IRAQ-NEWS - August 20, 2002

Iraq opens warehouse to press to refute US biological weapons

charges.

Text of report by Iraqi satellite TV on 20 August

Iraq has refuted the US allegations and lies published by the

Washington Post about a food warehouse affiliated with the

Trade Ministry. The Washington Post report claimed that the

warehouse is used to produce biological weapons. Correspondents

of news agencies as well as Arab and international television

stations toured the warehouse and inspected the foodstuffs and

infant milk it contains, and the other materials listed on the

supply ration card.

[Correspondent Riyadh Sa'di - recording] No sooner had a US bubble

been burst than another popped up. The latest of such bubbles is

an accusation that this food warehouse produces weapons of mass

destruction. Some US media reported that satellites tracked some

trucks carrying materials that are thought to be biological. The

Ministry of Information organized a free tour of the warehouse for

Arab and international journalists and correspondents of television

stations and news agencies in Baghdad only 48 hours after the

Washington Post allegation.

[Trade Minister Muhammad Mahdi Salih] Currently, the warehouse contains

sugar. The warehouse contains three compartments: one for sugar and the

other two contain infant milk, foodstuffs and milk. We started

supplying

other governorates and Baghdad from this site after the ministry

announced that it would distribute the food rations for two months in

one go. This required supplying food to the other governorates from

this site. It seems that the Americans are filming this site. Sixty

trucks left this site, as the Americans said, laden with infant

milk. They claimed that these materials are used for weapons of mass

destruction. During the tour, we highlighted the countries that

produced the milk, which are the Sultanate of Oman, Tunisia, Yemen,

Vietnam and Indonesia. The warehouse contains different kinds of milk,

as well as sugar from India and Egypt.

[Sa'di] This large warehouse was built by a French company in 1986

to store meat, but it came under devastating US bombing in 1991.

Reconstruction at this site began in 1993. Now it is being used

exclusively for keeping the foodstuffs imported in accordance with

the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Iraq and the United

Nations.

[Salih] The UN staff visit the site every week and verify with us the

storage of the foodstuffs, just like the other warehouses in other

parts of Iraq.

[Sa'di] These US accusations are part of a media campaign launched

by Washington against Iraq with the aim of expanding its aggression

against it despite the fact that it has implemented all its commitments

towards the United Nations and the Security Council resolutions.

[Director-General of the National Monitoring Department Husam Muhammad

Amin] Iraq is free of any weapons of mass destruction and the means of

producing, storing and developing these weapons and anything to this

effect. This is because Iraq implemented its commitments in full and

the [UN] Special Committee [Unscom] supervised the destruction of all

weapons and their means of production. Anything to do with weapons of

mass destruction was destroyed. The US allegations against Iraq have

not been echoed in any country in the world, especially after the bad

US role has been exposed and all world countries have become aware of

the US goals.

[Sa'di] It seems that the US allegations are not only illogical but

also grounded in lies and falsifications. This container and what is

inside it testify to this.

[Video shows reporters touring a warehouse, milk containers; Iraqi

officials speaking to TV reporter]

Source: Iraqi Satellite Channel, Baghdad, in Arabic 1600 gmt 20

Aug 02.

* * *

Immoral & illogical: No convincing case has been made

for the slaughter that would follow an attack on Iraq

By The Right Rev Colin Bennetts, Anglican Bishop of Coventry,

The Guardian,

www.guardian.co.uk

The threat of military action against Iraq raises profound moral

questions, for people of any religious conviction or none. The

government's failure to set out a convincing case for military action

has created a vacuum in which public opinion, left to its own devices,

has already concluded that such action would be both illegal and

immoral.

Churches are rightly at the forefront of an emerging coalition,

comprising key elements of civil society such as trade unions,

NGOs and parliamentarians, which is urging caution and restraint.

Significantly, a number of eminent and highly experienced military

leaders have also expressed their deep reservations about the

wisdom, as well as the morality, of attacking Iraq.

Unless the government takes steps to present a coherent case for

military action, it will find it increasingly hard to rally public

opinion in the UK, let alone in those countries in the Middle East

whose support would be vital to the success of any such operation.

There can be no question that British involvement in military action

against Iraq would multiply the problems faced by Muslim communities

here, and could severely destabilize inter-faith relations. For all

the official insistence that the war on terrorism, and in particular

the war in Afghanistan, is not an attack on Islam, considerable numbers

of Muslims still see it precisely as that. In the past the government

has consistently argued that sanctions have contained for 10 years and

have denied him access to equipment necessary to rebuild his weapons

arsenal. To now argue that the policy of containment has not worked

is an admission that the last 11 years of sanctions amount to an

impressive policy failure. The government needs to explain this U-turn,

especially since any military action is fraught with uncertainty and

when any post conflict settlement remains clouded in ambiguity.

While it remains important to show solidarity with the US post-

September 11, this solidarity should not be at the expense of

sacrificing our own policy objectives in favor of saving the US

the embarrassment of unilateral action.

Would it really be such a waste of time to invite the Iraqi foreign

minister, Naji Sabri, to visit London and Washington? Have we really

passed the point of no return for the kind of diplomatic initiative

that might possibly lead to a peaceful compromise?

After all, what incentive exists for the Iraqi government to cooperate

with the UN when the US has repeatedly stated that allowing weapons

inspectors back into the country will be insufficient to stave off

military action? Instead, the talk of regime change merely serves to

weaken the existing consensus in favor of containment. Any war of this

kind needs proper justification, and it needs to be conducted within

the framework of international law. However, competing US and UK policy

objectives only serve to undermine public confidence as to the legality

of any military action.

The threat of a prolonged war in the Middle East, possibly entailing

the use of chemical and biological warfare, with the risk of

substantial civilian and military casualties, must be avoided at all

costs. The collateral damage is likely to be huge. Some 90% of the

victims would be civilians and half of those would be children.

Iraq Daily, No. 9915 Tuesday, August 20, 2002

http://www.uruklink.net/iraqdaily/9915/feat1.htm

* * *

Aziz - No Aggressor Can Win War Against Iraq - CBS.

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)-Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said

Tuesday that no aggressor can win a way against Iraq and if U.S.

President George W. Bush tries he will lose "this endeavor."

In an interview with CBS News anchorman Dan Rather, Aziz said the

1991 Gulf war organized by Bush's father was in America's interest

but what the current president Bush is doing or plans to do is in

the "interests of Israel and the Zionists."

Aziz said, in contrast to the wide support the U.S. had for the 1991

Gulf war, only Israeli Prime Minister Ariel "Sharon and his gang" are

now encouraging the U.S. to go to war against Iraq.

Aziz said Iraq has no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Asked

why if that were the case, Iraq wouldn't let U.N. arms inspectors to

return, Aziz said Iraq doesn't trust the impartiality and honesty of

the inspectors.

He repeated an Iraqi offer for the U.S. Congress to send a fact-

finding mission to Iraq, which would include U.S. experts. As for

Iraq's support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Aziz said they

weren't terrorists but heroes who are sacrificing their lives for

a noble cause.

* * *

Biological warfare

By Paul Sperry

US West Nile virus matches Israeli strain

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 7 2002

WASHINGTON

The strain of West Nile virus spreading rapidly across the country

is a genetic match to one found in Israel indicating the US bug came

from the Middle East, says a Center for Disease Control and Prevention

scientist.

"The virus that was introduced into New York in 1999 is closely related

to a virus in Israel," which has infected hundreds of Israelis, said

Harry

Savage, a CDC researcher. "So it at least indicates that it came from

that part of the world."

Federal scientists, however, are still trying to figure out how the

mosquito-borne virus jumped the Atlantic, an unusual feat. The mode

of entry into the US "is still unknown," Savage told WorldNetDaily.

Initially the CIA suspected bioterrorism, he says, but fears diminished

after researchers found no traces of manufacturing in the US strain.

"Bioterrorism is very remote because it's a wild virus," he said.

"There's no engineering to it."

Also, West Nile wouldn't make an effective weapon since it kills

relatively few and does not spread through human-to-human contact,

Savage says. A blood-borne virus, its vector is mosquitoes, which

can be controlled through water abatement and malathion spraying.

Still, the death toll from West Nile has climbed to five in Louisiana

alone, pushing total deaths nationwide to more than 20. And the CDC

has rushed teams of doctors and scientists to the swampy state.

The brain-swelling disease has swept across more than half the states

now and will hit all 50 within two years, epidemiologists predict.

Relief from this year's outbreak isn't likely to come until October,

when temperatures cool and viral growth slows.

So if not by bioterrorism, how was the virus introduced to America?

Epidemiologists and virologists offer three possibilities, all of

which they admit are not highly feasible. One is through an infected

traveler. But that's not likely because humans usually don't have

enough of the virus in their blood cells to act as a host for other

mosquitoes, who in turn would spread it.

The second scenario is through an infected bird, which would provide

a rich vector for the virus. But there are few birds imported from

the Middle East.

The third way West Nile may have entered the US is through a virus-

carrying mosquito itself. Perhaps it came through a New York harbor.

But that's not likely, either, since mosquitoes have a short life

span.

Some point to government or university labs as the source. Researchers

were working on a West Nile virus vaccine in New York, Maryland and

Washington, D.C., around the same time the virus first showed up

in dead crows. Hundreds of infected crows have been found in the

Washington area, including at the White House, which is near an Army

medical facility that, experimented with West Nile virus vaccines.

As part of experiments, researchers in New York and elsewhere injected

crows with West Nile.

Some most affected by the virus (which is also quite lethal to horses),

such as ranchers and horse trainers and breeders, can't understand why

the government hasn't been able to solve the mystery.

"We have some of the best epidemiologists in the world. They have

been assisting Europe with the Mad Cow (disease) problem," said

Jim Garfinkel, a California equine veterinarian. "Why is it that

we can't seem to get a handle on this disease?"

He says he was briefed about West Nile at a U.C.-Davis Veterinary

Teaching Hospital meeting shortly after the virus first hit the US

and was told that it had been isolated to an Israeli strain of the

virus.

Iraq Daily, No. 9915 Tuesday, August 20, 2002

http://www.uruklink.net/iraqdaily/9915/science2.htm

* * *

Household Food Security in Iraq: Some Food for Thought

by Carel de Rooy, UNICEF Iraq Country Director

As the psychological warfare against Iraq continues to be waged, the

nightmare scenario that emerges is the (involuntary or voluntary)

interruption of the food-basket that is distributed to all Iraqi

families on a monthly basis.

Routine distribution of food on this scale is in itself a massive

logistic operation that appears to work flawlessly. Some 24 million

people (20.5 million in the south/centre and 3.5 million in northern

Iraq), or roughly 3.7 million families currently receive an average

of 2,230 kcal per person per month (kcal/p/m).

In Northern Iraq this food is distributed by the WFP [World Food

Programme].. In the south/centre effective food distribution on this

scale is made possible by a large network of private agents possibly

linked to the Baath Party 20,000 Public Councils (Majlis Al-Shaab)

that additionally organize everything that pertains to families'

basic needs including electricity, water and sanitation. At the same

time this network caters for security and has a tight control over

the population.

This large scale food distribution entails some 60,000 metric tons/

month in the north (WFP) and some 350,000 metric tons/month in the

south/centre (GOI). In financial terms it represents over US $290

million/month. To put the scale of this operation into perspective,

it must be noted that WFP under its regular programme distributed

between 1991 and 1998 a total of 500,000 metric tons of food (US $225

million). This is equivalent to 5,200 metric tons/month at a cost of

US $2.34 million/month, less than 1 per cent of what is currently

undertaken under the OFFP [Oil-for-Food Programme].

Food support in Iraq started on a modest scale in the mid-1980s when

civil servants (some 1 million in those days) received specified

quantities of food at subsidized prices. In September 1990 the GOI

introduced the food ration, it contained at that time in the order of

1,300 kcal/p/m (US $18.7).

Currently the average ration amounts to 2,230 kcal/p/m (US $24.5).

However, the households' dependency on food rations has evolved over

the past decade to almost total dependency. Since the mid-1980s the

Iraqi Dinar (ID) has devaluated from ID1/US$3 to approximately ID2000/

US$1, a more than 6000 per cent devaluation. School teacher's salaries

have halved, since the early 1990s and in US$ terms equates to US $5/

month. Dependency of a school teacher on the food ration has increased

from 65 per cent (1990) to over 83 per cent of her/his income today.

Clearly, the capability of households to cope with food shortages has

reduced. Additionally, according to the WFP's food price monitoring

mechanism, food market prices are extremely sensitive to any changes

in the political arena. After 11th September, the prices of the food-

basket items increased dramatically and the WFP had to intervene.

With this in mind one must ask:

a) What is the likelihood of the food distribution system

in S/C Iraq being interrupted in the near future?

b) What would happen in terms of security if food distribution

were interrupted?

c) Does the WFP have the capacity to rapidly distribute 350,000

metric tons/month in S/C Iraq if required?

We believe that the interruption of food distribution is possible.

Pregnant and lactating women as well as young children are the most

likely victims. Chaos would be the immediate effect. Very rapid

intervention by the WFP (in the midst of chaos) would be required

to avoid further deterioration of malnutrition and even famine on a

large scale.

What has/can UNICEF do?

I. We have expressed our concern to the inter-agency contingency

planning meeting in Cairo (18th February, 2002).

II. We are liaising with WFP to obtain weekly data on food prices

to hopefully alert the Regional Office/HQ (the press?) if/when

we foresee food shortages.

Carel de Rooy

20 February, 2002 - Baghdad

--

.ines.un.en

---- provided by infoPool News Service ----

--- mailto:newsdesk@ines-newsline.de ---

* * *

Stormin' Norman opposes Iraq war.

* Washington NORMAN Schwarzkopf, the US general who commanded allied

forces during the Gulf War, joined a growing number of senior US

military and political figures opposed to a unilateral invasion of

Iraq and said that President George W. Bush "should not go it alone".

General Schwarzkopf, now retired from the US army but still a

commanding voice on matters relating to Iraq, said the success

of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and the expulsion of President

Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait was based almost entirely on

the existence of a broad international coalition. "In the Gulf

War we had an international force and troops from many nations.

We would be lacking if we went it alone at this time," he said.

He emphasised the dangers of an invasion without international

consensus and military support because of the size and strength

of the Iraqi army.

"It is not going to be an easy battle but it would be much more

effective if we didn't have to do it alone," he said.

To be effective, a US-led invasion would need launching points not

only from Kuwait and Turkey, but also from Saudi Arabia which has

so far pointedly refused.

Wesley Clark, the retired general who led the NATO alliance during

the Kosovo campaign, also counselled against an invasion without

international co-operation.

In an article for the September issue of The Washington Monthly, he

said: "The early successes (in Afghanistan) seem to have reinforced

the conviction of some within the US Government that the continuing

war on terrorism is best waged outside the structures of international

institutions. This is a fundamental misjudgment. The longer the war

goes on ... the more our success will depend on the willing co-

operation and active participation of our allies."Richard Armey, the

Texan House Majority Leader and a close presidential ally, said an

"unprovoked attack" on Iraq would be unjustifiable.

Mr Bush's hopes of international support suffered a further blow over

the weekend with the confirmation that Russia and Iraq were about to

agree to a five-year economic co-operation plan worth $73.4 billion.

Abbas Khalaf, Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, said the agreement probably

would be signed in Baghdad at the beginning of September.

Mr Khalaf said the new agreement would enable Russia to help Iraq

modernise much of its infrastructure, which was built by Soviet or

Russian specialists.

But a leading Russian analyst cast doubt on the plan, saying Iraq

lacked the cash to implement the deal.

In an interview with radio station Echo of Moscow, Sergei Karaganov,

chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, an association

of some of Russia's leading political analysts, said that "probably

there will be no deal, because Iraq does not have such money".

Source: AUSTRALIAN (THE) 20/08/2002 P8

* * *

War fears help push oil to 15-month peak.

New York oil prices broke through $30 a barrel on Tuesday for the

first time in 15 months.

Analysts cited a cocktail of factors, including US energy inventories,

the prospect of an attack on Iraq and technical issues.

On the New York Mercantile Exchange, the contract for September

delivery, which expired on Tuesday, hit a peak of $30.10 a barrel

in early trading.

Steven Strongin, head of commodity research at Goldman Sachs, said

talk of a US attack was producing a so-called war premium. He argued,

however, that much of what the market feared war would produce had

already happened.

"After all, roughly two thirds of the oil supply from Iraq has already

been cut off" he said.

Iraqi exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have

slumped since a new retrospective pricing policy was introduced late

last year.

Mr Strongin said: "The cutoff may be far more persistent this way than

it might have been with actual military action."

Jim Ritterbusch, Illinois-based analyst for Prudential Financial, said

oil's gains had been driven by commodity funds.

"It's been a market where the slightest bullish headline induces a

frenzy of buying interest," he said.

One foundation for oil's strength was laid last Tuesday when the

American Petroleum Institute indicated that crude inventories had

plunged to their lowest in 17 months. But inventory numbers tend

to be erratic during August so many analysts reserved judgment

until the release of new data last night.

Traders are watching to see whether the Organisation of Petroleum

Exporting Countries relaxes output quotas at its September meeting.

Some analysts accuse the group of dithering.

Peter Gignoux, head of Schroder Salomon Smith Barney's energy desk,

said: "I don't think it's showing much cohesion." Kuwait's acting

oil minister was quoted on Tuesday as saying that the cartel was

ready to increase crude supplies if the US launched a military strike

on Iraq. Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah, told Russia's Vremya Novostei

daily: "If a war starts, Opec countries are ready to fill any possible

supply disruption." By early afternoon in New York, the Nymex September

contract had edged back to $29.80 a barrel, 4 cents below Monday's

close. The October contract was $28.69 a barrel.

Source: FT.COM 20/08/2002

* * *

Palestinian terrorist leader Nidhal committed suicide.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 20 Kyodo - Iraq said Tuesday the Palestinian terrorist

leader Sabri al-Banna, better known as Abu Nidhal, has committed

suicide after Baghdad accused him of collaborating with "Kuwaiti

traitors."

"Yes, he committed suicide," Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said in

brief remarks to reporters at the Ministry of Information. Aziz gave

no further details, saying a detailed statement would be issued

Wednesday "by a senior Iraqi official."

An unnamed "responsible authority" told reporters earlier that Abu

Nidhal, who was on the international wanted list, had been under

house arrest in Iraq for more than a year after entering the country

from Iran with a forged passport.

The source did not say how Abu Nidhal killed himself. Abu Nidhal's

death was reported on Monday, but press reports had suggested that

he was murdered.

The Iraqi source said the Iraqi government considered Abu Nidhal a

"renegade" working against the Palestinian Authority under President

Yasser Arafat.

* * *

Hostage stand-off ends at Iraq embassy.

German police said last night they had ended a seven-hour hostage

stand-off at Iraq's Berlin embassy, freeing up to 10 ten hostages

taken earlier in the day by an Iraqi opposition group and detaining

five of its members.

German special forces entered the building shortly before 8pm local

time and arrested five people, a spokeswoman said. Two of the captives

had minor injuries and the hostage-takers did not resist, she said.

No further details were immediately available.

The police did not give information on the nature of the weapons

held by the hostage-takers, but confirmed that one of the two injured

captives was suffering from pepper spray, while the other was in shock.

The hostage-takers, members of the Democratic Iraqi Opposition of

Germany, a little-known Iraqi opposition group, entered the embassy

demanding an end to the rule of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Included among the hostages was the head of the mission. Earlier,

hundreds of police surrounded the building and attempted to establish

contact with the hostage-takers.

In a written statement, the group made no specific demands but said

it was launching "a peaceful and temporary action" over Mr Hussein's

regime.

Iraq last night condemned the siege as an act of "terrorist aggression"

by mercenaries of the Israeli and US intelligence services.

The injuries to two of the hostages occurred when the group, believed

to include up to four men, entered the building in a leafy district

of southern Berlin in the early afternoon. The injuries may have been

caused by shots from a gas pistol, and it was unclear if the hostage-

takers were armed.

Among the hostages was Iraq's first secretary to Ger many, the highest

ranking diplomat at the mission, the police said. In its statement, the

group said "we declare that the liberation of Iraqi soil begins today.

"This is the first step in the liberation of our beloved fatherland".

Other Iraqi opposition activists, who gathered at the embassy when the

siege began, said the group had been formed only in the last few weeks

and was made up of Sunni Muslims. There were no Kurds in the group,

they added.

The activists suggested the siege was aimed at drawing attention to the

group, adding that no significant Sunni Muslim representatives had been

included in the recent talks between opposition groups and the US over

the future status of Iraq. The siege was condemned by the London-based

Iraqi National Congress, the country's main opposition group in exile.

"We confine our war of liberation to Iraq proper," a spokesman said.

The siege came two weeks after Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor,

announced his government's opposition to moves by the US to mount a

military attack on Iraq. The announcement, seen as part of a strategy

for elections next month, was criticised by the opposition in Germany

and is believed to have raised concerns in Washington.

Iraq and Germany broke off full diplomatic relations after the 1991

Gulf war. The Iraqi embassy moved from Bonn to Berlin in June.

* * *

Iraqi FM To Visit China Next Week

BEIJING, Aug 20 (AFP) - Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri will visit

China from August 26 to 28, Beijing said Tuesday.

The talks are expected to cover US threats to launch a military

campaign to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

China's foreign ministry announced the dates via the official Xinhua

news agency, adding only that Sabri and his hosts would discuss

"bilateral relations and other issues of common concern".

A foreign ministry official said she did not yet have details on

who Sabri would be meeting in Beijing and what topics were to be

discussed.

However a diplomatic source in Baghdad said earlier this month that

Sabri was planning to visit China as well as Russia, and was expected

to discuss the US threats with both countries.

China and Russia, both veto-holdding permanent UN Security Council

members, maintain good relations with Iraq, and are opposed to any

strike on the sanctions-hit country.

Earlier this month Beijing welcomed Iraq's recent invitation for

the chief UN arms inspector to visit Baghdad for talks on resuming

weapons inspections interrupted in 1998, calling it "a positive

step".

China hoped the issue of alleged weapons proliferation in Iraq would

be resolved "through political and diplomatic channels" on the basis

of UN resolutions, the foreign ministry said at the time.

Beijing has itself been accused by Washington of not doing enough to

prevent weapons-related exports to Iraq, and several Chinese companies

have been hit by US sanctions over the issue.

* * *

Iraqi Oil Sales Plunge As US Grows Wary

By CAROLA HOYOS, The Financial Times, 08/20/2002

Iraqi crude oil exports have plunged since last year, with the US

importing 90 per cent less, in a sign that American oil companies

have become wary of doing business as debate over military action

intensifies.

A UN official told ambassadors of the Security Council in a closed-

door emergency session yesterday that the UN's humanitarian programme,

which relies on funding from Iraqi oil exports, was being crippled

by US oil companies' reluctance to buy crude oil while Washington was

heightening its rhetoric against Saddam Hussein, Iraq's leader.

A year ago Iraq exported 69 per cent of its oil to the US, but since

the end of May this year the share has dived to 16 per cent, according

to UN documents obtained by the FT and UN officials. Meanwhile, overall

Iraqi exports have been halved, dropping from a little less than an

average 2m barrels per day in phase 10 of the oil-for-food deal - which

ran from early July 2001 until the end of November 2001 - to just short

of 1m b/d from the beginning of the current phase at the end of May

2002

until last week.

"No company wants to risk it from a public relations standpoint," said

one diplomat.

Buying oil from Iraq via the UN is legal, but the programme has been

tainted by Baghdad, which has charged buyers illegal kickbacks of

15-45 cents per barrel.

Although big US oil companies such as Chevron, Valero and Exxon use

middlemen to buy the oil from Iraq and claim they are not involved in

the illegal kickbacks, the stakes of being involved in the programme

have risen significantly as the Bush administration has made clear its

aim to remove Mr Hussein, possibly by military force.

The drop means that US companies would also be less dependent on Iraqi

oil supplies, which would almost certainly be interrupted in the event

of an attack.

Iraqi crude oil has become generally less attractive because of the

inconsistency of supply and the strict UN pricing policy the US and

UK instituted to combat the kickbacks. This has jeopardised the UN's

oil-for-food programme, which lets Iraq buy food, medicine and other

humanitarian products for its sanction-strapped people using its oil

revenues.

The programme suffers from a Dollars 2bn shortfall that risks becoming

a point of contention among Security Council members as Washington is

hoping for the group's support in its renewed effort to dislodge Mr

Hussein's regime.

The 15 members of the council were unable yesterday to solve the

impasse

over whether to change the UN's pricing policy.

* * *

Russia's Plan For Deal With Iraq May Be Political Message

To The United States

By MARA D. BELLABY

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia insisted Monday that its proposed 10-year trade

agreement with Iraq had been in the works for years and should not

cause alarm, but a leading political analyst said the deal's timing

was designed to send a strong message to the United States.

"Maybe it is intelligent, certainly it is cunning," Georgy Mirsky,

chief political analyst at the Institute for World Economics and

International Relations, told Echo of Moscow radio.

He said the announcement - coming just as Washington is rallying

support for a possible invasion of Iraq - appeared designed to make

it clear to President Bush that Russia is prepared to flex its

muscles.

"Why is it (announced) now? Why not earlier?" Mirsky asked. "It is

connected."

The Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed Monday that it was in talks

with Iraq about a 10-year trade agreement, which envisions new

cooperation in oil, irrigation, agriculture, transportation, railroads

and electrical energy. Iraq's ambassador to Russia, Abbas Khalaf,

said it was a $40 billion agreement, but Moscow refused to confirm

that figure.

In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday

the United States and Russia had worked "shoulder to shoulder with

the United Nations" to revise sanctions against Iraq, allowing for

broader trade in goods that are not deemed to help Saddam Hussein

develop the military or weapons of mass destruction.

"We fully expect that Russia will live up to its obligations in the

United Nations and in the international community," Fleischer said.

Russia has spoken forcefully against any unilateral U.S. action in

Iraq, but Russia's Kommersant newspaper said the proposed Russia-

Iraq deal would increase the stakes, particularly if dozens of

Russian specialists headed to Iraq to work on economic projects.

"It is sufficient to say that bombing citizens of a country which

is one of the members of the global anti-terror coalition would be

for Washington not so simple," the newspaper said.

Russian officials played down the deal Monday, saying it had been

"publicly announced" more than a year ago.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Boris Malakhov said that it "absolutely

does not contradict" the U.N. sanctions against Iraq. The U.N.

sanctions, imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, cannot be

lifted until U.N. inspectors certify its biological, chemical and

nuclear weapons have been destroyed along with the long-range missiles

to deliver them.

"Russia as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council strictly

adheres to its assumed international obligations," Malakhov said.

"In full measure, this applies, naturally, to Iraq too."

Russian officials did not say when a possible agreement would be

signed. "At the present moment, (we) are beginning to complete

the finishing touches of this agreement," Malakhov said. Khalaf

earlier said he expected it to be signed next month.

Mirsky was skeptical about whether the deal would materialize, but

he said the Kremlin appeared to be playing a crafty political game,

designed to garner support in the Arab world for its bold stance.

However, analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Politika

Foundation, said that Russia was making a mistake.

"For Russia, strategic relations with the U.S. are much more important

than relations with Iraq, and therefore it is quite pointless to

challenge Washington so openly without any visible results," he told

the Interfax news agency.

* * *

Russia Defends Deal With Iraq

By Peter Baker, The Washington Post of Tuesday, August 20, 2002

MOSCOW, Aug. 19 -- Russia defended its prospective $40 billion

economic and trade agreement with Iraq today, saying it had not

tried to hide it from international scrutiny and reaffirming

that it would not violate any U.N. sanctions on President Saddam

Hussein's government.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Boris Malakhov said the agreement

had been in the works for a while and that the Russian side began

publicly discussing it more than a year ago. "We have never sought

to conceal" it, he said in a statement confirming the pact was near

completion.

Moreover, the agreement "does not at all contradict the requirements

of the sanctions regime against Baghdad," Malakhov added. "Russia,

as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, strictly complies

with the international commitments it has made. This naturally applies

to Iraq in full measure."

The Foreign Ministry was responding to a weekend report in The

Washington Post that Russia and Iraq plan to sign a long-term

economic agreement soon despite U.S. attempts to isolate Baghdad

internationally as the Bush administration weighs a possible

military attack to topple Hussein's government.

The economic pact also comes as Russia is moving to strengthen its

ties with other countries branded along with Iraq as part of the

"axis of evil" by President Bush. Just last month, Russia released

a 10-year blueprint for expanding economic relations with Iran,

including nuclear cooperation. And on Tuesday, North Korea's leader,

Kim Jong Il, will arrive in Russia's Far East for an official visit.

Malakhov seemed to play down the significance of the agreement with

Iraq, calling it "a framework" that would "ensure the development of

business cooperation between the two countries."

He said it would be a 10-year agreement and would not explicitly

mention any dollar figure. However, Iraqi Ambassador Abbas Khalaf

characterized it as a five-year pact worth $40 billion. A top deputy

to Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov on Friday also confirmed

that it would be worth about $40 billion.

The agreement will deal with a variety of fields, including oil,

electrical energy, chemical products, irrigation, railroad construction

and transportation, according to officials on both sides. It will not

include military arms, the officials said. Russian specialists built

much of the infrastructure in Iraq and Baghdad wants Russian expertise

to help repair or upgrade it.

At a news conference today, Khalaf said a signing ceremony could take

place in the first two weeks of September. Russian news media reported

that Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri will visit Russia in early

September to talk about the standoff with the United Nations over the

renewal of weapons inspections.

* * *

U.S. Explores A New World Of Warfare

By THOM SHANKER, The New York Times of Tuesday, 20 August 2002

WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 - American forces recently completed the

largest joint war-fighting exercise they have ever held, a three-

week, $250 million operation that involved 13,500 military and

civilian personnel battling in nine live exercise ranges across

the United States and in double that many computer simulations.

Results from the mock combat, planned for two years, are expected to

shape planning against future adversaries.

As they compiled lessons from the exercise, called Millennium Challenge

2002, officers praised new airborne communications that allowed

commanders to stay in touch with farflung fighting forces as never

before, even while in transcontinental flight to the battlefield. They

also emphasized the importance of combining their destructive power

with attacks on computer networks as well as with diplomacy.

Military officials said the troops were also reminded that a wily foe

with little to lose retains the historic advantage of the attacker.

Gen. William F. Kernan, head of the United States Joint Forces Command

that organized and operated the war game, said the exercise showed the

importance of a Standing Joint Force Headquarters to coordinate the

efforts of all the armed services during wartime.

The idea, he said, is to avoid "the ad hoc nature" of past wartime

command headquarters, thrown together in time of emergency. The

standing headquarters would "provide future commanders with a skill

set of people with military specialties and a solid appreciation for

the complexities of the region," he said.

In the simulation of a Persian Gulf conflict with a foe that might

have been Iran or Iraq but was called merely Red, American forces -

or Blue - suffered unexpected losses from a sneak attack early in

the fighting but then emerged victorious.

In the opening hours of the conflict, the enemy commander was able

to deceive American forces by protecting his messages from electronic

snooping: he communicated with field officers via motorcycle

messengers.

Enemy planes and ships conducted innocent-looking maneuvers for

several days in a row, establishing a pattern that did not appear

threatening. But the maneuvers left the forces well positioned

for a surprise attack, which was initiated using code words during

the morning call to prayer from the nation's minarets.

In the computer simulation, an aircraft carrier battle group and

ships of a marine Amphibious Ready Group suffered severe damage,

according to the enemy chief of state, played by Robert B. Oakley,

a former ambassador to Pakistan who also served as the State

Department's counterterrorism director.

The American forces "sailed into the gulf assuming they could

establish superiority, and disrupt the enemy's command, control

and communications with technology," Mr. Oakley said. "But Red

decided to surprise them by going first, and used some time-tested

techniques for sending messages in ways that can't be picked up

electronically or jammed. Red sank a lot of the fleet."

All exercises are to a certain extent artificial, unable to reflect

the entire spectrum of wartime, from life-and-death stress on a

single soldier to the impact of public opinion as battlefield

fortunes wax and wane.

Senior military officers said the value of the exercise was that it

required completing a range of missions to test 51 separate military

initiatives.

Because many aspects of the war game remain classified, officers

would not detail the extent of simulated damage to the fleet,

nor say whether the exercise was restarted after the fleet was

theoretically hit. Analysis from the the enemy commander, played

by Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general,

will be incorporated into a final report.

"Both Red and Blue were constrained during the exercise," said one

military officer. "You can't stop the entire game when one side

gets too clever."

In the end, officials said, the joint American forces - Air Force,

Army, Marines, Navy and Special Operations - were declared victorious.

Weapons of mass destruction figured heavily in the exercise, with

American forces ordered to attack four sites containing chemical

weapons or their delivery systems.

One technological system tested was a complete headquarters-sized

communications system that was loaded onto a C-17 cargo plane. Lt.

Gen. B. B. Bell, commander for all American forces in the exercise,

planned and directed missions while aloft. "We could do what we could

do in a large headquarters while we were airborne," General Bell said.

"I had all the tools I would normally have in a fixed base."

New communications and tracking systems also allowed commanders to

integrate attacks by both Army and Marine Corps ground troops, rather

than assign them complementary but separate missions.

"Instead of drawing a line on the map, with the Army on one side and

Marines on the other, a commander can now integrate those forces,"

said Brig. Gen. James B. Smith, who directed the exercise.

General Smith said the value of the exercise, like any war game,

would only become clear in the months ahead as the exercise was

analyzed and its lessons pushed throughout all the armed services.

"The sunset of this event is the sunrise of a process to work the

challenges of integrating operations of the armed services," he

said. "If we say this is over, then we're making a huge mistake."

* * *

Cook wins Cabinet debate over Iraq.

ROBIN COOK has won his battle for a full Cabinet debate on whether

Britain should go to war with Saddam Hussein.

Iraq will be on the agenda for the first Cabinet meeting after

Ministers return from their summer break next month, Downing

Street said yesterday.

This is a clear indication that Tony Blair accepts he faces a massive

task in winning public support for his pro-American stance on Iraq.

Opinion polls suggest strong public opposition to war with Saddam

while more than 150 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion opposing

an attack on Baghdad.

Mr Cook, Leader of the Commons, has emerged as the standard bearer for

the powerful antiwar faction inside Labour.

Labour MPs have been seething because the issue has not been properly

debated by Ministers or MPs.

Mr Cook let it be known last week By David Hughes Political Editor that

he was demanding an early Cabinet debate on the biggest decision to

face the Government so far.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is organising a huge Middle East arms build-up so

it will be ready to invade Iraq if the order comes from President Bush.

Pentagon sources say the idea is to unnerve Saddam Hussein and weaken

his troops' morale.

Leaks suggest a giant cargo ship has been contracted to move

troopcarrying combat vehicles to the Gulf.

Another has been hired to carry vehicles, helicopters and ammunition.

Pentagon officials said the build-up does not mean an invasion is

imminent but that one at relatively short notice is increasingly

possible.

Russia is set to sign a £25billion trade agreement with Iraq, despite

opposition from Washington.

Source: DAILY MAIL 20/08/2002

* * *

US accuses Iraq of sheltering Al-Qaida members.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) - Amid growing speculations that

Washington is pondering military strikes against Iraq, US

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused Baghdad of

providing refuge for fugitive al-Qaida members.

"What I have said is a fact, that there are al-Qaida in a number

of locations in Iraq," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing.

"In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total

control of its population, it's very hard to image that the

government is not aware of what's taking place in the country,"

he added.

But the US defense secretary provided no further details on the

relationship between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government led by

President Saddam Hussein.

After the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Washington

had once suspected that there might be a nexus between the terrorists

and the Iraqi government. But so far it has failed to collect any

convincing evidence to support its claim. This was the second time

this month for Rumsfeld to claim that some al-Qaida fugitives have

fled to Iraq.

* * *

U.S. opponents of strike on Iraq muster arguments.

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Iraq poses no realistic threat to the

United States and a unilateral attack on it would alienate America's

allies, inflame the Middle East and hurt the global fight against

terrorism, opponents of a U.S. military strike against Iraq said on

Tuesday.

The warnings came at a Capitol Hill forum arranged amid increasing

speculation the Bush administration is poised to act on repeated

pledges to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The White House

says Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction and must be

deposed before he can use them against America or its allies, or

share them with terrorist groups.

But Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector

in Iraq, dismissed those charges - saying Iraq had been fundamentally

disarmed after the Gulf War and the U.S. had so far presented no

evidence to back up claims it was again trying to produce nuclear,

chemical or biological weapons.

"Their weapons programs have been eliminated," he told the forum.

"Iraq poses no threat to any of its neighbors. It does not threaten

its region. It does not threaten the United States. It does not

threaten the world."

Ritter, a former U.S. Marine who resigned his U.N. post in 1998 and

later accused Washington of using the inspections teams to spy on

Iraq, said the Bush administration was cynically using the weapons

issue to justify an attack that would allow it to settle old scores

with Saddam.

"This has less to do with national security and more to do with

domestic American politics," he said.

Whatever the motivations for a U.S. strike, the foreign policy

consequences could be severe, said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at

the Institute for Policy Studies think tank.

"The Arab allies of the United States are uniformly opposed to a U.S.

war," she said. "Are we prepared to ask our friends to risk being

overthrown, because the risk is that severe in that region, if they

sign on to a U.S. invasion of Iraq?"

A U.S. attack on Iraq, against the wishes of its Arab and European

allies, could also badly hurt the global effort against terrorism

cobbled together after Sept. 11, said David Cortright, president of

the Fourth Freedom Forum peace group.

"We will be a Western country attacking and occupying an Arab country,

and it'll be like a recruitment poster for suicide bombers and

political extremists," he said.

Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who convened the forum, said

several more were planned in coming months to try to keep arguments

against attacking Iraq in the public eye. "I believe that war is not

inevitable, that peace is inevitable," he said. "But it is going to

require a lot of work to get there."

* * *

Iraq Says 3 Civilians Hurt In US Air Raid - Kyodo.

NEW YORK - (Dow Jones)-Iraq said U.S. warplanes bombed public

service utilities in the no-fly zone in southern Iraq on Tuesday,

injuring three civilians, Kyodo reported.

An unnamed spokesman for the Air Defense Command was quoted by

state-run Iraqi television as saying that the attack was targeted

at "public service utilities" in Missan Province, about 370

kilometers south of Baghdad, Kyodo said.

In Washington, the U.S. military said coalition aircraft monitoring

the southern no-fly zone attacked air defense command and control

facility near Al Amarah "in response to recent Iraqi hostile acts."

According to Kyodo, the U.S. Central Command, in a statement released

from MacDill air force base in Florida, denied that the coalition

aircraft attacked civilian targets in Iraq.

"Coalition aircraft never target civilian populations or infrastructure

and go to painstaking lengths to avoid injury to civilians and damage

to civilian facilities," the statement said.

http://www.babylon-festival.net/

http://www.uruklink.net/iraqdaily/

http://www.giv-archiv.de/2002/Januar/020131GI.007

http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/ereport17.htm

>>>-----------------------------------------------------------<<<

>> Further Informations about Iraq and Palestine:

>> GIV-Archiv: http://www.giv-archiv.de

>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/start.htm

>> http://home.arcor.de/giv/GIV-Seiten/

>> http://soziales.freepage.de/irak/index.htm

>>>-----------------------------------------------------------<<<

* * * * *