www.euobserver.com

Portugal is not going to declare war on Baghdad, nor will it send troops or participate in any military operations. (Photo: Jan Oberg) Portugal will not participate militarily in an attack on Iraq, according to the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durão Barroso.

This announcement coincides with the release of a US State Department list of 30 countries that have pledged support over a war with Iraq. Portugal was not one of the named countries.

During a parliamentary debate Tuesday, Mr Durão Barroso guaranteed that support given to George Bush was solely "political" and that Portugal is "not going to declare war on Iraq, nor will it send troops or participate in any military operations."

Allowing the use of airbase Portugal will however allow the use of its airbase at Lajes in the Azores, which hosted the "summit of war" on Sunday. Supporting the US, the prime minister said, will provide Portugal with greater stability and security in the fight against terrorism.

The Portuguese opposition parties have announced that they are going to table a motion of censure over the Government's position and handling of the situation. They have accused the prime minister of violating the constitution, of turning the country into a terrorist target and of disregarding the position of President Jorge Sampaio.

The President is due to make a statement regarding impending military action. Opponents to the prime minister are hoping that the President will declare that war against Iraq is illegitimate and some privately wish that he will threaten to dissolve Parliament, though this is unlikely.

Gulf of opinion Support for Mr Durão Barroso from his own party has been virtually unanimous, unlike his counterparts in Spain and Great Britain. And answering his critics, the prime minister accused the opposition of trying to start an internal war between the political parties. He went on to add that relations between the government and the President, "had probably not been better between since 25 April 1974," (the day of Portuguese independence, after the death of Salazar.)

However there has been a gulf of opinion between Mr Durão Barroso and President Jorge Sampaio.

Mr Sampaio has argued that a war against Iraq without UN Security Council approval would risk seriously undermining the legitimacy of the UN and stated that unilateral actions by Washington would put the future of the United Nations at risk. He also said that the crisis had uncovered acute differences within the internal unity of the European Union, which could damage the creation of a European foreign policy.

Spain providing 900 soldiers for post-war peace keeping Meanwhile, the Spanish prime minister, José Maria Aznar has announced that Spain would not send troops to fight against Iraq, but would instead provide 900 soldiers to be used for post-war peace keeping and humanitarian duties.

It has also offered to provide three ships, including the hospital-ship Galicia. Like Portugal, it would allow its bases to be used by US and UK forces. Spain was only one of two countries holding a rotating seat on the UN Security Council to support the US and the UK.

See press Articles Jornal de Noticias O Publico Diario de Noticias

Written by James Keighley Edited by Honor Mahony

www.euobserver.com

Europe - more divided than ever over war against Iraq.

The war in Iraq began in the early hours of Thursday morning. Following an address by American President George W. Bush around two hours after the expiry of his 48 hour deadline for Saddam Hussein to step down, aerial attacks started in earnest against Iraq.

"Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory," said the American president.

Meanwhile governments all over Europe are holding a series of crisis meetings. The Italian government called a crisis meeting for early this morning, while Spanish premier José María Aznar held telephone calls with the American president and the UK premier Tony Blair after the military attack began, reports Le Figaro.

Mr Aznar is expected to speak later this morning after holding crisis talks with King Juan Carlos and head of the socialist opposition José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

German chancellor Gerhard Schröder arrived in his office minutes after the Anglo-American attack started against Baghdad. He spoke to French president Jacques Chirac and Russian leader Vladimir Putin - the three were united against the war - and he is expected to give a televised speech later.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt deplored the start of war and denounced the flouting of international law, the French news agency AFP reported.

Tony Blair will convene a war cabinet with his closest ministers this morning, reports the BBC.

The UN has been left in tatters because of the diplomatic fights about whether to push for a second UN resolution. Its Secretary General Kofi Annan said his thoughts were with the ordinary people of Iraq as they faced the "disaster of war."

He warned the US and UK that "under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict falls on the belligerents."

All EU leaders, despite the huge tension caused by the start of the war and the harsh words flung back and forth in the run up to it - particularly between the UK and France - are for the moment still intending to meet this evening in Brussels for the European Spring Council.

See press Articles La Libre Belgique Die Welt Izvestia BBC Sueddeutsche Zeitung CNN Gazeta Wyborcza Le Figaro

Written by Honor Mahony Edited by Sharon Spiteri

www.thestar.com Mar. 18, 2003. 07:57 AM

NEW YORK—World oil prices eased further yesterday as dealers wagered that the looming war in Iraq would be short and inflict only limited damage on Middle East oil flows.

The possibility that the United States could release oil from its 600-million-barrel emergency oil stockpile further weighed on prices, which have fallen more than 8 per cent over the last three trading sessions.

"The market believes the war will be short and quick, so there should be a relatively soft landing for crude prices," said Charlie Luke at Aberdeen Asset Management.

U.S. light crude futures dropped 45 cents (U.S.) to $34.93 per barrel, down from a 12-year high of $39.99 late last month. The current price is $6 short of a $41.15 all-time peak during the 1990-91 Gulf War crisis.

Brent crude oil fell 65 cents to $29.48 per barrel on London's International Petroleum Exchange, which was forced to close for two hours when anti-war protesters raided the London market waving banners saying "Oil fuels war."

Prices fell as the United States and its allies ended diplomatic efforts to win U.N. approval for an ultimatum to Iraq, clearing the way to launch war without Security Council authority.

Speculative investors who fuelled a 60 per cent rise in oil prices in just over three months are now selling to avoid being caught out by a sudden price slide if Middle East oil flows escape severe disruption.

In the first Gulf War, prices sank from over $30 to barely $20 when the United States launched its January, 1991, offensive as it became clear that Iraq would not harm oil fields in Saudi Arabia.

But prices could go back up quickly if Iraq inflicted substantial damage on its own oil fields, or the war was prolonged, analysts said. Iraq and its Gulf neighbours together pump about 40 per cent of global crude exports.

U.S. plans to secure Iraq's northern Kirkuk oil fields quickly in the event of war have been undercut by Turkey's refusal to let U.S. troops through its territory.

"The market is betting on a short, straightforward campaign that would be over fairly quickly," said Steve Turner of Commerzbank in London.

"But there is definitely upside if the war is long and difficult and there are repercussions across the Middle East."

A cold winter and prolonged supply hitch from Venezuela simultaneously drained commercial stockpiles to historic lows, and the OPEC oil cartel has little spare production capacity to cover further supply disruption.

U.S. gasoline pump prices already have hit a new all-time high of $1.719 a gallon for an average price of regular unleaded, the American Automobile Association said yesterday. A sustained increase in energy costs could weaken an already soft economy, analysts say.

Iraq's U.N.-supervised oil exports, which recently averaged almost 2 million barrels daily, will slow to a trickle this week as dealers have stopped buying for fear of an imminent attack.

Iraq's two authorized export terminals in Turkey and the Gulf were both idle yesterday.

Further pressuring prices, the chairman of the U.S. House energy and commerce committee said the energy department told him the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, is ready to release oil to counter a disruption in crude supplies, if necessary.

"The SPR has, for some time now, transitioned from the fill' mode to the flow' mode and is prepared to flow upon orders from the president," Republican Billy Tauzin said in a letter to fellow lawmakers.

The United States and other members of the International Energy Agency has said it will allow OPEC oil producers to try to cover any shortages in war, releasing inventories from emergency stockpiles only as a last resort.

REUTERS news agency

www.businessweek.com MARCH 19, 2003 NEWSMAKER Q&A

Dissension over Iraq has dealt "a nasty blow" to the world body, says Canada's U.S. ambassador, but "it's just too important not to survive" Despite his 36 years in public service, Michael Kergin, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. since October, 2000, could never have anticipated the challenges he would face during his time in Washington post-September 11. But he has about as well-rounded a background as any diplomat could have: He was ambassador to Cuba from 1986 to 1989 and has served as Assistant Secretary for Foreign & Defence Policy in Ottawa.
In recent years, Canada and the U.S. have had growing differences on trade issues, and Canada came under criticism after September 11 for being "a weak link" because of what some in the U.S. viewed as a too-porous border. Plus, Canada, like many of America's traditional allies, has not supported President George Bush's willingness to enter Iraq for military action without a second U.N. resolution. Kergin recently dropped in at BusinessWeek's Washington bureau to chat with trade and homeland-security correspondent Paul Magnusson and other journalists. He spoke at length about the situation in Iraq and his country's position. Edited excerpts of the conversation follow: Q: What's Canada's stance on Iraq? A: We've been very supportive of U.S. efforts to get a [U.N.] Security Council resolution [backing military action]. And we've supplied naval vessels to Operation Enduring Freedom in the Gulf. We've placed troops in Afghanistan and lost four of our military there. The second element is homeland security and how Canada fits into the defense of North America. After September 11, we suddenly had real issues at the border. [Anyone] at the border was suddenly guilty until proven innocent, and we had backups of 20 to 30 miles of trucks and rail traffic coming across the border. This is particularly important for both countries because we have about $1.3 billion worth of goods a day coming across that border, 80% of which goes by land transportation systems. You back that up, and it's catastrophic for the Canadian economy, and it's very damaging to the American economy. Q: Should the U.S. act unilaterally in Iraq? A: Canada believes in our U.N., right or wrong. Canadians believe very much that the U.N. is part of our multilateral system. We have 33 million people who think this is very much the way to go. We recognize that Saddam has to disarm, [but] he has to be given time to do that. And we have something now that we hate to see -- a split between North America and Europe. In many ways we're part of both. If we don't get a consensus and there's war, it ensures this will damage the U.N. for a time. But you could reinvent it. It's a nasty blow, but over time the U.N. will recover. It's just too important not to survive. Q: How does this affect NATO? A: NATO is a little different. If a member of NATO requests under Article Four [which says "the Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the Parties is threatened"], we have no option. Also NATO is more and more transforming itself into a political organization. In the short term, there's lots of bad feeling, no question about it. Q: The U.S. vs. France dispute. Is the U.S. acting like another Roman empire? A: The major difference is the Romans occupied enormous amounts of territory while some say the U.S. occupies areas in an economic way and in business practices. But you can't call the U.S. an imperial power in any classical way. The French are reacting to [the idea of the U.S. being] a hyperpower. The EU under French leadership see their role as acting as a kind of balance to the U.S. So we're getting back to the old system of checks and balances or balance of power. To me it's unfortunate that...you have megaphone diplomacy now. This isn't the way allies should be doing things. I hope the history of the alliance between the U.S. and France will once again kick in. But at the moment it's not a pretty sight. Q: Is the U.S. acting arrogantly? A: If the [Administration] had spent a good bit more time discussing this, it would have been better.... Generally speaking, Canadians are very pro-America. But polls are running 70% against acting unilaterally in Iraq without U.N. approval, at least insofar as Canada's involvement. Q: How do Canadians feel about free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is almost 10 years old now? A: The polls are running very strongly in favor of NAFTA. Our difficult time with NAFTA was in 1994, just after it was signed. Our industries had to make extraordinary adjustments to that, but our economy is now doing very well. We have the strongest growth in the G8 [Group of Eight industrialized countries]. Q: Is Canada concerned about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons with missile warheads that can reach the Pacific coast of North America? A: North Korea is just as much a concern for Canada as it is for the U.S. We need multilateral diplomacy. But the time will come, we believe, for some bilateral discussions. So far, we've left things to the Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese to work out. Q: Are U.S. complaints about the Canadian border being too porous valid? Is enough scrutiny being given to potential terrorists? A: We have an extremely close-knit intelligence and immigration-information sharing system. Little by little some of the changes we made are working. We tightened up some of the procedures. We've issued smart cards now, and we find that most of the refugees that enter Canada come up through the U.S. There are reasons for that -- perhaps they feel that the social services in Canada are more generous. But it's now understood that if they come to either country and apply for refugee status, they will be judged based on the criteria of the country they originally entered. In Canada, we're more aware of who's in our country. The Immigration & Naturalization Service says there are between 8 million and 12 million people who are undocumented [in the U.S]. In Canada, they talk about maybe 80,000 to 90,000 people, which is comparatively a much smaller proportion of our population. Q: What about a North American energy policy? A: Canada is by far the largest supplier of energy to the U.S. in oil and oil-related products -- ahead of Saudi Arabia and Mexico and, increasingly, Venezuela. Fourteen percent of natural gas in the U.S. comes from Canada, and hydroelectricity comes across from Quebec and Labrador so that people are starting to look at Canada much more in terms of energy security.

Edited by Patricia O'Connell

www.falkland-malvinas.com Mercosur Wednesday, 19 March

All Mercosur members and most of Latinamerican countries are against military action in action and in spite of US President George Bush 48 hours ultimatum to Iraq, the region still expects a diplomatic solution to the confrontation including the full disarmament of the Baghdad regime.

Colombia and Bolivia are the only two countries that support the US decision arguing that the diplomatic process can’t be kept indefinitely and because United Nations resolutions must be enforced. However they agree that all paths must be exhausted to avoid war.

Mexico and Chile, non permanent members of the Security Council reacted to the ultimatum demanding recognition of the letter and spirit of the UN chart and regretting that “we have been unable in the Security Council to find a solution”.

In a rare intervention British Primer Minister Tony Blair praised in Parliament Chilean president Ricardo Lagos constructive efforts to muster a consensus in the Security Council, that apparently was quiet close to be achieved.

In Buenos Aires Chief cabinet minister Alfredo Atanasof met with French Ambassador Paul Dijou and revealed “permanent contacts” with Mercosur and Rio Group members to subscribe a joint Latinamerican declaration in the coming 48 hours.

Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva talked to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and other world leaders “trying to find a solution that could avoid the military conflict” said a presidential advisor in Brasilia.

Venezuela and Ecuador ratified their unconditional commitment to International Law and a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict, adding that they only recognize Security Council resolutions.

Colombia in an official release supported the American-British-Spanish “Azores Declaration”, but Foreign Secretary Carolina Barco said that “Baghdad still has time to completely comply with UN Resolution 1441 demanding full disarmament”.

Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Saavedra stressed that “dialogue can’t go on indefinitely otherwise no one will take the United Nations seriously”.

In Spain, the country’s main newspapers underlined the contrast between Mr. José Aznar who aligned the country behind Washington and London, and the Mexican and Chilean Presidents stances, resisting United States pressures, and even presenting a compromise solution.