Just Think - News Archive

French-German-Russian Memorandum
Feb. 24, 2003

(AP) 1. Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant (U.N. Security Council) resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled:

While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;

Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results;

While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi cooperation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.

2. The Security Council must step up its efforts to give a real chance to the peaceful settlement of the crisis. In this context, the following conditions are of paramount importance;

The unity of the Security Council must be preserved;

The pressure that is put on Iraq must be increased.

3. These conditions can be met, and our common objective — the verifiable disarmament of Iraq — can be reached through the implementation of the following proposals:

A. Clear program of action for the inspections:

According to resolution 1284, UNMOVIC and IAEA have to submit their program of work for approval of the Council. The presentation of this program of work should be speeded up, in particular the key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq pursuant to its obligations to comply with the disarmament requirements of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions.

The key remaining tasks shall be defined according to their degree of priority. What is required of Iraq for implementation of each task shall be clearly defined and precise.

Such a clear identification of tasks to be completed will oblige Iraq to cooperate more actively. It will also provide a clear means for the Council to assess the cooperation of Iraq.

B. Reinforced inspections:

Resolution 1441 established an intrusive and reinforced system of inspections. In this regard, all possibilities have not yet been explored. Further measures to strengthen inspections could include, as exemplified in the French non-paper previously communicated to the chief inspectors, the following: increase and diversification of staff and expertise; establishment of mobile units designed in particular to check on trucks; completion of the new system of aerial surveillance; systematic processing of data provided by the newly established system of aerial surveillance.

C. Timelines for inspections and assessment:

Within the framework of resolution 1284 and 1441, the implementation of the program of work shall be sequenced according to a realistic and rigorous timeline:

The inspectors should be asked to submit the program of work outlining the key substantive tasks for Iraq to accomplish, including missiles/delivery systems, chemical weapons/precursors, biological weapons/material and nuclear weapons in the context of the report due March 1;

The chief inspectors shall report to the Council on implementation of the program of work on a regular basis (every three weeks);

A report of UNMOVIC and IAEA assessing the progress made in completing the tasks shall be submitted by the inspectors 120 days after the adoption of the program of work according to resolution 1284;

At any time, according to paragraph 11 of resolution 1441, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA shall report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspections activities as well as failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations;

At any time, additional meetings of the Security Council could be decided, including at high level.

To render possible a peaceful solution, inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary. This must include the provision of all the additional and specific information on issues raised by the inspectors as well as compliance with their requests, as expressed in particular in Mr. Blix' letter of Feb. 21, 2003. The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq.

BBC
Monday, 17 February, 2003
Millions join global anti-war protests

A weekend of worldwide anti-war demonstrations has brought millions of people out onto the streets in support of a peaceful solution to the crisis between Iraq and the United States.
Most protests were on Saturday, but up to 250,000 people took part in a final event in San Francisco on Sunday, after making way for a popular Chinese New Year parade the day before.

Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War.

Some of the largest turnouts were seen in countries whose governments have offered the staunchest support for US President George W Bush's tough stance against Iraq, threatening military action to force it to comply with UN disarmament rules.

Click here for a map of anti-war protests

The demonstration in London was the biggest in the UK capital's political history, with nearly two million taking part, organisers said, although police put the figure at 750,000.

Addressing a massive crowd in Hyde Park, London mayor Ken Livingstone said: "This war is solely about oil. George Bush has never given a damn about human rights."

In Barcelona, Spanish police estimated that up to 1.3 million people marched, with around 200,000 in Seville and more than 600,000 in Madrid.

Rome also claimed one of the biggest protests.

Organisers said three million were on the streets, while police estimated that 650,000 took part in the final rally, not counting those protesters unable to reach the rally venue.

In Australia, more than half a million protesters jammed the streets of the six state capitals, with more than 200,000 protesters taking part in one of the biggest popular protests ever seen in Sydney.


However, Prime Minister John Howard - the only leader apart from the UK's Tony Blair to have sent troops to the Gulf - said he would not be swayed by the size of the demonstrations.

"In the end, my charge as prime minister is to take whatever decision I think is in the best interests of the country," Mr Howard said in a television interview.

US opposition

The focus of a national day of action in the US was New York, which witnessed one of the largest displays of American public opposition so far to an attack by their forces against Iraq.


Tokyo: Some protesters dressed up for the occasion
Hollywood stars Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover were among speakers addressing a 100,000-strong rally near UN headquarters - that included relatives of victims of the 11 September terror attacks.

Ms Sarandon accused the Bush administration of "hijacking" national fears engendered by 11 September, saying: "There are alternatives to war. Nothing has been proved so far that warrants an invasion of Iraq."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that those who wished to wage war on Iraq "must know it would be an immoral war".

Mr Glover was also in San Francisco for Sunday's march, joining the writer Alice Walker and singers Bonnie Raitt and Joan Baez in a crowd that stretched along from the waterfront to the ornate City Hall.

There were about 40 arrests after a small group of demonstrators broke off from the demonstration and smashed windows and pelted police officers with stones in the upmarket Union Square district.

On Saturday, police fired tear gas at demonstrators at a rally in Colorado Springs, hitting at least one person with a rubber bullet after their protest spilled out of a park and blocked a major thoroughfare.

Around the world

Protests elsewhere were more muted.

More than 10,000 protested in India's eastern city of Calcutta while several thousand gathered in a Tokyo park.

But reports from Asia's Muslim nations were of much lower numbers, with 3,000 in Islamabad, just 300 in Karachi and a thousand in Dhaka.

Five hundred people turned out in Jakarta, although a much larger protest was seen last weekend with about 7,000 on the streets.

The Arab world's largest demonstrations took place in Baghdad itself, and the Syrian capital Damascus.

Reports from the Tunisian city of Sfax say police stormed into a crowd of about 3,000 people and beat them with batons and truncheons, injuring at least 20.

The Tunisian authorities have banned past rallies in support of Iraq for "security reasons", causing angry protests by the organisers.

CIA denies claims that Iraq posed 'imminent' danger
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
06 February 2004

The director of the CIA, George Tenet, contradicted yesterday claims made, or implied, by the Bush administration that Iraq had posed an imminent danger to the West before the United States-led invasion last March. Intelligence reports had "never said there was an imminent threat", he said.

Mr Tenet, in his first public Defense of the beleaguered intelligence agency, said that analysts had various opinions about the state of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and that these were clearly spelled out in a report handed to the White House in October 2002.

That report, the National Intelligence Estimate, included 40 caveats and dissents from various analysts. "In the intelligence business, you are never completely wrong or completely right. When the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong," he said.

Mr Tenet said the intelligence agencies had been asked to say if Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

"We concluded that in some of these categories Iraq had weapons, and that in others, where it did not have them, it was trying to develop them, he said. "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

In recent days, the US intelligence community has been roundly condemned for it's alleged "failures" as the White House has sought to shift responsibility over its decision to invade Iraq. With no weapons of mass destruction having been discovered, David Kay, the man who until recently led the US search, said last week that he believed no stockpiles existed and that "we were all wrong".

While various anonymous intelligence officials have retaliated by saying the information they provided was as accurate as it could be, Mr Tenet's speech at Georgetown University in Washington DC, was the first time the CIA's leadership has defended its analysts. Mr Tenet has a close relationship with George Bush, but his remarks will be seized on by critics of the administration who claim that intelligence was cherry-picked by officials who used various elements to build a case to support their desire to oust Saddam Hussein. Greg Thielmann, a former intelligence official with the State Department, called such a practice "faith-based intelligence gathering".

The administration claimed recently that it never said Saddam was an imminent threat. The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, last week dismissed the issue of WMD by saying "the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'" to describe the Iraqi threat - not the Bush administration.

Such claims are easily disproved. A website run by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org said that on 7 May last year the then White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked: "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the US?" He replied: "Absolutely." Mr Bush, speaking in October 2002, said: "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

Also in that month, the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said: "Ask yourself this question: was the attack that took place on 11 September an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on 11 September become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month ... So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

Mr Tenet's robust Defense of the agency came as the Senate Intelligence Committee was set to publish a report criticizing the intelligence community's failures over Iraq.

Mr Kay said yesterday that analysts had made honest mistakes and had not been pressured by the administration. But he said that the commission of inquiry promised by Mr Bush must investigate whether there had been an "abuse of the information by the politicians".

A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE

In October 2002, the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:

"Ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on 11 September an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on 11 September become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month... So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

In October 2002, President George Bush, said:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

On 7 May 2003, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman at the time, was asked:

"Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the US?" He replied: "Absolutely."

Yesterday, the CIA director George Tenet said:

"Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these [WMD] programs and those debates were spelled out in the [advice to the administration]. They never said there was an imminent threat."

US claim dismissed by Blix
Dan Plesch in New York
Wednesday February 5, 2003
The Guardian

The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council.

Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.

In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found."

Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production.

He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear.

He said he assumed the US secretary of state would not be indicating sites that the inspectors should visit that he had not told them about. "It is more likely to be based upon satellite imagery and upon intercepts of telephone conversations or knowledge about Iraqi procurement of technical material or chemicals," he said.

Dr Blix is travelling to Baghdad for further meetings with Iraqi officials before reporting to the security council on February 14 and March 1.

He said the choice for the UN was between continued containment and invasion. Both strategies had problems, but an invasion required 250,000 troops and over $100bn while for containment the numbers were 250 inspectors and $80m.

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
February 1 2003

Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
February 1 2003

Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.


Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

Russia has also denied any knowledge of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda extremists. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said on Thursday that "so far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda".

"If we receive such information we will analyse it," he said. "Statements made so far are not backed by concrete documents and concrete facts."

Meanwhile the founder of a militant Islamist group in northern Iraq has denied US reports that his organisation was the secret link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.

Mullah Krekar, a refugee in Norway, said Saddam was his foe, and the Kurdish Islamist said he had no contact with al-Qaeda.

He said that he could prove that his Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) organisation, which controls a sliver of land in northern Iraq, had "no contact with al-Qaeda, with Osama [bin Laden], with Saddam Hussein, with Iran or Iraq".

Ansar's role is at the heart of the US's latest attempt to demonstrate a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.