www.gulf-daily-news.com Vol XXV   NO. 315      Wednesday      29 January 2003 By ROBERT SMITH MANAMA

A TEAM of UK government volunteers will be set up to handle the evacuation of Britons from the Gulf in the event of a war with Iraq.

The special crisis unit will co-ordinate with airlines to ferry British citizens who want to return to their home country.

A British Foreign Office spokesman yesterday told the GDN it was a routine step to take in the event of an emergency.

Only last week British citizens were evacuated from Venezuela, which is on the brink of civil war as it attempts to quell a growing nationwide strike movement in support of socialist President Hugo Chavez.

"No decision has been taken to launch military action in Iraq," said the Foreign Office spokes-man.

"But it would be irresponsible not to plan for such eventualities.

"In any consular situation, we would make use of a pool of Foreign Office volunteers and people from other government departments to handle the situation.

"It does the kind of work you would expect in an emergency. If there is military action we would set up such a unit.

"This is something we set up in any crisis, but we have to think about the implications from what might happen in Iraq.

"We will also take into account the terrorist threat."

There are currently just under 7,000 Britons registered in Bahrain and approximately 100,000 throughout the Gulf.

A British newspaper reported this week that a 60-strong squad of civil servants had already been picked out to staff a consular crisis centre.

It said the team was expected to be operational for just three weeks and would liaise with embassies and airlines to organise the evacuation of British nationals living in the region.

However, the Foreign Office spokesman denied the unit had already been established and refused to speculate on how long it would be operational for.

On Monday, the British Embassy reminded Britons to register at its offices in Manama so they can be contacted quickly in an emergency.

Advice

The Foreign Office spokesman also suggested they pay close attention to travel advice issued by the British government.

"People should keep a close eye on any travel advice issued for the region," he said.

"But we are not planning any evacuation at this stage."

Meanwhile, the US State Department has already advised Americans around the world to be prepared for emergency evacuations in the event of unforeseen circumstances, including war.

All US embassies and consulates worldwide are sending warden messages to American expatriates with advice on preparing themselves for an emergency.

A US embassy spokeswoman in Bahrain also advised American residents here to register with the embassy.

"We always tell US citizens to register," she said. "Anybody who registers is assigned to a warden and are much easier to contact."

A German Embassy spokesman said there are no current plans to evacuate German citizens in the event of a war.

But he added that circumstances would dictate any such decision.

"It is very hard to say at present," said the spokesman. "So far there is no war. If there is we will have to decide according to the situation.

"It is impossible to say now."

news.bbc.co.uk Tuesday, 28 January, 2003, 19:43 GMT

South Africa warns of economic mayhem from costly oil imports

South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki fears that rocketing oil prices brought on by a Middle East war could condemn Africa to deep economic crisis, his spokesman has told BBC World Service Radio.

The impact could be severe enough to undo any benefits from a 2002 agreement for leading industrial countries to expand aid to Africa, said presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo.

Worries about the impact of a conflict on oil supplies have kept prices in sight of $30 a barrel in recent weeks. Most analysts expect the outbreak of war would push prices sharply higher, but differ on for how long.

War with Iraq is would bring "devastating economic consequences" for Africa, playing havoc with inflation and causing budget problems for poor countries, said Mr Khumalo.

'Poorer and poorer'

For this reason, President Mbeki believes war is "not in the best interests of the peoples of Africa", he said.

Thabo Mbeki pushed hard for Nepad but the outcome fell short of pleas

Last year the G8 grouping of industrial nations agreed to step up aid, trade and debt relief to Africa in an anti-poverty pact known as Nepad, the New Partnership for African Development.

War "would put paid to all the high hopes raised by...Nepad...and therefore ensure that the people of Africa would continue to confront the reality of even further impoverishment," the president's spokesman said.

"What it does really is to move Africa off the radar screen of the entire world," he added.

South Africa's ambassador to the United Nations is leading a team of Non-Aligned Movement counties calling for more negotiations, he said.

South Africa wants Iraq to comply with UN resolutions demanding it disarm, he said.

Seeking new supplies

African oil importers such as South Africa, Kenya and Ghana would be vulnerable to any increase in prices, though oil exporting countries like Nigeria could benefit.

Oil exploration in Africa is expanding

International oil firms have stepped up exploration for oil in Africa in recent years, particuarly offshore from Nigeria and Angola.

So far they have not found any deposits big enough to alter global dependence on Middle East oil, a spokesman for Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell said.

"The major resource holders...in the Middle East will still have the dominance in terms of their reserves," Shell spokesman James Harding told World Business Report.

'Short term problem'

But some oil executives think the oil prices are unlikely to remain at current levels for much longer.

TotalFinaElf chief executive Thierry said prices are likely to fall by mid-2003, as they have partly been driven up by a mass strike halting supplies from Venezuela, the world's fifth biggest exporter.

As long as any war in Iraq was brief, he said, "I don't think there would be too huge (an) impact on the oil price".

Oil prices rose on Tuesday as traders waited the US president's annual State of the Union address, sure to be scoured for clues on US intentions.

Benchmark Brent crude was trading 22 cents higher at $30.08 a barrell at 1746 GMT in London on Tuesday.

In New York, US light crude was 16 cents higher at $32.45 a barrel.

www.bangkokpost.com

Washington has shown itself to be more than resolute on Iraq, but not so those countries so ready to condemn its actions.

DOUG BANDOW

`We will not take part in a military intervention in Iraq,'' German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has said. Whether his government will oppose war when the UN Security Council votes is less clear, though he has promised not to ``agree to a resolution that legitimises war''.

France also offers resolute ambiguity, threatening but not promising a veto. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin plans to use the summit of European Union foreign ministers to build a coalition against war.

Yet Washington doubts that its critics are serious. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he hoped ``the French will come to the understanding of the need for such a strategy''. That is, he expects Paris to give in as it always does.

Even the refusal of Nato to approve America's request for assistance is seen as temporary. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the problem as one of ``old Europe'', asserting that most European nations were with the US.

America has heard tough talk from its allies before. Last autumn, in fact.

Mr Schroeder won re-election by running against the Bush administration's plan for war in Iraq, but later promised to send German troops to Turkey to crew Awacs planes sent by Nato. Paris similarly criticised the US, but subsequently agreed to the Security Council resolution demanded by Washington.

Nor is that all. Over the years, Washington has learned that it can browbeat and bully most nations into submission on most issues. America's critics are paper tigers.

The inspectors' positive assessment of Iraqi cooperation merely delays a showdown over Iraq. Still, that debate will give war opponents another chance to block Washington. But simple criticism, whether from angry demonstrators or frustrated diplomats, will not dissuade the Bush administration from attacking Iraq. Concrete practical steps are needed.

First, US allies must look after their own interests. For instance, South Korea and Japan are understandably focused on the prospect of North Korea restarting its nuclear programme. But war in Iraq makes war in Korea more likely.

Although President George W. Bush has proclaimed his pacific intentions in the peninsula, no one should take him at his word. Once the conquest of Iraq is complete, there will be rising demands within and without the administration for military action against the North. At that point, opposition by Seoul and Tokyo may be too little too late.

Australia has strongly backed the Bush administration. Yet war against Iraq, by creating additional Muslim grievances and encouraging the use and transfer of whatever weapons of mass destruction Baghdad possesses, increases the likelihood of a future, more devastating, Bali-like bombing. Countries ranging from Thailand to Taiwan also could be affected.

Second, France must do more than bluster. Only by vetoing any UN war resolution can France hope to stop the Bush administration's war plans. And only by making a commitment and sticking to it will Paris be able to encourage China and Russia to join it.

A veto by two or three of the Security Council's permanent members, supported by the negative votes of Germany and perhaps other states, would demonstrate a shocking lack of international support.

Third, Germany's Mr Schroeder must prove that opposition to Washington is more than a cheap election stunt. The administration, appropriately, has nothing but disdain for a supposed ally that offers criticism while yielding on substantive issues.

Put bluntly, the US doesn't need Berlin's approval if the Schroeder government nevertheless allows unfettered American use of German airspace, permits Washington to shift forces from bases in Germany, and even mans Awacs planes supporting the war. If the chancellor believes Washington's Iraq policy to be misguided, even dangerous, he must say so _ and vote against any Security Council resolution, bar the use of German troops in any fashion, and deny Washington use of German airspace and bases.

Fourth, France and Germany must encourage other governments to join with them. No single nation is likely to face down the globe's hyper-power. But a veto by three nations is easier to sustain than a veto by one. A protest by several European states carries more weight than criticism by one or two. An opposition that included Pakistan and Syria _ like Germany, temporary members of the Security Council _ as well as India and several Asian states would be more impressive still.

Fifth, if America's critics, especially Berlin and Paris, aspire to greater international influence, they should encourage Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where a new government faces a public that oppose war by a nine-to-one margin, to stand firm against any war. A little bridge-building with Ankara would be particularly useful, given the perceived snub over EU membership.

Sixth, the British Labour party must say no to war in its name. Prime Minister Tony Blair is supporting Bush administration policies, but this will not be Tony Blair's war. It will be the Labour government's war.

Verbal criticism by backbenchers matters little. A public revolt before any vote might force the prime minister, who has already temporised by urging that the inspectors be given more time, to withdraw his unconditional support for Washington.

Lastly, other governments must warn Washington that they will not bail it out after any war. Almost all analysts believe that the occupation will be more difficult than the invasion. The Bush administration is counting on European nations to furnish many of the tens of thousands of troops who will be needed for years to preserve some pretence of order among Baathists, Kurds, Shiites and returning emigres. Berlin, Paris and others should tell the US that not only will this be its war, it will be its peace.

If, instead, war opponents back down after publicly criticising American policy, they will reinforce the justifiable contempt in which they are held in Washington. Retreat now and war opponents ensure that US administrations will continue to ignore them in foreign crises. And they encourage the American government to believe not only that what Washington says goes but what Washington says other nations will eventually, if reluctantly, obey. And who could blame US policymakers for doing so?

The credibility of Washington's critics is at stake. If nations like Germany and France give in _ especially if they end up voting for and give military support to the Bush administration _ after taking such strong positions, they will feed Washington's conviction that it can impose its will without constraint.

The Iraq process will inevitably repeat, with North Korea or Iran the next military target, or with a plan for coercive ``regime change'' in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or perhaps to forcibly disarm Pakistan.

It will be difficult to stop Washington's rush to war. But united foreign opposition offers the only hope of doing so. Denied the fig-leaf of UN approval, aid from Nato, and use of bases in neighbouring Middle Eastern states, Washington would truly have to go it alone. And do so in the face of opposition from many of the globe's most important players.

That might change President Bush's mind. Other nations can play a leading role in shaping policy towards Iraq. If they are truly serious about doing so.

*Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and author and editor of several books.

www.malaysiakini.com Analysis Ash Pulcifer 11:48am Tue Jan 28th, 2003

Most people are aware that oil will play a role in the Bush administration's possible invasion of Iraq, but many do not quite understand how. The common assumption is that the US military will somehow "steal" Iraq's oil. This is simply not the case.

The reason that oil plays a part in any future conflict with Iraq has to do with the amount of oil available oún the free market. oún the free market, whenever there is an increase in supply of a product, the price of that product generally decreases. Such is the hope of the Bush administration with regard to the price of oil should they remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Currently, Iraq is allowed to export some two million barrels of oil per day (bpd), which finds its way into the global marketplace; shortly after the Gulf War, Iraq's oil exports were restricted as part of the United Nations oil-for-food programme. Before the Gulf War began, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million bpd, meaning at least another 1.5 million barrels of oil were being released into the global marketplace each day as compared with two million bpd now. If Iraq were to oúnce again rise to that level of exports, there would be more oil supply in the global market and this would cause a drop in oil prices.

The oúnly way for Iraq to oúnce again export 3.5 million bpd will be for the United Nations sanctions to end. oúnce the sanctions end, Iraq will be able to export oil at their full capacity as they did before the Gulf War. However, because the United States and Britain believe strongly that the sanctions should remain in place until Saddam Hussein is removed from power, they have looked for other solutions to solve this problem of high oil prices. The Bush administration decided the sanctions were not succeeding in removing Hussein and it was time they just removed him themselves, putting their own friendly government into power and thus putting an end to the need for sanctions. Oil-savvy administration

This is oúne of the central ideas behind the Bush administration's wish for "regime change". High oil prices damage the economies of countries that are dependent oún foreign oil, such as the United States. If oil prices were to drop dramatically, it would be as if a great weight had been lifted off the chest of the US economy, possibly leading to a global economic upturn. The positive result of "regime change" in Iraq to the US economy cannot be underestimated.

See, the Bush administration has far loftier goals in mind when it comes to Iraq. Maybe it's because the central thinkers in the administration were at oúne time involved in the oil industry: President George W Bush was a senior executive in Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration oil company from 1978-1984, and the senior executive of the Harken oil company from 1986-1990; Vice President Dick B Cheney was the chief executive of the Halliburton oil company from 1995-2000; and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was a senior executive with the Chevron oil company from 1991-2000. So this administration knows its oil. And because of that, they quite ambitiously say, "Why not increase Iraq's oil capacity to a level higher than ever before, thus adding even more supply to the oil market?"

And that is what they intend to do. The new government that the US installs will want to increase production because that will result in more exports and thus more money for the Iraqi economy. But the oúnly way to increase production is to incorporate western technology into oil drilling practices.

Good for US economy

That's where the American oil companies come in. The American oil companies will be needed to rebuild and update Iraq's oil infrastructure in order to increase their oil output. This is why American oil companies are hoping that the war in Iraq will materialise. As we have seen, they have well-placed friends in the administration and just might get what they want.

It is estimated by energy analysts that with the assistance of US oil technology, Iraq will be able to increase production to five million bpd. That is at least three million more barrels per day than they are exporting now. This will provide more supply to the oil market depressing oil prices, thus providing a relief to the US economy.

There's no need to take my word for it. Bush's former top economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, stated last fall: "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."

Couldn't be put simpler than that. Economists predict that after a successful Iraq invasion, the price of oil will drop from the current US$30-US$34 a barrel to US$15-US$20 a barrel; possibly a 50 percent decrease. The effects of this oún the US economy, which is heavily dependent oún oil, will be dramatic.

Of course, all of this will oúnly become possible should the war in Iraq be a successful military and political operation. There are plenty of problems that can arise in the prosecution of the war that could cause an opposite effect, drastically increasing oil prices due to any instability in oil output from the Middle East. With the current crisis in Venezuela, a major exporter of oil to the United States, the Bush administration won't have that much leeway in avoiding an economic disaster should their plans backfire. – YellowTimes.org

ASH PULCIFER, a lifelong activist for international human rights, lives in the United States. Ash finds it unacceptable that the world often turns its back to those less fortunate members of our species who are forced to endure poverty and civil strife.

frontpagemag.com By Robert Locke FrontPageMagazine.com | January 27, 2003

A Dialogue Concerning War With Iraq

Following is the transcript – minimally adapted for intelligibility – of an e-mail dialogue I recently had with an editor at a conservative publication that opposes the contemplated war with Iraq. I am publishing it because I think it makes clear the logic of this dispute among conservatives and because it shows that the anti-war position, though not totally devoid of rational arguments, is still mistaken.

Anti-War Editor: If we do not aggressively threaten Saddam, there is no reason for him to attack us. His past record shows he is deterrable.

Robert Locke:

1. Saddam's past record provides only probabilistic evidence of his likely future behavior. It does not provide a guarantee. No-one on our side is saying there is proof he will attack America or our allies, only that there is an unacceptable risk that he will.

2. If we delay, he can build up his forces in secret until it is too late. His neighbors will conclude they can't rely on us and had better surrender while there is still a good price available for doing so.

3. May I remind you that if we don't disarm SH and he gets the war he says he really wants, Israel may just nuke him? If we don't keep things in order in the region, someone else may, and it may be a very ugly picture.

4. His repeatedly stated designs to destroy Israel, which follow no realpolitik logic, prove he is not vicious-but-logical as you say.

Anti-War Editor: But the past is the best indicator we have to go on, and from it we can infer a very high probability that he is deterrable. What makes you think SH has changed his character? Your side has produced no evidence that the risk has become "unacceptable." That is certainly not the opinion of the CIA. For them, the risk only becomes unacceptable if we first attack SH.

Robert Locke: I do not assign high credibility to the CIA after its string of failures. The objective risk remains as long as the objective WMD capability remains and the regime remains a tyranny.

Anti-War Editor: If you do not trust the CIA, what reliable source are you getting your information from (Ahmad Chalabi?) or is it all just speculation? For this concrete situation, you have provided zero evidence. It is all just a priori deductive reasoning from disputable premises.

Robert Locke: The question at hand does not turn on specific details. My premises may be disputable, but all this means is, as I said, that we confront a probabilistic threat and not a certain one. "Deductive" is not a valid pejorative without a demonstration of a flaw in the logic. My reasoning is based on 2,500 years of history concerning the behavior of tyrants, and is therefore not a priori.

Anti-War Editor: Think also of the unintended consequences throughout the Arab & Muslim worlds, both in terms of numbers of new al-Qaeda recruits and friendly secular governments that could fall.

Robert Locke: On the contrary: these people respect force, and an ideology of holy war like Nazism or jihad is only attractive as long as people think they are on the winning side.

Anti-War Editor: Our deterrent threat remains credible. If Saddam had attacked us / supported an attack on us / clearly planned to attack us, there would be unanimity of opinion on the question of whether to strike him. And we would. He knows this.

Robert Locke: Deterrence only works if the threat is credible. If SH sees our current attempt to discipline him subverted by the American far Left and far Right, we can no longer credibly threaten him.

Anti-War Editor: As it is, what are we disciplining him for? He had no role in 9/11, has never given weapons to terrorists, and shows no signs of doing so or of using them himself on us unless we first provoke him to the extreme.

Robert Locke: We are disciplining him for being a tyrant with WMD, and to set an example that will prevent others from trying.

Anti-War Editor: Why is he even a concern when there are so many obviously greater threats in the world? Is it precisely because he is weaker than they are?

Robert Locke: I am well aware that the rogue-state WMD disaster we all fear may not come from Iraq and it may not come in 5 years or 10. It may come in 30 years and the perpetrator may be an Islamist Tanzania or a Marxist Venezuela. But if rogue states are not systematically disarmed, it will come one day and

5,000,000 - 50,000,000 people will die. The sooner a rigorous program of forcible disarmament is established, the sooner they all get the message and give it up.

Anti-War Editor: Starting from your premise, we would be forcing them together by our belligerence toward Saddam Hussein. We would have made ourselves that common enemy. Rather than create a self-fulfilling prophesy, is it not better to stop threatening Iraq, which otherwise would have no reason to attack us or join up with al-Qaeda?

Robert Locke: Made ourselves their common enemy? We already are.

Anti-War Editor: By your thinking, Saddam should have given al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction during the 1990’s. There are good reasons why Saddam wouldn't give al-Qaeda his worst weapons even if they did ally for pragmatic reasons.

Robert Locke: The argument that SH would never arm al-Q. & Co. because they hate each other is historical puppysh*t. All it takes to get people who hate each other to cooperate is a common enemy. Observe the US-USSR alliance in WWII and many others.

Anti-War Editor: You assume that Saddam is a would-be aggressor seeking to dominate the region, but the historical evidence does not bear this out, and you have not explained why you think he has changed. Even the Kuwaiti & Iranian invasions were not mindless aggression but were the fruit of realpolitik considerations.

Robert Locke: The fact that he may try to take over the Middle East in a rigorously logical way does not make this OK. You are making him out to be Bismarck, which is ridiculous.

Anti-War Editor: He has never started an open war with Israel, which he knows he would lose. That is evidence of rational calculation. He launched Scuds during the Gulf War in the hope of encouraging a response and breaking the coalition against him. This also shows realistic thinking.

I do not doubt the neocons perceive an Iraqi threat to Israel, and SH has expressed a desire to destroy her, but Israeli & American deterrence has contained that threat. That is realism. In the rational / irrational equation, having the desire to destroy Israel is not as significant as his failure to act on it.

Robert Locke: Then why do certain elements constantly say and imply that Jewish neocons are trying to drag us into a war for the benefit of Israel, if this war is of no benefit to her because aimed at an enemy she has well in hand?

Anti-War Editor: This is just a canard. When people say neocons, they mean neocons, not Jews. Of course Israel would benefit from an American victory over Iraq. I do not dispute Israel's nervousness about Iraq and that she would feel more comfortable without this enemy there (deterrence is naturally tense and never foolproof), especially if we did the fighting. Life was easier for us after the Soviet Union went down, even though we had deterred each other.

Now look – North Korea has already beaten us at the game you want to play: forcible disarming of rogue states. How do you propose to disarm her? Whatever we do with Iraq, North Korea will always provide a counter-example to small rogue states. Our double standard between Iraq, which is weak, and North Korea, which is strong, is obvious. Others will do as she did, not disarm themselves out of fear, but on the contrary: ramp up production and perhaps even ally with others so as to provide a deterrent to an American attack.

Robert Locke: Let's debate North Korean policy some other time. We’ve essentially handed it over to South Korea because South Korea is a reputable democratic country now and if they have a certain way they want to do it, we may think it unwise but it’s their problem. Their "sunshine policy" of appeasement is stupid but if Koreans want to toy with the fate of their nation and possibly get nuked by appeasing a mad Marxist dictator, it’s their nation to toy with. They’re either going to be very lucky or learn a very hard lesson.

Anti-War Editor: By your criterion, we also need to disarm China, another tyranny with WMD, and Pakistan.

Robert Locke: As I explained in my article Conservative Doubts About Star Wars – which came out before 9/11 by the way – China is susceptible to classic Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrence in a way Iraq is not. If Pakistan ever turns against the US, I would favor her forcible disarmament should circumstances permit. I believe plans are already in place.

Anti-War Editor: Rogue states do respect force, but not in the way you suggest. At best, rogue states will take away from our differing treatment of Iraq and North Korea the message that America only disarms very weak states while letting stronger ones get away with it. What do you think they will do in consequence? We can't disarm everyone at once.

Robert Locke: This undercuts your own deterrence argument. If we leave them alone, they arm because we do nothing. If we pressure them, they arm to escape our pressure. Therefore deterrence won't work, because it is always either too strong or too weak. From this it follows the only policy we can use is forcible disarmament.

Anti-War Editor: Even if one accepts that rogue states will arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction just as quickly absent pressure from America, my deterrence argument is not undercut. Strictly speaking, deterrence applies to use, not possession.

Robert Locke: What on earth do they want to "possess" them for, other than to use them? If they possess them, it’s a threat, which as I said creates a risk, which we cannot accept. It’s still all about risk.

Anti-War Editor: If we corner Saddam Hussein by invading Iraq, he would have nothing to lose by going out with a bang and unleashing biological or other weapons on us: either against our forces in Iraq or against the US domestically.

Robert Locke: If your thesis is true, then the United States, and indeed all great powers, have no choice but to tolerate any threatening nation prepared to mouth the magic words:

"If you bring us down, we will unleash biological weapons."

This would prevent us from taking any measures to forestall adversaries before they become powerful enough to impose their will on us. It is a license for permanent international chaos that will only get worse as more thugs figure out how to play the game. It means we’ve already lost and might as well just give them whatever they want. This is precisely why we must pre-empt these capabilities.

End of e-mail exchange.

The fundamental problem with the conservative case against the war is that deterrence, while not a completely empty concept, is not enough when dealing with an iterative threat. It would be one thing to reduce the threat of an attack by Iraq to trivially-low levels by means of deterrence, but Iraq isn’t the only case affected by what we do to Iraq. If we let Iraq pass, this means failing to establish the ironclad precedent that the United States will not allow rogue states to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This means that they will do so, over and over again into the future. And if the dice are rolled an indefinite number of times, sooner or later they will come up snake-eyes and 5,000,000 people will die in an afternoon.

Robert Locke is an associate editor of www.frontpagemag.com. He can be contacted at robertlocke@cspc.org.