Monday, September 30, 2002
UNMOVIC head Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials are meeting with Iraqi representatives in Vienna to discuss the protocols for the impending inspections, currently scheduled to begin October 15th. The director of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, spoke of “progress.” The talks are being held under the old inspection rules, which include inspections of “presidential” locations by appointment only. The talks will end tomorrow, when the IAEA and UNMOVIC must wait for UN Security Council approval of the mission.
The BBC reports these talks being held in a “polite vaccuum,” since any action by Britain or the US could derail the scheduled inspections. The Beeb also included a handy list of items for discussion at the Vienna talks:
- Access to sites
- Visas for inspectors
- Baghdad HQ renovation
- New bases in north and south
- Communications
- Transport
- Overflight permission
The AP covered this a little more muscularly, saying that Blix has staked out a “tough position,” refusing to discuss political matters and focus exclusively on . The AP also has IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming laying down the law: “We’re looking for Iraqi cooperation here, but these are not political talks… We are not going to be negotiating here. We’re going to be laying on the table the requirements we’re going to have as inspectors.”
Continue reading... (272 words, estimated 1:05 mins reading time)
Monday, September 30, 2002
The Washington Post put an older, but still interesting item on its front page: the US is targeting a propaganda campaign at Iraqi officers who have been given discretion to launch attacks using weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Rumsfeld testified to the House Armed Services Committee that the US will threaten to unleash its full wrath on any officer using the weapons: “Wise Iraqis will not obey orders to use WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. . . . The United States will make clear at the outset that those who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in the new Iraq. But if WMD is used, all bets are off.” WaPo points out that during the Gulf War, the coalition threatened to topple Hussein if he used chemical weapons. Now that “regime change” is the stated goal, the US must find another deterrent.
So far, no other outlets have picked up this story.
Monday, September 30, 2002
Just about everyone covered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks on the “defiance” of Iraq in the no-fly zones, which seems to be the Iraqi-evil-of-the-day at the White House. The no-fly zones were established by the US, Britain and France to protect minority ethnic groups in Iraq after the Gulf War. “It bothers the dickens out of me that US and British pilots are getting fired at day after day after day, with impunity,” says Rumsfeld. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced that attacks on US and British patrols have increased in frequency since the September 16th consent from Iraq to unconditional weapons inspections.
BBC loved that “dickens” quote so much, it’s they’re pull-out. The BBC conspicously fails to mention that the increase in Iraqi attacks on US and British patrols might have something to do with the US and British attacks on Iraqi command-and-control assets.
CNN was also sadly lacking critique of the White House story, going so far as to quote a mysterious and redundant senior Administration official: ” “This is not a dictator who is merely intent to oppress his own people. He has regional ambitions outside his own borders … one more indication of the hostile nature of this regime.”
Monday, September 30, 2002
The Washington Post has Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) asking the President to work harder on building coalitions and support, both at home and abroad.
“I don’t understand why the president would not want all the congressional and international support he can get if, in fact, the last option is taking a nation to war,” Hagel said in an interview yesterday, a few hours after questioning Bush’s broader policy of preemption in a major foreign policy speech. “The allies want to have a say, and should have a say, in how we initiate this effort.”
The Administration rejected an alternative resolution put forward by the two Senators. WaPo says that a compromise resolution will be ready as early as today. The major sticking point seems to be the role of the UN: the Bush Administration does not want Congressional approval contingent on UN approval, moderates from both parties would rather see the President craft a coalition before military action. Bush, though, would like to have Congressional backing in his negotiations with China, France and Russia — any one of which could veto a UN resolution.
Monday, September 30, 2002
The New York Times covered accusations of crass politicking by two Congressman against the Bush administration. What makes this especially newsworthy is that both Congressmen are currently on a week-long tour of Iraq. Representative Jim McDermott (D-Washington) said “You don’t start out by putting the gun to their head and saying we’re going to shoot you if you blink,” and that President Bush was willing to “mislead the American people” about the need for war, saying that the alternating “Al Qaeda Connection” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” rationale coming from the White House was suspicious. Representative David Bonior (D-Michigan) was not quoted on anything as radical as that, but was standing next to McDermott.
Both are clearly not happy with the way the President is conducting the war, and they drew the Republican ire: “both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government,” says Senator Don Nickels (R-Oklahoma). It is customary to not criticise the President on his conduct of international affairs (“politics stops at the water’s edge,” the saying goes) so this affair underscores how deep the inter-party divisions run on this issue.
Continue reading... (347 words, estimated 1:23 mins reading time)
Sunday, September 29, 2002
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said yesterday that Iraq would not accept any changes to the existing terms of weapons inspections in his country, referring to the unpublished draft UN Security Council resolution leaked Friday.
An AP piece quotes the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz claiming that the US would suffer losses “that have not been sustained for decades” if it attacks Iraq. So they’ve made their position pretty clear. The article doesn’t address the fact that Iraq already agreed to the terms of inspections on September 16th, although they obviously did not agree on authorizing military action or access to “presidential” sites.
Kudos to the Washington Post, which does mention the September 16th announcement and subsequent backpedaling. WaPo also quotes Ari Fleischer being pretty clear about the US position:
“This is not a matter open to negotiations with Iraq. This is a matter for discussions with the United Nations. It’s clear for all the world to see that Iraq’s intentions are to delay, to argue, to confuse and finally to defy, so they can continue to build up their arms. It makes it even more important for the United States to take strong action.”
Continue reading... (248 words, estimated 60 secs reading time)
Sunday, September 29, 2002
The AP reported on Friday that details have emerged on the pending UN Security Council resolution. The US and Britain are proposing that the UN weapons inspectors be given unfettered access to all of Iraq, including “presidential” sites. The resolution would be backed by “all necessary means.”
The AP says that this wording is meant to bring France, China and Russia on board. France, for their part, would like to see two seperate resolutions: one to reinstate weapons inspections, and another authorizing force — in effect, giving Iraq a “second chance.” The LA Times has Russian and China in the same camp.
Continue reading... (785 words, estimated 3:08 mins reading time)
Sunday, September 29, 2002
In London, between 150,000 (the official estimate) and 400,000 (the organizer’s estimate) people marched through London to protest military action in Iraq. The march was organized by the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain, and included London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a number of Anglican Bishops, and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. It was also meant to protest Israel’s policy against Palestinians in the West Bank. There were three arrests.
In Rome, 100,000 people attended a demonstration organized by the Communist Refoundation party.
AP emphasized the broad demographics of the marchers.
“These people are saying clearly two things — no to war against Iraq, yes to a Palestinian state,” said Michel Massih, chairman of a group called Palestinian Community.
CNN Europe had the 150,000 estimate from the police, and said that the organizers claimed “double that.”
Sunday, September 29, 2002
There is not much coverage on this right now, but there are reports in the Jerusalem Post that the IDF has commandos inside western Iraq scouting for Scud missle sites that could be used to attack Israel.
Saturday, September 28, 2002
Bush met with Democratic leaders Wednestday, in an attempt to soften the damage from the very public accusations flying in the last few days. Immediately after the meeting, House Minority Leader [redacted] Gephardt used his press conference to highlight the Democratic domestic agenda, and Bush reiterated his agenda for Iraq. Bush said that the debate between parties is “deliberate, civil and thorough,” and also says that he’s close to an agreement on the draft resolution against Iraq.
I'm the Chief Technology Strategist for the Red Hat US Public Sector group, an open source and free culture advocate, a picky drinker, an amateur aesthete, and a dog enthusiast.
