www.khilafah.com uploaded 29 Jan 2003 ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã How to Stop the War Decisively

Following the launch of our campaign ‘Don’t Stop the War – except through Islamic Politics’, many who support the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ campaign have presented arguments to try to justify their position. As yet these arguments have not addressed the daleel (evidence) used nor presented even a shubhat daleel (semblance of evidence) regarding their position. What we have received, however, are arguments that are built upon the mind. The main argument used is ‘how can we stop the war except by lobbying the British government?’

We have felt it necessary to address this question in some detail, such that those who support the ‘Stop the War’ campaign and still intend to march on the 15th of February can reconsider their position.

Any political campaign waged by Muslims should be characterised by two things – firstly it must conform to the Shari’ah, and secondly the actions conducted should be consistent with the political aim. Therefore, lobbying the British Government, British Parliament, the US Administration or the United Nations is both incompatible with the Shari’ah and the aim of achieving the objective of stopping the war.

The contradiction with the Shari’ah is because through lobbying these entities, sovereignty is conceded to the taghoot. Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) says,

Ãóáóãú ÊóÑó Åöáóì Çáøó®¢öíäó íóÒúÚõãõæäó Ãóäøóåõãú ÂãóäõæÇ ÈöãóÇ ÃõäúÒöáó Åöáóíúßó æóãóÇ ÃõäúÒöáó ãöäú ®!=óÈúáößó íõÑöíÏõæäó Ãóäú íóÊóÍóÇßóãõæÇ Åöáóì ÇáØøóÇÛõæÊö æó®!=óÏú ÃõãöÑõæÇ Ãóäú íóßú†õÑõæÇ Èöåö æóíõÑöíÏõ ÇáÔøóíúØóÇäõ Ãóäú íõÖöáøóåõãú ÖóáóÇá©£Ç ÈóÚöíÏ©£Ç

“Have you seen those who claim to believe in the revelation revealed to you and the revelation revealed earlier. They seek the ruling of taghoot (non-Islam) although they have been ordered to disbelieve in it” [TMQ An-Nisa: 60].

This ayah of the Qur’an decisively forbids referring to solutions that come from Kufr sources, institutions or ideologies.

Additionally, the action is also inconsistent with the aim of stopping the war as these nations are colonialist in their outlook and therefore decide actions based on the interests of the capitalists and not the interests of the common man. This is clear when we read the history of Britain and America in their dealings with the Islamic world.

Consequently challenging and accounting the Muslim rulers is the action that both conforms to the Shari’ah and is consistent with the aim of ensuring a war against Iraq does not happen. There are a number of myths in this debate advocated by many in the ‘Stop the War’ movement – these are that America is the only cause of the bloodshed in Iraq, that Bush has the final say on this war, that the Muslim countries are impotent and that it is futile to challenge the Muslim rulers as they are helpless.

The myth that the Muslim countries are mere spectators in this dispute completely contradicts the reality. It is clear that there is a systematic and unambiguous blood trail that exists from the capitals of the Muslim countries to the deaths of Muslims in Iraq. It is also clear that rather than being in a weak position, the Muslim countries will have an effective veto on this war. This can be illustrated using clear evidences from the political reality.

It is clear that since the US and the UK do not share a physical land border with Iraq, they rely extensively on the assistance and help of countries from the region. This assistance constitutes unparalleled support for America and without it any war on Iraq would become a fanciful philosophy. What follows is an illustration of the main components of this unparalleled support:

1. The US military, as well as the wider US society, relies on importing 50% of its oil needs every day – this constitutes almost 10 million barrels of oil per day. Its allies such as Japan and Europe are also heavily reliant on imported energy resources. According to a report issued a couple of years ago by Dick Cheney, the US will need to import at least 60% more energy resources than it does now by 2020. America and its allies are heavily reliant on oil from Muslim lands to the extent that America even imports oil from Iraq currently (500,000 barrels of oil per day), while at the same time she is prepared to attack the very same nation. The consequences of an oil boycott by the Muslim countries would have devastating impact on America, her allies and the world economy and would make any war more problematic. However instead of making moves to a boycott, Saudi Arabia in the last OPEC meeting announced an increase in oil production to further smooth the worldwide energy situation. This was a missed opportunity as the price of oil has been rising on the back of war jitters in addition to the production problems being currently faced by Venezuela.

2. The US Navy has been assembling its armada and war fleet so as to be in a position to launch an attack against Iraq. Many people are in awe of the US Navy with its armada of aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers. However what is less well known is that for these ships to get from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea they must pass through the Egyptian controlled Suez Canal. On just one day, last week, nine US and allied ships sailed through the Suez Canal as part of the war build-up. If the Egyptian Government were to close the Suez Canal for military warships operated by the allies this would create significant problems for America in getting her navy into position. Many cite the huge dependence of Egypt on Suez Canal shipping fees (about $2 billion in 2002), however any war will undoubtedly impact normal merchant shipping anyway and the Canal authorities have already factored in a 10% loss in income yields.

3. In addition the US Navy’s 5th Fleet is actually housed by the Bahraini Government, thus providing it with invaluable logistical and political support. If the Bahraini Government refused to act as a host nation for the 5th fleet, where could this US armada realistically go? This is the same 5th fleet that will be firing hundreds of cruise missiles at Iraq.

4. In the last Gulf War the US military build up took five months to conduct. However since 1991 the US has been busy developing many roots in the Gulf States, building a formidable array of bases crammed with ‘pre-positioned’ equipment. In Kuwait the US training base of Camp Doha, built in 1991 as a temporary facility, has become permanent home to about 10,000 US troops; a second permanent facility is being built at Camp Arifjan. Tens of thousands more allied troops are also on their way to Kuwait, so providing a perfect platform for America and Britain to attack Iraq from the south.

5. In Qatar the US has use of one of the longest runways in the region at about 5,000 yards at the al-Udeid airbase, recently upgraded to American specifications. The airbase was built at a cost of $1 billion and is used exclusively by the American airforce, with no Qatari planes in sight. The kingdom also houses the largest stockpile of US military equipment abroad and will house General Tommy Franks and the CENTCOM central planning unit from where the war will be conducted and orchestrated. US commanders also launched a dry run of their ability to oversee the command and control of a conflict from Qatar, the first time such a war game has taken place outside the US. Such an exercise will prove invaluable experience for American forces in any upcoming desert war.

6. In Turkey, nearly 2,000 US Airforce personnel fly daily missions to patrol the no-fly zones from the bases at Incirlik and Diyabakir. America has also sought to house thousands of army troops in Turkey so as to assist in any land attack against northern Iraq. Turkey also provides valuable assistance as a member of NATO to America by ensuring that America’s military responsibilities in other theatres are addressed while she is free to attack Iraq.

7. In Saudi Arabia the US still maintains 10,000 troops and the prestigious operational centre at the Prince Sultan airbase. This airbase is considered a state of the art facility and was used in the Gulf war and during the war against Afghanistan. Saudi officials despite their public statements have assured America that the facility will be used to lead the air campaign against Iraq.

8. The provision of these military bases, use of air space, logistical help, access of waterways and air bases combined with other US bases present in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan provide invaluable launch pads from where America can engage in its attack. It is a complete distortion of the reality to say that America could effectively prosecute this war against Iraq without such help.

9. Though America has numerous aircraft carriers in their arsenal, these as mentioned before can only operate within the region due to the acquiescence of the Muslim rulers. In addition these carriers are unable to house the heavy bombers that will be needed to effectively do the job in Iraq. Only missions from land airfields can carry the heavier weapons needed to open deep bunkers or carpet-bomb bigger targets. In addition a land invasion from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Turkey is eminently easier than one attempted from the sea. A US Professor of National Security at the Joint Forces Staff College, Ehsan Ahrari, admitted the reliance on help from the region when he said, “We are not 100% dependent on availability of those facilities, even though it would make military operations imminently more doable”.

10. However the above series of points simply illustrate the huge damage that could be done to the war plans of the Western countries from Muslim countries that simply desist from assisting the Western forces. The above realities clearly demonstrate that America and Britain could not possibly initiate this war without the assistance of the Muslim rulers, yet what would happen if Muslim countries actually engaged in military operations to support Iraq?

11. For example Iran, Syria and Jordan have all declared neutrality in any upcoming war – however this is a dishonourable position. These nations should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims of Iraq, and if they did this would completely destroy any American plan to colonise Iraq. This, allied to the denial of bases, waterways and a refusal by Turkey to house thousands of troops, would mean America would not be able to fight this war.

12. In addition if Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia stopped co-operating with America in its ‘war on terror’, America would have to divide her resources. If these nations made unilateral attacks on America’s interests in South/Central Asia and South East Asia, America would find it very difficult to fight on so many fronts. This can be seen clearly from America’s inability despite Pentagon protestations to simultaneously defeat both North Korea and Iraq at the same time.

13. The Central Asian states such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, in response to a war on Iraq, could also decide to close down their pipelines and oil/gas production. This would jeopardise the world economy at the same time that America was seeking to fight Iraq. Economic damage could also be done to the Western economies if the Arab countries that have billions of dollars invested abroad decided to divest their monetary and other financial assets from America and Europe.

Conclusion

We find today that the very groups who are calling to support the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ are in fact the same groups who avoid discussing the rulers in the Muslim world – the ones who can decisively stop this war. Their silence on this is deafening and if it continues they will end up joining these rulers in their crime. They are funded by these corrupt states for the work of ‘Da’wah’. We find it ironic that Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, the Sheikh of Qatar, host of American troops, comes to the UK to endorse the ‘Stop the War’ march. Yet he keeps silent about the crime of the Qatari Government and the US troops garrisoned there, ready to strike at our brothers. Indeed he is promoted by them as the official authority of Islam, such that he comes to Britain to promote Muslims to lobby the Western governments.

It is therefore clear that without the political, economic and military assistance provided by the Muslim countries, that America and Britain cannot possibly fight this war in any successful fashion. Effectively the Muslim lands and their rulers have the real right of veto and the destiny of the Muslims of Iraq lies in their hands. The Muslim leaders appear to the masses as being lukewarm to this war – however this is not driven by their love for the Muslims of Iraq but rather their fear for their own survival due to the deep hatred the Muslims of the region have for them. They are all in vulnerable political positions, which is why they are forced to promise America and Britain everything in private. By Muslims engaging in a concerted and powerful political campaign in Britain and all around the world, we can assist this global struggle in putting substantial pressure on these regimes to be replaced, so that they do not further any assistance to the 21st century US and UK crusaders.

We ask you to stop the war only through the Islamic political work. This is the correct Da’wah we call you to. May Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) be a witness to this.

æó®!=õáö ÇÚúãóáõæÇ †óÓóíóÑóì Çááøóåõ Úóãóáóßõãú æóÑóÓõæáõåõ æóÇáúãõÄúãöäõæäó æóÓóÊõÑóÏøõæäó Åöáóì ÚóÇáöãö ÇáúÛóíúÈö æóÇáÔøóåóÇÏóÉö †óíõäóÈøöÆõßõãú ÈöãóÇ ßõäúÊõãú ÊóÚúãóáõæäó “And say: work (righteousness) soon will Allah observe your work and His Messenger, and the believers” [TMQ At-Taubah: 105].

Hizb ut-Tahrir – Britain 29th January 2003 / 26 Dhul Qadah 1423 Hijri

focus.scmp.com Thursday, January 30, 2003 SUNANDA DATTA-RAY

After the warning from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi Arabian oil minister and co- founder of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), that the oil price could shoot up to US$100 (HK$780) a barrel, it is no wonder French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are worried about America's planned war on Iraq.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair can afford to be sanguine, since Britain is self-sufficient in oil. Europe is not. Obliged to hold enough oil in reserve for 90 days, Other European Union members are haunted by the spectre of civil strife and rampaging mobs when food and fuel fall short, if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein destroys not only his own oil wells but also those in neighbouring countries that help the US. (Iraq has the world's second-largest deposits, though the United Nations allows it to produce only two million barrels a day.)

If that happened, Sheik Yamani told a conference in Doha, the capital of Qatar, the US "would be the cause of a global disaster". It would be a nightmare for Asia and Africa, where rising prices would curb investment, slow production, reduce trade and arrest the development process. Basic necessities would be priced out of reach. The Arab Monetary Fund estimated during the 1991 Gulf War that while the Middle East lost US$676 billion in oil revenue and structural damage, the cost to Iraq was US$256 billion. According to the Arab fund, the poorest Asian countries lost US$23 billion.

The EU imports 30 per cent of its oil from the Gulf, which has two-thirds of the world's known reserves and has more spare capacity than any other oil-producing region. Another 15 per cent comes from Iran and Iraq.

Of course, there are other reasons - morality, legal propriety and respect for the UN - why EU leaders advise caution. And they have not forgotten the devastation of two world wars. They know better than Mr Bush that it is folly to imagine all evil can be driven out and the world reinvented according to some idealistic model. They might also be keen to show that Europe counts. Waxing lyrical on the 40th anniversary of the signing by France and Germany of the Elysee treaty to forge closer ties, Mr Chirac said: "When Germany and France get along, Europe advances. When they don't, Europe stops." Maybe. But the most immediately compelling reason why they agree on the question of war and peace in the Middle East is that they do not want to add to voter discontent.

Oil causes concern even in Britain. One has only to think of the strike by oil tanker drivers in 2000. The British had adequate reserves but responded with long queues at petrol stations, while panic buying emptied many supermarket shelves.

Britain cannot remain isolated from a global fuel crisis. Its food imports have doubled in the last two decades and the food trade deficit stands at £8.3 billion (HK$106 billion). Food accounts for 40 per cent of all road freight in Britain and there was a 90 per cent increase in food and agricultural product freight between Britain and continental Europe from 1989 to 1999.

Trying to keep the oil price at between US$22 and US$28 a barrel, Opec decided recently to increase daily production by an additional 1.5 million barrels. This was to counter the crippling strike in Venezuela, which supplies 13 per cent of US imports. Ironically, America - which has less than 3 per cent of the world's oil reserves - saw Venezuela as its bulwark against Arab oil politics. Now the Arabs have had to go to America's rescue.

Prices will fall if Mr Bush pulls back and Iraq is allowed to return to normal oil production. However, the US calculates that a quick war would give them control of Iraq's oil industry. They would then be able to lift UN restrictions, invest in drilling and increase production. But even the US knows that prices are bound to rise during hostilities, however short they might be.

Seeking support, the US is reported to have privately promised Russia that Iraq will have to pay its outstanding dues of about US$8 billion.

It has also assured Turkey that, apart from financial compensation, its claim to royalties from the Mosul and Kirkuk fields (the reason Britain prised Iraq out of the Ottoman empire) will be considered. China has been told that only a common strategy on cheap energy can sustain its phenomenal growth rate.

Urban societies that depend on the long-haul transport of imported food fear the most from the political fallout of economic discontent. Panic buying would mean massive disruption, sudden scarcities, an erosion of confidence in governments and civil unrest. There was evidence of this during the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

But, of course, the developing nations will bear the main brunt. Some could be reduced to destitution. As the traditional English song has it:

"It's the same the whole world over,

It's the poor what gets the blame. . ."

For blame read punishment.

Sunanda Datta-Ray is a senior fellow at the School of Communication and Information of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

allafrica.com OPINION January 29, 2003 Posted to the web January 29, 2003 RW Johnson Johannesburg

THOSE who oppose the idea of an Anglo-American war against Saddam Hussein are wont to argue that "really it's just about oil". This view is not to be lightly dismissed, although the conclusion it leads to is less obvious.

When Saddam tried to annex Kuwait in 1991 there were two reasons why this aggression had to be resisted.

Firstly, it was a wholly unprovoked act of aggression; secondly, because if the Kuwaiti oilfields were added to Iraq's enormous oil reserves the world's second biggest Saddam would at once have been the overwhelming power within the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The Saudis and the rest of the Gulf states would have had to pay him tribute, to avoid Kuwait's fate.

That power grab was extraordinary in its ambition, comparable only to Hitler's invasion of the USSR. Hitler knew that if he won, no power in the world could stand up to someone whose realm stretched from Brittany to Vladivostock.

We are all forever in the debt of the Red Army and the Russian people that they prevented mankind from being put at the mercy of a man who used the gaschamber as an instrument of policy.

But Saddam is exactly the same, right down to using gas against the Kurds and Iran. In Kuwait many of his fellow Arabs were put to tortures of mediaeval ferocity at his instruction. Personally, once I heard that when the Iraqi soccer team lost the players were routinely beaten and tortured.

I felt you could read off the rest. I won't read any more accounts of Saddam torturing children to get information out of their parents and so forth (he apparently plays a personal part in such sessions). It makes me sick, literally. The point is that the man is, provenly, a monster of Hitlerian proportions, in his methods and his ambitions.

US policy doubtless takes fully into account the imperative need to diversify its oil reliance. The US is in a vulnerable position when its oil imports come mainly from Saudi Arabia (home of Al-Qaeda), Angola (corrupt one-party regime) and Venezuela (when it's working).

Having Iraq under a friendly, democratic pro-western regime would clearly be in the US national interest. National interests not only exist but are legitimate and must be factored in. Let's not pretend. But I am from SA, not the US, whose national interest is not mine. I am far more concerned that Thabo Mbeki has chosen to flirt with Saddam, sent Aziz Pahad on a mission there and is clearly taking Saddam's side in the war.

Within months, let alone years, this could come to seem like the actions of Petain, Peron or Franco who had collaborated with Hitler. Once Hitler was beaten, Auschwitz and Belsen were revealed. There was no saving anyone who had sided with that. It will be the same with Saddam. SA is already backing the murderous and antidemocratic regime of Robert Mugabe. Truly, Mandela's legacy has been squandered.

What history remembers is that Hitler was so evil that for all one's detestation of Stalin's Russia we must all be eternally grateful to the Red Army.

Whatever one's reservations about Bush's US, we shall probably all feel exactly the same once Saddam has also been defeated and his murderous and utterly evil regime is laid bare.

When Iraqis are dancing in the streets at Saddam's fall and it will surely happen Bush and Blair, whatever their other motives, will seem like liberators.

Mbeki and Pahad will then be viewed not just by the US and Britain but by democratic Iraqis rather in the same light as Peron and Franco were viewed after 1945, men who had revealed their true colours by showing friendship to Hitler even while he was invading Russia and carrying out his terrible pogroms. Our leaders are playing with fire.

Johnson, former Oxford academic and former director of the Helen Suzman Foundation, is a freelance writer.

www.rediff.com January 29, 2003 12:11 IST

World oil prices bounced back after Iraq said it could retaliate against crude producing neighbour Kuwait if the United States launches an attack from Kuwaiti territory.

US light crude by 1730 GMT was up 26 cents at $32.52 a barrel after losing 99 cents on Monday. London Brent blend added 34 cents to $30.20 a barrel.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz told Canada's CBC television in an interview in Baghdad that Iraq might strike at Kuwait to defend itself against a US invasion.

"Kuwait is a battlefield and American troops are in Kuwait and preparing themselves to attack Iraq," he said.

"If there will be an attack from Kuwait I cannot say that we will not retaliate. We will of course retaliate against the American troops wherever they start their aggression on Iraq. This is legitimate."

Dealers are waiting for US President George W Bush's State of the Union address later on Tuesday, at 2100 local time (0200 GMT), for further clues on the timing of any war effort.

"Some traders are looking at whether the threat of war has really subsided, and are taking positions in case the State of the Union address is really more aggressive than the previous rhetoric from Bush," said John Hirjee, senior energy analyst at Deutsche Bank in Melbourne.

Drumbeat

Many military analysts expect hostilities to start by the end of February or early March, once the combined forces of the United States, Britain and Australia are in place in the Gulf.

"We'll hear a deafening drumbeat from the United States in the run-up to February 14," said Iraq expert Toby Dodge of Warwick University.

"I would be surprised if the air war had not started within seven days of that."

Britain joined the United States in declaring Iraq in "material breach" of UN disarmament demands on Tuesday, a day after chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council that Saddam had not come clean about stocks of lethal weapons.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said a further report by UN inspectors on February 14 was not an ultimatum, but warned Iraq that its ‘unbelievable' refusal to comply with UN demands had diminished chances of a peaceful outcome.

"The US-British deployment will be in place towards the end of February. They could start the air campaign a bit ahead of that, but probably won't," said Sir Timothy Garden, a defence expert at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Capping price gains was further evidence that Venezuela is managing to bring more strike-hit oil production back onstream.

Opposition oil workers in a daily report said output tapped a million barrels a day on Tuesday, a third of normal levels, for the first time during the eight-week shutdown.

The government has used troops and replacement crews to break the strike, which aims to force President Hugo Chavez to resign and call an election.

www.hipakistan.com

LAHORE: Of all the Middle Eastern and Central Asia countries, Pakistan will be the worst hit by the US attack on Iraq due to its political instability and nuclear capability.

This was the consensus of the debate on "US attack on Iraq and the future of our region" arranged by an NGO, Mashaal, at the HRCP auditorium here on Tuesday with HRCP director I. A. Rehman in the chair.

Columnist and author Ahmad Rashid said within three days of the terrorist attack on America on Sept 11, US President Bush had declared his intention to attack Iraq. Unlike the attack on Iraq in 1991 when many countries of the world had supported the US, this time there was great opposition by the people as well as governments throughout the world as was evident from the large rallies held against the possible US attack.

He apprehended that the US attack would have serious repercussions on the entire region, particularly Pakistan as President Gen Musharraf had expressed his concern the other day when he had been quoted asking how Pakistan could avert its turn after Iraq.

Mr Rashid said Pakistan had already taken a U-turn on Afghanistan when the US had attacked it. Now, he feared, it would take another turn as Pakistan-US relations might deteriorate after the attack on Iraq because of three reasons.

First, there were reports of Taliban leaders taking shelter in Pakistan, particularly in the NWFP and tribal areas, as Gulbadeen Hikmatyar who had been supporting the Al Qaeda movement had been reportedly visiting the country.

Secondly, there were reports of the plans to resume the support of Kashmiri freedom fighters, and thirdly, the US apprehension of going Pakistan's nuclear technology into wrong hands and the possibility of its transfer to other countries as reported by the American and western media hurling all sorts of accusations and allegations against Pakistan's programme.

He said Indo-Pakistan relations had deteriorated so much that both the countries had lost all contacts, even worse than the US-USSR relations during the Cold War when at least they had contacts at various levels. The Indian defence minister was talking of wiping out Pakistan from the world map.

Mashaal chairman, a physicist, an intellectual and author, Pervaiz Hoodbhai, said America had no moral and political justification to attack Iraq. It was not a clash between two civilizations but it would be a war for the vested US interests.

He said since the end of the World War-II, America had fought 28 major war and numerous small battles in different parts of the world, the biggest and disastrous of them was the one fought in Vietnam where no less than one million Vietnamese were killed. In the 1991 Gulf War, 70,000 Iraqis were killed. Israel, abetted by the US had killed over 60,000 people in Lebanon, including Palestinians who had taken refuge there. America and Israel had jointly killed about 250,000 people since 1945 in wars.

He said the people of the world were opposing the US attack on Iraq as was evident from the large rallies all over the world. Thousands of people in Europe had declared their plan to make a human shield in Iraq against the attack. The people of Pakistan could not avert the war but they could join the anti-war campaign. The western and American media had been publishing malicious reports against Pakistan's nuclear programme which could mislead the world about the nuclear and missile programme of Pakistan.

Mr Hoodbhai said America feared that Pakistan's nuclear technology might be transferred to other countries, particularly North Korea. Though US Secretary of State Colin Powell had denied the reports and hushed up the matter but, after the Iraq war, the issue could be taken up.

He said any incident like the attack on Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, could be staged to attack on Pakistan. The US, India and Israel could also launch a joint action against Pakistan's nuclear programme. In fact they had started thinking on the strategy, he added.

Columnist and author Khalid Ahmad also expressed his concern at the remarks of President Musharraf referring to Pakistan's turn and said though it was an off-the-record remark, it was reported and commented upon in newspapers.

Unlike the Gulf War, the US could not get enough support for attack on Iraq and the people and the governments of various Western countries were opposing President Bush, he added.

He said there was no terrorism in Iraq which was said to possess weapons of mass destructions. America could take action against Pakistan but it had become an ally in its war against terrorism and had got many concessions. Action against Pakistan had been delayed, not averted.

He said there was a need for pragmatism instead of idealism to handle the delicate situation caused by the US designs against Iraq and their impact on the region.

He said conditions in Pakistan were worse than those in Afghanistan. The international law was what the five permanent members of the UN Security Council decide and the smaller nations were required to follow them.

He criticized the role of OIC which had no courage to raise its voice against the US action.

HRCP director I. A. Rehman emphasized the need for meeting the situation caused by the possible US attack on Iraq with reason rather than emotions.

He said the impact of the attack had already been felt on the Indo-Pakistan relations as both the countries had started expelling their embassy staff and a stage would come soon when only guards would be left in the offices of both embassies. The attack would have its impact on Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries of the region.

He said after the 9/11 tragedy the phase of terrorism had come to an end and replaced by the hegemony of the big powers which would get a licence to browbeat the smaller and weaker nations.