[source: AP, Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, 3/1]

THE ARAB LEAGUE MEETING STRONGLY CONDEMNED THE IRAQ WAR THREAT, REFRAINED FROM CALLING FOR ARAB STATES TO REFUSE U.S. DEPLOYMENTS FROM THEIR SOIL, and would not debate a call for Saddam Hussein's exile. The U.A.E. is reported to have filed a motion for Saddam Hussein and his group to go into exile under international guarantees of no prosecution -- the first such Arab call -- but it appears that the motion was not discussed.

The final statement, read by Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, calls for "complete rejection to any aggression on Iraq or threatening the security of any Arab country" and giving inspectors the time required. It also called on Arab states to "refrain from participating in any military action." Bahrain was named to head a committee to convey the Arab message to the world. The League called for an end to the 12-year-old sanctions against Iraq and denounced the call for regime change. It called on Iraq to disarm and work with the inspectors, but said this must be part of disarming the region, including Israel. [mob]

[source: New York Times, 3/1, Michael Wines, Moscow]

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN AGAIN SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE WAR, SAYING THAT THE ISLAMIC WORLD "MAY BE SWEPT BY INSTABILITY" if the U.S. invades Iraq. Speaking to Trud, a Bulgarian newspaper, he said the crisis must be solved "by exclusively peaceful means," and that "I would like to hope that the basic principles of international law will be observed by all members of the international community."

The U.S. effort to turn Russia, leaving France and China as a "minority" among the Permanent Five at the UN Security Council opposed to the war, was in high gear all week: Chickenhawk John Bolton is in Moscow, Putin's chief of staff Alexander Voloshin was in D.C. for meetings with most of the administration officials, Bush has been on the phone with Putin, and Condi Rice may be going to Moscow this coming week. The Times lists the carrots: Three Chechen groups were declared terrorist organizations subject to American sanction; the administration is offering to lift the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a 1970s restraint on trade left over from Soviet days; and, of course, recovering Russia's $8 billion debt with Iraq and getting in on the oil deals. [mob]

[source: AP, 3/1, Ankara]

THE TURKISH PARLIAMENT NARROWLY VOTED DOWN THE U.S. MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN ITS TERRITORY. A few minutes after wires went out worldwide that the Parliament had passed the bill 264-250, with 19 abstentions, narrowly accepting the deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops, 255 airplanes, and 65 helicopters, the Speaker of the Parliament, Bulent Arrinc, announced that the Constitution requires a bill to gain the majority of those present, so the bill had failed. The wire services ate crow, and the U.S. asked for "clarification," but the Parliament was closed down until March 4. [mob]

The following statement is in response to North Korea planning to reopen its nuclear fuel reprocessing facility after its recent startup of its nuclear power plant. The power plant that Washington objects to was shut down under an agreement with the U.S, and restarted after the U.S. failed to keep its commitment to supply North Korea with an 'approved' nuclear power facility, or interim energy supplies.

[source: New York Times, 3/1, David Sanger]

 Following the New York Times op-ed yesterday by Nicholas Kristof, which exposed the "raptors clustered around Cheney and Rumsfeld" who are calling for a precision strike on North Korea -- perhaps nuclear -- by this summer, the Times reports today that a "senior official" warned that if North Korea opens the reprocessing plant, "it's a bomb a month from now until summer." Reviewing the efforts of Brent Scowcroft and others to get the U.S. talking to the North, the Times reports that the testimony by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the Congress, who said the U.S. must eventually talk to North Korea, left President Bush "off the wall angry," resulting in Bush taking a harder line. The "raptors" are using the formulation that Bush's pledge not to invade does not preclude a precision strike on the nuclear facilities. [mob]

Comment from Lyndon LaRouche

Date: Saturday, March 1, 2003 11:40 am

The North Korea situation becomes insoluble, if the Bush Administration goes to war against Iraq. Not because the Korea situation is inherently insoluble, but because what the North Koreans will conclude, which is: "We're next."

If the Administration goes to war against Iraq, it has destroyed the basis for any negotiations with North Korea -- or with anyone else for that matter. Anyone looking at the U.S. handling of Iraq will say: If you're not dealing with an honest negotiating partner, why should we negotiate?

If the U.S. does this, it shows that it can't negotiate in good faith, and it demonstrates itself to be crazy, so why negotiate with a crazy partner, if there is going to be war anyway?

North Korea, or anyone else in this situation, will see that they better not give anything away, they better not give any weapons up -- because they're going to need them to defend themselves from the U.S..

These people who've created this situation with North Korea, these people who are talking about using nuclear weapons against North Korea, are criminals. They've wanted this war for a decade, they've wanted the excuse to use nuclear weapons for a decade: It has {nothing} to do with any current issue.

As to Powell -- who is trying to negotiate with the North Koreans and resolve the situation peacefully -- the crazies in the Administration have taken away his ability to negotiate. Powell is probably dealing in good faith, but the Chickenhawks have undercut his negotiating position by what they are doing on Iraq.

Comment:

Some Americans, although perhaps too few, do respond in a principled fashion, even at the cost of laying down a 20+ year long career that has been build up over a lifetime. One has done so in the hope that the nation will reflect on this personal commitment to what is right and thereby elevate its own commitment to the principles of civilization. This reflects a process that LaRouche has long been representing, with the goal, to create a new renaissance in our time.

U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003

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....

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 America¹s 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....

I urge you to listen to America¹s 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 America¹s 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.

John Brady Kiesling

 Home Index: