www.atimes.com    Middle East By Inter Press Service correspondents

If projections are accurate, never before will one cause have drawn so many together around the world. The demonstrations against war in Iraq called for this coming Saturday are expected to draw millions on every continent. Stop the War Coalition, which started it all, counted 354 cities last week in almost every country in the world that will hold demonstrations. Four weeks earlier a spokesman had said the number of cities holding demonstrations had risen from 11 to 27. "Even we were not expecting this," Chris Nineham from Stop the War Coalition told IPS. They have stopped counting any more. Inevitably, the anti-war movement has not spread evenly around the world. It has found little success in Africa, and drawn a varied response across Asia. In Latin America support seems uncertain beyond the committed Left. Large anti-war rallies are being planned in Arab capitals such as Damascus in Syria and Cairo in Egypt. Democratic protest is not a way of life in these countries, but the demonstrations have been planned on the back of an unusual coming together of state policy and popular protest. Moving in the Middle East and Asia Palestinians and Israelis are being asked to come together to demonstrate against the war. Israeli organizations backing the call include the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Taayush-Arab Jewish Partnership, The Alternative Information Center and the Coalition of Women for Peace. Several busloads of demonstrators are expected to arrive in Tel Aviv. Anti-war protests have been planned in many Asian countries on Saturday. Groups opposing war have been making calls like "Stop the War, Demonstrate Saturday" to draw people to rallies. "Wake up, USA, Wake up Japan, and Wake Up Our Soul," says one group in Tokyo calling on people to come out to protest. More than 50 civil society groups have backed a rally at a local park in Bangkok. The demonstrators plan to march to the US embassy in Bangkok. "War is an ineffective way to deal with weapons of mass destruction," says Greenpeace Southeast Asia, which is joining the demonstration. Stop the War Coalition has called on people to join the protests in Kuala Lumpur outside the US embassy. Many activists have launched a signature campaign in Malaysia against a war on Iraq. London leads the way In Europe, London is leading the way, where close to a million are expected to join the demonstration. Only a week ago Stop the War Coalition was expecting half a million. More than 450 organizations are joining the demonstration, along with 11 parties, which include the Liberal Democrats, the rising third force in British politics (after Labor and the Conservatives). At their little office in Brick Lane in London's East End, Stop the War Coalition is barely able to handle what it started only a few months back. The US stand on Iraq has divided European governments as never before, and it has united millions of people in Europe as never before. Anti-war groups are not calling these the February 15 rallies any more; they speak of this now as "mobilization". In France, Belgium and Germany, street muscle is for once in line with government policy. In Paris, up to 200,000 had been expected to join the demonstration. "But it now seems that the number could be higher," a spokesman for the anti-war alliance told IPS. At least 100,000 are expected to demonstrate in Berlin. A massive demonstration has been planned in Brussels. Many of the demonstrations in Europe have been organized by the Platform Against War on Iraq comprising 170 non-governmental organizations. Across the rest of Europe, opinion polls show public in open conflict with governments backing the US, particularly in Britain, Italy and Spain. Polls indicate the highest opposition to war in Sweden, Greece and Germany. The degree of opposition to war has wavered over past weeks. But opinion polls indicated it was rising after what most people found to be an unconvincing plea by US Secretary of State Colin Powell in the United Nations. A British government dossier on Iraq supposedly compiled from intelligence reports was found to have been plagiarized substantially from an essay posted on the web by a 29-year-old Californian. This added to the simmering anger. The anti-war group acknowledges its debt. "Our best recruiting agents have been Bush and Blair," says Andrew Murray who heads the anti-war coalition in Britain. Revolt in US cities Representatives from dozens of US cities that have passed resolutions opposing a war on Iraq are trying to meet President Bush and deliver their message first-hand. Over just a few weeks, the number of these cities has risen from less than 50 to 83, according to the website citiesforpeace.org. That growth mirrors the blossoming of an anti-war movement in North America. "This is the biggest peace movement we've had since Vietnam," says Josh Matlow, national campaign organiser of the Canadian Peace Alliance. "I'm getting calls from animal rights groups, energy groups and others not usually associated with the peace movement. I'm getting hundreds of calls a day." Hundreds of thousands are expected to join the anti-war rally Saturday in New York city. City authorities have refused to allow demonstrators to march past the United Nations headquarters. The rally is being organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella body of 70 groups formed late last year to oppose the war. The group is being supported by Not in Our Name, whose 'Pledge of Resistance' has been printed in dozens of newspapers around the world. An estimated 200,000 people are believed to have joined demonstrations held in San Francisco and Washington January 18. The rally on Saturday is expected to draw many more people, and more determined people. "The last thing I want to do is get in the way of a working person trying to get to work," says Leone Reinbold, a veteran of civil disobedience protests. "But when 200,000 people marching in the streets doesn't get people's attention in Washington, this is our last resort." Left fights for peace Non-governmental organizations, intellectuals and leftist parties throughout Latin America are rallying forces to boost attendance at the global day of anti-war protests Saturday, while their governments take a more cautious stance. In Argentina, associations of mothers and grandmothers of those who disappeared during the 1976-1983 dictatorship have attacked Washington for "trying to impose its hegemony over the rest of the world at any cost". The women are planning to join the march along with local artists, journalists and members of human rights groups. The anti-war march in Buenos Aires will end outside the US embassy. In Mexico, Nobel Peace laureate Rigoberta Menchú told IPS that "the most important thing about the peace movement is that for the first time in the history of war, the political, academic, human rights and civil society worlds are united around the planet to reject war". A large rally has been planned for Saturday through downtown Mexico City. Brazil is also seeing preparations for anti-war demonstrations Saturday. The Rio Peace Committee, which includes the Brazilian Press Association, leftist parties, trade unions and the MST (landless farmers movement), is organizing a march through the main avenue in the Copacabana neighborhood. Activists in Brazil are also calling for a one-day boycott of products and services of companies based in the United States or any other country whose government supports war against Iraq. The anti-war movement in Venezuela is organising a march through Caracas under the slogan "Not a drop of Venezuelan oil for the war", says Sergio Sánchez, of Utopía, a political group. Peace organizations in Chile are pressing the government of Ricardo Lagos to stand up to the United States and insist on pursuing all diplomatic means possible to prevent a military attack on Iraq. Africa indifferent Former South African President Nelson Mandela told an international women's group in Johannesburg on January 30, "One power, with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." But in this struggle Mandela has found few followers. Anti-war demonstrations have been planned in Kenya. The demonstrators are up against growing ties between Kenya and the US. Kenyan and US troops recently conducted joint military exercises. To keep up the pressure, feeble as it is, about 300 anti-war campaigners protested Tuesday outside the offices of the US oil company ExxonMobil in Johannesburg. There is little sign of any significant preparation for any major demonstration Saturday. (Inter Press Service)

www.arizonarepublic.com Dave Cruz/The Arizona Republic A shop owner at the Old Souk, Kuwait City's oldest marketplace, climbs a ladder to hand a Kuwaiti flag outside his shop. By Judd Slivka The Arizona Republic Feb. 10, 2003

KUWAIT CITY A cab driver here calls it "the maybe war." As in maybe it will happen, and maybe it won't.

In the city's expensive Salmiya district, women covered in full robes carrying Prada handbags continue to walk the streets, talking on cellphones and engaging in the national pastime of shopping. At the Old Souk, the oldest marketplace in the city, the old men are still cutting meat and arguing about everything.

But for Jim Leahy, who grew up in Scottsdale and is now the assistant principal of the American International School's high school here, the past few days have been a rush to get things done before he leaves with his family.

"Everyone is kind of strung up tight like a piano wire," Leahy said Sunday, the last day of school for the two American schools in Kuwait. "Everybody has to go somewhere."

Not counting the military, there are a couple thousand Americans here by most estimates. Some of them can leave. Some of them can't. Others don't want to. And still others, like Leahy, feel as if they have to.

Leahy has been working in international education for 20 years. He has been in Venezuela during rebel terror campaigns and in Ecuador during a coup.

But this would be his first war, and as the drumbeat of war gets louder for Americans, he is one of hundreds preparing to leave.

Packing up in a hurry

The American Embassy issued a voluntary evacuation notice for civilians two weeks ago, but it was only last week that the American schools decided to close until March. That decision sent Leahy's life into a frenzy.

"There are things that go on here - budgeting, scheduling, accreditation - that don't stop even if we're closed," he said. "I'm running around like crazy trying to burn things on CD so I can essentially move my office."

He'll move that office - and his wife, who teaches at the school, and two children who attend there - to his parents' home in Scottsdale.

'Kids are all nervous'

"It's hard to know what work to focus on," he said. "The kids are all nervous, and so are the adults. It's kind of a feeling of relief that the company that owns our school made the decision they did."

Leahy will be gone by the end of the week, but others aren't so lucky.

Ricky Mutina works in Kuwait managing defense contractor Lockheed-Martin's tank simulators for the Kuwaiti army. The march toward war has left Mutina with nothing to do: The Kuwaiti army's armor has all moved north to the Iraqi border for live-fire training and pre-positioning.

So Mutina, of Orlando, has been buying groceries and trying to get as many tasks done as he can, as many in the American expatriate community are doing.

"I think that when it happens, and it will happen. things are going to be very dangerous," he said Sunday after shopping at a 24-hour supermarket popular with the foreign community. "Not bombs falling on us, but doing what I just did will be a lot more difficult. This will be a dangerous place to be an American."

Danger lurks

It already has been. Marines have been shot at on exercises outside Kuwait City, and civilians have been fired on as well. The government responded by posting machine-gun equipped police trucks at various intersections around the city and setting up checkpoints where drivers have to show their papers.

Starbucks is crowded

Still, life goes on as normal. At the Sultan Center Supermarket, people of 15 nationalities still load up grocery baskets under the strains of the Arab Muzak version of Copacabana. Across the street, Starbucks is jammed, MotherCare World is filled with mothers and their children buying clothing, and the manager at the Mercedes dealership says his business is pretty good, "though not as good as it was two years ago."

For Americans like Leahy and Mutina, hostilities draw closer with each sunrise. But for so many Kuwaitis, no one seems to have told them that a war is about to happen.

www.sunspot.net By Marego Athans Sun National Staff Originally published February 9, 2003

President Bush says the conflict with Iraq is not about oil. The aftermath of a war, however, could be all about oil.

The duration and success of any military action - and whether Saddam Hussein sabotages his oil fields as he did a decade ago in Kuwait - could determine oil prices for months or years and, in turn, affect the health of economies around the world, analysts say.

As oil prices spiked to a two-year high of $35 a barrel on Friday, reflecting war jitters, interests from France to Russia to Australia to the United States were poised for a reawakening of Iraq's slumbering oil industry, which is sitting on the world's second-largest pool of proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's.

Under United Nations sanctions imposed after the gulf war a decade ago, Iraqi production has slumped to less than 2 million barrels a day, and the infrastructure has deteriorated. But the Bush administration is banking on substantially increasing oil output to produce billions in new revenues to lubricate an economic revival in Iraq after the ouster of Hussein.

That's the rosy version of postwar Iraq.

But even in the best-case scenario - a relatively short, bloodless war that leaves Iraq's 1,500 oil wells intact and replaces Hussein with a friendlier leader - Iraq's oil industry would be fraught with economic and political uncertainties that could even discourage investment, analysts say.

Foremost is the hurdle of rebuilding the country, estimated to cost from $200 billion to $400 billion, and the risk of doing so amid potential civil wars among ethnic groups. Rehabilitating Iraq's oil operations to bring production up to its projected potential of 6 million barrels a day - more than triple what it exported last year under a United Nations-sponsored "oil-for-food" program - would take about a decade and cost an additional $40 billion to $50 billion, analysts say.

In the short term, Iraq's wells are capable of pumping about 3 million barrels a day, which would generate from $12 billion to $15 billion in annual revenues, assuming oil prices remain strong. That is far short of the revenue needed to rebuild the country.

"You get the sense some people in Washington, particularly hawkish members of the administration, have spent Iraqi oil revenue 10 times over before they've even gotten in there," said Raad Alkadiri, an analyst at PFC Energy, an oil and gas consulting firm in Washington.

"There isn't that much Iraqi revenue to spend. To say you can rehabilitate the country, pay for an occupation and revive the economy all at the same time is ludicrous."

Iraq is virtually sitting on a sea of oil, with 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and has probable reserves of an additional 220 billion barrels, experts say.

But only 15 of its 74 discovered oil fields have been developed. Its wells, pumping stations and export terminals are deteriorating so fast that output is dropping by 100,000 barrels a year.

Outside investment

To rescue and modernize these operations, large outside investment would be needed. American companies are banned from doing business with Iraq. But plenty of other companies - particularly Russian and French ones with longstanding ties to Iraq - are lined up to take advantage of lucrative deals when Iraq opens its oil taps.

The contracts and negotiations they have been conducting are in a precarious state, with the United States threatening to attack Iraq imminently if Hussein does not divulge evidence of his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

In 1997, the Russian oil giant Lukoil signed a $3.5 billion, 23-year contract to rehabilitate the al-Qurnah field, which has 7.8 billion barrels of proven reserves. Iraq put the deal on hold after Russian President Vladimir V. Putin supported the United States-led sanctions effort. Lukoil is trying to revive the deal, and industry experts believe that Washington has made an informal agreement to honor the contract in postwar Iraq.

The French oil company TotalFinaElf is also negotiating contracts. But any deal could be jeopardized by the French government's opposition to American use of force in Iraq.

"I do think the U.S. government will be willing to trade oil for participation - with anyone," said Fareed Mohamedi, PFC Energy's chief economist.

But, he said, "oil is not the prize in and of itself - there are bigger prizes," maintaining that the United States was more interested in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and demonstrating its leadership in the world.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has forcefully rejected charges, arising from Bush's and Vice President Cheney's background in the oil business, that the United States is after Iraq's oil.

"The oil fields are the property of the Iraqi people," he said recently, and any production revenues will be held "in trust" for the Iraqis.

A U.S. occupation would, however, open up vast opportunities for U.S. oil companies as well as oil service outfits such as Halliburton, a firm formerly run by Cheney, and Bechtel, which managed the repair of Kuwait's fields in the early 1990s. They could earn billions of dollars upgrading Iraq's operations or repairing them if the Iraqis damage them. There are reports that many wellheads are wired with explosives.

The subject is a sensitive one in the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration.

John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, said Iraq presents an enormous challenge and risk.

"We have no idea what will happen. We don't know what the rule of law will be or who will be running Iraq," he said. "If we were asked by the Iraqis in the post-Saddam era to develop their resources, we'd certainly be interested, but beyond that it's speculative."

Because access to outsiders has been limited, he said, U.S. oil companies also have little information about the state of Iraq's oil sector.

It is also unclear who would get the development rights in an Iraq occupied by the United States.

"It's the $64 million question," Mohamedi said. The notion of an American bias in handing out contracts "is definitely a fear among non-American companies, and some have been pushing their leaders to help out," he said.

A recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy says that the Iraqis should get to keep control of the oil industry after Hussein is ousted and that the United States should create "a level playing field" for international companies competing for work in repair, exploration and development.

Complicating factors

Of overriding importance, Mohamedi said, is who within Iraq's new government will ultimately control the oil industry. "Dictatorships are fortified by oil," he said. "They can buy and bully the population in countries where revenues are huge. If you don't want a dictatorship that's unaccountable to its population, you don't want any future leader to get control of the oil revenues. They should be controlled by a parliament or distributed to the people.

"These are huge issues facing the U.S. and Iraq, and the oil sector will be at the center of that."

If the country erupts in ethnic hostilities, however, companies may not want to risk the investment, experts say.

Shiite Muslims in the south, a group long suppressed by Hussein, and Kurds, Turks and Arabs in the north may try to take control of the oil fields in their respective regions - a potential maelstrom for allied troops trying to keep order, not to mention for oil companies trying to work.

There might not even be much money in Iraqi oil, said Philip K. Verleger Jr., senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "These contracts are not as lucrative as one might think. Most of the money is going to go to the Iraqis. If the price is $20 a barrel, the company might get a buck," he said.

Though Iraq's oil reserves are vast, so are those of other countries in the region. Should Iraq, prodded by the United States, try to radically boost production, Saudi Arabia would probably respond by increasing production - driving prices down and bringing exploration to a halt outside of a few countries.

"The Saudis have an economic veto on this whole economic development of Iraq," Verleger said.

Both countries are founding members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which imposes quotas on members to keep prices stable. For Iraq, the quota would probably be from 2.5 million to 3 million barrels a day, experts say.

If an Iraq occupied by the United States flouted that quota and divorced itself from OPEC, "that would be a big step, a declaration of economic war on oil-exporting countries," said Yale University economist William Nordhaus, a co-author of a recent study examining the costs and consequences of war with Iraq.

Because the United States imports a relatively small amount of crude oil from Iraq, less than 3 percent of its consumption, a quick and decisive American victory within, say, six weeks should have little lasting effect on prices, analysts say.

Such a war would stop Iraqi production for a few months, but increased production from other countries would easily offset the loss.

Analysts predict that after an initial spike - evident with Friday's price jump to the highest level in 26 months - prices would be expected to settle in the low $20s a barrel.

However, if the war drags on, prices could reach 1991 gulf war highs of $40 a barrel, which contributed to a global recession in the early 1990s, analysts say. This time, there's less of a cushion because inventories are low, largely because of a protracted strike by oil production workers in Venezuela, a major world supplier. In such a case, the United States, Japan and Europe may have to reach into their reserves, which total about 1.2 billion barrels.

In a doomsday scenario, a protracted, bloody war that damages production facilities in Iraq and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, could send prices to $60 or $80 a barrel, experts say, and keep them high for at least two years.

"The Western countries and Japan would have to release a lot of their stocks," Mohamedi said. "That could really spook the market."

Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun Related articles • Americans pan France-German plan on Iraq • Powell: European Iraq plan is a diversion • Iraq hands documents to U.N. arms chiefs • Turkey reportedly accepts 38,000 U.S. soldiers • U.S. has no smoking gun in its case against Iraq • Bush's unfortunate inheritance: Iraq and war • Guardsman killed in Kuwait had joined to pay for college • Sharon met Palestinian speaker on plan for withdrawal by Israel • Big-screen warriors meet the real thing • Students debating war, but quietly • Turkish city dominated by Kurds girds for war • Saudi security boosted as Muslim hajj begins

sf.indymedia.org by Antonio Salas Saturday February 08, 2003 at 11:53 AM boicot@prodigy.net.mx 56581111 Ciudad de México

In God we trust

Why will the United States sacrify soldiers and invest thousands of millions of dollars in invading Iraq? Why does George Bush's government insist on making its citizens believe that Husein is a threat to the world? The answer lays on the weakend US economy that has ensure a cheap and continous supply of oil and this can be accomplished only militarily.

Eventhough US has other sources of energy and covers part of its energetic necesities exploiting its own oil reserves, US will need in a medium time limit to import a major quantity of oil since its reserves are not so great; without this combustible import it would be very dificult for the northamerican economy to accomplished a sustained growth.

The Persian Gulf has the greatest quantity of non-exploited oil deposits and the offer of oil originating from this part of the world influences drastically in determining the international price, on the other side eventhough US has allies in the Persian Gulf; countries like Iran or Iraq do not approve the participation of US companies in the development of non-exploited deposits.

These kinds of obstacles for US plans would impede to assure an offer continuously economically accesible for United States homes, industries and businesses.

That is why it's important a change in the Iraq regime, 3rd international place in oil reserves.

Nevertheless to be able tu justify a militar ocupation in Irak, (without the UN aproval), Washington has to convince United States citizens that international terrorism endangers their security and liberty. Also that Husein is a threat to the "free world" and many other so-called "arguments" with which the United States government and press have used to discredit a government that can rely on the mayority of the Iraqui population; the northamerican press inclusive has even qualified the northamericans as traitors that have cars that consume great quantities of combustible.

Washington has been successful at obtaining the aproval of its pupulation to go to war, in order to accounts United States has an apathetic population who is indifferent. They will behave meekly while their ability to purchase is safe.

United States national security in effect, depends on a war against Irak but not for the massive destructive weapons issue, nor fot the Islamic terrorism, but because it is necesary to increment oil reserves to be able to control the oil offer and along with this its price. Also to be able to sustain an economical growth.

If the United States is able to maintain a good standard of living the northamerican people will not have any internal problems, furthermore Israel's position would be propped up, controlling the Middle East and the export of oil to Europe.

Because of all this I believe it is important for us to take conscience of the issue because besides the humanitary disaster that will take place in Iraq, Mexico and Latin America are also in danger; Mexico has great oil reserves still not exploited in the Gulf of Mexico, (United States has not ratified Gulf of Mexico maritime limits) Nevertheless what is happening in Venezuela and Colombia is not an accident but its reason is the big impact on United States' foreign policy has, oil.

José Antonio Salas Barragán

www.oneworld.net Marcela Valente

BUENOS AIRES, Feb 6 (IPS) - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace laureate, urged his fellow Argentines Thursday to join in a global day for peace and against the potential U.S.-led war against Iraq, a vigil to occur Saturday, Feb 15, in numerous countries around the world.

''The war is not a response to the threat of Saddam Hussein, but to the interests of the United States military-industrial complex, (which seeks) control over petroleum sources around the world,'' charged Pérez, who received the 1980 Nobel Prize for Peace in honour of his defence of human rights during the Argentine military dictatorship (1976-1983).

According to a survey conducted in 41 countries by the Gallup polling firm, Argentina has the highest anti-war sentiment, with 83 percent of respondents opposed to an attack on Iraq.

Four percent said they would support a military offensive against Iraq if it had the backing of the United Nations, and only three percent were in favour of a unilateral attack by the United States.

Argentina was ranked second in the Gallup poll -- after Switzerland -- in the portion of respondents who said they would oppose their government supporting military action against Iraq.

Some local analysts believe this rejection could be due to the failure of the United States to offer Argentina assistance during the devastating economic crisis this South American nation has been suffering over the last year.

The Peace and Justice Service (SERPAJ), the human rights group headed by Pérez Esquivel, organised a ''peace day'' in Argentina Thursday alongside other rights groups, the CTA labour union, and associations of entrepreneurs, artists, intellectuals and unemployed workers.

But the idea for a peace day on a global scale emerged during the World Social Forum last week in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre. Delegates and activists there set the date for Feb 15, a day for individuals and civil society organisations worldwide to join in expressing their opposition to a possible U.S.-led war on Iraq.

In Buenos Aires, the proposal that was most popular for a Feb 15 peace event was to stage a march from Plaza Italia, in the Palermo district, to the U..S. embassy, 600 m away. But other events, including ceremonies for reflection and calls for peace, are also being scheduled.

Tati Almeyda, of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo Association-Founders, told IPS she deeply opposes a military offensive and charged that the United States is going to carry the world into war just because it wants control over sources of oil.

This group of mothers of those who disappeared during Argentina's dictatorship, in addition to taking part in the Feb 15 peace day, will urge ''all women-mothers of the world'', on Feb 12, to demand peace from the authorities in their own countries, from the United States, and from the United Nations Security Council.

Pérez Esquivel, meanwhile, says there is ''a single thread'' connecting the U.S. conflict with Iraq and the crisis in Venezuela, another country that is a leading producer of petroleum, and under normal circumstances the top supplier to the United States.

''The war constitutes a threat to all humanity,'' he added.

The human rights leader wrote an open letter to U.S. President George W. Bush asking him ''not to defy God and not to encourage intolerance and hate.'' Pérez Esquivel, however, said he is sceptical about the chances of achieving a reversal of the war machine that Washington has already set in motion.

''Given the history of the U.S. president since he was governor of Texas, we know that he did not offer clemency to anyone, and that all those who were sentenced to death under his watch were executed,'' noted the peace laureate.

He also sent a letter to the United Nations urging the adoption of ''concrete decisions to prevent the people of the world from being dragged into an armed conflict with unforeseeable consequences, one which could threaten the lives of millions of people.''

Instead -- and along the lines of statements made by the new president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva --, Pérez Esquivel said, ''The battle that the peoples of the world should fight is against the silent bomb of hunger, which kills more people than wars, and against social exclusion and poverty.''