www.dailytelegraph.co.uk (Filed: 16/02/2003)

If readers find the headline above familiar, it is because it appeared above a leading article published by this newspaper in October 2001. A week after the launch of Allied raids on Afghanistan, we argued that those claiming that the campaign would lead to a protracted, pointless slaughter were wrong. The rapid collapse of the Taliban removed one of the world's most barbarous regimes, and one theologically committed to harbouring terrorists. Its extinction was an unalloyed good, especially for the Afghan people.

A year and a half later, Britain and America stand on the verge of another war, against a regime with a much longer record of sustaining and equipping terrorist groups. Again, the likely military campaign faces a cacophony of opposition: the thousands who marched through London yesterday to protest against war on Iraq were making exactly the same case as was advanced during the Afghan conflict and, in 1999, the Kosovo war. They had, and have, every right to express their dissent. But the cost of that right is to face scrutiny themselves.

The Prime Minister was right to say yesterday that - if, hypothetically, the marchers got their way - "there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these [Iraqi] victims will never be seen. They will never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist nonetheless".

Iraqi exiles were conspicuous by their absence from yesterday's protest. Their position was well expressed by a letter in Thursday's Guardian from Dr B Khalaf, an Iraqi locum consultant in London, who wrote: "My family and almost all Iraqi families will feel hurt and anger when Saddam's media shows on the TV, with great happiness, parts of Saturday's demonstration in London. But where were you when thousands of Iraqi people were killed by Saddam's forces at the end of the Gulf war to crush the uprising?"

Saddam must have taken further comfort from the desperate scenes at the United Nations on Friday, as the supposed "global court" descended into a Babel of juvenile point-scoring. It was easy to forget the clarity of the situation: paragraph 13 of UN Resolution 1441 states explicitly that Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".

Hans Blix's report last week said that compliance with these obligations meant "more than opening doors". Iraq had to "squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions". In his report on January 27, Dr Blix noted that 6,500 chemical bombs, stocks of anthrax and VX nerve agent, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, 360 tonnes of bulk agents for chemical weapons and 30,000 special munitions for the delivery of such agents were unaccounted for.

This remains the heart of the matter. On Friday, Dr Blix hailed as a "positive step" the decision of the Iraqi Parliament - if that body deserves to be so described - to "ban" weapons of mass destruction and "welcomed" the news that Saddam has set up commissions to search for such weapons. One can only hope that Dr Blix's dry delivery was meant to be parodic. If, as Saddam claims, Iraq has no such weapons, why does it need to ban them, or launch inquiries to find them?

As Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British Ambassador to the UN, said on the BBC's Today programme yesterday, not one of the foreign ministers who applauded their French colleague on Friday believes that Saddam has complied with his disarmament obligations. The problem with the present impasse at the UN, however, is that the Iraqi dictator must now surely believe he has three options, rather than two: not just to disarm, or to face war, but also to string along the UN even longer.

There was an outside chance that war would be avoided by Saddam and his family fleeing Iraq: the antics of the French and Germans have reduced that chance almost to nil. Those nations which have been most vociferous about the UN are now doing least to ensure its continued credibility. On Friday, that body looked almost as painfully irrelevant as the League of Nations in the late 1930s.

Many in Europe, used to the soothing tones of Bill Clinton, find President Bush's Texan rhetoric unsettling and, in some cases, obnoxious. They should remember that the President's language is designed to appeal to an American audience still afflicted by the atrocities of September 11. It should also be remembered that Mr Bush has not remotely lived up to the stereotype of the trigger-happy cowboy: it was Mr Clinton who tended to fire off cruise missiles instantly when faced with an aggressor. President Bush, in contrast, has shown patience during the war on terrorism, and deserves more credit for that than most on this side of the Atlantic are prepared to give him.

What the opponents of war must remember is that the prospective conflict in the Gulf is not about America's financial ambitions. Nor would it be a war on Iraq. It would be a war on Saddam. In the past 12 years, the Iraqi dictator has shown that he has nothing but contempt for international law, for UN resolutions, for UN inspectors, for the liberties of his own people.

He has defied repeated demands that he account for lethal weaponry which could cause unimaginable horrors. At the same time, he has strengthened his connections with terrorist groups. The Bush administration's campaign to prove a link between Saddam and the events of September 11 is politically understandable but is a distraction from a greater argument.

The point is not that Saddam and Osama bin Laden are allies - they are not - but that the Iraqi dictator, a deceitful, tyrannous psychopath, has shown time and again that he is willing to use any means at his disposal to harm his enemies and to aid terrorist groups which would do the same. Are those who marched through London yesterday truly confident that Saddam will not pass weapons of mass destruction to such groups if he is able so to do? How can they possibly believe that the answer is yet more inspections, yet more delay, yet more postponement of the moment of reckoning?

In truth, that moment of reckoning is upon us. It is a bleak prospect, and it is insulting that the marchers assume that those who accept the necessity of war do so with anything other than a heavy heart. But those at yesterday's rally, and the national governments doing their best to obstruct military action, have failed to explain what they would do to make the world and the Iraqi people safe from Saddam's psychosis. On the day that Baghdad is liberated, as the full story of his horrific rule and the terrors that he inflicted becomes clear, will they march in celebration with the same passion as they protested yesterday?

www.chinapost.com.tw 2003/2/16 TAIEPI, Taiwan, The China Post staff

About 300 people staged a protest yesterday outside the U.S. representative office in Taipei to speak out against Iraq human rights violations and a possible U.S.-led war on Iraq.

The protest, organized by a Taiwan human rights promotion group, gathered at the building of the Bureau of National Health Insurance Bureau, before heading to the Taipei office of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), which represents U.S. interests here in the absence of formal diplomatic ties.

The demonstration was part of a global string of anti-war protests which took place simultaneously in all major cities around the world.

Since the organizers didn't apply for a permit to march, police repeatedly asked demonstrators to end their protest.

Rows of police with batons took up positions outside the AIT office, but there was no trouble and protesters dispersed after two hours.

Most protesters were labor activists but they also included foreign residents, ranging from veiled Indonesian women to Arab men and young Westerners. They held placards with slogans like "We need peace, no war," "No war on Iraq," and "War does not decide who's right, only who's left."

One man wearing a Bush mask carried a plastic gun and a blue plastic barrel with the inscription "Bush Oil: 50 percent oil, 50 percent blood."

Expressing his personal opinion, Stuart Hamby, a U.S. citizen, said that it would be "a useless war." He said Bush was seeking to place more wealth into the hands of his friends whose businesses are in oil and defense.

Organizers of the demonstration said that they oppose the Iraqi government's policy of cracking down on human rights. But they stressed that peaceful resolution of the Iraqi arsenal issue through U.N. efforts is the best course to take to end the controversy. Some speakers criticized the Taiwan government, saying it was taking a soft attitude toward the Bush administration.

More than 100 private associations in Taiwan have reportedly signed a global anti-war declaration initiated by European anti-war activists.

The government has expressed support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism, but not yet taken an official stance on the Iraq issue.

www.chinapost.com.tw 2003/2/16 ASSISI, Italy, AP

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz urged the world to "resist war and the intentions of aggression" during a visit Saturday to this hilltown known for its messages of peace.

Aziz, a Chaldean Christian, participated in a series of peace prayers with Franciscan friars on a day that demonstrations took place around the globe to protest a possible war against Baghdad.

"My message is peace," Aziz said outside the Basilica of St. Francis after the prayer. "The people of Iraq want peace. And millions of people around the world are demonstrating for peace, so let us all work for peace and resist the war and the intentions of aggression."

Outside the basilica, the word "PAX" °X Latin for "peace" °X was written with shrubs in a flowerbed.

The Rev. Enzo Fortunato, a spokesman for the Franciscans, said Aziz's visit to the tomb of St. Francis was important because "the world needs images of peace to conquer the images of war."

When asked whether Aziz might use the visit for political purposes, Fortunato replied: "Whoever comes to Assisi can call himself a man of peace, but he is called to realize, with concrete gestures, that which he proclaims."

Aziz insisted after meeting with Pope John Paul II on Friday that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and, after the latest report from U.N. weapons inspectors, promised greater cooperation with arms searches.

The pope has been outspoken in his opposition to any new war but has also insisted on Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. He dispatched his envoy, Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, to Baghdad this week with a personal message for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Etchegaray met with Saddam on Saturday and said afterward that the Church was serving as the "moral conscience" of humanity in opposing war and insisting on a peaceful outcome of the crisis.

"For ultimately, it is conscience that will have the last word, stronger than any strategy, ideology, and even every religion," he said in a statement released by the Vatican.

At a press conference Friday, Aziz warned Europeans against supporting Washington in any war against Iraq, saying the impact would be felt across the Arab world.

"When anything happens in Europe, it affects us in the Middle East, in the Arab world," he said. "Therefore, the Europeans should be very careful when they say 'we support George Bush' because they encourage him to do mischief, to make aggression. They should not."

On Saturday, Aziz took part in the simple ceremony at the tomb of St. Francis, an intimate, stone chapel decorated with fragrant lilies underneath the lower basilica of the main church.

Assisi has long been associated with St. Francis' message of peace and the pope last year held a daylong, inter-religious peace prayer service in Assisi in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the ceremony, Aziz joined the clergy in two symbolic gestures: holding an oil peace lamp and being shown an ivory horn that was presented to St. Francis in 1219 by the then sultan of Egypt, Melek el-Kamel.

The lantern was the same one used by participants in the pope's peace day and recalled his message urging all believers to be "lights of peace," while the horn is a symbol of friendship between peoples, the Franciscans said.

"We are convinced that war has never resolved the problems of humanity," Assisi Bishop Sergio Goretti told the small gathering. "We condemn every form of terrorism ... and the construction of weapons of mass destruction."

Aziz also signed a book on the altar that the Franciscans said was a commitment to peace, writing: "May God the Almighty grant peace to the people of Iraq and the whole world. Amen."

Those gathered then read a prayer issued by John Paul last year in Assisi: "Violence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In God's name, may all religions bring upon earth justice and peace, forgiveness, life and love."

Aziz joined the friars for a lunch of cheese pastry and fennel salad, ravioli with truffles °X a specialty of the region °X veal with artichokes, salad, fruit and sweets. He then took a private tour of the spectacular frescoes in the upper basilica.

Aziz is due to leave Italy on Sunday.

www.chinapost.com.tw 2003/2/16 JAKARTA, Indonesia, AP

Australia, a key U.S. ally, was unmoved Saturday by a report from United Nations inspectors that found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while Japan cast doubts over the effectiveness of the probe.

Mainland China °X Asia's only permanent U.N. Security Council member °X pressed for more inspections and sought a political solution to the crisis, and Malaysia, a mostly moderate Muslim country, hardened its position against a war in Iraq.

Much like in the rest of the world, reaction to the inspectors' report to the U.N. Security Council was mixed.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei offered a far more measured appraisal of Iraq's compliance than the harsh assessments they issued two weeks ago to the council. The United States and Britain had hoped for a tougher report Friday which they could use to justify a new U.N. resolution quickly authorizing force against Saddam.

Only Spain and Britain spoke up for the U.S. position in the 15-member Security Council. Other countries, led by France and Syria, said the report showed Iraq is becoming more cooperative and that inspectors should be given additional time complete their work.

Japan took the middle ground, saying it wanted a peaceful solution but cautiously noted there were doubts over the effectiveness of inspections.

Given Iraq's track record of "passive cooperation," Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said in a written statement, "it is undeniable that doubts about the effectiveness of the continued inspections arise."

But she stopped short of throwing Japan's lot in with the U.S. call for immediate military action. Instead, Tokyo demands Iraq "seriously address the final opportunity" being offered by the Security Council to clear its name, she said.

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan called for more inspections.

"Only when we go along the line of political settlement can we truly live up to the trust and hope the international community places in the Security Council," Tang said Friday at the United Nations in New York.

Megawati said the crisis in Iraq should be resolved peacefully through the United Nations, reiterating her government's long-standing position against a "regime change" in Iraq.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said late Friday that his government would not support a war, even if it is approved by the U.N. Security Council.

"If the majority of the United Nations has decided and the Security Council decided to go to war against Iraq, they can," Mahathir was quoted as saying by the national news agency Bernama. "But we will not endorse (a war)."

Mahathir has warned a U.S.-led war against Iraq will be perceived by Muslims as an attack against Islam and spawn new extremists, undermining the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

www.accessatlanta.com By MARGARET COKER The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Craig Nelson / AJC

George Al Eid, an unemployed West Bank house painter, wonders what good war will do. "In the end we, the little people, will suffer, just like the last war," he said.

BETHLEHEM, West Bank -- He remains popular and his portrait hangs in some Palestinian living rooms as a champion of charity in times of crisis. His name is derided by others as a symbol of cruelty.

As a second gulf war looms, Saddam Hussein dominates Palestinian conversations. While Palestinian opinions of the Iraqi president range from aversion to sympathy to hard-core support, many believe his possible downfall will only spell doom for their quest for statehood.

Saddam "is a dictator. He makes his people starve. . . . But what will war solve?" asked George Al Eid, an unemployed house painter who lives in Bethlehem. "For us the scenario is clear. War will cause a spark for Arab militants and Israelis alike, and we'll all see more violence. In the end we, the little people, will suffer, just like the last war."

In 1991, Palestinians were a notable exception to the strong international coalition backing U.S.-led military strikes against Iraq. Then, Yasser Arafat declared his solidarity with Saddam, and many Palestinians identified with the Iraqi's anti-Israeli rhetoric.

But blowback from his political posturing was immediate and harsh. At the end of the war, relations between Arab states and the Palestinians disintegrated when Kuwait and other Persian Gulf countries kicked out tens of thousands of Palestinians living and working there, a move that helped devastate the Palestinian economy.

This time around, Arafat has been cautious about his position toward Saddam. In public statements he has urged the Iraqi leader to obey U.N. resolutions ordering his disarmament. He has not come out in favor of Saddam, said Arafat aides, because he doesn't want to damage his own reputation as president of the Palestinian Authority, which has been stained with allegations of terrorism.

Saddam's helping hand

Saddam's popularity remains strong among most Palestinians because he has tried to fill the financial gaps for families during the 28-month-old conflict between Palestinian militants and Israel. Charities linked to Saddam have sent payments of up to $10,000 to families of suicide bombers and to those who have lost relatives during the Israeli army's reoccupation of the West Bank.

Pro-Saddam sentiment is most evident in the Gaza Strip, where daily life perhaps most closely reflects life in Iraq. Besieged themselves, Palestinians here sympathize with Saddam as U.S. and allied soldiers mass near his borders. Hungry and hurting, they understand the suffering of Iraqi citizens under U.N. sanctions for the last 11 years.

In Gaza, an overcrowded sandy strip of land, militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad frequently organize protests. Recently, these rallies have focused on Iraq, with Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin urging his followers to attack Western interests around the world if the United States launches military strikes against Baghdad. "It's a crusader's aggression, a crusader's war and an occupation.

"Muslims will have to threaten and strike Western interests, and hit them everywhere," Yassin said in a sermon this month. "As they fight us, we have to fight them, and as they threaten our interests, we have to threaten their interests."

The Hamas leader, however, did not link his call for Muslim unification against the West with an endorsement of Saddam.

This nuance is not lost on Yusef Salamah, 50, a father of five who lives in a three-story stone house around the corner from Bethlehem's Manger Square. He got $10,000 from Saddam after his 19-year-old son, Jonny, was killed last year from a bullet believed to have come from an Israeli sniper.

Returning the favors

The money has kept his family afloat while the intifada has kept Salamah from working. Yet it hasn't colored his views toward the Iraqi leader.

"Arafat made a mistake during the first [gulf] war. We suffered for his position. We can't support Saddam if it means sacrificing our own fight," Salamah said.

Other Palestinians disagree. They say Saddam deserves the same loyalty he's shown them over the last 11 years. Or, at the very least, he deserves respect for not caving in to what they see as an American plan to conquer Muslim nations in the Middle East.

"Saddam is a courageous man. He stands up for Palestinians. He stands up to the American bully and its little brother Israel," said Umm Samir el-Ranisi, the mother of an 18-year-old suicide bomber who killed 18 people in an Israeli grocery store last year.

In a lively debate in the family's living room, where a framed picture of Saddam hangs next to portraits of their deceased daughter, Umm Samir and husband Mohammed defended the Iraqi leader as a hero.

"Saddam comes to our aid when everyone else spurns us. Where is Arafat when we are hurting? Where is [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak? Where is [Saudi King] Fahd? Where is the sponsor of peace?" asked Mohammed el-Ranisi, referring to America. "When someone else comes to our rescue, we will give our respect to him. But right now, no one helps Palestinians more than Saddam."