World Media Watch for August 19, 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//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--IRAQ: IN ALL BUT NAME, THE WAR'S ON (Equally irrelevant is speculation on the timing (September/October for the sake of surprise? January/February a la Gulf War to avoid the desert heat?) of "the" allied attack. Attacks of various kinds are ongoing. Their intensity and intrusiveness can increase at any time ... or decrease again. It's a game of options and contingencies, backed by ever increasing material capabilities; perhaps a game of prodding Saddam into a tactical mistake or a flight-forward reaction.)

--Additional Headlines from Asia Times Online-Links below:

SAUDI ARABIA NEXT IN LINE?

AL-QAEDA AND THE SKIMMING SCAM

2//The Independent, UK- BLAIR TO USE SUMMIT TO LOBBY FOR WAR ON IRAQ (Tony Blair plans to use the margins of the Johannesburg earth summit to rally support for US President George Bush's increasingly unpopular war on terrorism. As dissent grows over Mr Blair's backing for a US-led attack on Iraq, the Prime Minister is determined to shore up allies... The summit will follow a diplomatic drive by Mr Blair that has already seen him break his holiday to hold informal talks with his French counterpart, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. He also plans to meet King Faud of Saudi Arabia to try to reassure him about the stance of the US and Britain towards Iraq.)

3//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--INVADING IRAQ: DEFIANT HOWARD SAYS HE'LL GO IT ALONE (The Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday refused to report to Parliament on the reasons Australia was contemplating war with Iraq, saying he would allow debate if and when the Government decided to send troops to the Persian Gulf...But he said parliamentary examination of the case for war would "unduly politicise an extremely sensitive issue, with potential adverse consequences for the national interest".)

4//Arabia.com, United Arab Emirates--KUWAIT REJECTS IRAQI "CODED THREATS" ("Kuwait's information minister and acting oil minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah...condemned recent statements made by Iraq, describing them as coded threats," the official KUNA news agency reported. Sheikh Ahmad was responding to Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassine Ramadan's warning Friday that Kuwait should not fall behind the United States' plans to invade Iraq..."Kuwait's position, which has been made public several times and through various officials, is based upon Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions pertaining to the release of Kuwait POWs and missing persons," the deputy prime minister added.

* * *

1//Asia Times Online Aug 17, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH17Ak03.html

IRAQ: IN ALL BUT NAME, THE WAR'S ON
By Marc Erikson

How do you tell a war has begun? This is not the 17th or 18th century. There are no highfalutin' declarations. Troops don't line up in eyesight of each other. There are no drum rolls and bugle calls, no calls of "Chaaa...rge!". When did the Vietnam War begin? When, for that matter, World War I? When mobilizations were ordered setting in motion irreversible chains of events or at the time of the formal declarations of war?

The lines of battle and the timelines to overt battle and full-scale combat have become fluid. Consider this: At the beginning of this year, when US President George W Bush started talking ever more in earnest about taking out Saddam Hussein and signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple the Iraqi president, including authority to use lethal force to capture him, the US and putative ally Britain had approximately 50,000 troops deployed in the region around Iraq.

By now, this number has grown to over 100,000, not counting soldiers of and on naval units in the vicinity. It's been a build-up without much fanfare, accelerating since March and accelerating further since June. And these troops are not just sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs while waiting for orders to act out some type of D-Day drama. Several thousand are already in Iraq. They are gradually closing in and rattling Saddam's cage. In effect, the war has begun.

For sticklers for details, here are some numbers and locations of the allied troop build-up gathered from local sources in the various countries where US and British forces deploy or from open allied sources: Prior to the past seven months' troop movements, there were 25,000 US troops (army, air force) in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates and some 20,000 British troops, mainly in Oman.

(SNIP)

(A detailed listing of all forces in the region follows)

But in part the actions go well beyond that. In Kurdish Iraq - according to Israeli sources - US army engineers are working around the clock to build a series of six to eight airstrips to serve fighter planes and helicopters that will provide air cover for invading ground forces. The airfields are strung along a western axis from the city of Zako southwest to the city of Sinjar; a central axis from Zako south to Arbil; and an eastern axis from Arbil to Sulimaniyeh.

Special Forces teams are involved in on-the-ground military target identification, mapping out Scud and anti-aircraft battery locations. They are also helping set up, equip and train Kurdish militias and are cooperating closely with Turkish counterparts engaged in the same activities in Turkoman regions.

US and British aircraft are probing Iraqi defenses beyond the no-fly zones close to Baghdad. On August 6, they destroyed the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib in the desert between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The center is wired to fiber optic networks installed last year by Chinese companies. New types of precision-guided bombs disabled the fiber optic system. The broad aim of recent bombing runs is to thoroughly disrupt Iraqi command, control and communications functions.

In light of these developments, the various "war plans" bandied about in the US press - with the New York Times and the Washington Post trying to outdo each other with the latest scoops - are largely irrelevant as such, whether it's the "Northern Alliance Option" (US troops and intelligence personnel aiding an attack by opposition forces); the original "Franks Plan" (massed attack involving some 250,000 troops); the "inside-out" approach (commando attacks on Baghdad and key Iraqi command centers first, followed by mopping-up action); or the "status-quo" or "do-nothing" option of continued containment of Saddam. Elements of all of these scenarios will eventually be seen as having been incorporated in the removal of the Iraqi leader.

Equally irrelevant is speculation on the timing (September/October for the sake of surprise? January/February a la Gulf War to avoid the desert heat?) of "the" allied attack. Attacks of various kinds are ongoing. Their intensity and intrusiveness can increase at any time ... or decrease again. It's a game of options and contingencies, backed by ever increasing material capabilities; perhaps a game of prodding Saddam into a tactical mistake or a flight-forward reaction. Earlier this year, a British journalist asked Bush how exactly he was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He replied, "Wait and see." The journalist, like many of his colleagues, may well still be waiting - for lack of ability to see that the war is on. Some high-speed, high-intensity strikes may later be called "The Iraq War", but it began no later than March.

--ADDITIONAL HEADLINES FROM ASIA TIMES ONLINE

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH17Ak02.html

SAUDI ARABIA NEXT IN LINE?
By Pepe Escobar

Gulf diplomatic sources confirm that the Saudi royal family has been closely monitoring the mood of the Arab street regarding Ariel Sharon's devastating "policies" in Palestine. The Arab street is undeniably silent. So the Saudi family is not worried about a violent popular reaction in the event of an invasion of Iraq. But its more conservative elements definitely worry about the transformation of Iraq into an American base. Iraq is potentially richer than Egypt, and it is invulnerable to Wahhabi proselytizing. Saudis believe that in the long run, with the de facto annexation of Iraq as a client regime, America would inevitably turn against Saudi Arabia.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DH17Df03.html

AL-QAEDA AND THE SKIMMING SCAM
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

Clearly, and as confirmed by sources in European intelligence networks, the al-Qaeda network survived virtually intact, and it is presently being restructured after losing its base in Afghanistan. According to the latest information, 24 al-Qaeda planners have arrived in Pakistan via Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, along with a number of international gangsters. Intelligence sources say that the only currently active al-Qaeda cell in Pakistan is in Karachi, headed by Kuwaiti-born Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, one of the US's most wanted terrorists for his suspected role as one of the chief architects of the September 11 attacks. Most of the members of this cell are thought to be Egyptians. Its first target is the assassination of Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf, followed by reestablishing links in the underworld to carry out attacks in Kabul and elsewhere.

2//The Independent 18 August 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=325390

BLAIR TO USE SUMMIT TO LOBBY FOR WAR ON IRAQ
By Jo Dillon, Political Correspondent

Tony Blair plans to use the margins of the Johannesburg earth summit to rally support for US President George Bush's increasingly unpopular war on terrorism. As dissent grows over Mr Blair's backing for a US-led attack on Iraq, the Prime Minister is determined to shore up allies.

(SNIP)

It is not yet decided whom the Prime Minister will meet in South Africa, but sources said he was sure to speak to as many leaders as possible, and Iraq would be on the agenda.

The summit will follow a diplomatic drive by Mr Blair that has already seen him break his holiday to hold informal talks with his French counterpart, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. He also plans to meet King Faud of Saudi Arabia to try to reassure him about the stance of the US and Britain towards Iraq.

Mr Blair is also under pressure at home. Robin Cook, the Leader of the House, has been asked by Labour backbench dissidents to be a voice against the war in Cabinet. And the anti-war movement in and out of Parliament is gathering momentum.

The Prime Minister has also been criticised by the Tories for failing to condemn the decision of African nations to nominate Libya to chair the UNHCR.

In a letter to Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, her opposite number, Caroline Spelman, called for reform of the human rights commission and for the UK to "show leadership in preventing the UN Human Rights Commission falling into the hands of serious human rights abusers". Ms Spelman said that progress on human rights should not be sacrificed in the name of better relations with Colonel Gadaffi.

(MORE)

3//The Sydney Morning Herald Monday, August 19 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114051773.html

INVADING IRAQ: DEFIANT HOWARD SAYS HE'LL GO IT ALONE
By Mike Seccombe

The Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday refused to report to Parliament on the reasons Australia was contemplating war with Iraq, saying he would allow debate if and when the Government decided to send troops to the Persian Gulf.

Mr Howard also said that while he thought it "desirable" for any commitment of Australian forces to be bipartisan, he was prepared to soldier on without Opposition support if necessary.

He had been challenged by the Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, to detail to Parliament and the public evidence of any connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda terrorists, the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the prospective role of US allies in any strike.

In response, Mr Howard repeated his belief that a United States strike was likely, and that the US would seek Australian involvement. But he said parliamentary examination of the case for war would "unduly politicise an extremely sensitive issue, with potential adverse consequences for the national interest".

While Mr Howard continued to talk tough, in the US the case for war against Saddam Hussein was seriously undermined by the weekend disclosure that the US knew of and encouraged Iraq's past development and use of chemical weapons.

(SNIP)

Mr Howard said yesterday that a major reason he would not make a parliamentary statement on Iraq was that it could inflame debate.

In reply to Mr Crean's written demand for a statement, he said it could "encourage debate to 'run ahead' of the debate in the United States - the very thing you and a number of other Labor Party figures have condemned (unreasonably) in recent days".

Mr Crean said that unless Mr Howard made a full statement, Labor may push for a parliamentary inquiry into the case for war.

It is likely there would be the numbers for such an inquiry in the Senate, where the Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, intends to move for one today. The Democrats also strongly oppose a first strike on Iraq.

4//Arabia.com August 18, 2002, 09:12 PM
http://www.arabia.com/afp/news/mideast/article/english/0,10846,268902,00.html

KUWAIT REJECTS IRAQI "CODED THREATS"

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - Kuwait urged Iraq to rethink its tough language directed in recent days against the tiny emirate amid talk of a US attack to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Kuwait's information minister and acting oil minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah... condemned recent statements made by Iraq, describing them as coded threats," the official KUNA news agency reported.

Sheikh Ahmad was responding to Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassine Ramadan's warning Friday that Kuwait should not fall behind the United States' plans to invade Iraq.

"Despite our surprise to this coded threat, we advise the Iraqi leadership to learn from past lessons so the catastrophe of 1991 is not repeated," Sheikh Ahmad said, speaking after the government's weekly cabinet meeting and before a trip to Moscow.

He complained that Ramadan's comments contradicted the tentative reconciliation made between the two sides at March's Arab summit in Beirut where Iraq officially recognised Kuwait's borders for the first time since 1990.

Kuwait's Deputy Prime Minister Mohammed Dhaifallah Sharar told reporters that Ramadan's comments showed Iraq's "lack of understanding towards the Kuwaiti position and the escalation witnessed in the region," KUNA said.

"Kuwait's position, which has been made public several times and through various officials, is based upon Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions pertaining to the release of Kuwait POWs and missing persons," the deputy prime minister added.

(MORE)

* * *

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

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

* * *