athena.tbwt.com By Sonja  Ebron TBWT Guest Contributor Article Dated 2/24/2003

"... the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government." - Dr. Martin Luther King, "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence," April 4, 1967 at New York City's Riverside Church

"If we don't have boots in the Iraqi desert by spring, we have to wait till winter because of the heat," says conventional wisdom. Don't believe the hype: our soldiers can handle the heat, but gas and oil prices can't stand the cold. Heavy demand makes winter fuel prices the highest of the year, and prices spike when an oil producer like Iraq is attacked. Best to fight in the spring and summer when prices are low. That's just the first lesson in the nexus between oil, money, time and the taking of other people's property by force. As the U.S. government rushes to invade and occupy Iraq, people around the globe ask Why, Why now, and Why so alone?

Look all around you. Plastics, carpets, asphalt, paint, fertilized soil. Look how electrified our lifestyles. All of it based in oil and gas. Transportation systems, the glue of our economy, needed for centralized workplaces and the economic cohesion of our nation, dependent on oil. Agriculture, pharmaceuticals, a host of other industries all critically dependent on oil. Globally, one's personal income is more closely related to the amount of energy one consumes than to any other factor. Oil is the most liquid energy, the form most easily transformed to others. The more oil you use, directly or indirectly, the richer you are. As the richest country on the planet, U.S. oil consumption is more than 20 million barrels a day and rising. We produce less than half those barrels, importing the rest largely from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq. Within 20 years, we will import 6.5 barrels out of every 10 we consume.

U.S. oil production peaked in 1971, enabling OPEC's 1973 oil embargo and the deep economic recession that resulted. Jimmy Carter changed our country's policy toward Arab nations in 1980 by designating the supply of cheap oil from southwest Asia (the "Middle East") vital to national security. Our policy in the region quickly evolved to prevent the rise of a hegemonic power, like Iraq was becoming in 1990, able to influence use of the region's oil. The world's oil production will peak this decade, bringing with it a permanent change in oil market control from those who consume to those who produce. This change will occur at a time when our economy is far more dependent on imported oil than it was in the 1970s. With deep roots in the oil industry, the Bush administration rightly seeks to diversify our sources of imported oil. Large oil and gas deposits in the Caspian Sea (circumscribed by Iran, Russia, and the -stans in central Asia), South America (including Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil), the South China Sea (circumscribed by Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia), and West Africa (primarily Nigeria, Angola and Gabon) are consequently drawing sober U.S. interest.

Black Americans have historic and cultural ties to Africa, as illustrated by our concern with the continent's poverty and HIV/AIDS rates, its terms of international trade, and its continuing struggles against colonialism. Many of us cheered last year when all 53 African states vowed to increase trade and to cross national boundaries as necessary to implement the mandates of a new African Union. Few of us know that Africa produces one-seventh of the oil consumed in the U.S., a figure that will rise to one-quarter over the next decade. Even fewer know that oil discoveries in Africa have outpaced those of every other region for several years. "West Africa's oil has become of national strategic interest to us," Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner declared early last year. "African oil should be treated as a priority for U.S. post-September 11th security," added Congressman Edward Royce, chair of the Africa subcommittee in the House of Representatives. Discussions are ongoing at the highest levels of our government to formally designate west Africa a region vital to national security. Those of us with interests in Africa - African Americans, in particular - must understand the implications of this. With the size of Africa's oil exports growing to rival Saudi Arabia's, we must assess our government's war plans against the U.S. need for oil.

Our country is the largest consumer of the world's oil, but our economy is tied to oil in more ways than one. Since the 1940s, oil has been denominated in U.S. dollars only, making our dollar the world's preeminent reserve currency. Nations buy and hold dollars like they buy and hold gold because they can't purchase oil without dollars. With this support for our currency, U.S. foreign debt has grown to $2.8 trillion, or $10,000 owed to foreigners by every man, woman and child in our country. Last year's trade deficit alone was more than $500 billion and shows no sign of slowing. Any other country with our lack of fiscal discipline would see its currency and stock market crash hard. But the dollar's value is essentially backed by oil, which allows our Treasury to simply print money as needed to finance our debt. Since accounting makes no allowance for fiat money, the General Accounting Office has been unwilling to certify our nation's financial statements for several years. We can operate this way only while our dollar is the world's preeminent reserve currency; without dollar preeminence, there is hell to pay.

Enter the real "weapon of mass destruction," the euro. Eleven European countries formed a monetary union around this currency on January 1, 1999; Britain and Norway, the major European oil producers, were conspicuously absent. Due to the strength of European economies, the euro now presents a serious challenge to the dollar in its role as key reserve currency. The rise of the euro also threatens to hobble the British pound's eventual entry into Europe's monetary union. Britain and the U.S. have mutual interests in oil to match their interests in the euro. Of the five largest oil companies in the world, two (ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco) are U.S.-based, two (Royal Dutch/Shell and BP) are based in Britain, and one (TotalFinaElf) is French. U.S. and British oil companies are all but banned from exploration in Iraq, while French, Russian and Chinese companies have contracts waiting for the lifting of sanctions. France and Germany, the largest economies in the Euro-zone, can diminish U.S. credibility and keep the euro on track to become the key reserve currency by preventing war with Iraq.

Under U.S. and British military attack for the last decade, Iraq has had its exports restricted to oil through a United Nations oil-for-food program that deducts war reparations from the receipts. Iraq has used smugglers to trade its oil for goods and services, minimizing official oil sales as a way to influence prices and punish its attackers. Labeling the dollar "the currency of an enemy state," Iraq switched its oil denomination to the euro in late 2000, risking the loss of $270 million to the dollar's strength at that time vis-à-vis the euro. But the dollar lost 15% of its value against the euro last year. Iraq's move to the euro - and Iran's expected move - are placing tremendous pressure on OPEC countries and other oil producers to drop our dollar as the main transaction currency for oil. With a looming global peak in production, consuming nations must switch currencies when oil-producing states do so. For instance, Jordan began using euros to buy oil as soon as its major supplier, Iraq, began using them to sell, and North Korea switched to the euro late last year to protest the U.S.' halt in fuel aid. Given the highly leveraged and fragile state of our economy, an OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would make 1929 look like a $50 casino bet. Iraq's currency action adds urgency to the coming oil price and supply crisis, so our leaders have moved to control both the flow and the currency denomination of oil.

The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC is twofold: pressure non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market control, and change the leadership of any country switching oil denomination from the dollar to the euro (hence, the "axis of evil"). The strategy requires that the U.S. military assert our interests in oil and gas deposits worldwide. U.S. interests in the Caspian Sea have been secured through regime change in Afghanistan and a deal for a new pipeline through that country. U.S. interests in South America, despite the failure of the coup in Venezuela (an OPEC member), are being secured via military aid to neighboring Columbia. U.S. interests in southwest Asia are being secured through the planned invasion of Iraq, then Iran (both OPEC members) if it switches oil denomination. U.S. interests in the South China Sea are being secured through military deployments in the Philippines and off the Korean coast (near OPEC member Indonesia). But what of West Africa?

While most African countries import oil from outside the continent, Africa is a net oil exporter. That's because nearly all African oil is produced for export to Europe and North America. The vast majority of foreign direct investment in Africa is in the energy sector. In the largest project to date, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco have invested $3 billion in a pipeline project to bring Chad's oil through Cameroon to the west African coast for export; the oil could flow by the end of this year. Yet the primary goal of the African Union is economic, political and military integration. In a nod to the continent's internal needs, ChevronTexaco is building a gas pipeline from Nigeria to ports in Ghana, Benin and Togo. Until OPEC lowered production quotas last year, Nigeria was selling large blocks of oil to South Africa and Kenya. As the African Union succeeds in integrating the continent's economies, Africa's oil exports will be turned increasingly to internal use. Does U.S. policy in Africa mirror our policy in the Persian Gulf, a policy designed to prevent the rise of a hegemonic power with influence on the use and denomination of the region's oil?

Sao Tome and Principe, an island nation 150 miles off the West African coast (triangulating Nigeria and Angola), agreed last year to host a U.S. naval base in exchange for protection of oil in its territorial waters. Nigeria has claimed exclusive licensing rights to an oil block in these waters for many years. The U.S. base could also be used to protect Cameroon's claims to Bakassi, the oil-rich island off its coast long claimed by Nigeria. A new deployment of U.S. Special Forces to Djibouti, a tiny country bordering Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia, could likewise check national autonomy in the Horn of Africa. This troop deployment, designed to catch terrorists in east Africa, adds to the 3,000 French and German troops already present in the area. Our State Department has openly threatened Zimbabwe as that country puts its land back into Black hands. Like accusations levied against Somali "warlords" a decade ago, President Mugabe is charged with exacerbating Zimbabwe's famine by distributing food aid only to government supporters. Our country has numerous opportunities - and perhaps an incentive - to violate African sovereignty. The upshot is that African Americans could soon experience repression of the sort felt lately by our Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters.

What are we to do? Recognize that Black well being in the U.S. and around the world will be adversely impacted by our government's war for oil. Recognize that an oil war, by increasing the costs of energy, threatens oil-importing developing economies everywhere, especially those in Africa and South America, as well as Black America's. Recognize that the war to control the world's oil is in the late planning stages but is early in its implementation and can be stopped. Recognize that Martin was killed because of the moral authority he brought to the Vietnam anti-war movement, drawn from his use of the "race card," and that the African American community retains that authority. Recognize that our ability to drive domestic response to an immoral foreign policy is what keeps the warmongers up at night. Recognize that thoughtful Black people, from Nelson Mandela to your next-door neighbor, are against this war for two reasons: because it is against Black interests - in the U.S., in central and South America, in Africa - and because it is so very terribly wrong. Talk to your friends and family about your opposition to the war. Stick an anti-war poster in your yard and a bumper sticker on your car. Join or help organize a local or national protest. Call, write, email and visit your congressional representatives. Take a few "sick days" from work, and don't buy anything you don't absolutely need. Get behind the anti-war movement now, before it's too late.

We must also work on root causes with those in other communities. It may already be too late for a smooth transition from oil dependence to sustainable energy use, but we must begin now. If we are sensible, we'll invest in solar and wind technologies, human-powered and public transportation (bikes and buses), public agriculture, and other requirements of sustainable communities. We must get our economic house in order and rebuild our manufacturing base. "Made in the USA" means we'll have more jobs, even though they may be difficult and may not pay very well. Our lifestyles will change dramatically. Our standards of living will decrease, but the quality of our lives will improve. We'll be forced to depend more on each other, to communicate more with each other, to build stronger families and communities. And just maybe we won't have to kill people to maintain our economy. We can only suspect that, had the people's will prevailed in 2000, our president-in-exile would have begun this transition.

On September 20, 2001, President Bush declared, "The war will be fought not just by soldiers, but by police and intelligence forces, as well as in financial institutions." Hmmm. War is not the answer. It's a shortsighted desperation play that is doomed to failure. Our military forces may take but cannot hold Iraq's oil, as they have failed to tame Afghanistan's land. Far from staving off disaster, our arrogance may instead compel OPEC to "go euro" en masse, taking many oil-consuming nations with them by force of economics. And a trade war with Europe will lend the coup de grace to our economy. In the meantime, many people will be hurt and killed, research and development on fuel efficiency and renewable energy will be slowed, the necessary policy and tax initiatives on energy consumption will be delayed, and our country will be far worse off when intelligent leadership finally prevails.

Sonja Ebron is the chief executive of blackEnergy, the place to practice Black cooperative economics. blackEnergy brings the benefits of deregulated energy to Black communities everywhere. For more discussion on this article and to see what others have to say click on the link below to go to discussion forums.

www.asahi.com

As the tense situation involving Iraq casts a shadow over the world economy, finance ministers and governors of the central banks of the Group of Seven (G-7) key economic nations have concluded their meeting in Paris.

In their joint statement, the ministers said, Geopolitical uncertainties have increased'' and If the economic outlook weakens, we are prepared to respond as appropriate.'' In other words, ``geopolitical uncertainties'' means there is no telling what will happen to the world economy in event of war against Iraq.

The ministers should have just come out and said so plainly. But in diplomacy, a clear rift has emerged with the United States and Britain on one side and France and Germany on the other. The finance ministers must have sought to close ranks on economic issues, and their joint statement was worded to demonstrate their restraint.

Before the G-7 finance meeting began, French Finance Minister Francis Mer, the chairman, said it was not up to the finance ministers to decide whether there is to be a war. Of course, any decision on war would be made by the respective leaders of each country. But the impact of a war on the global economy is an important factor to be weighed in making such a decision.

All the big nations of the world face economic difficulties. In the United States, where personal consumption and capital investment have both started to decline, the ``twin deficits'' in federal budget and foreign trade have been growing. Japan has long struggled under deflation and the burden of bank nonperforming loans, with no way out of the slump so far. Among European nations, exports have fallen off because of the strength of the euro, and the German economy is still in the doldrums.

Oil prices stay at a high level because of the general strike in Venezuela, as well as the Iraq situation. And stock prices continue to be sluggish in all major markets.

What would a war add to these circumstances? In part, the answer depends on how long a war might last. But oil prices would quite likely rise and the global economy would be seriously affected by war. If the danger of terrorism is increased in the aftermath of war, the movement of people and goods would be restricted, and world trade could be curtailed as a consequence.

While the dollar used to be regarded as a strong currency in an emergency, it is now sold off in times of uncertainty. If the value of the dollar plunges, the economies of many countries that earn dollars from exports to U.S. markets could be caught up short.

The most important item on the agenda before the finance ministers meeting in Paris should have been the potential risks to the world economy in event of war. They should have discussed such issues in the meeting and reported the outcome to their leaders.

Bill Clinton defeated incumbent U.S. President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when there was still a lingering mood of America's victory over Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, on the slogan, ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Even if the United States wins a new war against Iraq, the American people will reject the George W. Bush administration if the post-conflict economy falters.

The same holds true of Japan, which has expressed its support for the U.S. position on taking military action against Iraq. Many people would like to ask Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, ``Mr. Prime Minister, will the nation's economy, already in trouble, be all right if a war breaks out against Iraq?''

The message coming out the the Paris G-7 meeting was simply a chanson that only adds to the anxiety of those who hear it.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 24(IHT/Asahi: February 25,2003)

reuters.com

Mon February 24, 2003 03:11 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices sizzled near two-year highs on Monday and looked set to stay there well into March as a new U.S.-British draft resolution set the stage for war against Iraq.

Forecasts of more cold weather at a time when U.S. fuel supplies are running low sent heating oil futures prices to all time highs and natural gas prices to their 2-year peaks.

U.S. light crude rose 90 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $36.48 a barrel, within sight of 29-month highs above $37 struck last week, and nearing an all-time high of $41.15 hit in the build-up to the 1990-91 Gulf War. Brent crude in London jumped 91 cents to $33.18.

Prices rose as the United States and Britain prepared to introduce a draft resolution to the U.N Security Council declaring that Baghdad has failed to take advantage of the final opportunity to disarm peacefully.

The United States has said it will disarm Iraq by force if necessary, despite widespread international opposition to war and concern that rising energy costs could smother a weak world economy.

Oil markets fear an attack in Iraq, the world's eighth biggest exporter, may hit supplies from the Middle East, which supplies about 40 percent of globally traded crude.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the U.S. and Britain want a U.N. decision on Iraq within about two weeks of submitting the new resolution to the Security Council.

On March 7 chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix will report to the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday said he expected the Security Council to make a judgment soon after the report.

Blix has set a March 1 deadline for Iraq to begin destroying banned al-Samoud missiles and show it is cooperating with demands to rid itself of any biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

SCRAPING THE BARREL

An 11-week oil strike in Venezuela has already run down U.S. stocks of crude oil to their lowest level since 1975, strengthening concern over the impact of any supply disruption in the Middle East.

"We're running on empty," said Gary Ross of New York consultancy PIRA Energy.

Sustained cold weather in the United States has also run down fuel stocks and heating oil futures surged four percent on Monday to hit $1.15 a gallon -- the highest level since NYMEX launched futures trading in 1978.

Temperatures in the U.S. northeast, the world's largest heating oil market are forecast to be below seasonal norms this week. High prices for rival fuel natural gas has further fired up demand for oil.

Traders said tankers were lining up to load vital barrels from Russia, the world's second oil exporter and an emerging supplier to the U.S at Baltic Sea ports.

"The Russians are coming but it won't be here until the end of March," said PIRA's Ross.

U.S. gasoline prices have surged 20 cents in a month to an average of $1.66 a gallon, within a nickel of all-time highs, as prices in some major cities breach the $2 mark.

Pump prices are expected to rise further as supplies tighten ahead of the summer vacation driving season.

www.bayarea.com Posted on Sun, Feb. 23, 2003

Only a few years ago, the United States was enjoying the unprecedented economic boom of the late 1990s. What a difference a few years make -- the nation's mood and economic outlook have sagged dramatically. We have been hit hard with a relentless stream of bad news, from the dot-com debacle to corporate malfeasance, from terrorism to a sinking stock market, from a jobless economic recovery to the space shuttle explosion. To make life even more difficult, our nation is on the brink of a war with Iraq.

In these difficult times, many analysts think that a war is likely to exacerbate our economic problems. What are the economic implications of an invasion of Iraq and, more important, the economic implications of post-war restructuring and rehabilitation of Iraq?

It is a real challenge to be precise about the cost of the war and its aftermath because there are so many unknowns. These range from the length of the war to the extent of American involvement in post-war Iraq. Other questions include: How many U.S. soldiers will be involved? Will Iraq use chemical and biological weapons? Will there be urban fighting? Which of our allies will be with us in the war, and how many will be involved in post-war reconstruction?

War is always a time of national anguish. The biggest concern of a war has to do with the loss of life and pain and suffering that will be inflicted on U.S. and allied soldiers and their families and friends. Of course, pain and suffering will also be enormous for the millions of innocent people of Iraq who have been drawn into this fray.

From an economic perspective, the problem with the current situation is fear and uncertainty, and they are the enemies of vital decisions that range from consumer purchases of big-ticket items to business investment in technology and facilities. War jitters have paralyzed capital markets since December.

Even if the optimistic scenario of a quick war lasting a few months with minimal loss of life and no destruction of Iraqi oil fields materializes, the short-term economic impact could be large. Let us not forget that the 1990-91 U.S. recession was exacerbated when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United States responded with a major attack on Iraq. Oil price hikes could be very damaging to the economy, particularly in light of the current crisis in Venezuela. It would not surprise me to see oil prices spike up to $50 a barrel at least during the first few weeks of the war, and that translates into higher inflation and a higher cost of doing business.

Some of the other economic effects include:

• A weaker dollar during the conflict, but it will rally once the war is over. This may be good news for U.S. exporters, at least for a while.

• Higher energy costs will increase shipping and trucking costs as long as the war lasts. The larger carriers will pass the costs to customers, and the smaller ones may not be able to do so and go out of business.

• Longer delays in international freight shipments as a result of heightened security checks will have particular impact on trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada. The crowding of ports such as Long Beach and New York by military ships will cause additional delays. This certainly adds to the cost of doing business.

• Movement of employees out of businesses into the war effort via reserve and National Guard call-ups will have considerable impact for many businesses. So far, nearly 100,000 reservists have been called to duty in the Middle East, and tens of thousands more will be asked to join them. Implications for businesses include finding new employees in addition to guaranteeing jobs and salary to the departed employees on their return.

• The beleaguered airline industry will be further damaged with the onset of military action even though some of the losses in passenger and freight businesses will be compensated by military needs such as troop and equipment transport.

• The tourism and hospitality industry has already been affected by fear of terrorism and a potential war, and things will get much worse with the onset of war and remain shaky for a few months even after the war is over.

• Military purchases of all kinds ranging from spare parts to newly designed gas masks and clothing (to withstand chemical warfare) to freeze-dried meals and personal supplies has been rising at a rapid rate and will continue to do so in the next several months.

A recent estimate by Mitch Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, estimates that the direct cost of the war to the United States will be in the $50 billion-$60 billion range. This number could be lower if other major European countries such as France and Germany, in addition to Great Britain, also join the United States in the war against Iraq. The extent of cost-sharing could be very significant if we use the gulf war as a benchmark. The allies paid for nearly 90 percent of the costs of the last gulf war. The logic of not going alone for the United States in a second war not only makes great sense in geopolitical terms, it also makes eminent sense in economic terms, particularly in light of the current state of the U.S. economy with its escalating budget deficits and a host of unmet domestic needs.

If we think the cost of war is high, we should be ready to face the cost of bringing peace and a civil society to post-war Iraq. A recent study by William Nordhaus of Yale University suggests that the post-war costs of rebuilding Iraq could range from $127 billion to $682 billion depending on optimistic or pessimistic assumptions relating to length of the program as well as extent of damage to the Iraqi infrastructure. The range of expenses includes the cost of a peacekeeping force, rebuilding of the infrastructure, paying for government services and humanitarian aid.

It is quite likely that even in the case of an optimistic scenario of a short war, the U.S. economy may be flirting with a mild downturn in the immediate aftermath of the war. In the past few years, I have been amazed by the resiliency of the U.S. economy. The recovery has continued for the past two years despite numerous hits ranging from the failure of the high-tech sector to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Enronitis. Based on our record, I am optimistic about the recovery of the stock market as well as the economy once the cloud of a second gulf war disappears.

Tapan Munroe is president of Munroe Consulting Inc. of Moraga and the former chief economist for PG&E Corp. His column runs every other Sunday. His e-mail is tapan@tapanmunroe.com.

www.timesunion.com By ELISABETH BUMILLER, New York Times First published: Sunday, February 23, 2003

CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush said on Saturday that even if Iraq agreed to destroy all of its prohibited missiles, they were "just the tip of the iceberg" of its illegal arsenal, and he asserted again that Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming.

Bush made his remarks at the side of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, who was at Bush's ranch to consult on the wording of a new resolution the administration wants to present to the U.N. Security Council next week that would declare Iraq in violation of its obligations to disarm and authorize military action.

The President characterized the talks in the United Nations as "final deliberations," a signal that Saddam may have only weeks left before an American attack.

Aznar, along with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, is among the supporters of Bush's position whose countries hold seats on the current Security Council.

Bush was reacting to a demand on Friday by Hans Blix, a chief U.N. weapons inspector, that Iraq must start destroying within a week all of its al Samoud 2 missiles and any illegally imported engines for use in rockets. If Iraq does not comply, American officials are certain to present the failure as powerful evidence that Saddam will never part with his weapons of mass destruction.

But Bush went beyond that argument and in essence said that at this point there was almost nothing that Saddam could do to avoid action by the United States.

"If Iraq decides to destroy the weapons that were long-range weapons, that's just the tip of the iceberg," Bush said. Saddam, he said, "will say words that sound encouraging."

"He's done so for 12 years," Bush added. "So the idea of destroying a rocket, or two rockets, or however many he's going to destroy, says to me he's got a lot more weapons to destroy, and why isn't he destroying them yet?"

Bush also said he and Aznar had just completed a conference call with Blair and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy to discuss the strategy for a battle for votes in the 15-member Security Council in favor of a new resolution.

So far the United States is sure of only three other votes besides its own firmly in support of a new resolution -- those of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. That's five votes short of passage.

Bush said the new resolution would be a clear and simple declaration that Iraq is not in compliance.

Diplomatic sources said the United States will demand a vote on the resolution within three weeks, a time frame that will allow the council to hear a final report from Blix on Iraqi disarmament efforts March 7 before the council votes.

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear agency, said Saturday that peace was still possible but he wanted to see more cooperation from Iraq.

Meanwhile, Pentagon officials said the United States hopes to begin moving troops and equipment into Turkey as early as this week, preparing for an expected second front in a possible war with Iraq.

With negotiations continuing, they confirmed a tentative agreement on U.S. aid to Turkey, whose parliament could vote on the deal Tuesday. Officials said the deal involved $6 billion in grants and $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States.

In Iraq, Saddam told a Cabinet meeting that Iraq will win any war against the United States, according to Al-Shabab Television.

"Victory will be yours, God willing," Al-Shabab quoted him as telling his ministers. "They were attacking us in 1991 and no one said anything," Saddam said. "Now there are people protesting in Germany, America, Britain and other countries."

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark -- a major figure of the U.S. anti-war movement -- flew into Baghdad on Saturday to meet with officials.

Clark said Bush may change his mind about attacking Iraq.

"I think (Bush) has already been delayed weeks beyond what he wanted," he said. "They may decide they just can't risk going forward, as badly as they want to. I think they've had to take pause at the big peace demonstrations."

In related news:

To offset a shortfall in oil imports caused by a recent political crisis in Venezuela, American refineries have more than doubled their imports of Iraqi crude -- to more than 1 million barrels a day -- over the past two months, buying more than $1.6 billion in Iraqi oil through foreign middlemen between Dec. 5 and Feb. 1, according to unpublished U.N. figures.

In Vatican City, Pope John Paul II held a private audience Saturday with Blair. A statement issued by Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said Vatican officials stressed the need to resolve the crisis through the United Nations and "to avert the tragedy of a war that is judged to be still avoidable by more sides."

Moscow media reported that former Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov was dispatched to Baghdad on Saturday on a confidential mission for the Kremlin.

Primakov sought in vain to avoid the first allied war in which a U.S.-led coalition drove invading Iraq forces from neighboring Kuwait.