www.dailybruin.ucla.edu By Brad Greenberg DAILY BRUIN CONTRIBUTOR bgreenberg@media.ucla.edu Stationed at the bottom of Kerckhoff steps, Grant Rabenn was one of the first pro-war activists students saw as they walked down Bruin Walk Wednesday. Rabenn, a fourth-year political science and history student, was protesting a protest. "Is the world better after you support these socialist causes?" he asked. Rabenn was backed by other war supporters, including Democrats, Republicans, Independents and members of other political parties. Jon English, a member of the Bruin Democrats and first-year political science student, said calling for "education not devastation" was hypocritical. "When they walk out of class, that pisses me off," he said. English could be seen shouldering a boom box playing the Pledge of Allegiance. CATHERINE JUN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Graduate student Garth Meckler (left) and high school student Aaron Laran (right) debate the issues of the war in Iraq. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other students held signs reading, "Saddam loves walkouts," and some handed out fliers reading, "Love Hitler? Then you'll love Saddam." The "Love Hitler?" flier went on to show similarities between Hussein and Adolf Hitler in the areas of genocide, conquest of neighbors and nuclear weapon production attempts. "They (anti-war protesters) don't know what they are fighting for. All they care about is blaming America first, they know nothing of the Kurdish people," Rabenn declared. Rabenn said it is the United States' responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Owen Paun, a fifth-year European studies student, agreed with Rabenn. "America is the only country with the military capabilities to defend the Iraqi people," Paun said. Paun, who said his father received two bronze medals and two purple hearts in Vietnam, said Americans' involvement in that war was wrong. "Iraq is different. The Iraqi people are not going to fight for Saddam like the Viet Cong did (in the Vietnam war)," Paun said. When asked about an anti-war sign that read, "Stop fuhrer Bush," Rabenn said the protesters' hyperbole was a testament of their ignorance. "You would never see a protest like this in Iraq," he said. Emily Currin, a fourth-year political science student, said signs declaring President Bush as incompetent were unfounded and she put her faith in him. "God knows I'd rather listen to someone who got Cs at Yale, than a bunch of spoiled, liberal UCLA brats who skip class to go to some stupid rally," Currin said. Rabenn's brother, Chase, a first-year undeclared student, said anti-war protesters had no arguments and were just spewing rhetoric. "All I hear is no blood for oil. If this were a war for oil we would be attacking Venezuela," Chase said. Chase added that claims for peace seemed contradictory, coming from protesters who tore down a pro-war sign and who Chase said were trying to pick fights with some war supporters. "They say they want peace, peace for who? Peace for themselves so they can sleep at night, or peace for the Iraqi people who are dying every day?" Chase asked. Currin said it was important for someone to represent the United States' interests. "Everyone seems to be just supporting the interest of countries that want to kill us," she said. As the protest moved from Westwood Plaza to Murphy Hall, the pro-war activists could be seen leading the line of anti-war protesters behind them. "We felt that we would make a bigger impact in the front," said fourth-year physics and math student Jeremy Werner. "It's important Americans know that some college students still love their country," he said.

www.smh.com.au By Margo Kingston March 6 2003

Hi. No movement on the impasse, so we watch the growing turmoil around the world and wait until the war begins or our 'leaders' find another way.

On Monday in Unreal Reality, I asked if the Iraqi people really did want to be invaded to be free, and quoted Webdiary's only Iraqi contributor, Zainab Al-Badry, who wrote last September:

Like any Iraqi, nothing is dearer to my heart than to live long enough to witness the day my country and my people are set free from this dictator and his regime. However, can anyone blame us if we do not trust the US and back its efforts to oust Saddam? I have been in Iraq during the Gulf war and witnessed how the American troops abandoned my people and left them to the mercies of Saddam and his thugs. Why would I trust the US again? I have no doubt now that the US wants to get rid of Saddam - what I don't accept (and indeed I find it insulting to my intelligence) is someone telling me (or the whole world for that matter) that the US is doing so for all the good reasons in the world, or that oil is a "secondary factor". Would the US or any of its allies send their armies and incur all those heavy expenses if Iraq didn't happen to float on oil?(Saddam's will to power)

Zainab was inspired to reenter the debate, and detail a split in her family on the question:

I am still here and alive (God only knows how). I haven't stopped following the Webdiary, in fact I became addicted to it, however I chose not to write for more than one reason. First, what's the point? No matter how much we said and did, the 'super power' of the world had made its mind and there is no way back.

Second, I feel I am restricted by my 'limited English' - I can never put my thoughts in words the way I want them.

And third, to my deepest appreciation and relief , I often find that there are many many people who can and are expressing very similar opinions to mine on Webdiary.

However, I feel now that I have to say something as an Iraqi, views which are shared by everyone I know here except my husband!! But I will come to that later. I just want to remind everyone who is advocating war as the one and only solution that for decades the Iraqi people have suffered under this regime. Millions of Iraqi as well as non-Iraqi people have been tortured or died for one reason only, and that is to to keep Saddam in power because he served the West's and especially the US's interests. And now, just because he is not good enough for them any more, the Iraqi people have to pay the price again with their lives to get rid of him. Now how fair is that?

You wanted to know what the Iraqi people think of this coming war. For myself I believe that since I live here so far away from my country and enjoying the freedom and security of this wonderful society I have no right in imposing my views on them. Yes, I lived there for 31 years and all my family is still there but also I've been away for the last eight years. I haven't shared their miserable lives and harsh circumstance (things are only got worse since I left back in 1994).

I oppose this war because I cannot comprehend the outcome - for me the ends do not justify the means in this case. Saddam must be removed but I cannot accept the horrible price that my people have to pay for it. Mind you I am fairly sure that most if not all the Iraqi people there see this coming war as their only chance for freedom, but also bear in mind that a sinking person clings to any straw to save his life.

People in Iraq do not see any of the consequences of this coming war except it might give them their freedom. Their death and the destruction of their country is a side issue for them - they are used to wars, they've been living in a continuous war for the last 23 years. Ask any one of them and the most they would say is, 'What more could happen to us? If I die who cares, death is freedom?'

For us here it is different. We know the full story, we are exposed to the whole picture, we live in a democracy where, as you very rightly said, we elect our leaders to find solutions, not to demand them from us. If the only solution our leaders can come up with is war, then God help us.

I know many people will jump at me and say, 'What is the alternative if we don't go to war?' I don't know, but I do know that the masterminds who put Saddam in power and kept and fed him for all those years are surely capable, if they are willing, of coming up with a different solution to spare people's lives.

Lastly, it makes me really sad to see my husband as one of the people who thinks that war is the only solution, not because he accepts wars but because he sees no other way to get rid of this regime. And that's where we differ. As I said, I'm sure there is another solution. The problem is 'they' don't want it.

I received this from a friend today on the state of play in Turkey. The idea of American pressure to reverse a vote of Parliament is frightening. Surely it risks the Turkish people turning to a more fundamentalist Islamic party than the moderate regime now in power? I hope this isn't true:

The following is from a message from a Turkish colleague: You must have heard about the refusal of the Turkish Parliament to deploy US troops to attack Iraq. The usual mechanisms (bribery, threat, blackmail) are under way to revert the decision. This morning I received a message from a colleague who has attended a teleconference organised by Moody's Turkish banks. In the conference Moody's EXPLICITLY demanded the revert of the decision, OR ELSE the credit rating of Turkey would be decreased. They were also functional in triggering the 1994 crisis here. Stephen Little, Manchester.

Today, a report on how South America views the war from Australian journalist Miriam Taylor in Columbia. Then Brian Bahnisch's predicts the aftermath of war and Justin Bell argues that containment is the only 'solution'.

To begin, Scott Burchill sends this piece from today's The Guardian and asks: "Where is the federal government's legal advice?" He's referring to the government's constant claim that it has a "different view" to the vast majority of legal experts that a unilateral US invasion of Iraq would be illegal, and to the question of whether the US-sponsored second resolution would authorise war.

I've experienced the government's attitude to legal advice before, and it's rancid. During the Wik debate, the overwhelming majority of legal experts wrote opinions and gave evidence to committees that the Wik bill was racially discriminatory and in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The government said it had contrary advice but steadfastly refused to reveal it. Attorney-General Daryl Williams intervened in the Senate committee process to ban the Australian Law Reform Commission giving evidence on the matter. Finally, a scrap of the government's advice was leaked. It did not back the government line, but still Williams refused to release the advice. The government releases legal advice when it suits, refuses when it doesn't, and has no compunction in lying about the advice it has. On at least one matter of national importance, it refused to brief its top legal officer, then Solicitor-General Gavan Griffith QC, because it feared the advice it would get. On this, as in many matters, this government has proved itself utterly untrustworthy.

Fresh resolution 'gives no authority for war'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Wednesday March 5, 2003

The Guardian

Tony Blair's political dilemmas over a possible military attack on Iraq increased today, with reports that the government's attorney general may resign if Britain goes to war without clear authorisation from the United Nations.

Legal opinion varies on the basis for war under resolution 1441, but yesterday Cherie Booth's own legal chambers, Matrix, advised there was no authority for war without an unambiguous fresh resolution.

Now it has emerged that there are fears within the government's legal service about the exact provisions of international law for a US-UK attack. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has already flown to Washington on an unpublicised trip to discuss the legal ramifications with the US attorney general, John Ashcroft.

Lord Goldsmith's job is to advise ministers on the legality of all their actions, but his office has refused to divulge his opinion on a future war with Iraq. This morning he was forced to deny to the Financial Times rumours that he may resign if bombs are dropped without a second UN resolution.

His office is quoted as saying this scenario was "not something he recognises", but the FT quotes an unnamed mandarin as saying: "Civil servants are meant to respect the law. There will be lots of resignations from the government legal service. Lord Goldsmith could go."

The FT reported last year that the attorney general warned the cabinet any war designed primarily to remove Saddam Hussein would be illegal. However, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said last week he was unworried by the legal debate.

He said: "As a lawyer myself, I have always taken the view that if the law was so clear, you wouldn't need my profession. So I accept there are going to be differences of legal opinion."

Yesterday the Green party, CND and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade obtained a ruling from Matrix chambers that the draft wording of the US-UK second resolution - that Iraq had "failed to take the final opportunity" of 1441 and the UN remained "seized of the matter" - was not sufficient authority for military action. It has already argued that resolution 1441 does not in itself constitute grounds for war...

Recommendations

Simon Mansfield recommends defenselink, a US department of defence briefing, with slides, on "U.S. military practices and procedures to minimize casualties to non-combatants and prevent collateral damage during military operations".

Max Phillips: "If the UN Security Council vetoes the US attack on Iraq and the US still makes its war, there is one measure that UN can still take - under a procedure called "Uniting for Peace" the UN General Assembly can demand an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal." There are no vetoes available to any country in this motion, just a straight vote by all members of the UN. Such a procedure has happened 10 times, notably in response to the 1956 Suez invasion of Egypt. See zmag."

Activism

The planned US invasion of Iraq has sparked what might be the world's biggest mobilisation of artists against the war - film and stage actors and directors, painters, documentary makers, you name it. Yesterday was the international day of poetry against the war. Brian McKinlay recommends poetsagainstthewar.

Lesley Pinson sends this request from the moveon group:

We've launched an emergency petition from citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. We'll be delivering the list of signers and your comments to the 15 member states of the Security Council on THURSDAY, MARCH 6. If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously important and powerful message - people from all over the world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But we really need your help, and soon. Please sign and ask your friends and colleagues to sign TODAY at moveonemergency.

We can stop this tragedy from unfolding. But we need to speak together, and we need to do so now. Please ask your friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances - anyone you know who shares this concern - to sign on today. As the New York Times put it, "There may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion." The Bush Administration's been flexing its muscles. Now let's flex ours.

Denise Parkinson: "There's a WOMEN FOR PEACE march and rally on Sunday 9th March, an action endorsed by the Walk Against the War Coalition. If you can, bring an empty stroller to symbolise the Children of Iraq facing death and devastation in this catastrophic war. 2.00 pm: peaceful assembly of women of Sydney, including women with children and women with empty strollers, at the Parade Ground, Government House, Botanic Gardens. Enter by Garden Gates, immediate left of the Conservatorium, Macquarie St."

Oiled by Distance

by Miriam Taylor in Bogota, Columbia

Iraq is a long way from South America, both in distance and in culture. Yet, the link between many South American nations and the USA is the same as for Iraq. Oil.

Colombia and Venezuela have high oil production, and succour transnational oil companies. Venezuela competed with Arab nations in oil output until the Chavez Presidency induced massive strikes in the industry.

National and international oil companies pay substantial amounts of money to the large armed revolutionary groups in Colombia, Venezuela and Bolivia, to keep the oil lines free of bombs. The Canon Limon oil line of Occidental Petroleum in Colombia suffered 200 bomb attacks in 2001. The bribe dollars buy armaments to fight governments supported by the USA. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two Colombian television and radio networks blatantly calculate the financial benefit for the oil industries of South America should the USA attack Iraq and destroy their oil production. The oil industry is pragmatic. War on an oil nation is good news for them.

Many military and social aid dollars flow into South American nations, particularly Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. The money comes from blocs which support intervention in Iraq - principally the USA and the European Union. You don't bite the hand that feeds.

The voices of these governments support any USA strategy, but it is a silent consent. The mainstream press of South American countries report the daily thrusts of the intervention plan as if through a veil, being mostly non-committal and if critical, then gently so. However, their enthusiastic reportage of the recent world-wide anti-war protests sparked many editorials in support of peace.

Venezuela is struggling to meet its promises to resume oil exports to the USA. Chavez, who sees himself as the second Bolivar, does not resile from condemning the imminent war on Iraq, seen by the Venezuelan press as a fait accompli.

The Bolivian government of President Sanchez de Lozada is beset by a different intervention, that of the International Monetary Fund. The Bolivian cabinet is falling apart under the weight of massive pressures, including that of increasing its oil exports to the USA. Its media are too obsessed by these concerns to be troubled by the parallels with Iraq.

The Argentinian President Duhalde is similarly beset, but this week he openly criticised the IMF's role in Bolivia's current hardships. Argentinian editorials call on the EU to take a stand for what is morally right, non-intervention. A tinge of the same sentiment runs through Brasilian newspapers.

Chile's left-wing papers call for courage from the EU to stand against a USA-led war on Iraq. They state what the other national medias imply, that this is an oil war, nothing more, fueled by Bush.

Given the long histories of Spain and Portugal in this continent, South American media look to their former colonists for their stances on any international issue. The equivocations of the EU are seen as the last light of hope in preventing the war on Iraq.

As I write this, I am listening to one of the national Colombian talk-back radio shows. The last caller said, "La paz por toda la vida" or 'Peace for all living, all our lives'. Wearied by 40 years of war the people on my streets here in Bogota say leave Iraq in peace.

Brian Bahnisch in Brisbane

The invasion will happen - Bush and co won't pack up and go home and their troops apparently 'degrade' rapidly if left out in the desert. I'm told heat doesn't matter, as initially it will happen at night when there is no moon ie later this month. After the initial blitz the word is that medium force will be applied and it will take about 2 months.

Now here's the downside. Iraq may well prove ungovernable, terrorism will be greatly boosted and the risk of dispersal of WMDs into the hands of terrorists in the chaos after 'victory' will be overwhelmingly high.

Prior to all that, however, there is a fair bet that Saddam will actually kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis with WMDs either directed at the advancing enemy or actually directed at his own people. This is in addition to the civilian casualties, refugees and displaced people inside Iraq from the 'friendly' fire.

Saddam is likely to set the oil wells on fire. Each one needs to be put out separately and whereas in Kuwait each took about 2 or 3 days, in Iraq each could take about 2 to 3 weeks, according to the experts. If this happens the environment will be seriously fucked with oil entering the groundwater in the Mesopotanian basin.

Under these circumstances 'muscular containment' is the only ethically acceptable way to go. Therein lies a huge problem, because the Yanks are the only ones who scare Saddam, and if they don't attack they may just go home. That is why in the end they will attack.

Nevertheless, I should have a suggestion on what to do without the Yanks, but I really do have to go and cut grass. Old ladies are depending on me! Sorry!

Justin Bell

I am an Aussie graduate student living in Seattle. This is my go at tying together the emotional American cultural impetus behind Bush administration policy.

There are four general strands apparent in arguments about Iraq that cut across traditional left-right ideological lines.

The pro-war left argues that the war will liberate the oppressed peoples of Iraq and permit democracy. The anti-war left argument says the war will kill more people than Saddam and that war is primarily about liberating oil for the United States.

The pro war right argument as developed by the Bush administration started with the argument that after 9/11 it is too dangerous to leave the world's worst weapons in the hands of the world's worst dictator, and has since tacked on a sort of nouveau domino theory in reverse - that the implementation of democracy in Iraq will inevitably lead to a more stable Middle East.

The anti war right argument applies the tried and true economic rationalist cost benefit analysis to the problem and suggests that all but the most optimistic projection of war and its aftermath will mean a net downside for the US.

Both the left and right versions of the pro war implementation of democracy positions are flawed because there is insufficient weight given to the interconnectedness of church and state in all Arab nations. None are democracies in the secular, Western sense, but all harbour populations bristling with deep-seated distrust, jealousy, anger and religious intolerance toward the the US.

An overarching unilateralist democratic imperialism doctrine that propounds the imposition of democracy in Iraq has much in common with the thinking behind the discredited domino theory that saw the US send William Calley, Agent Orange and carpet bombing to Vietnam in a vain attempt to save that country and impose democracy.

Saddam has none of the romantic appeal of Uncle Ho, but the critical failure of both theories lies in the attempt to apply an overarching geopolitical theory to a particular nation and leader without adequate consideration of the appeal of nationalistic sentiment and each leader's capacity to harness such sentiment. Both the domino theory and the nouveau domino theory are drawn from US policy making that has a tendency to see issues in black and white terms; Communism v Democracy; Despotism v Democracy.

The suggestion that Iraqis will welcome American troops is misguided when you consider Saddam's capacity to appeal to nationalistic sentiment. Any leader able to launch and maintain an offensive war against a neighbour that lasted 10 years, incur horrendous casualties, and then persuade his military to take on 28 allied nations in 1990-91 is a leader with a proven ability to appeal to nationalistic sentiment.

While it is true that the Iraqi military was overrun in the first Gulf War, it is not true that Iraqi units refused to fight. Many elements of the Iraqi army fought very hard - and not just Republican Guard elements. In Gulf War Redux, we ought to expect nothing less - and neither ought we impute the stupidity to our foe that is implicit in suggestions that the military will be overrun again.

Saddam learnt from his mistakes in the war with Iran. He has had 12 years to ruminate about tactical mistakes made in the first Gulf War. This rematch will not be fought on battlefields that favor American technological superiority - it will be a bloody urban mess.

As for the 'worst weapons, worst dictator' argument, this is the foundation for a position that because Saddam or other dictators could possibly give weapons to terrorists, the US has no choice but to remove Saddam and his ilk from power. There are at least three responses:

1. The logical extension of this strategy would see the global cop US busting down the doors of all countries that could possibly give weapons to terrorists. Countries such as Libya; Iraq; North Korea; Iran; Cuba, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc would be on this list. If the criteria is any dictator that COULD give weapons to terrorists, then the list of countries to invade is very long indeed, as would be the casualty lists for the US military and the draft lists that would be needed for replacements.

2. If the aim of the policy is to prevent WMD getting into the hands of terrorists, there is no reason to restrict the policy to dictators who may put WMD into terrorist hands. There would also need to be pre-emptive elimination of any person who could do so. This class of persons is wide indeed - members of the Russian military with questionable personal lives, religious Pakistani generals etc. The ramifications of implementing such a wide ranging global cop policy could include a withdrawal of international co-operation with broader US foreign policy or law enforcement, as the policy gives no quarter to namby-pamby considerations of respect for national sovereignty.

3. The consequences of broad pre emptive invasions would be a terminal case of imperial overreach, bringing about the precipitous decline of an American empire bankrupted by loss of financial, human and political capital. No American ally (and the word has a looser meaning of late precisely because of the overreaching, impractical nature of proposed Bush administration policy) would go along with such a policy. As it stands, the US has a very isolated coalition of the willing that does not even include Canada, or a single nation with a population that is behind this war - and this is before it has invaded Iraq.

In a textbook world, with an assumption of unlimited US military resources and unlimited international goodwill for the US, the pre-emption policy might be worthwhile. The US has neither unlimited military resources, nor does it have an inexhaustible reservoir of international goodwill. The failure of the world's worst rationale for action is that it incorporates an simplistic and unrealistic view of American power - a belief that America can just invade the Middle East and not suffer blowback in terms of terrorist consequences and America's aspirations to world leadership.

However the anti-war left argument it is facile, though well meaning. This position is a sandwich of gullibility and pacifism, with a healthy pinch of conspiracy theory. It would be great if everyone decided that there would be no more wars, but outside the confines of the EU there are nasty little tinpot dictators like Saddam.

Given the militaristic history of humanity we can't cling to the hope that we will see an end to war in this millennium. The 'No blood for oil' mantra is just another way of saying no war, ever. Saddam has demonstrated no compunction in engaging in war for material gain, as he did in the invasions of Iran and Kuwait. The logical extension of the no blood for oil argument would be to allow Saddam take any of his neighbour's oil fields.

The close ties between the present administration and the oil industry are a matter of public record. Although its ham handed and incompetent foreign policy and playing domestic corporate favorites give us no reason to love the Bush administration, there are no grounds to see an overt conspiracy between the administration and the oil industry to divvy up Iraqi oil in the wake of an invasion, not least because they know there will be so many left leaning detectives looking for such a conspiracy.

However, the Christian fundamentalist background of the president and of his administration, combined with ties to the oil industry have led the President and the US into the error of seeing the Iraq issue in stark black and white, good v evil terms, and has caused Bush to overestimate the relative benefit to the US of freeing up Iraqi oil compared to the costs of invasion.

That leaves us with the economic rationalist anti war argument that, after weighing the potential costs and possible benefits, it's just not worth it. Projections for the pure money cost of the war vary between $60b and $400b. The human cost will likely be far greater than the toll exacted on 9/11. Unless we imbue Iraqi soldiers with a hitherto unknown passion for democracy, and their leaders with the stupidity that would be a necessary concomitant of again taking defensive positions in the desert, we are about to enter into a bloody, dirty urban warfare scenario. This means American, British and Aussie soldiers dying in Baghdad - not hundreds, but thousands of body bags. This will occur unless the US decides to impose democracy in Iraq by razing Baghdad to the ground.

The costs to America's capacity to lead world opinion will start with the complete dismantling of a Western accord with Europe and with serious, even permanent damage to the US alliance with the UK. President Sheriff Bush has sidled up to the international poker table and, calmly trusting in his faith, has risked all of America's political capital and alliance chips in a game where the potential payoff will be to the elimination of the two-bit player Saddam Hussein.

Other costs will be the unintended consequences of striking the invasion match in the powder keg of the Middle East, including the facilitation of the very consequences the US hopes to avoid - use of WMD by Saddam, the sparking of a wider Arab-Israeli war, or dissemination of WMD to terrorists by, for example, religious fundamentalists within the Pakistani government.

Faced with what religious fanatics will no doubt perceive as unholy American intermeddling in Arab lands, is it not logical to expect such fanatics in positions of power to aid terrorist organisations to strike back at America? This scenario is at least as likely as the domino theory in reverse situation where the Middle East would become a terrestrial sea of tranquillity in the aftermath of a US invasion.

What would be the benefits? The only real benefit that one could point to would be the removal of Saddam from power. Chances are his successor would be a more polite international citizen. The administration regularly cites Saddam's support for Palestinian terrorists, and this would be eliminated after Saddam were removed from power. However, most Arabs do not see Palestinians as terrorists, they see them as freedom fighters.

That leaves us with what to do with Saddam - deterrence or containment. Neither option is particularly appealing. Both options are better alternatives than a unilateral US/UK/Australian invasion.

For cultural reasons, Americans have been sold by the can do attitude of the Bush administration, because an American believes it unpatriotic to do nothing in response to a threat. Unfortunately, the costs of doing this something will be much worse than the continued attempt to contain Saddam within the framework of a loose international coalition.

This invasion is the ultimate in fuzzy foreign policy - a policy driven by emotions of fear, anger and exasperation at having been smoked out of an isolationist stance by 9/11. Unilateral invasion of Iraq is a policy that would never have been seriously considered pre- 9/11, and since there is no credible link between al-Qaeda terrorists and Iraq, there ought not to be an invasion now.

usinfo.state.gov 05 March 2003 (Powell interview with CNBC March 4) (2760)

Secretary of State Colin Powell says he hopes that, in the event that military force is needed to disarm Iraq, the United Nations will pass a resolution expressing its "understanding" for the necessity of such a course of action.

"[We] are going to deal with Saddam Hussein. We'll deal with him peacefully through the United Nations, and if conflict does become necessary, I hope the United Nations will understand that and pass a resolution that will express that understanding," Powell said in an interview with the CNBC television channel March 4.

Powell said that, while time is running out, war can still be avoided if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein demonstrates that he is totally committed to complying with U.N. resolutions that he eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell added it would be good for the Iraqi people if Saddam Hussein stepped down.

Powell said that longer inspections and more inspectors would not solve the problem. The inspectors are in Iraq "to verify that he is complying with the resolution and not to be detectives running all over the countryside looking for prohibited materials," he said.

Commenting on the problem of North Korea's nuclear program, Powell said the United States is sending the message to North Korea through various channels that it would not be wise to start uranium reprocessing while the search for a political solution to the problem is under way.

Powell said the United States wants to deal with North Korea through a multilateral forum that would involve all the countries affected by North Korea's nuclear program.

Following is the transcript of Powell's interview with CNBC:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman

March 4, 2003

INTERVIEW

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell By Alan Murray and Gloria Borger CNBC's Capital Report Washington, D.C.

(As aired at 9 p.m. EST)................

www.news24.com 03/03/2003 08:14  - (SA)  

Washington - The United States is using trade interests as leverage in its diplomatic efforts to persuade certain United Nations members to vote for a new resolution at the security council to allow military strikes against Iraq.

Two of those nations, Mexico and Chile, both non-permanent members of the 15-nation security council, are in an awkward position as a result, experts say.

Mexico forms part of the North American Free Trade Agreement and is America's second most-important partner with trade worth $232bn (about R1 898bn) a year.

Chile is set to seal a free-trade accord with Washington to eliminate customs tariffs on industrial and agricultural produce within 12 years.

Ambler Moss, director of the Dante B Fascell North-South Centre, a policy research institute at the University of Miami, said: "Both Mexico and Chile are in an extremely difficult and vulnerable situation right now."

The two nations are also negotiating a pan-American Free Trade Area of the Americas scheduled to get off the ground in 2005.

A good personal relationship between Mexico's President Vicente Fox and President George W Bush has lost some of its glow in recent months.

Special envoy sent to Chile

Now, Latin America has returned to the back-burner at the White House with the fight against terrorism and the prospect of war on Iraq being more-pressing issues.

The United States, Britain and Spain, which have put forward a second resolution on Iraq to the United Nations, need six more votes - nine in all - to ensure it is passed.

France, Russia and China from the five permanent security council members - the other two being the United States, Britain - could veto it since they support a separate move to extend weapons inspections in Iraq.

The other security council non-permanent members are Germany, Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Spain, Guinea, Pakistan and Syria.

On Friday, Washington sent a special envoy for Latin America, Otto Reich, to Chile to try to secure the South American nation's vote.

Chilean President Ricardo Lagos said after meeting Reich that Chile was waiting for the five permanent council members to make a decision, since "it is not for certain major countries to abstain, which would force us, the smaller countries, to make the decision".

"What they (Mexico and Chile) might do is to sacrifice their own political considerations because the immense majority of people in their countries are against the war and against supporting the United States in this thing for expediency."

The position of Angola is more difficult still.

The southern African nation has been trying to join up to the African Growth and Opportunity Act to allow it improved access to the US marketplace in certain areas of commercial activity to the 38-nation members, including Cameroon and Guinea.

Angola itself has a need to capitalise on its oil resources and thus seeks to attract US oil company investors.

Walter Kansteiner, US assistant secretary of state for Africa, visited Luanda last week to meet Angolan President José Eduardo dos Santos, who also received a phone call from Bush. - Sapa-AFP

daily.stanford.edu Dig Deeper By Zachary Haldeman Tuesday, March 4, 2003 last updated March 4, 2003 12:17 AM

Despite President Bush’s claims of moral certainty, he has offered mere platitudes regarding the ethics of attacking Iraq. Not only is an ethical justification necessary, but also it is the single legitimate justification for war.

Why should ethics motivate a decision on war or any other subject? To strive for anything less than the ethical ideal is to compromise one’s values, and to compromise one’s values is to subjugate oneself to the will of others, which is to invite tyranny and mob rule. Without ethics to guide our government in all it does, we are subject to tyranny and mob rule at home and abroad. Thus, the ethical justification for war is the value of freedom.

Most of the world does not understand the value of freedom and why only freedom can justify war.

Many nations stress the necessity of consensus building and multilateralism. However, neither of those involves actually convincing anyone whether war is right or not; instead, consensus-building and multilateralism are praised for their own sake.

According to a recent French memorandum on Iraq, “The unity of the Security Council must be preserved” in order to find a peaceful solution. Why? Is no action right unless everyone agrees with it? And is a peaceful solution necessarily better than anything else?

Unity is good only if it is a consequence of people pursuing the same values and ideals. This is not the case in the Security Council, which has made no ethical case whatsoever. Furthermore, pacifism rewards the most evil people in society. Peace and unity are not unconditionally good.

The ethical norm that should guide nations is freedom. In a social context, freedom consists of individual rights; principally, the right to live, which is the source of all other rights. The right to live is the right to act in accordance with one’s judgment and values, so long as that does not impose upon others any obligation except the obligation not to initiate the threat or use force.

Individual rights are a uniquely American ideal. America was the first nation in which citizens were not servants of a god or a king or the state; instead, Americans established the government in order to secure freedom by protecting the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. In practice, Americans violated all of these rights from the very beginning, and even today our rights are in dire straits, but the ideal of freedom remains all-important.

A government is legitimate only if granted its power by free people. People who do not enjoy freedom are not able to give consent to their government. Nations that neither uphold nor even grant any rights cannot claim a right to non-interference. That opens the door for some action against Iraq, but when is war justified?

The threat and use of force is justified only when in defense of freedom. If America still intends to uphold freedom through individual rights, then we have the right to take any action appropriate to defend ourselves from those who threaten us with force.

In all of this talk about respecting freedom and individual rights, isn’t there a contradiction in violating the rights of foreigners with American military action? Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life? No, any life is self-valued. Your life is what you make of it.

If you place no value on your life, and you allow dictatorial regimes to control you, then you are responsible for the consequences of that. Thus, those Iraqis who tolerate an oppressive and deadly regime are responsible for defensive strikes by free nations, and in such a strike, the Iraqi regime is solely responsible for the deaths of those Iraqis who resisted the freedom-hating Iraqis.

Your government is not a separate entity: You are responsible for it. You are responsible for changing it or dissociating from it if it threatens to violate individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

In contrast, the United States of America is not the liberator of the oppressed, and it has no duty or ability to be such.

The United States might find it in its own interest fight a war to end an evil regime, but we can never force anyone to be free. Both liberated and oppressed people must recognize the value of individual rights for themselves.

If some peoples continually produce oppressive regimes, hostile to freedom at home and abroad, then America should defeat them time and time again until they learn for themselves to respect individual rights.

We should do all that we can to support those who demand these rights from their governments, including the students in Iran and the strikers in Venezuela. We cannot force freedom upon anyone, but we should assist those who are working for it already.

Do not let our own government take away the very freedom it is supposed to protect (e.g., through the Patriot Act or through compromises with freedom-hating nations). Reclaim your rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Reclaim your freedom, even if that means war.

Zachary Haldeman is a senior majoring in mathematics. You can reach him at haldeman@stanford.edu.