to Non-Being, namely death. The use of dialect would make Heidegger's meaning far clearer than in the available English translations: "What be 'Be'? You cain't say that 'Be' be, cause you saying 'be' to talk about 'Be', and it don't mean nothing to say that 'Be' be dis or 'Be' be dat. 'Be' be 'Be' to begin wit'. So don't you be saying 'Be' be 'Be'. You wanna talk about 'Be', you gotta talk about what ain't be nothin' at all. You gotta say 'Be' be what ain't 'ain't-Be'. Now when you ain't be nothing at all? Dat be when you be daid. When you daid you ain't be nothing, you just be daid. So 'Be' be somewhere between where you be and where you ain't be, dat is, when you be daid. Any time you say 'Be' you is also saying 'ain't-Be', and dat make you think about being daid." That is all there is to Heidegger's Existential idea of Being-towards-death. Metaphysical pettifogging of this sort appeals to people whom the disintegration of social order has made uncertain about their sense of being. The enunciation of the concept "Being" dredges up the problem of mortality, Heidegger continued. Men confront their mortality under particular circumstances, in what came to be called "radical historicism", that is, the complete absence of absolute truths. What remains is subjective Existential choice. Heidegger's was to join the Nazis. That left Strauss in the prickly position of preaching the absolute truth of Socratic philosophy while giving credence to Nietzsche and Heidegger, who rejected all absolutes and Socrates more than anyone. The Straussians come out on every side of this question, leading to the charge that Strauss secretly taught a cynical, value-free theory of power to his inner sanctum of acolytes. No such thing is the case. Strauss is neither a Heideggerian Historicist nor a Greek rationalist, but exactly the opposite. He was confused, but confused in a very special way. He was a confused Jew. That is the secret that Strauss never revealed to any of his students (how many teachers admit to confusion?). A Jewish atheist, an old joke goes, tells God: "Look at all the terrible things you have permitted to happen! Just for that, I refuse to believe in you - so there!" To advance a solution to mankind's problems (in this case Socratic political philosophy) in the full knowledge that it cannot possibly succeed is a peculiarly Jewish gesture, a perversely stubborn statement of faith in the face of all the known facts. Despite his atheism, Strauss remained occupied with Jewish issues throughout his life. He is buried in the cemetery of the Knesseth Israel Synagogue in Annapolis, Maryland. What characterizes Strauss's diverse group of followers is not a penchant for conspiracy, but a kind of optimism, a faith, if you will, that statecraft can improve the human condition. What will happen to his legacy? Demography soon will solve Europe's Existential crisis, as the Europeans die out. The issues that occupied Strauss are dying out with them. He left his students no tools to apply to a world of civilizational and religious war. It was not the philosophers, but the theologians who sorted out Europe in the religious wars of the 17th century. If Washington really is in the hands of the Straussians, the United States is flying blind. http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=D081D6FE-8565-4050-B763 9FB18775F134 * U.S. IMPERIALISM -- A FORCE FOR GOOD by Max Boot National Post, 13th May What is the greatest danger facing America as it tries to rebuild Iraq: Shiite fundamentalism? Kurdish separatism? Sunni intransigence? Turkish, Syrian, Iranian or Saudi Arabian meddling? All of those are real problems, but none is so severe that it can't readily be handled. More than 125,000 U.S. troops occupy Mesopotamia. They are backed up by the resources of the world's richest economy. In a contest for control of Iraq, America can outspend and outmuscle any competing faction. The greatest danger is that America won't use all of its power for fear of the "I" word -- imperialism. When asked on April 28 on al-Jazeera whether the United States was "empire building," Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld reacted as if he'd been asked whether he wears women's underwear. "We don't seek empires," he replied huffily. "We're not imperialistic. We never have been." That's a fine answer for public consumption. The problem is that it isn't true. The United States has been an empire since at least 1803, when Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory. Throughout the 19th century, what Jefferson called the "empire of liberty" expanded across the continent. When U.S. power stretched from "sea to shining sea," the American empire moved abroad, acquiring colonies ranging from Puerto Rico and the Philippines to Hawaii and Alaska. While the formal empire mostly disappeared after the Second World War, the United States set out on another bout of imperialism in Germany and Japan. Oh, sorry -- that wasn't imperialism; it was "occupation." But when Americans are running foreign governments, it's a distinction without a difference. Likewise, recent "nation-building" experiments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan are imperialism under another name. Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions to countries as diverse as South Korea and Panama. Yet, while generally successful as imperialists, Americans have been loath to confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that "imperialism" carries, there's no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice. That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural resources; nothing could be more destructive of the goal of building a stable government in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then backing him or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighbouring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views. The indications are mixed as to whether the United States is prepared to embrace its imperial role unapologetically. Rumsfeld has said that an Iranian-style theocracy "isn't going to happen," and U.S. President George Bush has pledged to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as necessary to "build a peaceful and representative government." After allowing a temporary power vacuum to develop, U.S. troops now are moving aggressively to put down challenges to their authority by, for example, arresting the self-declared "mayor" of Baghdad. That's all for the good. But there are also some worrisome signs. Bush asked for only US$2.5-billion from Congress for rebuilding Iraq, even though a study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy estimates that US$25 billion to US$100-billion will be needed. Iraq's oil revenues and contributions from allies won't cover the entire shortfall. Bush should be doing more to prepare the U.S. public and Congress for a costly commitment. Otherwise, Iraqis quickly could become disillusioned about the benefits of liberation. The cost of U.S. commitment will be measured not only in money, but also in troops. While Bush and Rumsfeld have wisely eschewed any talk of an early "exit strategy," they still seem to think U.S. forces won't need to stay more than two years. Rumsfeld even denied a report that the U.S. armed forces are planning to open permanent bases in Iraq. If they're not, they should be. That's the only way to ensure the security of a nascent democracy in such a rough neighbourhood. Does the U.S. administration really imagine that Iraq will have turned into Switzerland in two years' time? Allied rule lasted four years in Germany and seven years in Japan. American troops remain stationed in both places more than 50 years later. That's why these two countries have become paragons of liberal democracy. It is crazy to think that Iraq -- which has less of a democratic tradition than either Germany or Japan had in 1945 -- could make the leap overnight. The record of nation-building during the past decade is clear: The United States failed in Somalia and Haiti, where it pulled out troops prematurely. Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan show more promise because U.S. troops remain stationed there. Afghanistan would be making even more progress if the United States and its allies had made a bigger commitment to secure the countryside, not just Kabul. If we want Iraq to avoid becoming a Somalia on steroids, we'd better get used to U.S. troops being deployed there for years, possibly decades, to come. If that raises hackles about American imperialism, so be it. The United States is going to be called an empire whatever it does. It might as well be a successful empire. Max Boot is an Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS NO URL * HALLIBURTON UNIT'S BILL FOR IRAQ WORK MOUNTS by Mark Fineman Los Angeles Times, 9th May BAGHDAD - The Pentagon has paid nearly $90 million to a subsidiary of the well connected Halliburton Co. to cater to the Americans who are working to rebuild Iraq, U.S. officials said - while the reconstruction effort has yet to show significant results for ordinary Iraqis. The Defense Department gave Halliburton's KBR exclusive rights to the job - which has included fixing up an extravagant presidential palace being used by the Americans - under a broad U.S. Army logistics contract that pays the company a fee based on a percentage of everything it spends, according to Pentagon documents and Halliburton's corporate filings. KBR, whose parent firm has had strong ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, has drawn scrutiny for an emergency oil contract in Iraq that is becoming increasingly lucrative. Under a "task order" from the lesser-known logistics contract, the Defense Department has rung up KBR's multimillion-dollar bill - which is expected to nearly double - as the number of U.S. officials and Iraqi exiles working for the Pentagon-created reconstruction agency balloons. In blocks-long convoys from Kuwait, the firm is hauling in everything from prefabricated offices, showers, generators and latrines the size of trailer homes to food and bottled water. As supplies for the Americans continue to arrive by the ton, little of the millions KBR is spending have gone into the Iraqi economy that Washington has pledged to restore. KBR's logistics job gives it no direct role in the rebuilding of this shattered country; that falls to the Bush administration's ambitious $2.4-billion reconstruction program, which is being overseen by the State Department. The company's most lucrative subcontracts are with trucking, catering and security companies based in neighboring Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, oil-rich nations with the best land routes into Iraq. KBR and Pentagon officials say hiring Iraqis and buying local goods are a top priority. Although the company subcontracted with one Iraqi-owned firm that has bought local goods and recruited more than 350 Iraqis to work for the Americans, the firm estimates that the move has put just $100,000 into the local economy so far. Antiwar activists have asserted that U.S. corporate profits were among the motives in waging the campaign in Iraq, which has the second-largest oil reserves on the globe. Other critics have charged that the Dallas-based Halliburton has received preferential treatment from the Bush administration. Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer for five years until he resigned in August 2000 to be George W. Bush's running mate. Cheney no longer owns stock in the company, and spokesmen for both the Pentagon and KBR deny favoritism; both said the Army logistics contract sanctioning the company's work for the Iraq reconstruction agency was competitively bid before it was awarded in 2001. But another contract that KBR won to repair Iraq's oil fields and put out postwar oil and gas fires was not competitively bid. And it has been a lightning rod for criticism. The Army Corps of Engineers, citing urgency and the need for secrecy, awarded KBR the exclusive, classified oil contract March 8, after KBR had done a similarly classified study on how to solve Iraq's postwar oil problems. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) is spearheading an effort to expose details of the KBR oil contract, and his latest exchange of letters with Army Corps commander Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers this week disclosed that the scope of work for Halliburton's subsidiary in Iraq's oil industry goes well beyond firefighting and emergency repairs. In a May 2 letter, Flowers wrote that the Halliburton contract also includes "operation of facilities and distribution of products" for the Iraqi oil industry. Flowers added that the contract, which has a ceiling of $7 billion but is expected to cost much less, will continue at least until August, when the corps is planning to issue a competitively bid contract to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure that could run through 2004. Far lesser known is the contract that the Pentagon used to deploy KBR to set up, cater to and care for the Iraq-based officials of the postwar reconstruction agency here. That contract has no cost ceiling. Dubbed the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, the contract was awarded in December 2001 and can remain in place for up to 10 years. Specifically, it requires KBR "to deploy within 72 hours of notification and to deliver combat support and combat service support for 25,000 troops within 15 days," according to Halliburton's corporate documents on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The logistics program "provides the war fighter with additional capabilities to rapidly support and augment the logistical requirements of its deployed forces through the use of a civilian contractor," the company stated in the press release that announced the contract award, which was dated Dec. 14, 2001. The company has billed the Pentagon for hundreds of millions of dollars for work done under the contract during America's rapidly expanding military presence abroad since the Sept. 11 attacks. It has built and maintained bases and other facilities and catered to the needs of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and even Djibouti, a key East African outpost in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism. An official in Baghdad with the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, known as ORHA, insisted that the company's work for the agency is appropriate under the contract: "This was an Army mission. It's supporting the Army, which is supporting ORHA." The official said he doubted that KBR's work for the reconstruction agency would exceed $200 million, but he added that it already has eclipsed original estimates because the agency and its mission have grown exponentially - and far beyond what KBR and the Pentagon had projected when they planned the job in January. The company's initial work order for the Iraq job was for $69.5 million, based on an ORHA work force of about 350 in three sectors - the north, the south and central Iraq. As of this week, ORHA staff has ballooned to more than 1,000 people throughout the country, which the agency has now divided into four sectors, and the ORHA official said he expects the agency's staff to grow to as many as 2,000 in the months ahead. A second "task order" for an additional $20 million was issued by the Army last month, and the Pentagon is in the process of awarding a third one. "We're expecting a significant increase," the ORHA official said, indicating that the increase will be more than what KBR already has spent. KBR's task has been logistically taxing and dangerous, and most defense industry analysts say few other companies could manage it. Its truck convoys move through several hundred miles of desert and urban areas that the U.S. military still has not fully secured. And the massive Republican Palace in Baghdad that serves as the agency's national headquarters is a contrast in grand opulence and harsh subsistence: More than 650 agency personnel sleep in grand halls of Florentine marble, crystal chandeliers and gold leaf - on cots. The palace still has no running water. Electricity has been spotty, and until this week, most of the reconstruction agency's staff was dining solely on military meals-ready-to-eat rations. The Babel Tourist Hotel, which the agency commandeered last week as the headquarters of its "south-central sector" in Hillah, an hour's drive south of the capital, is in similar shape. On Wednesday, KBR-contracted trucks were bringing in prefabricated buildings, office pods and generators. And in Baghdad, a small army of the Iraqi workers hired by the newly formed, London based Iraq Project & Business Development Co. is grateful for work that starts at $2 a day to clear garbage, clean latrines and mop the palace floors. A scene at the palace one typical afternoon this week underscored the contrasting economies that are part and parcel of KBR's job here. As several Iraqi supervisors assembled a group of carefully selected KBR cleaning recruits from Baghdad's desperate work force, Saudi and Kuwaiti truckers making as much as 200 times the Iraqis' salaries were bringing in imported computers, desks, chairs and other furniture. When asked specifically what is covered by KBR's "task order" to serve the basic needs of the reconstruction agency, the ORHA official in Baghdad replied: "I guess the real question is, what doesn't it cover?" http://observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,953645,00.html * BUSH ALLY SET TO PROFIT FROM THE WAR ON TERROR by Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes The Observer , 11th May James Woolsey, former CIA boss and influential adviser to President George Bush, is a director of a US firm aiming to make millions of dollars from the 'war on terror', The Observer can reveal. Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'. The first priority of Paladin was 'to invest in companies with immediate solutions designed to prevent harmful attacks, defend against attacks, cope with the aftermath of attack or disaster and recover from terrorist attacks and other threats to homeland security'. Paladin, which is expected to have raised $300 million from investors by the end of this year, calculates that in the next few years the US government will spend $60 billion on anti terrorism that woul not have been spent before September 11, and that corporations will spend twice that amount to ensure their security and continuity in case of attack. The involvement of one of the most prominent hawks in Washington with a company standing to cash in on the fear of potential terror attacks will raise eyebrows in some quarters. In 2001 US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to Europe, where he argued the case for links existing between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. He was one of the main proponents of the theory that the anthrax letter attacks in America were supported by Iraq's former dictator. More recently Woolsey told CNN about Saddam's attempts to produce a genetically modified strain of anthrax. He told the US broadcaster: 'I would be more worried over the mid to long term about biological weapons, because the chemical gear, we're - I think we're pretty well equipped to deal with. But there have been stories that Saddam has been working on genetically modifying some of these biological agents, making anthrax resistant to vaccines or antibiotics.' Little evidence was provided for the Iraq link to the anthrax attacks and the FBI is now investigating a lone US scientist whom it believes was responsible. But Woolsey's assertions added to a political atmosphere in which spending on equipment designed to protect individuals and firms from terror was predicted to mushroom. One of Paladin's first investments was $10.5m in AgION Technologies, a firm devising anti germ technology that it hopes will 'be the leader in the fight against bacterial attacks initiated by terrorists on unsuspecting civilian and military personnel'. Woolsey is not alone among the members of the Pentagon's highly influential Defence Policy Board to profit from America's war on terror. The American watchdog, the Centre for Public Integrity, showed that nine of the board's members have ties to defence contractors that won more than $76bn in defence contracts in 2001 and 2002. Woolsey's fellow neo-conservative, Richard Perle, had to resign his chairmanship of the board because of conflicts of interest, although he remains a board member. The hawks and their money DICK CHENEY, Vice President Cheney once ran oil industry giant Halliburton whose subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, has won lucrative contracts in post-Saddam Iraq. The Defence Department gave KBR exclusive rights to a $90m contract to cater for the Americans who are working on rebuilding Iraq. KBR also won a lucrative contract to repair Iraq's oilfields. DONALD RUMSFELD, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of European engineering giant ABB when it won a £125m contract for two light water reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the 'axis of evil'. Rumsfeld earnt $190,000 (£118,000) a year before he joined the Bush administration. RICHARD PERLE An influential member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, Perle is managing partner of venture capital company Trireme, which invests in companies dealing in products of value to homeland security. It sent a letter to Saudi arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi arguing that fear of terrorism would boost demand in Europe, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. GEORGE SHULTZ, ex-Secretary of State Shultz is on the board of directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest contractor in the US and one of the favourites to land lucrative contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq. Shultz is chairman of the the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war group with close ties to the White House. http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20030511670.4 _a43d000de5867d7e * IRAQ WORK BECKONS FOR BRITISH FIRMS Hoover's (Financial Times), 11th May Source: The Sunday Telegraph (United Kingdom) BRITISH COMPANIES are to be given a share of lucrative contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds to rebuild Iraq, following a change of heart by the US government. UK construction and engineering firms wishing to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq are to be invited to presentations by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and leading American construction and engineering firms to be held in London later this month. The meeting follows an outcry after it emerged that only US companies would be invited to bid for reconstruction work by USAID. A spokesman for Balfour Beatty, the construction group, said: "It is now becoming the done thing for US companies to partner with UK companies. We have suddenly been approached by quite a number of them. The way things are moving, it is not a question of whether we will participate but how and with whom." USAID is handing out contracts for work totalling $2.4bn in the first phase of reconstruction of the shattered country. Acccording to some estimates, the total reconstruction bill could eventually be $100bn. USAID and American firms such as Fluor, Parsons, Louis Berger and Kellogg Brown & Root will outline the work likely to become available to British subcontractors at the meeting, which will be held at the headquarters of the Department of Trade and Industry on May 23. Airlink USA, which has been awarded a contract to refurbish Baghdad, Basra and three other Iraqi airports, will be present and looking for subcontractors. Balfour Beatty is already believed to be in discussions with Bechtel, the US engineering giant which has won a $680m contract to repair roads, hospitals and other infrastructure in Iraq. JUNIOR PARTNERS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3010433.stm * BURRIDGE INTERVIEW IN FULL BBC, 8th May The Commander of British troops in Iraq is on his way home. Air Marshal Brian Burridge reflected on the military campaign in an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Here is a transcript of the full interview. Q: Air Marshal, how would you assess the balance between the achievement of military objectives and the difficulties which still remain to be solved? A: I wouldn't characterise Iraq's difficulties as huge problems - I mean they're difficult for sure but the military campaign was, by military standards, a stunning success. We managed to preserve the treasure house of Iraq in the shape of their oil and that was a really, really important thing to do. It was mercifully short and therefore the infrastructure didn't suffer too badly and in so doing we've of course removed the most brutal, corrupt and reprehensible regime in history. And I have to say, in all the detailed knowledge I've gathered really since we stopped fighting - talking to people, understanding more - even I underestimated just how bad this regime was. So the Iraqi people can look ahead in the longer term with, I think, some confidence. And I'm particularly pleased to see schools coming back to normal and investment being put into children, in that the future is really in the next generation in Iraq. Q: And yet there are pressing problems of a very obvious nature, like clean water. A: Well I wonder how pressing that problem is. You've got to remember that, for example in the area of Basra that I know well, 80% of the population now have running water which was a greater proportion than ever before. The problem is that the infrastructure is in such poor shape that we lose vast amounts of water and lakes form, and you can see fountains coming up through the pavement because the place has been neglected for 25 years. And Saddam used water as a weapon. But Unicef are doing great work in trying to restore as much of that as they can - they're building a pipeline up from the south and really militarily we've done as much as we can do with our expertise on that sort of infrastructure - which is frankly make and mend - and now it needs the really deep investment and deep attention of real experts. Q: And a long-term commitment from outside if it's going to be sorted out, doesn't it? A: Sure, and commitment and expertise - I mean it's very useful to have PowerGen with us who with real expertise could analyse the situation over power in Iraq, and they said the power transmission lines were badly damaged in the Iran/Iraq war - they've not been repaired and the whole thing is going to be limited until we get decent infrastructure in there, and that's what we've got to do. Q: Looking at the whole thing in the round, from the objectives as they were stated in London and Washington to the conclusion of the fighting. How important do you think it is to find weapons of mass destruction, to demonstrate to people that the warnings that we were given by Mr Blair and Mr Bush, particularly about the nature of the threat from Iraq, were real? A: I think it's very important. I know the stuff is there. Q: You know it's there? A: It will take forensic uncovering. There's no doubt that there is evidence of an expensive research programme which will be revealed through searches of documents, people are telling us more things and it will be discovered. Q: You know this for a fact? You're absolutely sure? Sorry to interrupt there but it's a terribly important point as you'll realise, because all sorts of people - many who were sceptical about the war and so on - but people more generally, are saying look, they haven't found anything, was this place a threat? Now you're saying you know, you absolutely know that there is stuff and it will be found - how do you know? A: Yeah, I can understand why people would be sceptical because they don't get the chance to deal in the sort of analytical information that I get. But if you start from 1985 and the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, particularly Halabja 15 years ago, that shows an intent and a capability and that capability has continued to exist and been developed and we're sure of that. And we are also sure that in order to defeat the great efforts of the UN and the UN arms inspectors, that Saddam went to great lengths in order to hide it. There's only a very few people who understood in the closing days of the regime exactly where the weapons of mass destruction - both documentation and production facilities - were. But it's described here as a forensic piece of archaeology. Q: The threat - you saw what the Iraqi army did in terms of defending Baghdad...a lot of people looking in from the outside said that the whole thing just crumbled - it was amazing in the way that it melted away as the Americans approached Baghdad. That makes people wonder what the threat really was? A: The defence of Baghdad did not just crumble because it wasn't very good. It crumbled because the speed, tempo - our ability to manoeuvre completely unhinged the regime's ability to command and control. I mean it's almost an apocryphal story now. The first commanding officer we captured on the route into Baghdad said, 'I was told you were 160 kilometres away' and so they had lost the ability to position their forces to use them properly. But make no mistake, I've seen some of their equipment - the Republican Guard equipment was in good condition - plenty of ammunition and sadly we're coming across so much ammunition in urban areas etc. So they had invested in them and had the Republican Guard themselves had the will to fight as individuals, then it would have been a very different sort of fight. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1051389831370&p=1012571727166 * POLAND RETHINKS TROOPS' MISSION IN IRAQ by Judy Dempsey in Brussels Financial Times, 8th May Poland is reconsidering its plans to command one of the three military zones the US has provisionally designated for the multinational stabilisation force in Iraq, as the legal and military implications become more apparent. Nato officials say the US plans envisage five divisions of troops, drawn principally from the US and aided by forces from other countries. The three zones will cover the north, the centre and the south of the country, with a division varying between 15,000 and 20,000 soldiers. Poland has emerged as the leader of the northern zone with one division, although officials said US troops would retain some presence in Kurdish areas that flank Turkey's southern border. The central zone would consist of three divisions, of which two would be provided by the US. Washington wants members of its "coalition of the willing" to make up the other division. The fifth division would be based in the south and led by Britain, with military contributions from Spain and other countries. Poland, however, appears to be having a change of heart over the scope of its mission, which its officials discussed with Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, earlier this week. Nato officials say there is a growing realisation by Warsaw that it does not have the experience for leading such an operation. It lacks the planning capability and says it will require financial assistance to send more than 1,500 troops. The Polish armed forces are also short of English speakers, which will be a hindrance as English is the operating language for Nato forces. However, a Bush administration official said on Wednesday that the US had full confidence in Poland's ability to manage the north. "This is the first time Poland has undertaken this kind of an operation," the official said. "The disagreements over the last few months have been hard for everyone, and I imagine hard for Poland as well, but I think that Poland, with the help of its friends, will manage this successfully." Jerzy Szmajdzinski, Polish defence minister, told the Washington Times this week that he intended to ask Denmark and Germany to contribute to Warsaw's division and help with the logistics of the planned operation. He suggested the planning staff could be drawn from a Danish-German-Polish joint corps, established shortly after Poland joined Nato in 1999, and based in the Polish Baltic city of Szczecin. But Peter Struck, German defence minister, rejected the idea, saying Berlin had no intention of sending soldiers to Iraq without a clear United Nations mandate coupled with a mandate from the German parliament. Though it did not initially question the legal basis for joining the Iraq stabilisation force, Poland is also looking for a UN mandate in order to satisfy public opinion and its European Union partners. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6416991%255E17 02,00.html * QUEEN PUTS KYBOSH ON IRAQ PARADE The Australian, 10th May QUEEN Elizabeth II has made it known that she is not in favour of a victory march for British troops returning from Iraq, a British newspaper reported today. "The Queen will be prepared to lead the nation at a commemoration service for British servicemen who died (in Iraq), but would hesitate to take part in any victory parade," the Times said, citing Buckingham Palace sources. "We will be happy to participate in what the defence ministry feels is appropriate," said a palace spokeswoman, adding: "At the moment that seems to be moving towards a service of thanksgiving." British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said yesterday that the defence ministry had been charged with the delicate task of organising a church service to mark the end of hostilities in Iraq. The thanksgiving service would involve Britain's royal family, Blair, military top brass and the families of those who died. Victory over Saddam Hussain's regime would not be celebrated in the triumphalist manner seen in 1982 when a full-scale military parade took place in London after Britain overcame Argentine forces in the Falklands war. The Times recalled that the Queen and 14 members of the royal family had attended the religious ceremony at Saint Paul's cathedral in London following the Falklands war but had stayed away from the victory march. After the 1990-1991 Gulf War, in contrast, the Queen took part in a parade, flanked by the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher and the crown prince of Kuwait. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3022139.stm * SHORT'S RESIGNATION STATEMENT BBC, 13th May International Development Secretary Clare Short resigned from the government on Monday. Here is her statement to MPs explaining her reasons for quitting her job. I have decided to resign from the government. I think it is right to explain my reasons to the House of Commons to whom I have been accountable as secretary of state for international development - a post I have been deeply honoured to hold and am very sad to leave. I had many criticisms of the way in which events leading up to the conflict in Iraq were handled. I offered my resignation to the prime minister on a number of occasions but was pressed by him and others to stay. I have been attacked from many different angles for that decision but I still think, hard as it was, it was the right thing to do. The reason I agreed to remain in the government was that it was too late to put right the mistakes that had been made. I had throughout taken the view that it was necessary to be willing to contemplate the use of force to back up the authority of the UN. The regime was brutal, the people suffering and our attorney general belatedly, but very firmly, said there was legal authority for the use of force. And because the opposition was voting with the government the conflict was unavoidable. I decided I should not weaken the government at that time and should agree to the prime minister's request to stay and lead the UK humanitarian and reconstruction effort. However, the problem now is that that the mistakes that were made in the period leading up to the conflict are being repeated in the post-conflict situation. In particular, the UN mandate necessary to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi Government is not being supported by the UK Government. This, I believe, is damaging to Iraq's prospects, will continue to undermine the authority of the UN and directly affects my work and responsibilities." The situation in Iraq under international law is that the coalition are occupying powers in occupied territory. Under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907 the coalition has clear responsibilities and clear limits to its authority. It is obliged to attend to the humanitarian needs of the population, to keep order and keep civil administration operating. The coalition is legally entitled to modify the operation of the administration as much as is necessary to fulfil these obligations but is not entitled to make major political, economic and constitutional changes. The coalition does not have sovereign authority and has no authority to bring into being an interim Iraqi Government with such authority, or to create a constitutional process leading to the election of a sovereign government. The only body that has the legal authority to do this is the UN Security Council. I believe it is duty of all responsible political leaders right across the world, whatever view they took on the launch of the war, to focus on reuniting the international community in order to support the people of Iraq in rebuilding their country, to re-establish the authority of the UN and to heal the bitter divisions that preceded the war. I am sorry to say that the UK Government is not doing this. It is supporting the US in trying to bully the security council into a resolution that gives the coalition the power to establish an Iraqi Government and control the use of oil for reconstruction with only a minor role for the UN. This resolution is unlikely to pass but if it does it will not create the best arrangements for the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution risks continuing international divisions, Iraqi resentment against the occupying powers and the possibility that the coalition will get bogged down in Iraq. I believe the UK could and should have respected the attorney general's advice, told the US this was a red line for us and worked for international agreement to a proper UN-led process to establish an interim Iraqi Government, just as was done in Afghanistan. This would have been an honourable and wise role for the UK and the international community would have united around this position. It's also in the best interests of the US. In both the run up to the war and now, I think the UK is making grave errors in providing cover for the US mistakes, rather than helping an old friend, which is understandably hurt and angry about the events of September 11, to honour international law and the authority of the UN. American power alone cannot make America safe. Of course we must all unite to dismantle the terrorist networks and, through the UN, the world is doing this. But undermining international law and the authority of the UN creates the risk of instability, bitterness and growing terrorism that will threaten the future for all of us. I am ashamed that the UK Government has agreed the resolution tabled in New York and shocked by the secrecy and lack of consultation with departments with direct responsibility for the issues referred to in the resolution. I'm afraid this resolution undermines all the commitments I have made in the House and elsewhere about how the reconstruction of Iraq will be organised. Clearly this makes my position impossible and I have no alternative than to resign from the government. All of this makes me very sad. I believe the government I have served since 1997 has a record of which all who share the values of the Labour party can be proud. [.....] _______________________________________________ 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