Today at 1pm there will be a big peace concert in the park.

(Complete music schedule below.)

I'll be singing a really short song around 12:30 pm with my friend Audrey Howard.

(We're doing harmonies on a cover of Green Day's Life During Wartime.)

It would be great to have a big turn out for this thing.

I will be video taping portions of it, and audio recording the whole thing.

DJ Praxis will be holding it together all day - MP3 of "dem bonez" -- and most likely spinning while the sun sets after the main show is over.

Michael Franti (Spearhead) goes on at 2:30 pm.

Free Peoples is headlining, and they go on around 4:30 pm.

Here's more about them:

Free Peoples is a Bay Area-based band playing a style fusing bluegrass, folk and jazz. The members come from various projects local to Los Angeles and San Francisco, most notably, Trichromes, Buzz, Spirit Level and Top Four Flights. Tim Sawyer is on lead vocals and Guitar. Johnny Downer plays lead guitar and vocals. Michael DiPirro is on bass and vocals.

Special Guest on Free Peoples new self titled cd includes; Tony Trischka on banjo, Tom Rozum on Mandolin, David Phillips on Dobro and Chad Clouse on fiddle.

Mike D can also be seen with his other project, The Trichromes, featuring Billy Kreutzmann of the Grateful Dead.

(Complete music schedule below.)

Directions
Public Transit: 5 Fulton to 30th Avenue. It is a very short downhill block to J.F.K.
Drive and you're there!

If you are driving the park is open for traffic west of 19th Avenue and it
is easiest to find the meadow if you enter from Fulton St. and 30th Avenue.

Complete Music Schedule

12:30 pm Lisa Rein and Audrey Howard (like if you blink, you'll miss us :-)

12:45 pm Ara Avakian (singer/songwriter) &
Eric Hellweg (singer/songwriter)

1:00 pm DJ Praxis

1:20 pm Irina and MNO - World Music Meets Electronica Laptops + live

1:40 pm Pushing Destinations hip-hop

2:00 pm Andrea Pritchett

2:30 pm Michael Franti

3:00 pm Red Guard

3:35 pm Raz K’dee

3:50 pm Deep (Hip Hop)

4:05 pm Shailja Patel (South Asian Spoken word)

4:20 pm Samantha Hynes (Student from Oakland High School)

4:35 pm Free Peoples bluegrass/folk/jazz mix

I'll have photos and hi-res and audio up soon, but I didn't want to sit on this any longer so here's
My Video Directory for April 5, 2003 in Oakland, CA.

Right now I have a complete ("all") version of Barbara Lee's speech.

An "edited" version of Barbara Lee's speech that includes all of the major quotes without waiting for the crowd to finish clapping and all of the thank you's.

The edited version broken down into two parts for easier download.

and...

Then I have Harry's Belafonte's entire speech in two parts.

The file names should be pretty self-explanatory, but I'll be putting up a better interface up in the morning.

Peace!

Update: 3/27/03, 12:43pm -- Damn, I thought this story had just happened when I posted it this morning -- which is why I was so shocked. Luckily, a reader tipped me off that the story was from a while ago. So, although I think it's relevant to what's going on now, the story itself is not going on now, so I thought I'd better clarify that. (I don't want anybody to make the same mistake I did -- and I want to be able to do this news thing right when I attempt to do it.)

The above is just a longwinded way of saying that this story is from November 13, 2001.

Now I have to take this story out of "Peace Watch" and create some other category for these kinds of stories. There's nothing peaceful about this story or some of the other stories I've been posting in Peace Watch and I guess I'm going to have to create another friggin' category for all of this violent and humanitarian/casualties of war type stuff. That really sucks, but it's the way it's got to be. Peace Watch is supposed to be about diplomacy-related happenings. There simply aren't any right now. So I shouldn't clutter my hopeful category with violent stories as if somehow the violence is going to lead to peace.

Al-Jazeera Kabul offices hit in US raid

This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there

Al-Jazeera Managing Director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali
The Qatar-based satellite channel, which gained global fame for its exclusive access to Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, announced that none of its staff had been wounded.

But al-Jazeera's managing director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, told BBC News Online that the channel's 12 employees in Kabul were out of contact.

Mr Jasim would not speculate as to whether the offices were deliberately targeted, but said the location of the bureau was widely known by everyone, including the Americans...

Al-Jazeera has a reputation for outspoken, independent reporting - in stark contrast to the Taleban's views of the media as a propaganda and religious tool.

But the channel has been viewed with suspicion by politicians in the West and envy by media organisations ever since the start of the US-led military action in Afghanistan...

The banner of al-Jazeera
The channel says its guiding principles are "diversity of viewpoints and real-time news coverage"

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653887.stm

Tuesday, 13 November, 2001, 13:48 GMT
Al-Jazeera Kabul offices hit in US raid
Afghan boy in the ruins of the al-Jazeera office
The channel says everybody knew where the office was, including the Americans
The Kabul offices of the Arab satellite al-Jazeera channel have been destroyed by a US missile.

This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there

Al-Jazeera Managing Director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali
The Qatar-based satellite channel, which gained global fame for its exclusive access to Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, announced that none of its staff had been wounded.

But al-Jazeera's managing director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, told BBC News Online that the channel's 12 employees in Kabul were out of contact.

Mr Jasim would not speculate as to whether the offices were deliberately targeted, but said the location of the bureau was widely known by everyone, including the Americans.

He also expressed concern at reports that Northern Alliance fighters were singling out Arabs in the city since they took over early on Tuesday.

Critical situation

The station said in an earlier report the bureau had been hit by shells when the Afghan opposition forces entered the capital.

Al-Jazeera confirmed later that it was a US missile that destroyed the building and damaged the homes of some employees.

Al-Jazeera presenter
The station has been viewed with suspicion in the West for its access to the Taleban
"The situation is very critical," Mr Jasim told the BBC from the channel's offices in Doha.

"This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there," he said.

He said there had been no contact with Kabul correspondent Taysir Alluni because all their equipment had been destroyed.

The Northern Alliance has reportedly ordered most reporters in Kabul to gather at the Inter-Continental Hotel.

"Now that the Northern Alliance has taken over, it is too dangerous," Mr Jasim said, adding that he had heard that some Arabs had been killed.

Taleban withdrawal

Earlier, al-Jazeera correspondent Yusuf al-Shuli quoted Taleban officials in their southern stronghold of Kandahar as saying they had withdrawn from the cities to spare the civilians air bombardment and acts of vengeance by the Northern Alliance.

Al-Jazeera footage of three boys reported to be Bin Laden's sons
Al-Jazeera said these three boys are Bin Laden's sons
"They told us that reoccupying these cities will not take long once the air cover that supports the Northern Alliance is over," he said.

He said there was a "mixture of anger, despair, and disappointment among most people" in Kandahar at the fall of Kabul, but the situation there was calm.

Al-Jazeera has a reputation for outspoken, independent reporting - in stark contrast to the Taleban's views of the media as a propaganda and religious tool.

But the channel has been viewed with suspicion by politicians in the West and envy by media organisations ever since the start of the US-led military action in Afghanistan.

Exclusive access

For a time it was the only media outlet with any access to Taleban-held territory and the Islamic militia itself.

It broadcast the only video pictures of Afghan demonstrators attacking and setting fire to the US embassy in Kabul on 26 September.

The banner of al-Jazeera
The channel says its guiding principles are "diversity of viewpoints and real-time news coverage"
Most controversially, it was the first channel to air video tapes of Osama Bin Laden urging Muslims to rise up against the West in a holy war.

Last week it showed footage of three young boys reported to be Bin Laden's sons.

Western governments at one stage warned that the channel was being used by the al-Qaeda network to pass on coded messages to supporters around the world.

This is probably a long shot guys, but we're only talking about sending an email.

Estimated time commitment: 10 seconds.

Subject: URGENT: Potential stop-the-war vote in Congress

Friends and Concerned Americans,

Against all odds, there were enough signatures, e-mails telegrams and
phone calls within the last 24 hours to Congressman Dennis J.Kucinich
of Ohio to persuade him to introduce before the House of
Representatives
in Washington, D.C. a little known resolution that deprives the
President of his authority to wage war.

However, we must now persuade Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
that there is a growing consensus if not a plurality to mandate the
resolution for a House ballot.

Therefore, please take a moment to e-mail Speaker Hastert by simply
saying, "I am in favor of introducing HJ Resolution 20 for a vote."

Speaker Hastert's e-mail:
Speaker@mail.house.gov

Please do this NOW.
And please forward to every other concerned citizen you know

Ha! Another media disinformation campaign. A friend was telling me how he was hearing that "everyone was booing" when Moore took advantage of this rare opportunity to sneak some truth out to the nation.

You can listen and decide for yourself, but I hear as much clapping as booing as our fearless leader, right on schedule, says what needed to be said.

I don't even know if this is a complete clip yet, but I wanted to make it available for you asap: Michael Moore At The Oscars

There's a video stream of Q and A with Michael afterwards here too.

(Thanks to The Rattler and Kevin Burton for help finding this stuff.)

Mary Ann Wright's Letter of Resignation to Colin Powell

I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a “preemptive attack” against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to “preemptively attack” America and American citizens...

I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America

Further, I cannot support the Administration’s unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration’s secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens...

I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration’s policies.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032103wright.htm

March 21, 2003

The following is a copy of Mary (Ann) Wright’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wright was most recently the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. She helped open the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2002.

U.S. Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
March 19, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell
US Department of State
Washington, DC 20521

Dear Secretary Powell:

When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as Charge d’Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.

This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration’s policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.

I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq

I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community’s demand that Saddam’s regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.

However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.

Countries of the world supported America’s action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago.

I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a “preemptive attack” against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to “preemptively attack” America and American citizens.

The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic “holy soil” of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.

Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples’ homes and livelihood.

I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action.

I disagree with the Administration’s lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration’s long-needed “Roadmap for Peace” will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward peace.

I disagree with the Administration’s lack of policy on North Korea

Additionally, I cannot support the Administration’s position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration’s lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect.

I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America

Further, I cannot support the Administration’s unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration’s secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.

Resignation

I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration’s policies.

Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and I wish you and our colleagues well.

Very Respectfully,

Mary A. Wright, FO-01

Deputy Chief of Mission
US Embassy
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

CONTEMPLATING WAR IN THE LAND OF PEACE

...This is a continuation of the same national system of denial that we
began to construct during Gulf War I. Ask a knowledgeable American
how many people died in that conflict and you will probably be told
that the death toll was somewhere around 150. (I seem to recall 138
American fatalities.)

You will probably not hear about the roughly 400,000 Iraqis we killed
during that bully outing. You will almost certainly not hear about
the retreating column of almost 50,000 Iraqi soldiers that were
incinerated on the highway from Kuwait on the orders of war
criminal-turned-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. While I think that Gulf
War I may have been justified and even necessary, the fact that we
were able to conduct it with so little empathic memory does not bode
well for Gulf War II. We should still be in mourning for all the
unwilling conscripts who died at the point of our surgically sharp
sword rather than wielding it again with so much less moral
justification.

But this is just one aspect of how we have blunted our national
conscience with media. Even more dangerous is our new willingness to
believe that America's agenda is more important than the preservation
of international law. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits
one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the
sanction of the UN Security Council. If our attack of Iraq is
self-defense, then I would be equally innocent if I returned to
Wyoming and killed everyone in Pinedale who is well-armed, doesn't
like me, and beats his wife. (This would require quite a killing
spree...)

Even if this war is so sophisticated that very few "collateral
damages" are inflicted, even if the Ba'ath regime folds immediately
and our troops enter Baghdad festooned in the garlands of a grateful
and liberated populace, even in the extremely unlikely event that we
find a cache of Iraqi nuclear weapons, all packed up for delivery to
Al -Qa'ida , it will still be illegal and immoral. Victory will not
change that.

It is also profoundly impractical, when one considers the larger consequences.

Even if victory is swift and painless , we will have wounded, perhaps
mortally, the peace-waging capacity of the United Nations.

We will have sewn deep discord within the European Union and badly
damaged relations with two of our most important allies, France and
Germany.

We will have destroyed remaining popular support for the governments
of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, our three most important allies
in the Middle East.

We will have established - and not only for ourselves - the
legitimacy of preemptive attack.

We will have radicalized half a billion young Muslims, transforming a
monster into a martyr in their eyes.

We will have installed ourselves as the rulers of an energy colony
that will not be easy to govern, given the bitter - and, to us,
inscrutable - divisions that exist between its Shiites, its Sunni,
and its Kurds.

We will have brought ourselves to the brink of active hostilities
with Turkey, formerly a strong ally.

We will have bankrupted the teetering American economy.

We will have inserted long-term instability in world financial and
energy markets.

We will have devalued the currency of American moral authority to the
vanishing point. We will have turned America, long the hope of the
world, into the most feared and hated of nations. We will have traded
our national capacity to inspire for a mere capacity to intimidate.

And for what? To avenge 9/11 by punishing a regime that had no proven
role in it? Out of humane concern for the Iraqi people, whom we have
been, by our own policies, starving and impoverishing for the last
decade? In order to destroy possibly mythical "weapons of mass
destruction" in Iraq, even while we abide their proven existence in
such potentially irrational countries as Pakistan, Israel, India,
France, and, hardly least, the United States? The Administration
attacked before it ever provided a justification that would satisfy
any but the most TV-enchanted Christian soldier.

From: John Perry Barlow
Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:04:55 PM US/Pacific
To: barlowfriendz@eff.org, John Perry Barlow
Subject: [BarlowFriendz] 9.2: War and Paz, the View from Brazil
Reply-To: barlow@eff.org

CONTEMPLATING WAR IN THE LAND OF PEACE

I was deep in the heart of Brazil when I got the news.

I was in a serene little jewel of a former diamond-mining town called
Lençois. It's located in a remote part of Brazil's Bahia state called
the Chapada Diamantina, improbably beautiful country that would look
like Monument Valley if the buttes and spires of Southern Utah rose
from a blanket of rain forest.

I had been completely out of touch with the rest of the world for
three days at the International Rainbow Gathering, held even deeper
in the Chapada, eight hours of astonishingly bad road away from
Lençois.

But even if I'd been in downtown São Paulo, the events in Baghdad
would have seemed distant. Brazil is a floating world, a parallel
universe of such size and cultural density that little enters or
escapes its gravitational field. It is well accustomed to shrugging
at Northern madnesses and continuing to pursue its own profoundly
complex affairs.

Brazil is the world's largest Inside Joke. It is, to those who get
it, sufficiently involving to render even such external
considerations as the possible outbreak of Armageddon slightly
irrelevant.

Besides, it seems to have an instinct for peace that runs the length
of its history and is wisely aware that even opposing the bellicose
behavior of less enlightened cultures adds energy to the cyclone of
war. Brazil doesn't study war no more. The only organized conflict
Brazil is likely to enter involves no weapon more lethal than a
soccer ball.

The cobble-stoned streets of Lençois were filling with the nightly
promenade of beautiful, chocolate-skinned young people when my cell
phone rang. "The war has started," said Lotte, my former Swedeheart,
in a voice as bleak as a Strindberg play.

Immediately, I lunged for a fat information feed, but there was
little to be had. The pousada where I was staying didn't have a
phone, so I couldn't jack my computer into the Internet. I found a
television, which is never hard to do in Brazil, but of course I
couldn't find one with any English programming. Why waste a channel
on CNN? Absolutely no one here speaks English and they certainly
don't need any more hallucinatory propaganda from The North.

What news I could find in Portuguese seemed to regard the outbreak of
American aggression against Iraq as just another news story. It was
nothing worth preempting the evening's soap operas over. I went to
bed even more in the dark than usual.

I had another 8 hour drive to Salvador the next day. I scanned the
radio constantly for news and heard little. I did hear President Lula
de Silva making a statement in the matter, which I later leaned
contained this perfectly reasonable statement: "All of us want for
Iraq not to have atomic weapons or weapons of mass destruction," he
said, "but that does not give the United States the right to decide
by itself what is good and what is bad for the world."

Now I'm Rio. I know everything that CNN and the New York Times web
site permit me to know, which seems to include things that might not
be true.

I know that, according to the Gallup poll, 76% of the American people
support the attack on Iraq. (Since I can only think of 5 people in my
considerable multitude of diverse acquaintance who share this
opinion, I have to wonder about this figure.)

I know that we can turn Baghdad - a town with 2 and a half million
children - into telegenic Disney Hell with several thousand tons of
high explosives and injure only Bad Guys. (Indeed, watching CNN, one
might wonder if anyone gets injured at all in this marvelously
surgical new form of war.)

I know that we have a lot of really cool toys in our arsenal. I know
that A-10 Warthog can fire over a thousand rounds a minute. (Though
no one in the media has mentioned that each of these bullets consists
of depleted uranium that will be radiating birth defects into the
Iraqi gene pool for many generations.)

I know that the only truly powerful country on the planet is
continuing to manufacture the perilous, conscience-stunting myth that
technology can make war relatively safe. Indeed, we are so delusional
on this subject that we believe that bombing the shit out of the
Iraqis is a humanitarian act.

This is a continuation of the same national system of denial that we
began to construct during Gulf War I. Ask a knowledgeable American
how many people died in that conflict and you will probably be told
that the death toll was somewhere around 150. (I seem to recall 138
American fatalities.)

You will probably not hear about the roughly 400,000 Iraqis we killed
during that bully outing. You will almost certainly not hear about
the retreating column of almost 50,000 Iraqi soldiers that were
incinerated on the highway from Kuwait on the orders of war
criminal-turned-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. While I think that Gulf
War I may have been justified and even necessary, the fact that we
were able to conduct it with so little empathic memory does not bode
well for Gulf War II. We should still be in mourning for all the
unwilling conscripts who died at the point of our surgically sharp
sword rather than wielding it again with so much less moral
justification.

But this is just one aspect of how we have blunted our national
conscience with media. Even more dangerous is our new willingness to
believe that America's agenda is more important than the preservation
of international law. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits
one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the
sanction of the UN Security Council. If our attack of Iraq is
self-defense, then I would be equally innocent if I returned to
Wyoming and killed everyone in Pinedale who is well-armed, doesn't
like me, and beats his wife. (This would require quite a killing
spree...)

Even if this war is so sophisticated that very few "collateral
damages" are inflicted, even if the Ba'ath regime folds immediately
and our troops enter Baghdad festooned in the garlands of a grateful
and liberated populace, even in the extremely unlikely event that we
find a cache of Iraqi nuclear weapons, all packed up for delivery to
Al -Qa'ida , it will still be illegal and immoral. Victory will not
change that.

It is also profoundly impractical, when one considers the larger consequences.

Even if victory is swift and painless , we will have wounded, perhaps
mortally, the peace-waging capacity of the United Nations.

We will have sewn deep discord within the European Union and badly
damaged relations with two of our most important allies, France and
Germany.

We will have destroyed remaining popular support for the governments
of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, our three most important allies
in the Middle East.

We will have established - and not only for ourselves - the
legitimacy of preemptive attack.

We will have radicalized half a billion young Muslims, transforming a
monster into a martyr in their eyes.

We will have installed ourselves as the rulers of an energy colony
that will not be easy to govern, given the bitter - and, to us,
inscrutable - divisions that exist between its Shiites, its Sunni,
and its Kurds.

We will have brought ourselves to the brink of active hostilities
with Turkey, formerly a strong ally.

We will have bankrupted the teetering American economy.

We will have inserted long-term instability in world financial and
energy markets.

We will have devalued the currency of American moral authority to the
vanishing point. We will have turned America, long the hope of the
world, into the most feared and hated of nations. We will have traded
our national capacity to inspire for a mere capacity to intimidate.

And for what? To avenge 9/11 by punishing a regime that had no proven
role in it? Out of humane concern for the Iraqi people, whom we have
been, by our own policies, starving and impoverishing for the last
decade? In order to destroy possibly mythical "weapons of mass
destruction" in Iraq, even while we abide their proven existence in
such potentially irrational countries as Pakistan, Israel, India,
France, and, hardly least, the United States? The Administration
attacked before it ever provided a justification that would satisfy
any but the most TV-enchanted Christian soldier.

As you BarlowFriendz know, I thought Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld were
bluffing. I still think they were. But they painted themselves into
a terrible corner by failing to recognize the irrationality and
intransigence of Saddam Hussein as well as the powerlessness of his
people. When all their terrorism failed to either frighten him into
exile or frighten the Iraqis into thinking it would be safer to
attempt his overthrow, they had no choice but to pursue bluster by
another means, to paraphrase Von Clauswitz. (In his press conference
today, Rumsfeld said, repeatedly, words that amounted to: "Ok, we're
getting really mad now. If you don't pack up and go, Saddam, we'll do
something truly shocking and awful." As if we hadn't already...

Now, of course, these events have acquired all the terrible machinery
of tragedy. They have become horrible juggernaut that will roll
across the world leaving horror and change, mostly for the worse, in
its tracks. I doubt that even Dick Cheney could stop it now.

Meanwhile, life goes gloriously on in Brazil. While the North erupted
on Saturday in war and angry protests against war, Brazil was mainly
concerned with the championship match between São Paulo and
Corinthes. Indeed, the only visible war protest I saw were some
banners in the audience at the soccer game. (Though Michael Moore got
a huge cheer from the Oscar party I attended tonight when he took
after George Bush...)

As you might expect, I have much more to report from down here, where
I've now spent an utterly transforming month. Until now, I've been
having too much fun having adventures to spend my energies on turning
them into information.

I have just taken what is almost certainly the best short course in
Brazilian culture that anyone ever received. Just experiencing
Carnival - in Salvador, Recife, Olinda, Rio, and São Paulo - in the
immediate and continuous company of Gilberto Gil would have been a
lot. In addition to being the Minister of Culture, Gil *is* Brazil in
a way. In his music, his open heart, his sweetly melancholy optimism,
his energy, he represents everything this place rightly loves about
itself.

If Gilberto Gil were a member of our cabinet - if we had the kind of
country that would make him a member of the cabinet - we would be
waging peace rather than war and the world would be a lot more like
Brazil. One can only hope that one day it will be.

Paz e Amor,

Barlow

--
John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
Co-Founder & Vice Chairman, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Berkman Fellow, Harvard Law School

Home(stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/~barlow

**************************************************************

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth
to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth
from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O
Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with
our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms
of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with
the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste
their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the
hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to
turn them out roofless with their little children to wander
unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and
thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of
winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the
refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord,
blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter
pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears,
stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it,
in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek
His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

-- Mark Twain

Is this all about Saddam switching to the Euro?

Mmmmnnahh--could be?!

"Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros"

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN
resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the
biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used
to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in
the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant
economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/20/1330253&mode=nested

The Info Exchange provides original content and links to important or interesting stories on the net. This main page includes featured stories and links to content in the Events, News, Reviews, and Analysis & Polemic sections, and a special section, "At the Brink," dealing with the events of Sept. 11th. Not every article posted to the InfoExchange appears on the front page, some will only show up in their section.

Also provided are links to other independent media on the net. Those boxes are automatically updated with content chosen by the people running those sites.

By becoming a registered user you can customize this page to include other media outlets currently supporting the RSS/RDF XML syndication standard. Click here to see all of the currently available news feeds. (And if you know of any other interesting sites that we should add email us at info@interactivist.net)

Registered users get to submit articles and post comments using their nickname, while others can only post as Anonymous Comrade. As well, registered users are able to moderate (rate or rank) comments posted to the site.

Anyone can submit stories or links, or post comments to stories. Comments to posted stories go up automatically. Submitted stories are posted by the editorial collective; in this way, we can keep the editorial focus of this site consistent, while allowing for a free exchange of ideas.

This site is a cooperative effort of: Autonomedia, ABC No Rio, The Interactivist Network, and Nomad Media Lab.

Geoffrey Heard, "Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros"
posted by jim on Thursday March 20, @03:29AM
Printer-friendly layout | email this story
from the "money-money-money-money" dept.
News Aonymous Comrade writes:

"Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros"
Geoffrey Heard

Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his
administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you
consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with
Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on
economic leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN
resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the
biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used
to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in
the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant
economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America
will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to
the US bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would
like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of
international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to
grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can
share the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue,
although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the
value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to
be afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is
developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many
articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic
on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics,
and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been
published by the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US
dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about
exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying
the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could
collapse economically.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971
(after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de
facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard
dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too.
This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the
dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's
economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in
international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro --
there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in
Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must
hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into
the dollar's dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to
trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had
just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on,
alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had
given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil
producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by
bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba.
Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros)
an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in
general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this
immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire
capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for
millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at
the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those
cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the
owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will
accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your
cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your
cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a
TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys
some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread,
the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but
never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the
bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting
a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge
subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has
printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is
an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's
cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this
spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come
flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover
all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy
who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse,
you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his
mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the
euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell
large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs
to become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations
would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start
to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's
real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most
debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of
it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of
Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently,
that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very
nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various
contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties
would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that
would do two things immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone', which
in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil
nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading
currency.

* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't enough
in the bank to cover them.

* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's
value would be spiralling down.

THE US SOLUTION

America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out
fighting.

It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US
dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen
to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received
one message -- remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation
and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil?

* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct
American control.

* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge force
(perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to
dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would enable the US to
avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically
impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights, Saudi Arabia, the
birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.

* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and
currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade through
the dollar.

* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the
democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an
America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil into
American hands.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's
current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world
power -- economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the US is working
hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered
support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback
and might take decades to recover.

It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern
times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few
hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.

President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is what
he meant.

JUSTIFYING WAR

Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting around
for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing
desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat
because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply
al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbours was
raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously
inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons
inspection.

The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive by
the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without
UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of any American
claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength and standing.

The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the UN
weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the
range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so confidently asserted are to
be found. Colin Powell named a certain north Iraqi village as a threat. It
was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been
trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told
the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax
(Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one example) they
neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that these weapons had
been destroyed.

Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been
shown to come from a student's masters thesis.

America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and the
country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's history of
intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala,
the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of US
actions to tear down legitimate, democratically elected governments and
replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption,
dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most
recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a
murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then
deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years ago
when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the Kurds. The
current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq
now, was on hand personally to turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame
Iran. At that time, of course, the US thought Saddam Hussein was their
man -- they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic
fundamentalism.

Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's
efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the military
which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder
Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died,
and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters.
What price the US's humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French
are also wooing Algeria, their former north African territory, for all they
are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian
concerns.)

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim
nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining
strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror campaign and is
receiving promises of open and covert support -- including intelligence
sharing.

AND VENEZUELA

While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and
covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which grabbed power
briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public
displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez
Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media,
much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily
intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American
oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source in its own
backyard.

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged desire
to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining
the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America
rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has
called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias
has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early
elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of
American transnational businesses, which have locked out employees in
support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing that in the USA!
There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the
legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made
it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for
Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union
activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias
administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's
1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup
to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a
bloodbath.

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with the
might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?

THE COST OF WAR

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many
billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action.

But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the
entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the argument
changes.

Further, there are three other vital factors:

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is
protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious
contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at least, very
little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All
the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would
have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war -- the
expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced
after the war. But munitions, hardware andso on are being replaced all the
time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and
some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the cost
will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war
compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running
exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.

Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent
outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will
pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect. The same
happens when production begins to replace hardware. components, minerals,
etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America's
trading advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of
not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless there were
another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi
war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades widely
in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar would
reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian
dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister,
has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the
hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in
trade through the dollar's position as the major trading medium. That would
look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the
oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks the
euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and
German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the
issue -- perhaps years more room. Britain would be in a position to demand a
better deal from its EU partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new
currency could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant
role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from
Europe and link with America against continental Europe.

On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar monopoly,
the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and Britain could be
left begging to be allowed into the club.

THE OPPOSITION

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious --
America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade
through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its
forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but would multiply its
power.

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing
on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united
Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as
a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the
United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade
with Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day
America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline
southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields.
Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility
of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US itself. Russia
already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in US dollars;
if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia's
enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an
American take over could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could
be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

ANOTHER SOLUTION?

The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and explains
its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions other than war
are possible.

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to have
a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible Europe can
stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell. What about
Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view, and
withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards for
ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?

Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps
accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which would
reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it could trade
for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

. . . .

Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment,
sustainability and human rights. . . . .

Geoffrey Heard (c) 2003. Anyone is free to circulate this document provided it
is complete and in its current form with attribution and no payment is
asked. It is prohibited to reproduce this document or any part of it for
commercial gain without the prior permission of the author. For such
permission, contact the author at gheard@surf.net.au.

SOME REFERENCES AND FURTHER INFORMATION:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth' by W. Clark, January 2003
(revised 20 February), Independent Media Center, www.indymedia.org

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28 334
This war is about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS!!!! DOLLARS, THE EURO AND WAR
IN IRAQ. This story is based on material posted by Richard Douthwaite on the
FEASTA list in Ireland.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1550023_comme nt.php#1551138
USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's President

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId"

< Text of 'Shock and Awe' On-Line | Brian Holmes, "Practicing Anti-Capitalism" >

Interactivist Info Exchange Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
# http://www.ratical.org/ratvill e/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
# http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bi n/newswire.cgi?id=28 334
# http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2 002/12/1550023_comme nt.php#1551138
# http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
By Micheal Moore.

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

...Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

Here is the full text of the letter in case the link goes bad:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

Monday, March 17, 2003

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

I'm a big fan of t r u t h o u t.

These guys are a group of human agents that go out and scour the internet for important articles from reputable sources (like the NY Times, Washinton Post, and other "accepted" sources of the mainstream -- so the powers that be can't just say that we saw it in the lefty news).

When I wake up at 6am. My list of articles is waiting in my mailbox for me.

I doubt I could even put a price on the amount of time they save me every day.

But now they're in trouble, and need your help to stay afloat. They provide their service for free to everyone that needs it, and then they ask for those of us with a little money (read: very little these days) to pitch in even $5 or $10 dollars a month to keep them afloat.

The thought of this organization going away when we need it more than ever prompted me to write this pitch on their behalf: help out if you can.

Here's an ongoing online demonstration you can participate in, if you are so inclined:
Attack Iraq? NO! An Online Demonstration. You can even put a logo on your site to oppose the war. (I'm deep in video footage land right now but am planning on getting on of these up this weekend...

# The way to honor the victims of September 11th is through peace and healing. We must spare additional innocent families the suffering that thousands of American families already have experienced. By continuing to perpetuate the cycle of violence and retaliation, we are doing a grave disservice to the victims of September 11th and their loved ones. [more: 1, 2]

# The best way to support our troops is to bring them home now. [more]

# The only weapon that can save the world is non-violence. [source]

# According to Pentagon figures, a preemptive strike could kill some 10,000 Iraqi civilians not to mention several young American men and women. [source; current body count]

Mr. Powell, there is such a thing as making a mistake. It would appear that, if you can admit to this one mistake, innocent people don't have to die. (The threat to the world is not what you thought, so we can give Iraq more time to disarm, etc.)

Is is really so hard to admit that someone else purposely misled you and the Shrub -- causing you to unknowingly mislead the American people?

We understand that you were acting accordingly, taking what you believed to be the truth into account. But the charade is over. Please let the madness stop.

Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake
U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged
By Joby Warrick for the Washington Post.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said...

ElBaradei's report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA's team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents "were shared with us in good faith," he said.

The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei's findings but also cited "new information" suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.

"It is not time to close the book on these tubes," a senior State Department official said, adding that Iraq was prohibited from importing sensitive parts, such as tubes, regardless of their planned use.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990 following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq's nuclear infrastructure was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country's known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.

However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors' stories and satellite images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of Iraq's nuclear machinery.

Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain's assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA's conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

ElBaradei's report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA's team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration's statement.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell's staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell's address to the Security Council last month. "Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the institute's president, David Albright, wrote in the report.

Powell's spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement.

The Xanax Cowboy
By Maureen Dowd for The New York Times

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09DOWD.html

The Xanax Cowboy
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times

Sunday 9 March 2003

You might sum up the president's call to war Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the chances of Islamic terrorists' snatching catastrophic weapons. That is why no cost - shattering the U.N., NATO, the European alliance, Tony Blair's career and the U.S. budget - is too high.

Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do."

But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials - Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.

With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.

U.S. Missteps Led to Failed Diplomacy
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen for the Washington Post.

But these officials add that the problem was exacerbated by a series of missteps that occurred after the president decided in September to seek U.N. approval for his Iraqi policy, including what some acknowledge was a lackluster diplomatic effort by the president and some of his senior foreign policy advisers. The administration did not help itself, some Security Council members say, by signaling early on that it would not be deterred from what many governments viewed as a preset timetable for war.

"Could we have done the diplomacy better? Absolutely," an administration official said. "We were perceived as heavy-handed."

...By the time Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12, the administration had angered its allies by its dismissal of the global warming treaty, the international criminal court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Even so, diplomats said, the administration likely would have won a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military action if it had shown a little more patience and more willingness to address the concerns of other member nations.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30858-2003Mar15.html

U.S. Missteps Led to Failed Diplomacy

advertisement
Click here!

President Bush speaks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar from the Oval Office earlier this month. Aznar will join Bush for a summit today. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- AP)
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page A15

Six months after President Bush first appeared before the United Nations and urged a confrontation with Iraq, the United States appears to have lost diplomatic ground, not gained it, leaving it in a precarious international position as it prepares to launch a war.

A resolution authorizing military action has been blocked at the United Nations not only by permanent members with veto power such as France and Russia but also by close U.S. neighbors such as Chile and Mexico. Some of the president's closest allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair foremost among them, are in desperate political straits over their support of Bush's Iraq policy, a key reason why Bush will hold a summit today with Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

The groundwork for the diplomatic impasse confronting the United States was laid from the moment Bush took office, according to diplomats, analysts and some administration officials. They point to Bush's conviction in the primacy of U.S. power and his administration's early skepticism of international organizations and commitments.

But these officials add that the problem was exacerbated by a series of missteps that occurred after the president decided in September to seek U.N. approval for his Iraqi policy, including what some acknowledge was a lackluster diplomatic effort by the president and some of his senior foreign policy advisers. The administration did not help itself, some Security Council members say, by signaling early on that it would not be deterred from what many governments viewed as a preset timetable for war.

"Could we have done the diplomacy better? Absolutely," an administration official said. "We were perceived as heavy-handed."

Indeed, Bush has been unrelenting in his rhetorical and military buildup for a possible war, but his diplomatic efforts have appeared half-hearted. Last weekend, while Blair was working the phones -- he spoke to 30 heads of state in six days -- and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was traveling to the capitals of uncommitted Security Council members, Bush made no visits or phone calls.

By the time Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12, the administration had angered its allies by its dismissal of the global warming treaty, the international criminal court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Even so, diplomats said, the administration likely would have won a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military action if it had shown a little more patience and more willingness to address the concerns of other member nations.

"The bottom line is the U.S. will not move," a Security Council diplomat said. "Even the French might move if there was something to move to."

A senior official from the administration of Bush's father, who led allies against Iraq in 1991, said, "They've used unilateral tactics with a multilateral strategy. If your strategy is to go for U.N. support, you need to use U.N. tactics."

In fact, the current administration proceeded down a military track at virtually the same time it proceeded with diplomacy, creating an inevitable clash of interests and leaving many foreign diplomats believing the administration's appeal for U.N. backing was a fig leaf to cover a preordained decision to use military force against Iraq. In the view of other countries, the administration short-circuited the U.N. weapons inspections by arguing that the inspections could not be allowed to drag on because the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf region had proceeded too far to turn back from war.

"Back in August, wittingly or unwittingly, the president accepted two totally incompatible strategies," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The administration achieved a 15-to-0 vote in the U.N. Security Council in November for a resolution that restarted the weapons inspections in Iraq and gave Iraq a final chance to reveal whether it possessed weapons of mass destruction. But that resolution papered over strong differences within the council, laying the seeds for the current impasse.

U.S. officials had won support for the resolution by arguing that the best way to avoid war was to support it. French officials date their break with the administration to mid-January, when U.S. officials signaled they were prepared to end the inspections only weeks after they had started. "There was shock and surprise," a French official said. "It was a signal that for Washington the time of inspections had almost ended."</