Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau Thursday, March 20, 2003

Washington -- In the months leading to war with Iraq, President Bush has often cited the postwar reconstruction of Germany and Japan, the greatest -- and most successful -- such undertaking in American history.

Just as the fascist regimes of Europe and Japan were transformed after World War II into democracies that secured peace in the latter 20th century, Bush has argued that a reborn Iraq can serve as a catalyst for democracy and peace throughout the fragile, dangerous and ancient terrain of the Middle East.

"This threat is new; America's duty is familiar," Bush said in his January State of the Union address. "Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples. . . . Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."

PARALLELS NOT SO TIDY But historians and foreign policy analysts, including many conservatives sympathetic to the administration, warn that the parallels are hardly so neat and the hoped-for outcomes far from guaranteed.

For Bush's vision to succeed, they say, not only must the war go smoothly but also the peace -- in a country that has seen little of that in its long history.

"I think he really believes it," said Thomas Henriksen, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "He does see the world as good and evil and believes the argument that democracies don't fight each other and are more peaceful. I'll give him that. But to do it is not going to be that easy."

Indeed, many believe that the closer parallel is not the luminous examples of post World War II nation-building but the far more recent and less tested efforts in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Germany and Japan offer "a seductive parallel that hearkens to one of our best moments in the history of our efforts at nation-building, so it's as good as it gets," added Thomas Carothers, a democracy specialist the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "But I think there are significant differences in the situation that both Japan and Germany were in at that time and where Iraq is now."

Yet time and again, with stirring rhetoric, Bush has pointed not to Kosovo, where his Democratic predecessor, President Bill Clinton, sent in troops without U.N. approval to rebuild a nation, but to Germany and Japan.

PERMANENT HOME FOR LIBERTY After World War II, "We did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments," Bush said Feb. 26 at the American Enterprise Institute. "In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home. There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong."

But using these two nations as models, said Tom Keaney, executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Strategic and International Studies, "leads more to immediate error than anything else."

Both Japan and Germany, prior to World War II and after it, were quite different from today's Iraq, scholars say.

Both had experience with democratic government that -- while obviously flawed -- nonetheless laid a foundation on which to build. Both enjoyed extraordinarily enlightened postwar leaders, Konrad Adenauer in Germany and Yoshida Shigeru in Japan.

"Iraq has had none of that," said Henriksen. "It's been a brutal dictatorship, one after another."

HOSTILE ETHNIC GROUPS Germany and Japan were homogeneous societies, not the fractured collection of hostile ethnic groups that is modern-day Iraq, first drawn on a map by colonial Britain.

Both had sophisticated economies with a diversified industrial base and a broad middle class. Iraq's economy is highly oil-dependent, with little industry and a middle class dramatically weakened by decades of war and international economic sanctions.

Oil-rich economies are rarely democratic, Carothers said, today's lone exception being Norway. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are monarchies; Nigeria, Indonesia and Venezuela "have all had huge troubles politically because of oil, " he said.

Oil-based economies concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of the few, who then do not want to relinquish it to an opposition group in a democratic election, he noted. Moreover, he said, vast, easily siphoned oil revenues fuel political corruption, even as they create a dependent population accustomed to relying on the state rather than self-governance.

LITERATE MIDDLE CLASS Still, others argue that despite years of oppression under Hussein, Iraq is a good candidate for democracy because its large middle class is one of the most literate in the Arab world.

Though reconstruction of a post-Hussein Iraq can't be compared to Germany and Japan, said Hoover Institution research fellow Guity Nashat, Iraqis could gladly embrace democracy -- as Kurds have shown in northern Iraq, where they have run an autonomous region for several years with the help of a no-fly zone patrolled by U.S. and British aircraft.

"It's only been three to four years that Kurds have had more autonomy, and they are functioning," said Nashat, an associate professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago and an expert on the Middle East. "It's a much more workable democracy than anywhere else in the Arab world."

Perhaps most important, scholars said, Iraq's experience of war will be different from Japan's and Germany's at the end of World War II.

"Both Germany and Japan tried the project of fascism, they were defeated at it, and the societies were exhausted," said Carothers. "They recognized that they had gone down a terribly wrong path, and they were ready to try something very different."

To be sure, Iraqis have been brutally oppressed by Saddam Hussein, "but there isn't the same sense that this war comes as a result of a wholesale recognition of failure on their part," he said. Iraqis, he warned, "haven't asked for this Western project of democratization. It's being thrust on them. I'm sure some will be sympathetic to it, but many will not be."

'HUMBLE' FOREIGN POLICY Ironically, Bush campaigned as as an international realist, urging a "humble" foreign policy and showing disdain for Clinton's "nation-building" and military interventions during the 1990s in Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia.

His national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, once said the 82nd Airborne should not be escorting children to school in far-off lands. Today, the administration proposes a wholesale rebuilding of Iraq's education system.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush has metamorphosed from realist to an idealist so bold Woodrow Wilson might blush.

Critics on the left may view the Bush administration as "an evil cabal plotting to install American corporations all over the world," said Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He contends the administration "is doing this for what they perceive to be the right reasons, and out of benign intentions. But you know what they say about the road to hell."

E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

www.guardian.co.uk Mark Tran and agencies Thursday March 20, 2003

Oil prices jumped this afternoon following TV reports that oil wells in southern Iraq were burning out of control after apparent acts of sabotage.

The market reacted to a report by Fox News, based on information from military personnel in Kuwait, that fires south-west of the city of Basra had been burning for several hours.

The Arab satellite television channel al-Arabiya also said fires had broken out in Iraq's al-Rumeila field, also in the Basra area.

However, neither British nor American officials could confirm the reports. In a Pentagon briefing Donald Rumsfeld said: "We're not on the ground but I have seen indications of reports that the Iraqi regime may have set fire to three or four wells in the south."

On the London exchange, North Sea Brent crude surged to $27.25, up 50 cents a barrel, after hitting an early morning low of $25.53.

The jitters came despite an earlier statement by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), which sought to calm oil markets by announcing that its members had pledged to maximize output to make up for any disruption in crude exports from Iraq.

Opec president Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah said: "I am herewith reiterating Opec's resolve to make up for any supply shortfall resulting from developing events. To this end, member countries have pledged to use, in the interim, their available excess capacities to ensure continued supply."

Iraqi crude exports, totalling 2m barrels a day, are expected to cease as the war intensifies.

Earlier today, officials from the cartel said that there was no need for such a move as oil prices had dropped to a three-month low. London's benchmark Brent crude oil fell to $25.5 a barrel overnight as traders expected a quick end to the one-sided war.

A week ago, a barrel of Brent crude was trading at $33.70 as stock markets around the world fell sharply on diplomatic wrangling between UN security council members.

Mr Attiyah said that the producer group was keeping in close contact with non-Opec producers and the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), which oversees consumer stocks in 26 industrialised nations.

Iraqi exports ground to a virtual halt this week after the UN evacuated its staff overseeing Baghdad's oil-for-food programme. Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil exporter, has already raised production well beyond 9m barrels daily - its allowed Opec quota is 8m - in part to cover shortages from strike-hit Venezuela.

The oil cartel has tried to keep prices within a price range of $22 to $28, with varying degrees of success. Opec's big fear is that prices will eventually crash, as they did after the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

www.nationnews.com Thursday 20, March-2003 by ROXANNE GIBBS

February 23: A man by the name of Colonel Michael Dewar, formerly of the British Army, tells a group of editors gathered in Sri Lanka that war against Iraq would take place in mid-March.

I was among the editors. Here is what he said: “The launch date would most likely be mid-March. That would allow for a second resolution at the United Nations. It would also allow British forces to get in place, train and acclimatise. It would allow United States logistic support to get in place and for axis from Turkey to be developed”.

About weather conditions there, he said: “Temperatures in Iraq will be about 100 degrees Fahrenheit during the day from April, thus the coalition will wish to finish the bombing campaign at the latest by early April.”

He also confessed that sandstorms were possible.

On the timeline: The war, he said, would last “inside one week”. “There will be an intense 48-hour aerial bombardment. There will then be a rapid advance on the main centres including Basra, Baghdad, Nasiriyah, Kirkuk and Mosul. The Iraqi forces will collapse or surrender very quickly.

“When he sees the writing on the wall, Saddam is likely to make a run for it, possibly to Libya. The United States and Britain would be quite happy with that. Having to put the man on trial would be complex and unpredictable in its consequences,” Dewar said.

In answer to a question, he stated emphatically: “This war has nothing to do with oil.”

And: “Thank God for America”, he said, to a question as to why America believed that it could dictate to another country how it should run its internal affairs.

“Would you have preferred it to be Russia running the world?” he said indignantly.

That was one side of the story.

February 26: Abdel bari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of a Pan-Arab newspaper in London, painted another picture when it was his turn to speak, days after after the colonel was safely back in London (there was no way the two could have been in the room together).

In an equally spirited and passionate address, he told editors that the expected war in Iraq had little to do with weapons of mass destruction, democracy, human rights, or the ignoring of United Nations demands; but was anchored in a sadistic need by Washington to remove Hussein from office.

Every time United States President George Bush gave a reason for the war and the reason was no longer valid, he came up with a new reason, Atwan said.

“The reason for this war is to make George’s mummy happy,” said the Arab editor who once interviewed bin Laden. “He would have avenged his father’s death threat from Saddam, so his mummy would be happy. He promised her to take care of the ‘bully’,” he said cynically, much to the amusement of many in the room.

His view was that the war would last much longer than the Americans anticipated.

He also spoke of Bush’s statements that Hussein had ties to bin Laden (the suspected terrorist of the 9/11 tragedy).

“Everybody in the Arab world knows that bin Laden hates Saddam and vice versa. bin Laden will be happy if Bush destroys Saddam . . . Bush must be the only person who doesn’t know that,” he said.

He described Bush in exactly the same words that Bush used to describe Saddam . . . sadistic, a dictator, a madman and a tyrant.

At the end of the presentation he made a dash for the airport where he caught the next flight back to London.

Left me saying hmmm . . . .

I remember, ten years ago, the world supported the defeat of Iraq after it had invaded Kuwait. At that time an international coalition went into the Persian Gulf and removed the Iraqis from Kuwait. Iraq had violated the sovereignty of another nation.

Now what has happened to America’s commitment then to: “a just world order based on respect for the rule of law and social justice and peace . . . .”

Since taking office, President George Bush has sought to tell Venezuela why its elected President Hugo Chavez should leave . . . . it has done all it could to engineer the ouster of Arafat, the Palestinian leader . . . our own Minister of Foreign Affairs Billie Miller is right when she asks: “Who will be next?”

How could we justify such a war in the name of peace . . . ?

And . . . the $25 million question – whatever happened to bin Laden?

Venezuela case study: Iron deficiency is costly, finds study

20/03/03 Anaemic adults and children cost developing countries billions of dollars in lost productivity, according to a recent study.

"One in three of the world's population suffers from anaemia so this has tremendous economic consequences," said Sue Horton, a University of Toronto economics professor and lead author of the study, ‘The Economics of Iron Deficiency’. The economic loss due to iron deficiency in South Asia alone is staggering: close to $4.2 billion is lost annually in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Adults who lack sufficient iron in their diets are more lethargic which leads to lower productivity, while the motor and cognitive development of small children is also impaired.

Horton and co-author Jay Ross, an epidemiologist from the non-profit organisation Academy for Educational Development, calculated the economic impact of iron deficiencies in 10 developing countries in South Asia, Central America, Africa and the Middle East. They found that, on average, a country loses 0.6 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) due to physical productivity losses from adults lacking iron. When learning and motor impairments in anaemic children are added, the figure rises dramatically to 4 per cent of its GDP.

"A loss of 4 per cent of GDP even in poor countries translates into billions of dollars lost," said Horton.

Horton says iron fortification is extremely important and inexpensive. For example, it costs only 12 cents (US) per person per year to fortify wheat flour in Venezuela – and the payback is tremendous for a country's economy.

"With every dollar you invest, you receive $36 back in physical and cognitive productivity. Those are huge returns," he said.

The study, funded by Micronutrient Initiative, was published online in the February issue of the journal Food Policy.

www2.ocregister.com The Orange County Register

War in Iraq. Terrorists in Afghanistan. Violent druglords in Colombia. Political upheaval in Venezuela. General lawlessness in Somalia.

The list of places Americans cannot or should not visit is long and getting longer by the month since the 9-11 attacks and conflict with Iraq. There are currently 35 countries for which the State Department has issued an official "travel warning," the equivalent of an official "no go" recommendation. The government bans travel to only two countries: Libya and Iraq. For the other countries, the State Department strongly warns against travel, saying it cannot guarantee the safety of citizens. The rest of the list:

Middle East/Near East: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza), Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Somalia

Central Asia: Tajikistan

Africa: Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo-Kinshasa, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe. Latin America: Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia

Far East: Indonesia

Europe: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia. Topping it all off is the sweeping "Worldwide Caution," a common issuance since the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Americans are warned to be on their guard everywhere in the world. A special case exists in Cuba, where Americans can travel under some circumstances, but are barred from spending money – a policy routinely circumvented in recent years by travelers who claim the "educational travel" loophole in the law.

The lists change almost daily. For the most current travel warnings and updates, go to the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Web site at travel.state.gov, or contact the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, at (202) 647-5225.

For an interactive map showing State Department travel warnings worldwide, go to www.ocregister.com.