[source: UN press release, March 26, 2003]
SEVERAL UNITED NATIONS MEMBERS DENOUNCE WAR ON IRAQ AS
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN CHARTER, CALL FOR SECURITY COUNCIL TO IMMEDIATELY STOP WAR,
at the first day of an UN Security Council open debate on Iraq, held upon the requests of
the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
Although no resolution to stop the war has been put on the table, several
non-Security Council members strongly condemned the war as, for
example, an act of aggression, and called on the Security Council
immediately to stop the fighting and demand the withdrawal of
U.S. and British troops. Some members reportedly have called on
Syria to introduce such a resolution.
* Iraq: Mohammed Aldouri, said the U.S. and Britain had
launched an aggressive war, which constituted a blatant material
breach of international law and the UN charter; also, it was a
material breach of Security Council resolutions that called for
respect for Iraq's sovereignty. He called on the Council to stop
the aggression, and to demand the withdrawal of U.S. and British
forces from Iraq.
He chided the Council because, instead of considering the
aggression itself, it had been busy discussing the humanitarian
aspects of the problem. Wasn't that putting the cart in front of
* Malaysia: Rastam Mohd Isa, speaking as the Chair of the
NAM, said the war against Iraq violated the principles of both
international law and the UN Charter. The unilateral military
action, he charged, was an illegitimate act of aggression. The
war against Iraq should never have started in the first place, --
and should end immediately. He called on the Council to resolve
the issue peacefully through a multilateral process.
* League of Arab States (Observer): Yahya Mahmassani, said
that the resolution adopted at the end of the League's Council
meeting of the League on March 23, had stated that the aggression
against Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter and the
principles of international law. The League had called for the
unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and British forces from Iraq.
It had also called on the Council to adopt a resolution calling
for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of
forces. In addition, the League had called for a reaffirmation of
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
The waging of war against Iraq was not based on the issue of
weapons of mass destruction, he said, but on the imposition of
Instead of one occupation (Palestinian), there were now two
to deal with.
How could the Council remain silent while an unjust war was
being waged? He called on the Council to put an end to the war
and, to call for the immediate withdrawal of the invading forces.
* Algeria: Abdallah Baali, said the use of force against
Iraq did not meet the criteria of international legitimacy. His
country endorsed the resolution adopted by the Arab League. He
called for strict respect for independence, sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq.
The United Nations, he insisted, must call for an immediate
cessation of the conflict.
* Egypt: Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said the Council must call for
the immediate cessation of fighting in Iraq, as well as initiate
political action to achieve a peaceful settlement. In addition,
the Council must insist that the sovereignty of Iraq be
maintained, and urge all parties to respect the principles of
* Yemen: Abdullah Alsaidi, said that the military invasion
was in no way justified, that it constituted a flagrant violation
of international law and the Charter. The policy of regime change
was an act of aggression against a Member of the UN. The
international consensus against the war, must be crystallized
into a UN policy.
* Libya: Ahmed Own, assailed the war as a flagrant violation
of all international standards and laws, as well as the
objectives of the UN Charter. Was it not just, he said, to demand
withdrawal of all forces from Iraq territory?
* Indonesia: Mochamad Slamet Hidayat, insisted that the
aggression must be immediately stopped. The war could have
multi-dimensional consequences to the Middle East region, and
Indonesia strongly deplored the unilateral action by the
U.S. and its allies, who launched a military attack against Iraq
in contravention of international law.
The Council's silence in calling for immediate cessation of
the aggression was deafening, indeed. The Council must unite and
join the clarion calls of nations and peoples all over the world
for an end to the war.
* South Africa: Dumisani Kumalo, said the UN must play a
central role in securing an end to the war in Iraq. [ajt]
- [Source, Foreign Ministry of Russia]
IVANOV LAYS DOWN THE LINE ON IRAQ. With a
toughness unparalleled since the days of the "Cold War", Foreign
Minister Ivanov addressed the Russian Federation Council March 26
on the official Russian government position concerning the war on
Iraq. Here are some key quotes (see also following slugs):
"It is already six days since large-scale military
operations were launched, in violation of decisions of the UN
Security Council and in contradiction with the norms of
international law," Ivanov stated.
"As President Putin stressed, the Iraq crisis has gone
beyond the bounds of a regional conflict, and represents today a
potential source of instability for other regions of the world.
"Already today it becomes more and more obvious, how far
removed from reality are the attempts, to present the military
operation against Iraq as a triumphal campaign for `liberation'
of the Iraqi people with minimal destruction and human losses.
Rocket and bombing strikes of enormous destructive power have
been mounted against Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. As a result
of massed bombardments, the number of victims is increasing,
including in the civilian population. Historical and cultural
monuments have been irretrievably damaged. The country's
infrastructure is being destroyed, and its population deprived of
electricity and water....
"All of this confirms the correctness of the evaluation of
the war as a serious political mistake, made by President Putin
on March 20....
"Russia together with other members of the Security Council,
did everything possible, to avoid a military course in the Iraq
problem. We believed, and continue to believe, that there are no
solid reasons whatever, for launching war. Nobody provided
convincing evidence, that Iraq supported international terrorism.
And nobody demonstrated, that Iraq represents a military threat
to any nation whatsoever....
"Unfortunately, the chance [for peace] was wasted, insofar
as the USA and Great Britain set the main priority, not on the
disarmament of Iraq, but on changing the political regime in that
country. This violates not only the resolutions of the Security
Council, but also the basic principles of the UN Charter....
"The attempt to impose this or that political structure upon
a sovereign state is not only illegal, but is doomed to
"The danger of a military solution of the Iraq problem lies
also in the fact, that one illegal act inevitably leads to a
further one. How can one otherwise understand, for example, the
demand by the USA, that other countries should break diplomatic
relations with Iraq, expel Iraqi diplomats, and freeze the bank
accounts of Iraqi representatives? This concerns not a regime in
Baghdad, but a sovereign nation, a member of the UN.
Incidentally, we officially demanded from the USA, to supply the
legal basis for such a demand....
"We continue to be committed to acting against any attempt
to directly or indirectly legitimize the use of force against
"This is why we consider, that there exists today no task,
more important, than to stop the war immediately...." [jbt]
THE USA SHOULD DESIST FROM TAKING STEPS, THAT WOULD ENDANGER
LONG-TERM RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA,
Foreign Minister Ivanov warned.
Russia is "seriously worried, about the attempt of certain
circles in the USA, to draw Russia into the `information war'
around Iraq" by charging Russian companies with supplying Iraq
with military hardware. "President Putin reminded President Bush
in a telephone call, that the Russian side had repeatedly
provided information about the nonexistence of such deliveries.
I would add, that we made the most serious efforts to check
American accusations on this matter, but no facts whatsoever were
Meanwhile, the Russian press is full of stories about a
"diplomatic war" breaking out between the Russia government and
the Bush Administration. [jbt]
[Source: Itar-Tass, RIA Novosti, other wires, March 26]
RUSSIA LISTS PRIORITIES FOR SPECIAL UNSC SESSION.
Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's speech to the Federation Council,
in summary, presented three essentials to be discussed at a
special session of the UN Security Council:
1) instant cessation of war, return of Iraq issue to the
agenda of the UN Security Council;
2) review acute situation in Iraq, in terms of humanitarian
needs, scope of destruction, and the like. If need be, UN blue
helmets should be deployed to maintain order and security in
3) continuation of weapons inspections, with inspectors
being allowed access to sites of interest, in Iraq.
Concerning the Anglo-American policy and war on Iraq at this
moment, Ivanov noted sarcastically that the combat situation was
"not developing according to the script," and that no evidence on
the alleged existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has so
far been established. But the war may play into the hands of
those that want radicalization in many Islamic countries, "going
beyond the confines of a local conflict and turning into a
potential source of instability for the whole region," and the
challenge put out by the USA was one not only to Iraq as such,
but to the entire international community, Ivanov warned. (rap)
[Source: Itar-Tass, RIA Novosti, other wires, March 26]
RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER PROPOSES TO SEAT NEW STANDING
MEMBERS ON UNSEC.
In his remarks to the Federation Council, Igor
Ivanov said the present composition of forces at the Security
Council did not correspond to the need to have all continents
equally represented. Thus, he would like to see India, Germany,
Japan, and other leading nations of Asia, Africa, Ibero-America
get seated as standing members, there. Such a reform would have
to be discussed and supported by the majority of UN member
states, through the General Assembly, Ivanov said. (rap)
IN LIGHT OF U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ, RUSSIA PUTS OFF
RATIFICATION OF NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION AGREEMENT.
Foreign Minister Ivanov told the Russian press March 26, that only "after
the solution of the Iraq conflict is returned to the Security
Council, will it be possible for the Russian government to work
for a ratification of the disarmament agreement." [jbt]
[Ekho Moskvy, March 25]
GENERAL IVASHOV WARNS OF "PROBABLE" USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
In an interview with the popular radio station
"Echo Moskvy" Russian General Leonid Ivashov pointed to the
likelihood, that a provocation would be staged, to provide a
pretext for USA or Israeli use of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
The nuclear strike would most likely occur as "an answer" to
an alleged Iraqi chemical or biological attack on Angloamerican
forces. In fact, Ivashov said, Iraq itself is neither able nor
interested in launching such an attack. But given the fact, that
"lies and provocations have become the essence of US policy," the
danger of a staged incident, accompanied by a huge propaganda
hype, is very large.
Asked why he thought a nuclear attack on Iraq is likely,
Ivashov cited two reasons. First, the Anglo-Americans have not
deployed sufficient ground troops, to actually capture Basra,
Kirkuk, Mosul, and other fortified Iraqi cities. This much
"should be clear to anyone who has studied military science,"
Ivashov declared. Second, Ivashov pointed to the evidence of many
US official documents and statements, including by Rumsfeld
THE PRESENT SITUATION HAS MANY PARALLELS TO 1938,
declared General Ivashov. First Czechoslovakia, then Poland were given to
Hitler, but this only increased his appetite. "Therefore it is
necessary for us, from the very start, to take a very tough
stance" against the US war party. [jbt]
[Russian Foreign Ministry]
HECTIC RUSSIAN DIPLOMACY AROUND IRAQ.
In the course of March 26, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov telephoned French Foreign
Minister Villepi, Iranian Foreign Minsiter Kharrazi, and US
Secretary of State Colin Powell, while Deputy Foreign Minister
Mamedov met with the Ambassadors of major Latin American
countries. While the names of the countries in question were not
given in the official release, the participants in the meeting
"declared that military operations be immediately halted and the
Iraq problem brought back to diplomacy in the UN Security
[source: New Straits Times, 3/25]
DR. MAHATHIR RIDICULED TALK OF "REBUILDING IRAQ," DEMANDING
THE UN ACT TO FORCE US WITHDRAWAL -- AND CALLED FOR KOFI ANNAN TO RESIGN.
The Malaysian Prime Minister, who cut short his annual
two month vacation to take national and international leadership
in the resistance to US unilateralism, told a press conference at
the Parliament that "rather than being futuristic by discussing
the rebuilding of Iraq after the ongoing destruction, the UN
should be realistic and practical in addressing the demise of
international law and the suffering of innocent Iraqis."
As to Secretary General Annan, Mahathir said he should
resign for having failed to stop the aggression against Iraq,
adding that "the problem with the Secretary General (is that) he
is not a free agent, he is very much subject to pressure, and
therefore, whatever he says is not reflective of the opinion of
the UN." [mob]
[source: NYT, 3/26, Michael R. Gordon, Camp Doha, Qatar]
ALTHOUGH NOT REPORTED ELSEWHERE, THE HEADLINE NEW YORK TIMES
STORY REPORTS THAT THE US HAS CHANGED PLANS, AND WILL FIGHT IN THE SOUTH BEFORE GOING TO BAGHDAD.
The report from the NYT reporter in command headquarters at Camp Doha, Qatar, is called
"US shifting focus of land campaign to fight in south," quoting "senior officers" that the resistance by the militia has forced a
delay of the Baghdad operation. The resistance "has been so stiff
that commanders have concluded that this Iraqi threat has to be
addressed first," Gordon writes. They say the delay will be
"days, not weeks." The plan to bypass the southern cities, or for
them to fall easily, has been replaced by a plan which "commits
allied forces to some form of urban warfare in southern Iraq."
WIESBADEN, Mar. 26 (EIRNA)--
THE US DEPLOYMENT WILL ONLY LEAD TO
A veteran of the last Gulf War commented that the
current U.S. actions are so incompetent that one can only assume
they are designed to ensure an escalation of the bombing and
justification for bringing in many more reinforcements. He said
that the U.S. is not prepared properly for desert warfare, which
has been the subject of debate within the military for years now.
It is not just the obvious effect of bad sandstorms, but sand in
general which attacks computer systems that are essential for
everything from helicopters to sophisticated weapons systems.
The source was very much struck by the inadequate forces
deployed. So far, the U.S. has deployed no more than three
divisions, none of which are optimal for this type of warfare. He
was not particularly impressed by the 101st Airborne, which is
expected to deploy very soon. If they were serious, they would
have sent the 82nd, which is much more of an elite unit. He fears
a Vietnam-type escalation, where heavy losses to the first
divisions will be used as an excuse to send even more troops.
Moreover, it will lead to more deadly bombing and tremendous
civilian casualties, and this is the real problem. He suspects
that report of hundreds of Iraqi soldiers being killed are in
fact civilians who are being killed on a massive scale.
Another three divisions are in the pipeline for deployment,
but after that, the U.S. army does not have many more deployable
regular forces. It does not have the troops to deploy 250,000
soldiers as it had in the last war without mobilizing National
Guard and reserve divisions. Thus, the logic of the situation
will be to move towards a massive increase of the bombing against
the civilian population. The deployment of nuclear weapons falls
into this logic, according to the source. [dea]
March 26 (EIRNS)--
THE U.S. COULD ESCALATE TO DRESDEN-TYPE
TOTAL DESTRUCTION THROUGH BOMBING IN IRAQ,
because of the likely inability to take Baghdad, a retired U.S. Army Colonel told EIR
today. He said that there will be big problems in trying to
reinforce troop levels in Iraq, noting that "we've cut out so
many forces, we don't have them."
"We're not automatically superior" to the Iraqi forces, the
retired officer said, blasting the ignorance of the world which
pervades U.S. policy today. In the face of the setbacks now being
experienced, he expects the U.S. to escalate with heavy bombing
and "total destruction" -- something on the scale of Hiroshima
without nuclear weapons, or the firebombing of Dresden. [ews]
[Source: Peoples Daily March 26]
CHINA CONTINUES ITS STRONG APPEAL FOR AN EARLY END TO THE MILITARY ACTIONS AGAINST IRAQ AND A POLITICAL SOLUTION,
Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan stated yesterday.
"Peoples throughout the world, including the Chinese, share
a common wish to oppose war and safeguard peace," Kong said.
China will work with the international community to push the
Iraq issue back to the United Nations.
Kong also said that the population of China is supporting
the government's policy, at meetings, forums, and in the media,
although they are not staging demonstrations.
China wants to develop its economy and improve people's
lives in a peaceful international environment and stable
surroundings, Kong said; it opposes the use or threat of force in
international disputes, and will consider any plans and
suggestions to end the war and resume peace, he said.