Iraq to admit arms inspectors, Bush to wage war

President George w. Bush addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on the issues concerning Iraq Thursday, September 12, 2002
White house photo by Paul Morse

Compiled by Nicholas Holt

Sept. 18 (AGR)— On Sept. 16, Iraq offered to unconditionally readmit United Nations (UN) arms inspectors, abruptly reversing the US’s success in moving towards multilateral support for military action.

US officials were quick to dismiss the offer as Iraqi stalling.

The sudden reversal of the Iraqi position had little effect on US plans for an invasion of Iraq.

“The goal isn’t inspections, its disarmament,” said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, addressing the House Armed Services Committee on Wed., Sept. 18. At one point during his appearance, Rumsfeld was interrupted by banner waving protesters who loudly chanted “Inspections not war!” before being removed by police.

Britain maintained its isolated position as the single supporter of the US push for war, and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that the “apparent offer” from Hussein would be “treated with a high degree of skepticism.”

Other Security Council members welcomed the Iraqi offer.

Before the Iraqi announcement, it appeared likely that, with the exception of China and Syria, the US had rounded up enough support within the Council to pass a new resolution giving Iraq just weeks to open its borders if it wished to avoid an invasion.

Russia’s foreign minister commented that the US push for a new resolution is now unnecessary, while his French counterpart said that though Hussein must be “held to his word,” the US drive for a regime change is outside the mandate of the UN.

US president George W. Bush spent this past week urging skeptical nations to force Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, while simultaneously claiming that the United States was free to act independently of the international body if he saw fit.

In speeches both at the UN and elsewhere, Bush urged the UN to “show some backbone” by forcing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The time has arrived, Bush said, for the UN to “show its relevance.”

“Make no mistake about it,” Bush added, addressing the UN on Sept. 12. “If we have to deal with the problem, we’ll do it.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also warned that the UN’s credibility is at stake, spent much of the week meeting with officials from more than a dozen countries to argue Bush’s case for action against Iraq.

UN and Iraqi officials will be meeting later in the month to finalize arrangements for the arrivalof inspection teams.

UN arms inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 when it was discovered US team members had been planting bugs and possessed satellite communications equipment. US inspectors will be barred from high ranking positions on the new inspection teams, and US spy satellite imagery will no longer be used.

White House intelligence document a ‘glorified press release’
On Sept. 12, the White House released a document titled “A Decade of Deception and Defiance” with the intent of backing up Bush’s call for the overthrow of Hussein.

But the paper contained little new evidence showing Iraq has produced new weapons of mass destruction or has joined with terrorists to threaten the US or its interests abroad, as the administration has claimed it has.

Administration officials had indicated that the their strongest case rested on evidence of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s efforts to launch them beyond its borders.

However, experts on Iraq’s weaponry say that on this subject, the report, with few exceptions, recycles a mix of dated and largely circumstantial evidence that Hussein may be hiding the ingredients for these weapons and is seeking to develop a nuclear capability and to weaponize chemical and biological agents.

“You’d expect that, for the many billions we are spending on intelligence, they would be able to make factual assertions that would not have to be footnoted to an open source,” complained Gary Milhollin, executive director of Iraq Watch, a non-profit institution that tracks developments in Iraq’s weapons program.

The portion of the document dealing with evidence of “Iraq’s support for international terrorism” is one page long and lacks any reference to al- Qaida or a purported meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent.

The most detailed case made in the paper is that Hussein’s regime regularly tortures and abuses its citizens, as well known human rights groups have documented since the 1980s.

“This is a glorified press release,” said Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman. “It’s clumsy and shallow when what we need is in-depth ... as an overall grade, I’d give it a D-minus.”

Members of Congress have grown more frustrated with the lack of information being provided by the administration. The White House has blamed Congress members for leaks of classified information and has placed tight controls on even unclassified information.

The president’s distrust of lawmakers may undermine his campaign to win congressional authorization to go to war with Iraq, as members of both parties are complaining that they have learned nothing new or revealing from briefings.

Democrats can’t quite decide
Democrats tried to gauge the president’s intentions and the public’s preferences regarding military action against Iraq as the diplomatic drama unfolded and a vote authorizing military action likely approaches.

“Unless there’s some absolute urgent necessity to have this debate prior to the election, I think it would be a much more thoughtful and constructive and nonpartisan debate if it takes place after the election, “ said Sen. Joe Liberman (D-CT).

Senate majority leader Tom Daschel (D-SD) said if Bush insists on a vote before the election, “I don’t think we’d have much choice but to respect the decision.” But he added “I think that’s a deliberative judgment that hopefully will be made in concert and not dictated to the Congress.”

Dick Armey, (R-TX) who continued to sound reluctant to go to war, said “I will need to see a plan before I will cast a vote. I need to see that it’s necessary.”

Senior intelligence figures had admitted Sept. 10 that the government had not compiled an updated, cross-agency assessment of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capacities, although the Bush administration is pressing for a quick statement of support of action against Sadam Hussein.

Democrats are worried what effect a vote authorizing military force against Iraq could play in the November elections and even the 2004 campaign.

Congressional democrats openly battled with the first President Bush over the 1991 Gulf War, with a majority voting against the resolution that authorized use of force.

The war turned out to be an enormous public relations success and the Democrats found that in debating the issues surrounding it, they had revived old doubts about their strength on national security.

Party moderates now warn that the last thing Democrats can risk after the Sept. 11 attacks is to revive the image of themselves as 1960s war protesters.

“I hope the Democrats will support the President, period,” said Al From, chief executive of the centrist Democratic National Leadership Council.

North Carolina Senator John Edwards has announced his support for a regime change in Iraq, regardless of UN approval, saying “The time has come for decisive action.”

Factors remain that pull the party in the opposite direction, including distrust of the Bush administration and its secrecy, and misgivings about a war that could be more complex in its execution than the Bush I Gulf war.

Also the Democratic base contains a large peace constituancy, particularly in early presidential contest states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Military Expansions
Despite assurances of Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that “no decisions” have been made on action against Hussein, the US has begun a military build up in the Middle East on a scale not seen since the Gulf War. Among the troops arriving are an estimated 2,500 in Jordan, who, sources say, will provide anti-missile protection in the Jordanian desert to give Israel advance warning against attacks launched in support of a US invasion, and 600 core staff from US Central Command who will be moved to Qatar in October.

There are also reports of large shipments of missiles, ammunition, and tracked transport vehicles in the area, as well as plans for the deployment of up to 20,000 Marines also in October.

Several thousands of US troops are in the Caucasus, Central Asian states, and Kuwait which is also a base for US air power, as are Turkey and Qatar. 30,000 US troops are in the Gulf alone.

Following raids against Iraqi communications and air defense sites early this month that involved as many as 100 aircraft, US and British planes continued to strike targets within Iraq. Similar attacks have been carried out every few days this year, as they were during the Clinton administration.

The British army is also preparing large quantities of weapons, supplies, and vehicles for an operation against Iraq.

Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow US forces to use it as a base for attacks on Iraq, and Egypt has indicated it will also cooperate, despite recent diplomatic tensions with the US.

Much of the debate around a US invasion and the removal of Hussein is centered around the form a post-war Iraq would take.

The UN fears Iraq will become ungovernable if Hussein is deposed by force, because the US will fail to make a long-term commitment to the country.

One UN official noted that “The Americans haven’t done enough in Afghanistan and if that is the model of how they are going about Iraq then there are serious concerns...Every aspect of the experience in Afghanistan suggests that the Americans show very little or no interest in this. There’s this view that you go in, execute the bad guys, and leave the place even if it is a mess. I am not at all convinced the Americans have worked this out.”

The Arab League strongly opposes an attack on Iraq, arguing that a war would further destabilize the Middle East, which is already embroiled in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but also has pressed Iraq to admit weapons inspectors.

Iraq possesses the largest known oil fields in the world, after those in Saudi Arabia and since the 1991 Gulf War, companies from more than a dozen nations, including UN Security Council members Russia, France, and China, have either reached or sought to reach, agreements in principal to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing fascilites, or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of UN sanctions and Iraqi opposition groups have been clear that they will not be bound by any Hussein-era agreements.

Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the opposition Iraqi National Congress has stated that he favors the creation of a US-led consortium to develop Iraq’s oil fields. “American companies will have a big shot at Iraq oil,” he said.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have both worked in the oil business and have long standing ties to the industry.

Issues of oil access overlap with other issues complicating visions of a post-Hussein Iraq.

Kurds, Turkmen, and Arab groups are all claiming at least one of Iraq’s richest oil fields, which is located around the Northern city of Karkuk.

Hussein settled Arabs in the area in an attempt to maintain control of the region. The Arabs are likely to attempt to keep their dominant position, even if Hussein is replaced.

Turkey, the US’s most important military partner in the region, and which has little oil of its own and acquires petroleum from northern Iraq, supports the Turkmen claim to the area. Additionally, Turkey is strongly opposed to an independent Kurdish state emerging from northern Iraq as the Turks fear their own persecuted Kurdish minority would then demand its own autonomy. Turkey has threatened to intervene if the Kurds of northern Iraq declare an independent state.

Another factor analysts and policy makers are considering is the possibility that the power vacuum produced by Hussein’s removal could be filled by the Shiite Muslim majority in Iraq, which is currently ruled by Hussein’s Sunni minority. Such a switch could radically alter the power make-up of the entire region.

‘Pax Americana’
A secret document, uncovered by the British Sunday Herald, calling for a “global Pax Americana” presents motivations radically different for US involvement in Iraq, and around the world, than the Bush administration’s oft stated concern for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

The document, which the Herald calls a “blueprint for US global domination” reveals Bush and his cabinet had plans to attack Iraq and secure a “regime change” even before Bush had taken office in Jan. 2001.

The document is titled “Rebuilding Americas Defences” and was drawn up in Sept. of 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Bush’s brother Jeb, and Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

The report supports a “blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principals and interests” and describes US armed forces as “the cavalry on the new American frontier.”

The US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role,” the plan says.

Additionally, the plan spotlights China for “regime change” and speculates that “New methods of attack — electronic, ‘non-lethal,’ biological — will be more widely available...combat will likely take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes...advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

Sources: The Age, Associated Press, BBC, Guardian (UK), Independent (UK), NPR, New York Times, Observer (UK), Reuters, Sunday Herald, Times Online, United Press International, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

Anti-abortionists take aim at public schools

By Eleanor J. Bader

Sept. 13— Anti-abortionist Neal Horsley is certainly intrepid. Not content to harass abortion providers and consumers through his websites, the Nuremberg Files and abortioncams.com, he and his cronies have a new tactic: using laws meant to protect children from child sexual abuse to threaten school boards across the country.

Horsley, along with colleagues at Life Dynamics, a Denton, Texas-based organization infamous for promulgating malpractice lawsuits against abortion providers, have threatened to sue reproductive health centers and public school districts across the country. The charge? Violation of state child abuse reporting statutes.

To hear Life Dynamics’ attorney Ed Zielinski tell it, “For an underage girl to seek birth control information or paraphernalia, treatment of a sexually transmitted disease, a pregnancy test, an abortion, or abortion referral is evidence of sexual activity. Knowledge of this by ... a mandated reporter compels that person to file a report with the state. ... Even in circumstances where a mandated reporter has a reasonable belief — or actual knowledge — that the girl’s sexual partner is also a minor or that the girl’s parents already know about the situation, a report is still legally required. Only the state is allowed to determine whether ... a child’s sexual activity is illegal.”

Zielinski sent this message to an unknown number of school districts across the country in late June, no doubt hoping to frighten them into submission. The three-page missive was menacing. “If a girl is injured, killed or sexually assaulted while under the care of a family planning service provider to which she was referred by the school, she, her parents, or both may charge the school district with negligently referring the girl to that provider,” he warned. “ ... A finding of such negligence could result in an award of actual and punitive damages.”

At a time of nationwide shortfalls in education funding, the threat may have weight with already shaky boards of education, many of which have wanted to halt comprehensive sex-ed classes and counseling about birth control options for years.

But Roger Evans, an attorney at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, regards the letter as an irresponsible hoax, one that preys on these inclinations. He charges: “It makes broad statements, [but] that’s not what the law says. Reporting requirements … apply to only a small subset of sexually active teens.”

In some states, he says, activity is reportable only if sexual conduct occurs with an adult responsible for the child’s welfare. In others, it is only reportable if there is a significant age gap between the two. Still other states require evidence of coercion or risk to the minor. Life Dynamics, Evans says, left the laws’ actual require ments out of the letter.

But attorney Sara Ainsworth of the Northwest Women’s Law Center in Seattle worries that anti-choice lawmakers from conservative communities will use the letter as a pretext for restricting how counselors, nurses and teachers make referrals or teach young people about sex. To forestall such restrictions, center staff plan to meet with district school superintendents this fall to explain reporting requirements and answer questions provoked by Zielinski’s missive. They also plan to monitor school board activity to see how seriously school districts take the threat, and whether any lawsuits are actually filed.

In addition, the Northwest Women’s Law Center—along with the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood—plans to address clinic staff to ensure they understand their state’s often complex reporting mandates.

In Montana, training has been ongoing. Raquel Castellanos Miller, Director of the Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, notes that in her state, “the right to privacy is highly held. There is no parental consent requirement before we can treat minors for diseases, prescribe contraception or perform an abortion.”

Nonetheless, clinic staff have been trained to detect and report abuse—and they take the obligation to do so seriously. “We recently saw a girl who told us that she was being molested by her stepfather,” Miller reports. “Our counselors called the girl’s mother and told her that if she did not report the abuse, we would. The girl was 15. If the mother had not called Child Protective Services, we would have had to.”

In California, clinicians do not have such leeway. Since January 1998, the law has mandated that a wide array of people—from health providers to photographic print processors—inform child welfare authorities of suspected malfeasance. “There is a grid indicating what has to be reported,” says Dian Harrison of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate in San Francisco. “If a 12-year-old comes in and says she is having sex with a 14-year-old, we have to report it. If she’s 12 and he’s 12, we don’t. It’s really cumbersome, but we always comply.”

So does every other clinic in the country, says Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation. She sees Zielinski’s letter as a thinly veiled—and disingenuous—effort to discredit abortion providers. “Over the years, Life Dynamics has launched a number of initiatives aimed at harassing clinics and putting them out of business. Their strategy is to make outlandish allegations and hope something sticks. This latest attack … will only serve to discredit Life Dynamics itself.”

Source: In These Times

Citizens take legal action to stop Wal-Mart development

By Beth Trigg

Asheville, North Carolina, Sept. 17 (AGR)— On Monday, five community organizations and over 100 Asheville residents filed an appeal of the City of Asheville’s decision to approve a conditional use permit and a rezoning petition for the proposed Riverbend Marketplace development on the Swannanoa River at the Sayles Bleachery site. The complaint alleges that Asheville city officials violated the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and petitions the court to reverse the actions of City Council, revoke the conditional use permit, and nullify the rezoning of the property.

The Oakley Community Association, the Beverly Hills Homeowners Association, the Redwood Forest Homeowners Association, the Biltmore Merchants Association, Community Supported Development, and individual members of each of these groups are the plaintiffs in the appeal. The action is intended to stop Riverbend Development Partners from moving forward with their plans for a Wal-Mart Supercenter and other development on the site, and to hold city officials accountable to their own development guidelines. “The city seemed to ignore their own rules,” said Ned Guttman, a member of the Redwood Forest community group. “This process was flawed from the start. The city needs to rescind the permit.”

The community groups held a press conference announcing the legal action Monday afternoon, and were joined by supporters and neighbors of the Sayles site. According to the complaint, City Council based its findings on insufficient evidence, committed “grave procedural errors” and ignored evidence showing that the development could not satisfy the requirements for a conditional use permit. Says Sharon Martin of CSD, “The Wal-Mart plan will create public safety risks and traffic nightmares, and will damage the unique quality of life and community character that we in Asheville enjoy. We believe that the city acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in approving this mega-development. We will continue to fight in court to force city officials to follow the rules in our zoning ordinance.”

Taking on city government, the retail giant, and local development moguls in court is an expensive endeavor, however. CSD continues in its grassroots fundraising to pay for the legal battle, and will be hosting a spaghetti dinner on Sept. 29 at 6pm at the Unitarian Church to raise money for legal expenses. Advance tickets are available from Christopher Fielden at 277-3640. Small, independent businesses are also pitching in: Corine Kurzmann, owner of Diggin Art, is challenging other local business owners to donate a percentage of profits to the fight. “We’re donating five percent. I challenge other businesses to do the same,” Kurzman says. The grassroots organizing effort to challenge Wal-Mart on the Sayles site has spanned several years and cost thousands of dollars already.

The City of Asheville has 30 days to respond to the appeal; then the case will be heard by a judge in Superior Court. Wal-Mart Corporation, Horne Properties (a national development corporation involved in the project), or Riverbend Development Partners could petition during that time to intervene in the case on the grounds that they would be affected by the outcome, in which case they would also be involved in the court battle. Betty Lawrence, the local attorney who filed the appeal, says she is “very confident,” adding, “the record is clear.”

Citizens have spoken out against the development throughout the City’s review process, citing concerns about groundwater pollutants, runoff, traffic, air and noise pollution, property devaluation, and neighborhood destruction, and asserting that the proposal would violate all seven of Asheville’s conditional use permit findings. In the end, opponents of the development hope to prove that the City’s decision was a “political approval,” sidestepping proper procedure, violating the law, and disregarding due process rights for Asheville residents. Ned Guttman summarizes: “This lawsuit is about inappropriate development, a flawed process, and the integrity of City government.”

More information is available at www.main.nc.us/csd.