All Iraq conflict discussion in here plz

[4me2]

No-fly zone action escalates

The no-fly zone policy has shifted say Pentagon officials

British and American pilots patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq have begun targeting Iraqi weapons that might be used in a war.
Senior officials at the Pentagon say there has been an aggressive shift in strategy in the no-fly zones, particularly over southern Iraq.

Meanwhile media reports in the United States suggest some American forces might be put under British command in the event of war.

And a London think-tank has warned that the US may soon lose interest in Iraq after a possible war to topple President Saddam Hussein, leaving the same power structure in place.

Over the weekend Iraq began to destroy missiles banned by the United Nations since the end of the Gulf War.

But America and the UK continued to dismiss Baghdad's destruction of 10 al-Samoud II missiles as part of its deception.

Iraq in turn has warned it might halt the destruction of its missiles if the US continues to threaten military action without backing from the UN.

New targets in the no-fly zone hit in recent days include surface-to-surface missile systems and multiple launch rockets that could be used by Iraq against ground troops or neighbouring nations such as Kuwait, said BBC Washington Correspondent Justin Webb.

"In that sense the initial skirmishes of the war widely expected later this month are already under way", he said.

'Self defence'

Lexington Institute defence analyst Loren Thompson told Reuters news agency: "The US military is taking advantage of the no-fly zones to prepare the battle space for war."

While strikes on the Iraqi air defence system seem to have intensified, some are repeat attacks because Iraq keeps repairing them, said BBC correspondent Nick Childs.

The public position is still that the US and British patrols only attack in self-defence.

But Iraqis say western planes are hitting civilian targets.

Iraqi aircraft have also reportedly challenged the no-fly zone more frequently.

The US policy of containing Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the Gulf War included the creation of the two no-fly zones banning Iraqi aircraft flights over part of Iraq.

The Washington Post quotes US officials in Kuwait as saying the American 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is likely to be assigned to a British command in the event of a war.

Potential fallout

The move, unseen since Montgomery commanded American troops in World War II, is said to be a gesture rewarding Tony Blair for his support.

A new paper from the Royal Institute of International Affairs said even a swift victory over Baghdad would be no guarantee of real commitment from the US to political reforms for Iraqis.

The paper estimates three to 10 years would be needed to tackle Iraq's underlying structural political problems.

But it said the US may be reluctant to get involved for that long, for economic reasons and the fear of casualties.

One of the report's authors, Toby Dodge, said he was unimpressed by US plans so far for Iraqi regime change, saying it was "reckless beyond belief" to have no coherent plan for the post-conflict era.

The report, "Iraq: the regional fallout", also warned of likely grim knock-on effects from war around the region, including economic misery, a rise in Islamic fundamentalism and huge refugee flows.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2813753.stm

[4me2]

'Six Iraqis die' in US-UK raids


The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the United Nations

Six Iraqis have been reported killed and 15 wounded in an overnight US-UK air strike that is being described as part of an aggressive shift in policy.
The raid took place late on Sunday in the southern province of Basra, an Iraqi spokesman said.

However, the UK Ministry of Defence said late on Monday there was no evidence anyone had been killed or injured in the attack.

The US Defence Department says it has expanded the number of military targets which can be attacked by US and UK planes patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

US officials say the strikes have focused on rocket launchers and other weapons which could be used against Allied troops or neighbouring countries if an invasion were to take place.

Baghdad routinely describes the targets of the air raids as civilian, while US and UK authorities say they attack only military targets and make every effort to avoid causing civilian casualties.

The Ministry of Defence in London said the planes attacked air defence targets in response to anti-aircraft fire, adding that Baghdad has a history of "unreliable" claims about casualties.
The no-fly zones - which have never been sanctioned by the United Nations - were imposed by the US, Britain and France, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shia Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

The US says its aircraft are responding only to Iraqi provocations. And the UK Government has issued a statement denying that the new targets represent a more aggressive role for its aircraft in Iraq.


Missiles

Iraq on Monday destroyed six more banned al-Samoud II missiles, bringing the total in three days to 16.

It also destroyed two empty warheads, the UN said.

But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Iraq's destruction of the missiles was proof that President Saddam Hussein had continually lied.

The Iraqi leader was "finding things that he said he never had and apparently destroying small amounts of things that he said he never possessed," Mr Fleischer said.

"How do you know this is not the mother of all distractions, diversions, so the world looks in one place, while he buries them in another?" he said.

Iraq has about 120 al-Samoud II missiles, which the UN says breach range limits imposed after the Gulf War.

Baghdad has pledged to submit a detailed report before 10 March on what happened to its stocks of anthrax and VX agent, UN officials said.

In other developments
French President Jacques Chirac, in Algiers, says France opposes any new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq

Turkey's failure to agree to US troop deployment means a top-level rethink about war plans, says Washington's top general in Europe

A team of Russian officials fly to New York to present the UN Security Council with an offer to provide assistance to weapons inspectors in Iraq

Gulf ministers fail to endorse a proposal by the United Arab Emirates calling for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to step down to avoid war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2816167.stm

[4me2]

War has not begun says Hoon


The no-fly zone policy has shifted, say Pentagon officials

Claims that the first shots in a new Gulf War have already been fired have been denied by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.
Senior officials at the Pentagon say there has been a shift in strategy in no-fly zones in Iraq, with strikes intensified in what is seen as clearing the way for war.

Pressed about the reports in the House of Commons, Mr Hoon insisted the way the zones were being patrolled had not changed.

Iraqi claims that six civilians were killed and 15 injured in an Allied bombing raid on the city of Basra have now been disputed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Officials said a "battle damage assessment" about Sunday's overnight no-fly zone attack showed there was no evidence anybody was killed or injured.

The allied planes targeted air defence targets in response to anti-aircraft fire from the ground, said the MoD, pointing to similar previous "unreliable" Iraqi claims.

B-52s arrive

Over the weekend Iraq began to destroy missiles banned by the United Nations since the end of the Gulf War - but that was dismissed by the US and UK as more deception.

On Monday, Mr Hoon told MPs he had given permission for the 14 US Air Force B-52 bombers to be stationed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.

The first of the long-range aircraft arrived at the base on Monday, with Mr Hoon also announcing there were now 30,000 UK troops in the Gulf region.

The move was part of "contingency preparations" and no decision on military action had been made, the defence secretary told MPs.
In Iraq, new targets in the no-fly zones hit in recent days have included surface-to-surface missile systems and multiple launch rockets that could be used by Iraq against ground troops or neighbouring nations such as Kuwait.

Conservative shadow defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin challenged ministers to be "honest and open" about the change.

Mr Jenkin asked: "While we still hope diplomacy will avoid the need for the last resort of war, haven't we already seen the opening shots of the second Gulf war?"

More patrols

Mr Hoon insisted there had been no "substantial change" in the way the no-fly zones were patrolled.

"Clearly those forces have always been entitled to deal with threats that might arise," said Mr Hoon.

That was true whether they were direct threats from aircraft above the no-fly zones or threats to troops on the ground in areas like Kuwait, said Mr Hoon.

He did say Allied planes were mounting more frequent patrols of the no-fly zones "in response to efforts to attack them".

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch said Mr Hoon's denial of a change in patrols - despite the Pentagon briefings - raised suspicions.

Mr Keetch said: "The no fly zones have no official sanction from the United Nations and it is imperative that they are not abused, especially when the UN Inspectors are hard at work in Iraq."

Anti-war Labour MPs are angry, with Alice Mahon suggesting last week's Iraq debate was a mockery because war was beginning "through the back door".

'No security checks'

Some of the intensification of strikes is down to repeat attacks on sites repaired by the Iraqis.

Iraqi aircraft were banned from the two zones in the aftermath of the Gulf War as part of the US policy of containing Saddam Hussein.

The UK Government also said on Monday it had not been able to carry out security checks on crews of merchant ships chartered to carry military equipment to the Gulf.

Defence Minister Lord Bach said the short notice charters made such checks impractical.

The Washington Post quotes US officials in Kuwait as saying the American 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is likely to be assigned to a British command in the event of a war.


The move, unseen since Montgomery commanded American troops in World War II, is said to be a gesture rewarding Tony Blair for his support.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2813753.stm

[4me2]

US orders more troops to Gulf


The US will soon have six aircraft carriers near Iraq

The United States has ordered an extra 60,000 troops to head for the Gulf as it presses ahead with plans for a possible invasion of Iraq.

A US defence official told the BBC that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has authorised the extra troops, although they might only arrive after war has begun.

Among the new forces being sent are the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Cavalry Division.

The accelerated military build-up was announced a day after US and UK planes launched a raid on southern Iraq which Baghdad said killed six people.

It also comes despite Iraq's destruction of 16 of its banned al-Samoud II missiles in the past three days.

In an exclusive BBC interview to be broadcast on Tuesday, Mr Rumsfeld said he does not regard the destruction of the missiles as a sign the arms inspection process is forcing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Mr Rumsfeld added that Iraq was perfectly capable of producing new weapons of mass destruction while the arms inspectors were in the country.

Turkish delay

Mr Rumsfeld is due to hold talks in Washington with US General Tommy Franks, who will be in overall command of any invasion.

The pair will discuss alternative strategies after Turkey's parliament failed to approve a request for US troops to use the country as a launch pad for an invasion of neighbouring Iraq.

The Turkish parliament, which narrowly turned down the plan on Sunday, was originally due to vote again on Tuesday.

However, that vote has been delayed indefinitely, leaving US plans in limbo.

Washington has strongly hinted that $15bn in American grants and loans to Turkey agreed in exchange for receiving the troops will now not be delivered - a worry that sent Turkish stock markets plunging on Monday.

Military experts say that while Washington has not given up hope that Turkey might relent, it does have a "Plan B" which would involve flying troops directly into northern Iraq.

General James L Jones, the chief of US forces in Europe, admitted on Monday that Turkey's decision reduced US options but added: "I don't think it will be a show-stopper."

Also on Monday, US aircraft carrier Nimitz left San Diego at the head of a five-ship battle group.

When it arrives in a week, the nuclear-powered Nimitz - carrying 70 aircraft - will be the sixth US carrier within striking distance of Iraq.



UK-Russia talks

On the diplomatic front, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov is arriving in London on Tuesday for talks likely to be dominated by Iraq.

Russia strongly opposes a new UN Security Council resolution jointly sponsored by the US, UK and Spain, which calls for military action to forcibly disarm the Iraqi regime.

Sunday night's air strike in the southern province of Basra marked an escalation in military action against Iraq.
The US Defence Department says it has expanded the number of military targets which can be attacked by US and UK planes patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

Authorities in Baghdad said that six Iraqis died and 15 were wounded in the raid.

However, the UK Ministry of Defence insisted there was no evidence anyone had been killed or injured.

Crucial vote

Tuesday is a public holiday in Iraq, and it is likely there will be little further progress on weapons destruction.

UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to present his latest report detailing Iraqi disarmament on Friday.

The Security Council is expected to take its crucial vote on the new resolution at some point in the following week.

The US and the UK are frantically lobbying Security Council members to pass the resolution, while France has headed efforts calling for weapons inspections to be given more time.

However US President George W Bush has already indicated that while UN backing would be beneficial, an invasion could be launched regardless of the vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2816919.stm

[4me2]

Blair tries to bridge Russian concerns


The UK denies Iraqi claims of bombing deaths

Tony Blair will be trying to sell his hardline Iraq policy to Russia on Tuesday, as he continues his diplomatic drive ahead of the weapons inspectors' next report later this week.
The prime minister and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are to hold talks with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in Downing Street.

They will try to persuade Russia to abstain when the new resolution proposed by the UK, US and Spain goes before the United Nations Security Council.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Gordon Brown is expected to say on Tuesday morning that he is prepared to set aside more money for a possible war in Iraq and the fight against international terrorism.

Mr Blair's attendance at Mr Straw's meeting with his Russian counterpart is a sign of the importance being attached to the discussions.

Budget speculation

A Russian abstention in the vote would put more pressure on France as it decided whether to be the only permanent security council member to veto the resolution.

In a speech to business leaders in London on Tuesday, Mr Brown is expected to say he is determined British soldiers will be properly supported for what is ahead.

There is continuing speculation that Mr Brown may postpone his Budget until next month, because of the uncertainty over the Iraq crisis.

In his last budget, Mr Brown announced he was setting aside an extra £1bn to meet the costs of a new Gulf war.

Last month he promised an additional £750m, and on Tuesday he will signal that he is ready to make even more funds available.

The extra money is unlikely to go down well with those many Labour MPs apposed to military action.

It is also likely to fuel speculation that the budget will be postponed until next month.

Downing Street will only say a date for the budget will be announced in due course.


Meanwhile, critics of Mr Blair's Iraq policy are unveiling their plans for a national conference for Labour members as they try to "reclaim" the party as an anti-war movement.

They want former Labour members to return to the fold through membership renewal forms stressing their anti-war credentials.

MP John McDonnell said: "It is now time for party members to take back control of our party from the New Labour clique that have hijacked it.

"If the leadership are not prepared to listen to the people of Britain in their clear opposition to this war, then the leadership will be swept aside."

On Monday, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon denied claims war had been started by the "back door" because strikes in the Iraqi no-fly zones had been intensified.

Anti-war Labour MPs suggested war was being started by "escalation not declaration" after senior Pentagon officials said no-fly zone patrols had become more aggressive.

Conservative shadow defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin challenged ministers to be "honest and open" about the change.

'Suspicions'

Mr Jenkin asked: "While we still hope diplomacy will avoid the need for the last resort of war, haven't we already seen the opening shots of the second Gulf war?"

Mr Hoon insisted there had been no "substantial change" in the way the no-fly zones were patrolled.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch said Mr Hoon's denial of a change in patrols - despite the Pentagon briefings - raised suspicions.

Later, the Ministry of Defence disputed Iraqi claims that six civilians were killed and 15 injured in an Allied bombing raid on the city of Basra on Sunday night.

Officials said a "battle damage assessment" of the no-fly zone attack showed there was no evidence anybody was killed or injured.

The allied planes targeted air defence targets in response to anti-aircraft fire from the ground, said the MoD, pointing to similar previous "unreliable" Iraqi claims.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2816923.stm

[4me2]

Straw warns against isolating US


Straw and Ivanov stressed warm relations despite Iraq differences

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has warned France and Germany they will "reap a whirlwind" if they push America into an isolationist position over the Iraq crisis.
Mr Straw later met his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, and said the differences between the two countries over Iraq policy could be resolved by negotiation.

That optimistic note came despite Mr Ivanov telling the BBC that Russia would veto a second UN resolution if necessary - although the two ministers said they did not discuss that vote.

Chancellor Gordon Brown has also said on Tuesday that the UK "will spend what it takes" to tackle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

It comes as the Stop the War coalition unveiled plans for an anti-war rival to the House of Commons - a People's Assembly for Peace - to meet for a first time on 12 March in Westminster.

Organisers say it will give a voice to "the majority of people" across the country opposed to military action against Iraq.

Signals warning

Ahead of meeting Mr Ivanov, Mr Straw told the Commons foreign affairs select committee Iraq's breaches of UN resolutions would already be enough to justify military action.

But the UK wanted a second resolution because "politically it was a better way to bind in the international community".

He argued that America was the only superpower and the world had to decide whether to force it to act unilaterally or through international institutions.

"What I say to France and Germany - and all my other European Union colleagues - is take care," said Mr Straw.

"Because just as America helps to define and influence our politics, so what we do in Europe helps to define and influence American politics.

"We will reap a whirlwind if we push the US into a unilateralist position."

Mr Straw said the "latest intelligence" also suggested Iraq was able to produce a host of chemical and biological agents, and items were being hidden from weapons inspectors.

He went on: "Saddam Hussein believes that he can once again divide and outwit the international community through a pretence of cooperation.

"We cannot afford to send him any signal that he's close to success."

Earlier, Mr Brown told a meeting of business people in London he made no apology for spending what was necessary to prevent weapons proliferation.

"Our armed forces do an outstanding job for Britain and today I make clear our gratitude... and my resolve to ensure our armed forces are properly equipped for whatever lies ahead," he said.

Russia

Mr Brown has already announced he is setting aside an extra £1.75bn to meet the costs of a new Gulf war.

Speculation continues that the crisis could mean he postpones his Budget until next month.
Mr Blair, currently in talks in Northern Ireland, had hoped to join Mr Straw for the meeting with the Russian minister but will now meet him on Wednesday morning.

A Russian abstention in the vote on the US/UK second resolution would increase pressure on France as it decided whether to be the only permanent security council member to veto the resolution.

Mr Ivanov told the BBC's Talking Point: "Abstaining is not a position Russia can take, we have to take a clear position and we are for a political solution."

Russia would use its veto if necessary, he argued.

He also disputed the UK view that the current UN resolution authorised military action without further reference to the security council.

Downing Street has disputed Iraqi claims of civilian casualties as a result of the Allied strikes in Iraq's no-fly zones.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has also denied war has begun "by escalation" through new air strikes in the no-fly zones over Iraq.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2818987.stm

[4me2]

Divisions deepen ahead of Iraq report


Britain wants Russian support in the UN

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov is to hold talks with French and German leaders on Wednesday, amid warnings that time is running out for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis.
Mr Ivanov, who held talks with the UK prime minister Tony Blair on Wednesday morning, did not comment as he left Downing Street and departed for Paris.

The members of the Security Council remain far apart just two days before the next report of the weapons inspectors to the United Nations which is expected to be more critical of Baghdad.

The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said he still hoped a further UN resolution against Iraq would be agreed, but he is expected to increase pressure later by hinting that the time for talks is fast running out.

Britain has sent a minister to lobby Syria - the only Arab Council member - while the Pope, who has sent an envoy to push calls for peace to the White House, called on world leaders to do all they could to avert war during his weekly general audience.

Iraq, meanwhile, is continuing its displays of defiance with a military parade in Baghdad on Wednesday following Saddam Hussein's latest declaration that his country would win any war.

Veto threat

Correspondents say Mr Ivanov's meetings in Paris is likely to be very different in tone and atmosphere from those in London, particularly after fresh comments which will have disappointed UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

France and Germany both oppose a war in Iraq at this stage of the crisis, while Mr Blair has stuck to the hawkish stance of the US President George Bush.

Mr Ivanov told the BBC that Russia had not ruled out using its veto against the second resolution demanding Iraq disarm which is backed by the US, UK and Spain.
He added: "Abstaining is not a position Russia can take, we have to take a clear position and we are for a political solution."

France - another veto-holding member of the Security Council - has taken the lead with Germany in calling for more time for inspections to continue.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer cancelled all his meetings on Wednesday to fly to Paris to join the meeting with Mr Ivanov.

The US and UK have argued that force may be necessary to ensure that Iraq has no banned weapons of mass destruction, despite some public displays of disarmament, such as the destruction of al-Samoud missiles.

Reports from Baghdad say the chief weapons inspector Hans Blix will highlight that co-operation by Saddam Hussein generally comes only as deadlines loom.

Mr Blix's latest assessment of the situation - scheduled to be presented to the UN on Friday - could be key for many nations who have yet to decide whether to follow the US and UK in any war.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC in an exclusive interview that Iraq was capable of deceiving the UN, building new weapons even while inspectors were in the country.

Change of tone

Secretary of State Mr Powell is expected to step up the pressure in a speech late on Wednesday where he is likely to call on the world not to be fooled by Saddam Hussein.

A BBC correspondent in Washington, Justin Webb, says Mr Powell will say time is running out "rapidly".

He says that term has not been used before by the Bush administration and seems to confirm that Mr Powell - the top US diplomat - does not see the UN process lasting beyond next week.

The US military build-up has been continuing, with more troops being ordered to the Gulf, even though they may not arrive until after the start of hostilities.

The UK, meanwhile, has sent a junior foreign minister, Mike O'Brien, to Damascus to lobby for the support of Syria, the only Arab member of the Council.

Leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations are meeting in Qatar to try to present a unified voice against war.

The Vatican added to the frantic diplomatic manoeuvring with Cardinal Pio Laghi to deliver a personal message from Pope John Paul II to President George W Bush in a White House meeting.

In Iraq itself, authorities have staged a parade of interior ministry troops in what the BBC's Middle East correspondent Paul Wood says was "a very definite and concrete show of defiance".

The United Nations is reported to have drawn up secret plans for governing Iraq if Saddam Hussein is deposed.

The Times newspaper in London said that the plan, of which it had seen a copy, involved the UN taking over the administration of Iraq around three months after an invasion, and guiding the country towards self-government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2821145.stm

[4me2]

Blair 'confident' after Russia talks


Mr Ivanov is in London for talks

Tony Blair remains confident that a second UN resolution against Iraq will be carried next week, after talks with Russia's foreign minister Igor Ivanov.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said that although Russia "comes at this from a different direction" there was agreement on the need for Iraq to comply with existing UN resolutions.

The 50 minute meeting came after Mr Ivanov told BBC News Online on Tuesday that Russia might veto a second Security Council resolution about military action.

Asked about the prospects of the second resolution being vetoed, the Downing Street spokesman said "we are confident that will not arise".

There had been no comment from Mr Ivanov when he left Number 10, or from UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who saw his Russian counterpart to his car.

The talks followed a BBC interview with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - seen as one of the leading hawks of the Bush administration.


Opinion poll
He told David Dimbleby he was unconvinced by Saddam Hussein's seeming moves to disarm.

"Every single thing that he does, that anyone could cite is co-operative, was after some long period of denying, of refusal to do it, and ultimately a willingness to do part of it," he said.

And he warned that Iraq's scrapping of its al-Samoud missiles and other concessions did not mean it was not still developing other weapons away from the UN inspectors' gaze.

"I think the way to think about that is that there were inspectors there before, and he continued with his weapons of mass destruction programmes."

The Downing Street meeting came as a Mori poll suggested conditional support in the UK for British troops being involved in a war against Iraq is picking up.

And although Mr Ivanov's comments will have disappointed the government, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said differences could be resolved.

But he had warned earlier France and Germany would "reap a whirlwind" if they push America into an isolationist position over the Iraq crisis.


Clear position

A Russian abstention in the vote on the US/UK second resolution would increase pressure on France as it decided whether to be the only permanent security council member to veto the resolution.

Mr Ivanov told the BBC's Talking Point: "Abstaining is not a position Russia can take, we have to take a clear position and we are for a political solution."

Russia would use its veto if necessary, he argued.

He also disputed the UK view that the current UN resolution authorised military action without further reference to the security council.

Support for British involvement in any such action fell from 71% last September to 61% in January, but has now risen to 75%, the Mori survey suggested.

But the figures are only in the event of clear evidence that Iraq is concealing weapons of mass destruction and of the UN Security Council passing a second resolution backing war.

Without these only 24% would be willing for Britain to join the US attack, and two-thirds would be opposed.

In September, about 70% of Britons opposed an attack without explicit UN backing, a figure which rose to 77% in January.

The Stop the War coalition unveiled plans for an anti-war rival to the House of Commons - a People's Assembly for Peace - to meet for a first time on 12 March in Westminster.

Organisers say it will give a voice to "the majority of people" across the country opposed to military action against Iraq.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2820631.stm

[makiavelli]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

David Letterman: "France wants more evidence [of Iraqi violations]. The last time France wanted more evidence, it rolled right through France with a German flag."

Dennis Miller: "The only way the French are going in is if we tell them we found truffles in Iraq."

Jay Leno: "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.: "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried."

[4me2]

Powell urges UN to confront Saddam

US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Iraq has made no real attempt to disarm but instead is trying to deceive and divide the international community.

In an impassioned speech, Mr Powell said Iraq's effort must fail, because no one wanted to live in a world where the United Nations meant nothing.

On Friday Mr Powell is due to attend a key meeting of the UN Security Council, where the US seems set on a collision course with France, Germany and Russia.

They have said they will not allow the UN to pass a new US-sponsored resolution authorising war against Iraq. Instead they want the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to be given more time.

Friday's meeting is due to hear a progress report from chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who on Wednesday said his teams had been able to interview seven Iraqi scientists in private.

He added that, in the past month, Iraq had been co-operating proactively.

'Next few days'

But in a speech to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, Mr Powell said Saddam Hussein was continuing with his web of deceit.

"We will see in the next few days whether or not he understands the situation he is in," he warned.

New US intelligence showed that while the Iraqis were publicly destroying their al-Samoud II missiles, they had ordered the continued production of missile stocks, Mr Powell said.

"Nothing we have seen since the passage of UN Resolution 1441 indicates that Saddam Hussein has taken the strategic and political decision to disarm."

Saddam Hussein was relying on divisions within the UN to avoid war, Mr Powell warned.

"Consider what may happen if Saddam thinks war will not be declared even as a last resort.

"It is now for the international community to confront the reality of Iraq's continuing failure to disarm," he said.

Veto threat

Just hours earlier, hastily arranged talks involving the French, German and Russian foreign ministers took place in Paris amid warnings that time is running out for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis.

A statement by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin did not mention the possible use of veto.


But he told a news conference that France took "exactly the same line as Russia," which has not ruled out using its veto.

The US and UK have expressed confidence that enough votes will be secured for the key resolution.

Also on Wednesday, Turkey's powerful army gave a boost to the US, with public backing for the deployment of US troops ahead of any conflict, despite the lack of authorisation from the country's parliament.

Meanwhile, divisions between Muslim states boiled over at a summit designed to develop a common stance against the war, when a senior aide to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein accused a Kuwaiti minister of being a "traitor".

'Confidence'

The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, also met UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday morning.

Mr Blair later told MPs he remained confident there would be backing in the UN for a new resolution demanding that Iraq disarm.
And after the Paris statement, a White House spokesman also said President Bush remained confident of the eventual outcome, and that people should not "jump to conclusions" as consultations were continuing.

"We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorises resorting to force," Mr de Villepin said in Paris.

However neither he nor Mr Ivanov said explicitly that this meant using the veto.

A resolution could be blocked in just two ways - either by veto or by ensuring that it fails to get the required nine "yes" votes of the 15 Security Council members.

In other developments:


Saddam Hussein says the UN order to destroy al-Samoud missiles is a ploy designed to demoralise Iraqis

General Tommy Franks, who would command US forces in a war, says they are ready for action

Cardinal Pio Laghi delivers a message from the Pope to President Bush

Iran says it is ready to help UN agencies and other aid organisations cope with Iraqi refugees expected to flee a US-led war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2823959.stm




Im going to stick my neck out now and say that Im pretty sure that the first bombs will land this weekend.

[4me2]

Blair 'confident' of UN backing


School children protest outside Downing Street

Tony Blair is confident of a second UN resolution approving military action against Iraq - despite strong opposition from France, Russia and Germany.
The prime minister's spokesman said there was an "inescapable logic" to UN resolution 1441 which warned of serious consequences if Iraq refused to disarm.

The UK would not have talked about a second resolution - seen as key to winning public support for a war - if it was not serious about getting it, the spokesman said.

France, Germany and Russia said earlier on Wednesday they would not allow a UN resolution that authorises war against Iraq.

During the weekly prime minister's question time, Mr Blair said all world leaders he had spoken to agreed Saddam Hussein was failing to comply with UN demands to disarm.

Blix report

War could be avoided if the Iraqi regime fully complied with the order to disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction or if Saddam Hussein left the country.

Asked if a majority of the Security Council backing military action would be enough, Mr Blair said that the effect on the UN of not standing firm would be "disastrous".

Even if Iraq scrapped all its Al Samoud missiles, it would still be in material breach of resolution 1441 because it had not disclosed and destroy chemical and biological weapons, he said.

Further public splits between Western nations seem inevitable on Friday, when chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is scheduled to present his latest report on Iraqi disarmament.

Ahead of that report, Dr Blix said on Wednesday that Iraq was making "greater efforts" and the scrapping of the missiles was "real disarmament".

Earlier, French Foreign Minister Dominquie de Villepin said: "We will not allow the passage of a planned resolution which would authorise the use of force.

"Russia and France as permanent security council members will fully assume all their responsibiltites."

Thousands of children took time off school to protest against possible war on Wednesday.

Whitehall was closed for a time as more than hundred children demonstrated at the gates of Downing Street.

Veto odds

Before his appearance in Parliament, Mr Blair met Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov for 50 minutes at Downing Street.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said that although Russia "comes at this from a different direction" they agreed on the need for Iraq to comply with existing UN resolutions.

On Tuesday Mr Ivanov told BBC News Online that Russia might veto a second Security Council resolution about military action.

A Russian abstention in the vote on the US/UK second resolution would increase pressure on France as it decided whether to be the only permanent security council member to veto the resolution.

But Mr Ivanov told the BBC's Talking Point: "Abstaining is not a position Russia can take, we have to take a clear position and we are for a political solution."

The latest talks come as a Mori poll suggests conditional support in the UK for British troops being involved in a war against Iraq is picking up.

Support for British involvement in any action fell from 71% last September to 61% in January, but has now risen to 75%, the Mori survey suggested.

But the figures are only in the event of clear evidence that Iraq is concealing weapons of mass destruction and of the UN Security Council passing a second resolution backing war.

Without these only 24% would be willing for Britain to join the US attack, and two-thirds would be opposed.

In September, about 70% of Britons opposed an attack without explicit UN backing, a figure which rose to 77% in January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2820631.stm

[Chip2k]

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
__________________________________________________________________________________Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
____________________________________________________

Taken from http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/3/2/113123/1408

have a read of the replys on the message board some intresting posts.

Chip

[4me2]

Its tree hugger propaganda.

[Chip2k]

There are alot of people that are ainti war including myself that dont believe everything that is written for George Bush to say about Iraq or the propergander that the American administration spew forth constantly.

Chip

[4me2]

Believe this then because its hard fact , Hussein has over the last 12 years broken 21 _UN mandates to date to disarm if we keep looking away all it does is send out wrong signals to other countries like North Korea who are only trying it on because of all the pussy footing from the UN over the past 12 years. Countries like Russia are only interested in defending thier illegal oil deals made with Irak . Irak is only allowed to export a certain amount of oil to buy food and medicine for its citizens which it hasnt been doing and millions are starving because hes spent the money from legal and illegal deals on building huge palaces and buying materials to build illegal rockets . The French are just as bad as they are earning a golden nose on these illegal deals too. Think back a few years when the French were testing thier Atom bombs in the Pacific , So much for the French morals. Now to the Germans , Schroeder has a coalition govt with the Green party and its only them that kept him in power at the last election and without thier seats hes out. The Greens have always been against any sort of German military involvement be it humanitarian or offensive nature. It took months and months of talks and compromises to get them to send 6 Planes down to Turkey in the last golf war and they werent allowed to be used . The pilots even had the damn cheek to complain they werent allowed out of thier hotels at the same time allied solders were dying. Germany has seen unemployment rise from 2 million to 4,5 million in four and a half years under Schroeder and its still rapidly climbing . All his Tree hugging is just a diversion from his failed politics and a last ditch attempt to try and hold his head above water. What he doesnt realise is that once this war is over there will be a flood of oil on the market and that Petrol prices will RAPIDLY drop . Petrol prices dictate all prices because everything manufactured is dependent on it . The cheaper the juice ,the cheaper the production costs , the more people earn, the more products they buy which eventually leads to more jobs to cover the demand.

Also before you go on your tree hugging crusade again where are the missing 4800 bombs in Irak ?

Ps. I almost forgot the Chinese are always obliged to say or do the opposite as the Americans just for the shear hell of it.
Back to Russia , Dont you find it damn strange how they have been slaughtering people in Grosney for years and are still doing but are trying to play the concerned citizens when it comes to Irak ?

Its about time America kicked some major Arse with our help to put things back into perspective again . It cant be that 3rd world hardly known of countries in the UN are being given the responsibility of deciding something so major as this when they cant even afford to feed themselves and are just playing to the highest bidders to see what they can gain in way of financial aid .

[4me2]

US insists on Iraq vote


Bush - inspectors do not need more time nor more personnel

US President George W Bush has said the United States will call for a vote on a second United Nations resolution on disarming Iraq, whatever the level of support in the Security Council.
In a news conference at the White House, Mr Bush said it was time for Council members to "show their cards - and to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam".

The president was speaking at his first full news conference since November, ahead of a crucial report by the chief United Nations weapons inspectors on Friday.

Refusing to use force to disarm Iraq would present an unacceptable risk, he said.

It has also emerged that, on the eve of the UN Security Council meeting on Iraq, President Bush has called his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to exchange views on tackling the crisis.

According to a Russian spokesman, they agreed to continue discussions.

'Final stages'

At the news conference, Mr Bush accused the Iraqi Government of engaging in a "wilful charade" over disarmament.

President Bush gave no new evidence to support his case for a new UN resolution paving the way for war on Iraq.

Mr Bush said the UN weapons inspectors did not need more time, nor more personnel. All they needed was the full co-operation of the Iraqi regime.

Asked whether he was close to deciding on using force against Iraq, Mr Bush said the US was still in the final stages of diplomacy.

He accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of continuing to hide weapons of mass destruction and building more. He also said Iraq provided funding and training and safe havens for terrorists.

He added he would be "fine" with a decision by President Saddam Hussein to go into exile to avert war as long as Iraq was then disarmed.


In other developments:

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov agrees to meet US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Friday, on the sidelines of the UN Security Council meeting

Mr Powell discusses changes in the text of a UN Security Council resolution on Iraq with foreign ministers of major European countries on Thursday

UN observers say they have found three large gaps in the fence on the Iraq-Kuwait border which may be used in a military advance against Iraq.

Deadline

Mr Bush's remarks come hours before chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to present his latest report on Iraqi disarmament to the UN Security Council.

Britain has said it is ready to amend the wording of a proposed second resolution, so that it would be more acceptable to undecided Council members.

Iraq could be offered a fresh deadline to disarm in the amended version, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw suggested on Thursday.

But Mr Straw told BBC News that any more time given to Iraq would be "days and not months".

The US has indicated room for modification on a new UN resolution, which it is sponsoring with the UK and Spain, saying it was not "written in stone".

Mr Straw, speaking on a flight to New York, said he was keen to obtain the backing of other key nations.

"It makes a difference, of course, if by an extra process, going the extra mile in terms of negotiation with our partners, we can achieve an international consensus."

Division

The Council remains deeply divided about how best to disarm Iraq.

China has said it backs other states who have threatened to block any resolution paving the way for war.

However, Beijing has not said whether it will use its power of veto in a vote on a second resolution.

France, Germany and Russia are demanding that the weapons inspectors get more time in Iraq, saying war must be avoided.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Thursday he would be prepared to go to war even if more than one country vetoed a second UN resolution.

Against the diplomatic backdrop, military preparations for possible war are gathering pace.

Washington has revealed that aircraft from the US and British forces enforcing the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have more than doubled the number of their patrols.

Analysts say that Pentagon planners hope that by dramatically increasing flights in this way, they will be able to mask the start of any conflict.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2827553.stm

[4me2]

UK troops 'ready to go'

UK troops are ready to move immediately against Iraq if they get the order for war, the chief of staff of British forces has said.


UK troops in Kuwait

General Sir Michael Jackson, visiting troops in Kuwait on Friday, told journalists: "Four to five days would be ideal, but even if it was today, it's good to go."

His comments came as lawyers warned Tony Blair that a "pre-emptive self-defence" strike against Iraq has no justification in international law.

In an open letter, a group of 16 academic lawyers said there were no grounds for claiming individual self-defence, and no existing UN resolution authorising collective self-defence.

Progress reports

Earlier, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he may attempt to broker a compromise resolution over Iraq, by giving Saddam Hussein more time to disarm.

He indicated the UK was sticking to the tough resolution drafted with America, but was prepared to give ground on detail - although the extra time for Saddam would be a matter of "days rather than months.

Intensive talks are continuing at the UN as chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei prepare to deliver their latest reports on Friday afternoon.

As he met members of the First Irish Regiment, General Jackson rejected claims that British troops were demoralised and badly equipped.

"If anything, I'm a little concerned it may be too comfortable," he said.

"If they are required to do a dangerous job in difficult circumstances they must get used to those circumstances."

The general would not comment on the timing of any invasion of Iraq, saying it was a political decision.

'No legal basis'
The UK and US have recently hinted that the existing resolution, 1441, gives the authorisation to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

But the lawyers warned that taking action without a new, clear UN mandate "will seriously undermine the international rule of law".

One of the lawyers, Phillipe Sands - a barrister at Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers and a Professor of International Law - told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the UK's current tough stance had "no legal basis".

"Is the UK at this point under a real and present danger from attack by Iraq? The evidence doesn't seem to show that."

Furthermore, he said Mr Blair's suggestion he may ignore any UN security council veto deemed unreasonable was an "extremely worrisome development".


"The idea that one state can unilaterally determine the reasonableness or not of another state's veto takes us into very dangerous new ground," said Mr Sands.

"Once the UK goes down the route of saying we will decide which vetoes we will follow and which ones we won't, it's an open game and the system effectively breaks down."

The 16 lawyers conceded their stance was made only on the information publicly available.

A major disclosure of Iraq non-compliance with the UN weapons inspection, or other information, could change their view, they said.

James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford, are among the other British and French lawyers behind the letter.


Bush's warning

Other lawyers have previously said UN resolution 1441 does authorise force - or failing that, resolution 678, passed in 1990, could be used to justify an attack.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament lost its attempt to prosecute the government over possible war when the High Court said it had no jurisdiction over UN resolutions.

Earlier, US President George W Bush said in a rare news conference that it was time for the allies to show where they stood on Iraq and "time for people to show their cards".

Mr Blair told a young television audience in an MTV debate on Thursday he would be prepared to go to war even if more than one permanent member of the security council vetoed a new resolution.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2828041.stm

[4me2]

Pressure mounts on Iraq


The US maintains that Iraq is being obstructive

Reports by United Nations weapons inspectors on the latest disarmament moves by Iraq have renewed divisions over the prospect of a US-led attack on the country.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the UN Security Council that international pressure had forced Iraq to accelerate its co-operation with the teams searching for weapons of mass destruction, and that their work could be completed within months.

But Britain, a key US ally, has suggested amending a proposed Security Council resolution to give Iraq a deadline of a few days - until 17 March - to show "full, unconditional, immediate and active" co-operation with inspectors.

The new resolution, likely to be introduced next week, is intended to win the support of at least nine Security Council votes - including France, Russia and China, all of which have the power of veto over such a resolution and have expressed serious reservations about the prospect of war.

Announcing the move, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "It defies experience that to continue inspections with no firm end date... will achieve complete disarmament."

He was backed by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who maintained that Iraq's disarmament efforts had not amounted to the voluntary, active co-operation demanded by UN resolutions.

Referring to the massive build-up of US and British forces in the Gulf region, he said: "Nobody wants war but it is clear that the limited progress we have seen comes from the presence of a large military force.

"It comes from the unified political will of this council and the willingness to use force - if it comes to that - to make sure that we achieve the disarmament of Iraq.

"Now is the time for the council to tell [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] that the clock has not been stopped by his stratagems and his machinations."

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Iraq was less of a threat to the world than it was before the 1991 Gulf War.

"We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as inspectors are reporting co-operation," he said.

"France will not allow a resolution to pass which would authorise the automatic use of force."

Russia and China also expressed doubts about a resolution backing military action.

'Not authentic'
In his report, Mr Blix said inspectors had been able to conduct operations throughout Iraq with relative ease and described the ongoing destruction of al-Samoud II missiles as a "substantial measure of disarmament".

However, he added that such co-operation could not be described as "immediate compliance" - as required by resolution 1441, passed late last year by the Security Council.

He also said there was no evidence to support US claims that Iraq was hiding biological and chemical weapons in mobile laboratories and underground shelters.

But he added that Iraq had failed to provide sufficient documentary information about weapons it claimed to have destroyed, and that interviews with Iraqi scientists appeared to have been subject to "outside pressure".

In his report, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, said there was no evidence that Iraq had restarted the nuclear weapons programme it was forced to abandon after the Gulf War.

He challenged US and UK allegations on two key issues.

Reports that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger were based on documents that were "not authentic", he said, while extensive examination of imported aluminium tubes suggested that they were not destined for use in enriching uranium.

Mr ElBaradei added that there had been progress on interviewing scientists without minders or tape recorders, but implied that there was still concern that interviews were being bugged.

On the eve of the report, US President George W Bush emphatically set out his agenda for the discussions.

He said the US would call for a new UN vote to pave the way for military action, whatever the level of support in the Security Council - but warned that the US was in the final stages of diplomacy.

In other developments:

UN observers say they have found three large gaps in the fence on the Iraq-Kuwait border which may be used in a military advance against Iraq

Britain's most senior soldier, General Sir Mike Jackson, says his troops are ready to move immediately if the order comes to invade Iraq

Experts on international law say war against Iraq could be "illegal".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2831317.stm

[4me2]

UK plans 10-day Iraq deadline


Troops are ready for action, says the UK

The UK has proposed Iraq should be given until 17 March to show its full cooperation with United Nations demands.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has put forward the new deadline in an amendment to the resolution on Iraqi disarmament, tabled jointly with the United States and Spain.

It would give Iraq 10 days to demonstrate "full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441".

The deadline, which is expected to be put to a vote next week, emerged on Friday as Mr Straw gave his response to a crucial weapons inspectors report at the UN Security Council.

The foreign secretary was particularly critical of French calls for inspectors to be given months of more time.

He argued the choice over war was in the hands of Saddam Hussein and that the threat of force was the only way of achieving Iraq's peaceful disarmament.

"There is only one sensible conclusion that we can draw: We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein, we have to put this man to the test," said Mr Straw.

Iraq should have a "further period" to disarm, he argued, with the date of 17 March given in the text of his amendment.

'The test'

Mr Straw said he welcomed what progress inspections had made but it was "only the tip of a very large iceberg" of unfinished business.

Earlier, the UK's most senior soldier, General Sir Mike Jackson, said UK troops were ready to move immediately against Iraq if they get the order for war.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council that Iraq had accelerated its cooperation, but its efforts could not be called "immediate compliance".

Dr Blix called the destruction of 34 al-Samoud missiles a "substantial measure of disarmament".

The Iraqis had stepped up their cooperation efforts and those would be judged on how many questions they answered, he said.

'Unfounded claims'
In his report, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said his team had found "no evidence or plausible indication" of a revival of nuclear weapons programmes.

Reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger - something cited in the UK Government's dossier - were unfounded, he said.

Germany, France and Russia are warning they would vote against a new UN resolution and China also says the inspections should continue.


French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the pressure on Iraq was paying off and the inspectors should set out key benchmarks for Iraq to pass.

He rejected the idea of going to war on the proposed 17 March deadline timetable.

Despite that opposition, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wanted the draft new resolution to go to a Security Council vote in the near future.

Earlier, UK military Chief of Staff General Sir Mike Jackson rejected claims that British troops were demoralised and badly equipped.

As he met members of the First Irish Regiment in Kuwait, the general said a couple more ships had still to arrive and the troops were "pretty ready".

He added: "Four to five days would be ideal, but even if it was today, it's good to go."


'No rush'

Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said Dr Blix's report showed that Iraq had failed to meet UN demands for it to disarm immediately.

"We are rolling inexorably towards military action unless Saddam Hussein complies absolutely in accordance with resolution 1441," he said.

But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy instead argued that no case had been made for a rush into military action, especially if it meant America and Britain going it alone.

"If Dr Blix is making progress and if he feels he can make further progress, then it has to be sensible and sane for the international community to give support to that," he said.

Labour rebel MP Alan Simpson said that with the new deadline, the UK seemed to be "looking for the pretext of war, not the avoidance of one".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2830709.stm

[4me2]

Second resolution 'still possible'


Anti-war protesters are taking to the streets

Jack Straw has said he is still hopeful the UN Security Council may back a second resolution on Iraq.
The foreign secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he was asking member states to face up to their responsibilities.

Meanwhile, Labour backbenchers are growing restless after the government's proposal of a 17 March deadline for Iraqi cooperation with UN inspectors.

Anti-war protests are also intensifying with up to 20,000 expected to march in Manchester on Saturday.

Speaking after Friday's Security Council meeting, Mr Straw told Today that he believed the UK/US/Spanish resolution could get through the Council.

"We are at a difficult time, but I believe that by the process of argument we should be able to get to a point where we can get a second resolution," he said.
"What this meeting has been about is getting members of the Security Council, all of them, to face up to the seriousness of the Iraqi situation and to face up to their responsibilities.

"Now I can't dictate to the other 14 members what they do. However what I can do is to spell out why the Iraq issue is so important and why we do have to face up to our responsibilities."

Asked whether he believed war could be avoided, he said: "Yes I do. But I know too that the only reason we have got any co-operation at all out of Iraq is because of the credible threat of force."

Mr Straw also stressed that the deployment of British troops was "exclusively a matter for Her Majesty's Government, for the Cabinet, and then for endorsement by the British House of Commons, nobody else".


'Horrible consequences'

UN weapons inspector Mohammed el Baradei told Today that inspections were making progress, and efforts for a peaceful resolution should get as much time as possible.

"A war will have horrible consequences everywhere," he said. "We will all feel the consequences."

But only a dramatic change in Iraqi attitude could avert the crisis, he added.

"The ball is very much in Iraq's court."

Many Labour MPs are alarmed at the UK's resolution amendment - to give Iraq until 17 March to disarm or face invasion.

They want a Commons vote in advance and warn of an even bigger rebellion than last week's - when over 120 Labour MPs voted against military action without a second resolution.

But the Commons may not get a vote before hostilities begin.

Labour MP for Stevenage Barbara Follett told Today acting without a second resolution could "fatally weaken" the UN and "compromise the legitimacy" of the government.

And she would vote against the government on the issue.

Iraqi president Saddam Hussein could be made to disarm without war, she added.

"We should wait and see how the next few months pan out before we decide.

"War has to be a last resort."

The Stop the War coalition are increasing pressure on the government with marches in Manchester, Bristol and Newcastle.

The Manchester protest has been billed as the city's biggest for 180 years.

Organiser John Howard said marchers wanted to send a message to Mr Blair.

"We do feel that he isn't listening to the people of this country."

Meanwhile, an exhibition opening in London attempts to show there is more to Iraq than Saddam Hussein.

It has been organised by Iraqi exiles in Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2831993.stm