www.femail.co.uk by JUSTIN DAVENPORT, Evening Standard 19th March 2003

Police have smashed a suspected terrorist plot after seizing home-made bombs at a suburban flat near Gatwick.

Three Portuguese men were arrested after the raid in Langley Green, Crawley, which is under the airport's flight path.

They are being questioned at a police station in Sussex today under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Inspector Geoff Sharnock, of Sussex police, said: "During a routine inquiry two viable, improvised explosive devices were found. They are effectively home-made bombs."

Sussex police are liaising closely with Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Branch in connection with the find last night.

However, officers said it was too early to speculate on a motive. Mr Sharnock said the discovery of the bombs was not being linked to any possible target and the men had not yet been linked to any specific terrorist organisation.

The arrests come a month after tanks and soldiers were deployed at Heathrow after intelligence services uncovered a plot to shoot down a civilian airliner.

They also follow the discovery of a grenade in the luggage of a passenger arriving at Gatwick.

Security is now at its highest level since September 11 amid fears of a terrorist strike in retaliation for the impending invasion of Iraq.

Scotland Yard is preparing to divert hundreds of beat constables on to the streets of central London to patrol high-profile targets.

Sussex police said searches of the men's flat were continuing today. Inspector Sharnock said one man was arrested elsewhere and two were held at the flat.

"Bomb disposal experts have gone into the premises to make sure the devices were safe," he said. Detective Chief Inspector Tony O'Donnell said: "At this stage the search of the address is continuing and it is too early to speculate on the motive behind this incident.

"It has not, at this stage, been linked to any target or specific organisation."

A police cordon was put up near the flat and more than a dozen police officers were guarding the property, above the Jem engraving shop in Langley Parade.

A light could be seen inside the flat behind a green curtain.

Nearby residents were evacuated-from their homes when the search began. The entire parade of shops, which included a bookmakers and a mini-supermarket, was within the police cordon.

Last month Gatwick was shut for several hours when a man was arrested with a live hand grenade after arriving on a flight from Venezuela.

Hasil Mohammed Alan, who had been studying to be a Muslim priest, has been remanded in custody on charges including possessing an article for the purposes of terrorism.

www.republicons.org by: Erik P Sorensen
Republicons.org 3/19/2003

The numbers are remarkably stark, and they have yet to be expunged from the USGS website. In its World Petroleum Assessment 2000 the U.S. Geological Survey analyzes, in painstaking detail, the existing global oil reserves, known and inferred from geological analysis. It states that more than two thirds of the world´s remaining recoverable oil reserves are in the Arabian and Persian Gulf region, certainly no surprise. However, the USGS asserts that fully 95% of all known petroleum can be found outside the U.S.

The final analysis of this formerly Fertile Crescent is telling. The USGS subdivided the Persian Gulf region into geological “provinces”, an appropriate colonial term, each with specific characteristics. Of the 28 provinces in this region the one cited as having the greatest percentage of known petroleum was the “Mesopotamian Foredeep Basin”. With 13.8% of the world’s known petroleum volume, this province just happens to be located primarily in Iraq (see inset map).

How much oil does this narrow swath of land have? Well, according to USGS approximations, the basin possesses over 61 billion barrels of as yet undiscovered oil, maybe as much as 112 billion barrels. To put that in context, the rosy analysis of the amount of gross volume output from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was around 6.7 billion barrels, and that was inclusive of known and unknown sources. Not to mention that the Persian Gulf oil reserves are more accessible and there already exists a robust infrastructure for cheap global distribution.

But wait, there’s more. Which province ranks third in this region with 7.6% of global oil reserves? It is none other than the Zagros Fold Belt province that comprises part of Iraq and part of Iran (see inset).

In fact, when these two regions are coupled, which they are in several references within the USGS survey (as the “Zagros-Mesopotamian Cretaceous-Tertiary Total Petroleum System”) it becomes the prospective source of over 21% of the total global petroleum reserves.

So, what could be the prospective motivation for military upheaval in Iraq and isolation of a moderating Iranian leadership? The conclusion is painfully clear. The inclusion of North Korea in the “Axis of Evil” was merely a red herring (and I do mean “red”). And it appears as if Kim Jong Il saw this chimera and has called Bush's bluff. We have witnessed the disparate treatment of actors within this alleged Axis; Iraq professes to not possess weapons of mass destruction (thus far borne true by Hans Blix) and has troops massing at its border while North Korea has flaunted its capacity to build nuclear weapons and flouted the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty yet has been handled with care.

Let’s return to the USGS assessment for some insight. The USGS deemed the entire Korean peninsula as neither a “priority” nor even a “boutique” province for assessment. A boutique province is defined as a “perceived viable future petroleum resource.” Good fortune to Mr. Kim.

So is there a third leg to this axis of oil? You bet there is. The USGS reports that Venezuela has an additional 20-40 billion barrels of oil and between 50,000 and 100,000 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered. Of course, it would have been unseemly to include a leader among the Axis of Evil who was popularly elected (unlike some rulers we know). But, as we have learned, this has not prevented the Bush administration from embracing an attempt to overthrow Hugo Chavez by the rich. Ari Fleischer offered this support of democratic transition on April 12, 2002 in the aftermath of the coup attempt, “We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis… The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency.” The latter statement was, of course false. Now, the business interests and their labor lackeys in Venezuela hold the economy hostage and Bush’s solace; encourage Chavez to resign or call early elections.

Not being a conspiracy theorist, I believe things are actually as bad as they are, I see no multinational world domination scheme to enslave Americans. The reality is that Bush and Cheney are beholden to the oil industry for their very existence and see it as their solemn oath to uphold industry interests at all costs. The long term consequences of U.S. domination of the assets of the Persian Gulf, however, could be devastating. The Saudi’s ambivalent amity toward the U.S. has already fomented such dire enmity for America as to spawn Osama Bin Laden and his minions, imagine the pestilent seeds that could be sewn by direct occupation.

For more information visit: greenwood.cr.usgs.gov

www.theage.com.au March 20 2003

America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.

George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.

The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

The document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.

According to the document, written three months before Bush became president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It sets out 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 principles and interests".

The question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?

Howard says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national interests. How?

To answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.

The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water resources.

According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".

This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.

It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.

It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.

In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US hegemony.

If the US can control Middle East oil production, it can control the industrial development of Europe, China and Japan (and Australia), to prevent a rival to its hegemony emerging. But to do this it must retain the greenback as the world currency.

It is possible to make a weak case based on realpolitik why Blair is along for the ride with Bush in Iraq (BP and Shell), but it is impossible to see what Australia will get out of this adventure even if it "succeeds".

Bush personifies the American quest for absolute security. Americans don't yet understand or care that this status can only be achieved by making everybody else absolutely insecure.

This is why the most lasting thing to come out of the war with Iraq is likely to be the faster development of a unified Western Europe and an economically powerful China to challenge US hegemony.

Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist. dissentmagazine@ozemail.com.au

www.barbadosadvocate.com Web Posted - Wed Mar 19 2003 By David Hinkson

DEPUTY Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Billie Miller said that Barbados cannot support the premise on which United States President George W. Bush is proposing to invade Iraq, and is wondering which country in the world would be next to face a preemptive strike from the US armed forces.

Speaking during debate on the 2003-04 Estimates in Parliament, Miller said the conditions for preemptive strikes had not been clearly thought out and that the US, which was supposed to represent the leadership of the free world, “had shown no little disrespect for the UN in recent years” even though it expected other nations to follow the rules of that organisation and other international agencies.

She said the pending action indicated that the processes the United Nations had put in place for the peaceful resolution of disputes had been overtaken by new principles and concepts promoting regime changes and preemptive strikes.

The Deputy Prime Minister said it was a serious cause for concern, and in pointing out current trouble spots in the world such as Palestine, Venezuela and Haiti, wondered whether the day would come when a more developed nation would suggest to Barbados who its Prime Minister or Government ought to be.

She noted that CARICOM Heads of Government at their recent meeting in Trinidad had reached a consensus on the matter which stated that diplomacy and dialogue were the best way for the two countries to resolve the conflict, and were “deeply troubled” by the human tragedy of war and its adverse effects on global economic stability.

The Deputy Prime Minister said Barbados will have to divert slender and hard-fought for resources to prepare ourselves for the damage that a war will cause, including building up food supplies, looking at our food security, and upgrading the security at our air and sea ports as well as at our overseas missions, particularly those in the United States, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, Brussels and Geneva, “where the alert is shining on orange now and may move to red within hours”.

She said Government also had to be concerned about the security of our foreign service officers in those countries, and that the Ministry of Tourism was also trying to determine what contingency plans could be put in place to promote our tourism programme in case the war breaks out.

news.bbc.co.uk Monday, 29 January, 2001, 11:09 GMT By Katty Kay

A majority of President Bush's new cabinet are millionaires and several are multimillionaires.

According to information from financial disclosure reports, released by the Office of Government Ethics, most cabinet appointees have amassed their fortunes in stock options.

Now a Washington-based think tank is questioning whether some of the cabinet members could face a possible conflict of interest.

It is not unusual for American politicians to be rich. For the last two decades more than half of all cabinet members have been millionaires.

Strong ties

But the number of millionaires in this new cabinet highlights the influence of money in American politics.

"You don¹t come to Washington and give up your life and business unless you have a lot of money," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.

What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.

Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed.

Opening exploration

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron.

The concentration of energy connections is so pronounced that some critics are calling the Bush government the "oil and gas administration".

Condoleezza Rice: Was a director of Exxon

There are also questions about how energy policy decisions may be affected by the private financial interests of so many senior cabinet members.

The Bush administration has already made it clear that it would be interested in opening up oil exploration in Alaska.

It is a move opposed by environmental groups but favoured by energy companies. With oil prices rising in recent months this issue has taken on new urgency.

Political apathy

And this is not just the era of wealthy cabinet members.

Don Evans: Held stock in oil exploration company

One third of this senate are millionaires and 10 of the major presidential candidates also had financial fortunes in the millions.

If wealth is a prerequisite of political office, it appears that poverty is often a hallmark of political apathy.

Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity said: "There is a perception of wealthy folks running the government and those who are not wealthy not participating in government."

Of the 100 million Americans who do not vote, the overwhelming majority are lower middle class or poor.