World Media Watch for August 9, 2002

BUZZFLASH NOTE: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.

* * *

1//The Toronto Star, Canada--OPINION: TRYING TO END PLANS FOR A RUINOUS WAR (What is happening here is that most of the world wants America to help end the war between Israelis and Palestinians. But the Republican administration, backed by noisy neo-cons in America and Israel, would rather divert attention elsewhere.)

2//Turkish Daily News, Turkey--IRAQ-THE CONFLUENCE OF INTERESTS (The American war leader would, no doubt like to see the Iraqi operation in progress in time for the U.S. midterm elections in November, thus wrapping himself in the "stars and stripes", rather than going to the polls with a fraud riddled economy, a loss of public trust in the administration which began with the incident of the "hanging chad" in the Florida aborted recount and with stock market, budget and currency problems... An American backed client-puppet ruler or even at worst, long term chaos in Bagdad as a result of the American invasion of Iraq, can regulate or even terminate oil production in Iraq and thereby generate healthy profits for U.S. inc. from non-OPEC oil... Smile as you're bombed, its only global business, smile as you starve, its only market forces.)

3//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--LULL BEFORE THE NEXT DESERT STORM IS NOT A TIME FOR SILENCE (Most significantly, Britain has wavered...All of which makes the brisk reiteration this week of the Prime Minister, John Howard, that it's likely Australian forces would be involved in whatever action the US takes in Iraq stand in chilly relief. Yet somehow the prospect of Australian forces in another battle zone this summer has been conspicuously absent as a topic of general conversation. Quite astonishingly, it seems we're going to war and no-one is talking about it. In short, it's too quiet. Why?)

4//Jane's Foreign Report, UK--BUSH, RUSSIA AND IRAN (Furthermore, if Iran has decided to develop a nuclear energy option, the best insurance against this also being used for nuclear weapons is to have Russia in control of it. If the Americans were to succeed in breaking this relationship, it would have the effect of pushing Iran to go it alone, like India and Pakistan.)

5//The Moscow Times, Russia--OPINION/THE PUTIN PROJECT: FINAL PHASE (I will put forward another version, arguing that the Kremlin actually wants to nationalize the raw materials sectors of the economy. Moreover, I believe the authorities have no real choice in the matter. Establishing a vertical chain of command in the economy is the logical conclusion to the reconstruction of a fully fledged authoritarian state in Russia... The first stage was accomplished in the spring and summer of 2000 and was called "restoring the executive chain of command." ...The second stage was reinstating a chain of command in the mass media. After all, how can you have managed democracy without the media being subordinate to the state? ...However, the project remains unfinished. The final stage in constructing any authoritarian regime is securing state control over the main sectors of the economy and over finance -- without the completion of this stage, the whole thing is futile.)

6//The Independent, UK--MURDOCH'S SON IS GRILLED IN ONE.TEL INQUIRY (Rupert Murdoch's son and heir apparent, Lachlan, was called to account yesterday for his part in one of Australia's worst corporate disasters of recent times, the collapse last year with 5bn Australian dollars (£1.74bn) debts of the discount telephone company One.Tel... News Corp lost more than A$500m when One.Tel went into liquidation in May 2001.)

* * *

1//The Toronto Star Aug. 8, 2002. 01:00 AM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/
Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026144002021&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid
=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695

OPINION: TRYING TO END PLANS FOR A RUINOUS WAR
By Haroon Siddiqui
(Haroon Siddiqui is The Star's editorial page editor emeritus.)

OFFERING HIS generally sensible and balanced Canadian perspective on America, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham says this of American plans to start a war in the Middle East:

"Iraq under Saddam Hussein is clearly always a threat but we have no evidence he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that he would intend to use them at this time. I do consider it dangerous if Iraq agrees to accept inspectors and if that is rejected out of hand."

Let's see who else is with Canada. (Note: A long list of the countries, religious leaders, and weapons inspectors against the US follows.)

Yet the Bush circle remains tone deaf. Beating the drums of war, they are scoffing at the Iraqi offer to let United Nations weapons inspectors in after a four-year absence, even though the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has cautioned against dismissing the development. It is "something new and positive, which should be explored."

He is using the opening to negotiate airtight rules to get what the world needs to stop Saddam's games: unhindered access to the Iraqi nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons programs.

Yet Congressional leaders have spurned an Iraqi invitation to go there with as many inspectors of their choice as they want. "It's time for Iraq to stop playing games," thundered Senator Tom Daschle.

(SNIP)

But wouldn't taking up Saddam's offer be the best way to call his bluff? Not unless America does not want to be robbed of its excuse.

Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector known for his anti-Iraq belligerence, now thinks that's precisely what America is doing.

"No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction," Ritter said.

``That's the reason we have been given for going to war against Iraq. It has been nothing but rhetorically laced speculation, not hard facts that have been presented ... Until they provide hard facts, there is no case for war."

What is happening here is that most of the world wants America to help end the war between Israelis and Palestinians. But the Republican administration, backed by noisy neo-cons in America and Israel, would rather divert attention elsewhere.

This policy is worse than the decade-long economic sanctions which, by inflicting untold misery on millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, have managed to make America a bigger enemy than Saddam. An American-led war on Iraq risks making a hero of him, besides sowing the seeds of militancy.

"If you think Saddam is a hard man to deal with, just wait for the next generation of Iraqi leaders," the British newspaper The Independent on Sunday quoted Arab author Said Aburish as saying.

If that seems extreme, listen to Morton Halperin, senior fellow at the American Council on Foreign Relations.

Appearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq last week, he said: "If there is no progress on the Palestinian issue, it is likely that an American military conquest of Iraq will lead many more people in the Arab and Muslim world to choose the path of terror."

2//Turkish Daily News 8 August 2002
http://www.turkishdailynews.com/FrTDN/latest/for.htm#f8

IRAQ-THE CONFLUENCE OF INTERESTS
T.M.P. Duggan

When one reads the papers or listens to the radio one hears the most astounding reasons cited for the forthcoming United States led invasion of Iraq.

(SNIP)

With all this hubbub of reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the underlying reason for this "adventure" seems to have been left unspoken. Iraq since the Gulf War has exported only limited quantities of oil, thus conditioning the global price of oil. Iraq has however, the second largest proven oil reserves in the world today and these reserves can be used to act as a moderator and regulator of global oil prices. If Iraq decided, not to stop oil production but instead, to pump oil to the maximum and flood the market forcing down the oil price, then the consequences at a time of global economic slowdown and recession would be catastrophic for the American oil corporations massive investments over the last decades in non-OPEC oil hegemony. The wells would be capped and the pipelines and refinery investments in many parts of the non-OPEC world would be made worthless because the production, refining and pipeline costs are so much less for Iraqi oil.

The American war leader would, no doubt like to see the Iraqi operation in progress in time for the U.S. midterm elections in November, thus wrapping himself in the "stars and stripes", rather than going to the polls with a fraud riddled economy, a loss of public trust in the administration which began with the incident of the "hanging chad" in the Florida aborted recount and with stock market, budget and currency problems. The American war leader is unsurprisingly a former oil man, with close links to the American oil corporations and their interests. This is a pragmatic reason for invading Iraq, relieving Israeli paranoia and provides a stepping stone to Iran, the next country named by the U.S. President as part of the "axis of evil" and, not surprisingly, another major oil producing country with large reserves and another OPEC member like Iraq. Smile as you're bombed, its only global business, smile as you starve, its only market forces.

3//The Sydney Morning Herald August 9 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/08/1028157987933.html

LULL BEFORE THE NEXT DESERT STORM IS NOT A TIME FOR SILENCE

With US allies increasingly showing caution over Iraq, Australians should seriously question our role, writes Matt Buchanan.

As the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks approaches, a US invasion of Iraq is becoming increasingly a question of "when" rather than "if". This week we have read that the US is stowing enormous reserves of oil and inquiring after the availability of tankers to supply its forces in the Gulf.

Rather more tellingly, US citizens have reported seeing army trucks returning to base painted in desert camouflage. Congress has indicated to the President, George Bush, it does not require him to seek its approval for a so-called "regime change" in Iraq. And Iraq's offer to renew talk about arms inspections has been scorned as a joke.

However, as the US edges closer to battle, its most powerful European allies are backing off. On Tuesday, Germany's Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, refused any support for the US outright. France insists dialogue with Iraq must continue. Most significantly, Britain has wavered.

(SNIP)

All of which makes the brisk reiteration this week of the Prime Minister, John Howard, that it's likely Australian forces would be involved in whatever action the US takes in Iraq stand in chilly relief.

Yet somehow the prospect of Australian forces in another battle zone this summer has been conspicuously absent as a topic of general conversation. Quite astonishingly, it seems we're going to war and no-one is talking about it. In short, it's too quiet. Why?

One possible reason is that Australians view an invasion of Iraq as simply another front in the war on terrorism. If so, it appears we are increasingly alone in our thinking. Among other considerations (including, of course, the possibility of military catastrophe and an uncon-trollable escalation of the conflict throughout the Middle East) it is the sense there may be a profound moral distinction between the UN-mandated operation against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the toppling of oil-rich Iraq in the name of disarmament and "pre-emptive self-defence" that has prompted Germany and France to withdraw, and is forcing Blair to justify Britain's continued allegiance.

Alternatively, Australians may well feel precluded from a debate whose nature (a necessarily secret war) denies us facts, indeed makes suspect those "facts" that are presented to the public. Last week in The Age, for example, under the headline "Bulldust over Baghdad: is the Pentagon brass leaking or lying?" Roger Franklin quoted Churchill on the subject of truth in wartime: "In wartime, truth is so precious she must be attended to at all times by a bodyguard of lies."

Perhaps, then, feeling either under-informed or deceived, we feel inclined to disengage, absent ourselves, and accept without question the decisions of our representatives.

But as Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, wrote in last Sunday's Observer, we need to know only a few specifics to decide if a war is just or unjust. Is it lawfully mandated, he asked. Has every effort been made to resolve the dispute by lawful means? Are we sure a new war will not "unleash more evils than are already being endured"? Finally, Harries argued, "there must be a reasonable chance of success".

Most Australians can answer the first three questions with what little they know. As for success, Harries reminds us, "with so many scenarios being played out in Washington, we have no idea what 'success' is. If we are to evaluate success, then the war aims must be crystal clear. This is far from the case".

The question is, will anything ever be crystal clear again? The West remains concussed by the events of September 11. We seem to have only a foggy sense of what to do and whom to act against. Yet we feel we must do something.

While this is clearly a sympathetic impulse it is potentially disastrous. Surely if Europe views a US invasion as possibly fraught with issues of self-interest and misdirected vengeance, shouldn't we be more eager to articulate a view, at least to each other, that sets those issues straight?

4//Jane's Foreign Report 07 August 2002
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr020807_1_n.shtml

BUSH, RUSSIA AND IRAN (Non-subscriber extract)

During his recent visit to Moscow the US energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, reprimanded Russia for its continued co-operation with Iran, and in particular its sale of nuclear technology. The US has been trying for over a year to put an end to this relationship, arguing that it will speed up Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

However, experts in Washington have never offered proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. Iran has long been a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the nuclear power plant Russia is building in Iran at Bushehr is under full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The agency's inspectors have never expressed any concern about the project. Iran's record in this regard looks perfectly acceptable, except to Israel and the US.

(SNIP)

Moreover, Russia more than any other country has an interest in seeing that its Iranian neighbour does not acquire nuclear weapons. The plants being built are no use for this purpose. And to be doubly sure, Russia has arranged to supply the fuel for the plants and then to take back the spent fuel after it is used. This means Iran will have no need to build facilities to enrich uranium or reprocess used fuel - the only routes to acquiring weapons grade nuclear material.

Furthermore, if Iran has decided to develop a nuclear energy option, the best insurance against this also being used for nuclear weapons is to have Russia in control of it. If the Americans were to succeed in breaking this relationship, it would have the effect of pushing Iran to go it alone, like India and Pakistan.

5//The Moscow Times Friday, Aug. 9, 2002. Page 8
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/08/09/006.html

OPINION/THE PUTIN PROJECT: FINAL PHASE
By Boris Berezovsky
(Boris Berezovsky, a co-chairman of the Liberal Russia party, contributed this comment to Vedomosti.)

At the end of July, Dmitry Kozak, the deputy head of the presidential administration, proposed an amendment to the law on subsoil resources which, if passed, would fundamentally alter the economic system that is taking shape in Russia. What we are talking about is the nationalization of oil, gas and all other natural resource companies. The essence of the amendment can be summed up very simply: to convert existing natural resource production licenses into concessions. In other words, going over to the form of relations between capitalists and the state that Vladimir Lenin bequeathed to us ("A concession is an agreement between the state and the capitalist. The latter becomes a leaseholder rather than owner").

Just about everyone with the slightest understanding of how a market economy works immediately started commenting on and criticizing the idea. As a result, 10 days later, in early August, Kozak appeared to back down from his initial position, presenting "an entirely new version of the law on subsoil resources." Vedomosti newspaper, in this connection, published an article under the reassuring headline "They've Changed Their Minds," with the subtitle "The Kremlin no longer wants to nationalize natural resources." In the article, however, it was written that Kozak in his "entirely new version" was still insisting on the conversion of licenses to concessions, although now with the inclusion of a load of provisos more favorable to natural resource companies than the initial version had been.

So, did the Kremlin really rethink its position and was Kozak thoughtlessly acting on his own initiative, or has the Kremlin finally decided to supplement "managed democracy" with a controlled economy?

Since the countless journalists servicing the Kremlin will no doubt adduce a plethora of arguments to support the version that this is just another case of inadvertent stupidity by just another bureaucrat, I will not pursue this avenue of inquiry.

I will put forward another version, arguing that the Kremlin actually wants to nationalize the raw materials sectors of the economy. Moreover, I believe the authorities have no real choice in the matter. Establishing a vertical chain of command in the economy is the logical conclusion to the reconstruction of a fully fledged authoritarian state in Russia.

In order to understand the Kremlin's logic -- or to be more precise the logic of President Vladimir Putin -- it is necessary to look at the initiative of Kozak, a high-ranking bureaucrat (but still a bureaucrat) in the context of preceding events. The first stage was accomplished in the spring and summer of 2000 and was called "restoring the executive chain of command." This stage proved largely painless for the authorities -- with the exception of a few governors kicking up a fuss and one "madman" giving up his seat in the State Duma by way of protest.

The second stage was reinstating a chain of command in the mass media. After all, how can you have managed democracy without the media being subordinate to the state? This stage, however, provoked a major scandal, as the Kremlin had to wheel out the heavy artillery -- the Prosecutor General's Office, Interior Ministry and FSB -- as well as availing itself of Interpol. The operation to reinstate a chain of command in the media proved much more painful and took almost two years to complete. Nevertheless, the desired result was achieved.

However, the project remains unfinished. The final stage in constructing any authoritarian regime is securing state control over the main sectors of the economy and over finance -- without the completion of this stage, the whole thing is futile.

(MORE)

6//The Independent 08 August 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/news/story.jsp?story=322485

MURDOCH'S SON IS GRILLED IN ONE.TEL INQUIRY
By Kathy Marks in Sydney

Rupert Murdoch's son and heir apparent, Lachlan, was called to account yesterday for his part in one of Australia's worst corporate disasters of recent times, the collapse last year with 5bn Australian dollars (£1.74bn) debts of the discount telephone company One.Tel.

Mr Murdoch, the chairman of News Ltd, the Australian subsidiary of News Corp, admitted to a liquidator's inquiry that he did not research the background of One.Tel executives before investing in the company in February 1999. One of One.Tel's co-founders, Jodee Rich, had previously run a software company that folded.

News Corp lost more than A$500m when One.Tel went into liquidation in May 2001. James Packer, scion of another famous dynasty, also got his fingers burnt. Mr Packer, son of Kerry and chairman of the Australian media empire Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd, lost a similar sum in One.Tel.

Both men, who were given seats on the board, could be sued for their roles in the telecommunications company's collapse. The UK arm of One.Tel is now a separate company owned by Centrica.

Yesterday Mr Murdoch, the last witness to appear before the year-long inquiry, defended bonuses totalling A$15m that were paid to Mr Rich and his joint managing director, Brad Keeling, between July 1999 and March 2000. They also received A$62m of shares between them.

(SNIP)

Mr Murdoch was also asked about a change in accounting practices at One.Tel which kept certain costs off the books, including money spent recruiting customers in Britain, and thus improved the 1999 profit results.

He said the two managing directors did not explain to him why the change was made, nor did he try to find out. "I assumed the audit committee and auditors would have made the decision in line with general accounting practices," he said.

* * *

© 2002, Gloria R. Lalumia
insight@zianet.com

Updated listings of Radio for Progressives on the internet at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical

* * *