Global Reactions to President Bush's War Moratorium Speech

[Source: President Bush TV address to the nation, Monday, March 17, 2003.]

PRESIDENT BUSH GIVES SADDAM AND HIS SONS 48 HOURS TO LEAVE IRAQ. President Bush, as expected, gave a 15-minute nationwide TV address at 8 p.m. (ET) Monday, March 17, to give Saddam Hussein a 48-hour ultimatum, to leave Iraq, along with his sons, or face military conflict, to commence at a time of Bush's choosing. Bush couched his entire statement in the language of the new U.S. strategic doctrine of preventive war, openly admitting that he was preparing military action to prevent a future terror attack that could take place in one or five years. While he said it was ``too late'' for Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq, it was not, he said, too late for the Iraqi military to lay down their arms, and refuse orders to destroy oil wells or to use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Bush also delivered a chilling warning that, once combat begins, the United States could be facing terrorist attacks. [js_]

Can We Salvage This Presidency?
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 18, 2003

WIESBADEN, March 17 (EIRNS)--

THE PUSH FOR WAR WITH IRAQ AND A NEW EMPIRE IS "MADNESS," "A MONSTROSITY," AND "INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS," and threatens to unleash "uncontrollable" processes, stated leading British historian and strategist Prof. Corelli Barnett, in an discussion with EIR today. Corelli is one of Britain's foremost experts on the Second World War and Hitler's General Staff, and is presently a senior figure at the Churchill College, Cambridge University.

Professor Barnett first expressed his strong opposition to the accusation, now being made by the Bush and Blair governments, that, "because France, Germany, and Russia won't fall tamely into line with the American position, they are guilty of starting the war. This is ridiculous! All the more so, as the United States was the principal founder of the United Nations. And now that commitment is being replaced by the notion, that if you don't like what the UN does, you are free to act yourself. Washington's insistence, that the UN is only legitimate, if it implements Washington's policy, is a monstrosity." He insisted that "when I speak, I am NOT condemning America and Britain, I am condemning the Bush and Blair regimes."

Professor Barnett offered some trenchant observations, about the similarities and dissimilarities, between 1939 and the present. "The problem is, the recourse to war is inherently unpredictable. When Hitler and his generals moved into Poland in 1939, they were convinced, it would be a short and quick success. In and of itself, it was. But it was the prelude to European war and world war, with all the devastation, for Germany itself, that that entailed. This crowd in Washington and London today, has no understanding, about the uncontrollability of what is unleashed, by starting war."

On the other side, he said, that an absurd parallel is always being bandied about, between 1939 and the present, namely between the dangers of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. "It's so absurd, because then, the British had a legitimate {casus belli}, and did not go to war. Today, is not even like 1990-91, when there was a legitimate war, with UN approval, to contain Iraqi aggression. Saddam is indeed a monster, but one with limited capacity to threaten. He's no direct threat to us, and there is no proven connection to al-Qaeda. He's not even a threat in the Middle East region, with American and British planes always patrolling Iraqi airspace."

Professor Barnett had two other, related concerns. He expressed total agreement with Lyndon LaRouche, in drawing parallels between Thucydides's account of the fate of imperial Athens, and the dangers of the U.S. attempting to become an empire, today. "This attempt to establish an empire, is enormously destabilizing. The only basis for effective world order, is relations between sovereign states, with respect for borders. When this is replaced, by a divine mission to topple regimes, the situation becomes incredibly dangerous. All the more so, as the regimes in Washington and London, now, are acting like the mirror-images of bin Laden. They believe themselves to be `born-again Christians,' with a religious mission. This terrifies me." [mjb]

- IRAQ SHOWDOWN DEVELOPMENTS: COUNTRY BY COUNTRY -

RUSSIA:

 From Moscow, President Vladimir Putin condemned military action against Iraq, according to AFP and Putin's website. ``You know the position of the Russian leadership. We are for solving all the problems around Iraq exclusively by diplomatic means. And our position has not changed. I am sure that any other course of events would be a mistake, which could lead not only to human casualties--which in itself is unacceptable; and so many would suffer--but also would destabilize the international situation as a whole to a significant degree.''

Associated Press also says the Russian government rebuffed an invitation by the U.S. military's Central Command, to send a liaison to discuss ``post-war'' procedures. A Russian source told AP they reject anything that would ``acknowledge the inevitability of war.'' Unlike many other countries, Russia did not close its Embassy in Iraq, and a group of Russian Islamic and Orthodox Christian clergymen left for Baghdad. Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Aleksi II called on all governments to take ``into account the opinion of the world community'' against the war, and do everything to avoid it.

[Source: Foreign Ministry web site]
March 17--
THE U.S. IS MAKING "A TRAGIC ERROR", DECLARED GEORGI MAMEDOV, DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF RUSSIA, in an interview with Itar-Tass. Mamedov stated: "If Washington decides to ignore the [UN] Security Council, to violate the UN Charter and invade Iraq, this will be a tragic error from the side of the U.S.A.... Russia categorically rejects any ultimatums regarding Iraq.... In Russia we consider, that Iraq constitutes neither a threat to the U.S.A, nor to the international community, nor to its neighbors.... Russia will not participate in a campaign of pressure or threats, directed at changing the regime in Iraq." Asked what Russia would do, should there be a U.S. military operation, Mamedov answered: "Russia will not launch an anti-American campaign, but will try its utmost to return the situation to a proper legal basis. We will not gloat over a tragic mistake by the United States."

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also issued a statement, couched in very similar terms, that "the possibilities for [a political] settlement have not only not been exhausted, they are, on the contrary, quite real," and that, therefore, it is Russia's position that "there are no grounds, including legal grounds, for the use of force with respect to Iraq, especially while invoking previous UNSC resolutions."

FRANCE: 

The French UN Ambassador told the press on Monday, March 17, ``The draft resolution did not get the votes because the members of the [UN Security] Council, the members of the UN, the majority in the UN -- AND, I WOULD SAY, THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD -- do not think that it would be right in the present circumstances to use -- to have the Council authorizing the use of force. Why? Because the use of force should be always the last resort.'' He said that it is UNTRUE that France and President Jacques Chirac had ever ruled out the use of force. He is also emphasized that the March 16 statement by Germany, France, and Russia to convene a meeting of Foreign Ministers at the UN Security Council is still being worked on. [mlm/rbd/mjs]

BRITAIN:

THE LABOUR PARTY'S LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ROBIN COOK, RESIGNED HIS POSITION 

and thereby left the Tony Blair cabinet. Cook, formerly Foreign Minister, said he could not support an attack on Iraq.

Cook released his letter to Blair, which said in part, "I cannot give my support to military action in these circumstances.... You and I have both made the case over the years for an international order based on multilateral decisions through the UN and other forums. In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support. In practice I believe it is against Britain's interests to create a precedent for unilateral military action.... I am dismayed that once again Britain is divided from our major European neighbors. As president of the party of European socialists, of which the Labour Party is a member, it troubles me that I know of no sister party within the European Union that shares our position."

Robin Cook received a standing ovation from Labour MPs, when he announced tonight that he will vote against an attack on Iraq on March 18. He said that to accept the argument that French President Jacques Chirac alone had stopped the U.S.-U.K. resolution in the UN Security Council is to "delude ourselves," pointing out that neither NATO, nor the EU, nor the Security Council itself, supports the U.S. and Britain.

Cook asked why Britain and the United States are so impatient about Iraq, when it has been "over 30 years since the UN called on Israel to quit the occupied territories."

The British Parliament is to debate the Iraq question on March 18.

CANADA:

PRIME MINISTER JEAN CHRETIEN TOLD A CHEERING PARLIAMENT THAT NO CANADIAN TROOPS WILL PARTICIPATE in an attack on Iraq without UN authorization.

AUSTRALIA:

PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD SAID HE IS ORDERING 2,000 AUSSIE TROOPS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR AN INVASION OF IRAQ.

 Howard said he is "very conscious" of popular opposition to a U.S.-led attack -- a poll published Tuesday morning, March 18, showed 71 percent of Australians disagree with such a war U.S.-led attack. The matter is to be debated, but not voted on, in the Parliament on March 18.

TURKEY:

AS THE WEEK BEGAN, TURKEY'S STOCK MARKET AND CURRENCY WERE IN FREE FALL, WITH THE U.S. OFFER OF BILLIONS to stave off debt collapse seemingly off the table.

On March 17, Turkey's leaders met -- the new Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, and top generals. Following this meeting, a Presidential spokesman said, "Our government will make the necessary evaluation urgently," to take action to allow U.S. troops to use Turkey as a base for a northern front in a war on neighboring Iraq. On March 17, in Washington, Turkish representatives told a meeting of the U.S.-Turkish Friendship Society, that the Turkish Parliament would convene March 18, and the U.S. requests would be on its agenda again. [ahc]

MARCH 18. 

ROUND-UP OF THE RESPONSES TO BUSH ULTIMATUM TO IRAQ,

* CHINA -- President Hu Jintao spoke by phone with Russian and French counterparts, emphasizing Beijing's opposition to war with Iraq, the Xinhua News Agency reported. Later it was reported that President Hu told Bush on a phone call that China hopes for "peace instead of war," and wants a political settlement through the United Nations, Xinhua reported.

* RUSSIA -- In response to a phone call from President Bush, Russian President Putin "expressed regret in connection with Washington's decision to issue the ultimatum, and the fact that intensive diplomatic efforts had failed to produce a mutually acceptable compromise," according to the Kremlin.

* GERMANY -- Chancellor Schroeder said of Bush's speech: "Does the threat posed by the Iraqi dictator justify a war, which is sure to kill thousands of innocent children, women and men? My answer in this case was and is: `No!'"

* FRANCE -- President Jacques Chirac said a war without the support of the United Nations would undermine future efforts at peaceful disarmament. "To act without the legitimacy of the United Nations, to favor the use of force over law, is taking a heavy responsibility."

* JAPAN -- Prime Minister Koizumi, gave a statement of support for Bush. An opposition group in the Diet announced today, it will raise a resolution of disagreement with Bush.

* IRAQ -- Iraq officially rejected the Bush ultimatum Tuesday morning. Saddam Hussein's oldest son, Odai, said, Bush should resign, Bush is "unstable."

ASIA

* NEW ZEALAND -- Prime Minsiter Helen Clark said it was "highly debatable" whether a U.S.-led strike on Iraq would be justified under interantional law.

* INDONESIA -- A foreign ministry spokesman lamented the breakdown of diplomacy. We stil believe that a soluton to the crisis should be found within the UN Security Council," spokesman Marty Natalegawa said.

* PHILIPPINES -- President Gloria Macapagal will support the United States war in Iraq without United Nations approval. But Cardinal Sin immediately challenged the President, calling such a war illegal and immoral, and not within the parameters of "just war." IBERO-AMERICA

* MEXICO -- President Vicente Fox addressed the nation nation Monday night, two hours after President Bush spoke, to announce that Mexico "disagrees" with what the U.S., Spain, and Great Britain are proposing, and that Mexico insists that peaceful means of disarming Iraq are not exhausted, and multilateral institutions must be maintained.

* BRAZIL -- President Lula said "We should fight for a peaceful solution until the last moment, and, in any case, join forces to defend the multilateral system and the United Nations Charter."

* ARGENTINA -- Argentina reported that it had rejected a request from the United Kingeom on Sunday, that it join the three in war. "This is not the path," said Ruckauf.

* CHILE -- President Lagos had decided before Bush's speech that Chile would vote against the U.S. in the Sec. Council, rather than abstain. Polls show 98% of Chileans oppose war, amidst a devastating financial collapse situation.

In support of the war

* COLOMBIA -- The Presidency issued a statement backing the Azores Declaration, claiming Colombia's battle against terrorism made it understand the situation.

* CENTRAL AMERICA -- The Central American nations lined up behind Bush, with a joint statement issued by the Presidents.

LEESBURG, Va., March 17 (EIRNS) -- 

WEAPONS INSPECTIONS REPORT CANCELLED IN NEW YORK AFTER BUSH AND CHENEY LAUNCH PREEMPTIVE WAR ON UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL (UNSC).

As of this writing, the majority of the United Nations Security Council continues to be against military action against Iraq; Kofi Annan reiterated that military action outside the UN is in violation of the United Nations Charter, by referring to his statement in The Hague, on March 10; and a special session of the UNSC to hear the reports from weapons inspectors Hans Blix (UMMOVIC) and Mohammed El-Baradei (IAEA) is scheduled for March 19 (Wed.) The Syrian Ambassador also denounced the removal of inspectors from Iraq as a dangerous precedent.

[source: UN News Centre, 18 March, 2003]

HANS BLIX SAYS THE END OF INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ IS PREMATURE. 

Blix said it is not "reasonable to close the door to inspections after three and a half months," and that the inspectors had never asserted that Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction, only that there were a lot of things unaccounted for. He also said that "he did not think Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons in a war with a U.S.-led coalition," even though the country "had the know-how," because they recognize that "world public opinion, which they study quite a lot" believes that the US is "going to war too early." Asked if Saddam Hussein's regime would care about public opinion, since they are being overthrown anyway, Blix said, "Some people care about their reputation even after death." (mjs)

[source: AP, AFP, NPR radio, 3/17/03]

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN, AND THE FRENCH AND GERMAN GOVERNMENTS CONTINUE TO MOBILIZE AGAINST ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR.

On March 17, at about 9 a.m. Eastern Time, at the UN in New York, British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, went to the microphone to announce that the Brits were withdrawing the war resolution put in by the Terrible Three. He was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte (an Iran-Contra thug) and Spanish envoy Arias. Greenstock went into a lying spiel about how the French were responsible for ending the diplomatic options by threatening to veto the resolution. The REALITY, from all the accounts, IS THAT THE U.K./U.S. DID NOT HAVE THE NINE VOTES THEY NEEDED. Germany, France, Russia, and China are continuing to oppose the war, and powerful statements were made throughout the day.

The following is a timeline of the UN events on March 17:

Pre-9 a.m.: Kofi Annan announced that he has SUSPENDED ALL UN FUNCTIONS IN IRAQ, AND ALONG THE BORDERS WITH KUWAIT,

 including inspections, humanitarian work, and distribution of food under the Oil for Food program, because of an official warning he received from the U.S. that ``the safety'' of the inspectors will be in jeopardy (from U.S. action).

Pre-9 a.m.: "Even as UN inspectors were about to be withdrawn from Iraq they supervised the destruction of two more Al Samoud 2 missiles on Monday, bring to 72 destroyed since the March 1 process began." The UNMOVIC also destroyed computer programs and files with missile launch information; and held the 14th private interview with scientists.

9 a.m.: British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock announced that the British, in coordination with the U.S. and Spain was withdrawing the resolution from a vote. (He later said it is still on the table.) He blamed the failure on ``one nation in particular'' that rejected the proposal for disarmament, and accused (France) of putting ``forward suggestions that would roll back on the unanimous agreement'' of 1441. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte then said that Iraq ``has not complied'' with 1441.

Approximately 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.: the UNSC met in closed session. From the information provided by some of the Ambassadors, after the session, the U.S./U.K. were not able to prevent a Wednesday (March 19) meeting to hear the report from Blix and El-Baradei, and it is scheduled to take place.

1 p.m.: French Ambassador de La Sabliere told the press that the U.K./U.S. cancelled the vote ``because there was no support in the Security Council for a draft resolution authorizing the use of force.'' He added that ``the majority of the delegation'' was anxious to see the ``program of work'' provided by Dr. Blix and Dr. El-Baradei, which would outline the remaining tasks to complete disarmament. He added, ``There is a feeling in the Council that it is still possible, it would be very helpful that we do our best to try to continue the Iraqi disarmament through peaceful means. It is possible, it is possible to disarm Iraq through peaceful means,'' and said it is a lie (from the Brits and Americans) that France and President Jacques Chirac had ruled out disarmament and military force if inspections failed. But, he emphasized, they are succeeding.

1 p.m.: The Syrian Ambassador emphasized that ``withdrawing the inspectors ... has very significant meaning and it has an implication, very dangerous implication, which it means there is no more inspections, which it means there is no disarmament peacefully to the Iraqis, which we have been working all the time on this matter.'' There were other statements from UNSC Ambassadors but the transcripts were not available. (mjs)

[Source: Welt am Sonntag, March 16]

DMITRI ROGOZIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN AFAIRS COMMISSION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE DUMA, SPOKE OF A "NEW QUALITY OF COOPERATION BETWEEN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND RUSSIA," 

in an interview with the March 16 issue of Germany's Welt am Sonntag. He said that this goes far beyond the immediate Iraq issue, and is based on a very solid foundation--which also appeals to other interested powers: "With a common industrial policy, space research, and security policy, for example, in case of regional conflicts, Germany, France and Russia are turning into a new attractive center for other states."

"The resources of Russia are securing the independence of every ally," Rogozin added. "Even if the Americans dominate everything in the [Persian] Gulf, there is no danger for Germany and France, as long as they cooperate with Russia. And Russia has decided for Germany and France. On this basis of mutual interests, the Eurasian Union is emerging as a new superpower, and with its giant export markets, has a bigger future than the European Union." (rap)

[Source: Der Spiegel, FAZ, March 16]

FRENCH HISTORIAN EMMANUEL TODD ENDORSED EURASIAN ALLIANCE PERSPECTIVES, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THIS WEEK'S DER SPIEGEL, 

and told the German weekly that a war against Iraq would be the beginning of the decline of a United States that was too overextended, both militarily and economically, to be a lasting empire. "Bush's brutality in foreign-policy terms has worked as a massive incentive for the Franco-German duo. A new world-political pole is emerging here, which already is showing enough dynamic to also attract Russia," Todd said. Since the end of the Cold War, the emergence of this "natural and normal" alliance between France, Germany, and Russia has been latent, now it is taking shape, Todd said.

In economic potential, the new Eurasian bloc has clear advantages over the United States, whose problem is "creeping deindustrialization. European industrial output is bypassing the U.S.A.'s by far, even in top technologies." And, the United States has grown totally dependent on the unabated inflow of foreign capital, with an unprecedented trade deficit of nearly $500 billion. "But this cannot work forever. Soon, also this bubble will explode."

It is worth noting, that German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also refers to "Eurasia," in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung today. Though superficially opposing any reference to a "Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing axis of reason," Fischer does state, however, that "Europe is part of the Eurasian continent." Conceding that, in military terms, Europe is not taken seriously by the United States, he added that this is different with respect to the economic power of the Europeans. (rap)

[Source: The Times of India: Beijing: 03/17/03]

INDIAN PRIME MINISTER ATAL BEHARI VAJPAYEE, SAID THERE IS A NEED FOR INDIA AND CHINA TO BUILD A LONG-TERM CONSTRUCTIVE AND COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP IN MAINTAINING PEACE AND STABILITY NOT ONLY IN ASIA BUT ALSO IN THE WORLD. 

The prime minister, who is expected to visit China later this year, was congratulating the appointment of Wen Jiabao as the new prime minister of China.

"The process of building trust and understanding continues in this century, we seek to build a long-term, constructive and cooperative relationship based on the principles of Panchsheel, mutual sensitivity to each other's concerns and equality," Vajpayee said in his congratulatory message.

Expressing his happiness to work with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, the Indian Prime Minister said that it will be "to mutual benefit and in the interest of peace and stability in Asia and in the world." He also pointed out, that as the two largest and most populous developing countries, "we face the similar opportunities and challenges in the social development of our nations." [RMA]

WIESBADEN, March 17 (EIRNS)--

SHOULD THIS IRAQ WAR NOW GO AHEAD, AS SEEMS LIKELY, "THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS FINISHED,

 no question about it," said a continental European political insider today. Not a fan of the LaRouche movement, he nonetheless conceded, that under such conditions, LaRouche would be playing a key role, in the future of the Democratic Party. The source stated: "The old Democratic Party, the Democratic Leadership Council people, Lieberman and his coterie, they will be out, soon, if this war dynamic heads in the direction I suspect. There are, already, many Democrats in the House and Senate who don't like this war drive, and who think the silence, or complicity of the Democratic leadership, on Iraq, is scandalous."

This individual added, "I have always insisted, that while external pressure on the U.S., respecting Iraq, is important, it is only internal pressure, that can turn the situation around. I know very well, that there are many important Americans, who think this war is totally crazy, and they will show their hands. In recent American history, we have seen moves to contain extremists and advocates of war, such as when the military and Eisenhower moved against Joe McCarthy, as when the Vietnam War was brought to a close, as when the `China Lobby' was neutralized, and the U.S. recognized China. Something similar will unfold, soon, respecting Iraq."

He further commented, that the scandal against Richard Perle is indicative, "that many are against the war policy, and are trying to contain, or reverse it. Such forces in the U.S. are bigger than the press in Europe is letting us know. My barometer on this, is the vehemence of the recent editorial policy of the New York Times, against the war drive. The editorial board of that paper are not exactly small-fry." (mjb)

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 17 (EIRNS)--

CHAS FREEMAN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA DURING THE PERSIAN GULF WAR -- BLASTED THE CURRENT IRAQ WAR PROJECT

 as an immense debacle, which will lose the U.S. its allies and its bases. Freeman, guest speaker at a meeting here of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, said an invasion would give Osama bin Laden his second victory -- the first was after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, when we were set on the course of breaking with Saudi Arabia and other allies, and the second would be the final break caused by this terrible folly.

Freeman said he has accepted an invitation to go to Britain and testify before Parliament. [smt, ahc]

[Source: Philippines Inquirer, 03/17/2003]

CITIZENS OF MORE THAN 126 COUNTRIES PARTICIPATED IN PRAYER VIGILS AGAINST WAR ON IRAQ ON THE EVENING OF MARCH 16. 

Spearheaded by Pope John Paul II, and initiated by the "Global Candle Lighting for Peace" and the "Win Without War" coalition, religious leaders included retired South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. [ggb]

MIDDLE EAST

(Source: direct, 5.3.03)

RAFSANJANI FORECASTS CONSEQUENCES OF WAR.

 In a private meeting in Tehran, March 5, former President and current Head of the Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, issued dire warnings of the consequences of a war on Iraq. He was talking with a group of speakers from the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) conference (March 4-5) on the Persian Gulf in which EIR participated. The former President focussed on two points in his address: The crucial strategic role of the Persian Gulf region, and the fallacy of thinking that a military solution could bring stability to Iraq, the region or the world.

He stated that "no place on Earth is more crucial" than the Persian Gulf/Middle East, due to its raw materials resources and location. He compared the current war plans to the "divide and rule" idea of the British colonialist period, which, today, he said, will not work. Referring to published plans to install a military ruler to govern Iraq, Rafsanjani forecast that this would be a good cause for fostering terrorism, and would destabilize world energy flows. The establishment of a U.S. military occupation force, deployed to secure the free flow of energy, with troops, planes and ships, will not work, he said. Soldiers cannot secure oil wells, pipelines thousands of kilometers long, and sea ports. The case of Afghanistan is a good example of how military conquest does not mean security.

A military commander, ruling with a gun, would never be accepted in Baghdad, he stated. Israel may think it would be happy with such an arrangement, but Israel would end up being the loser, because, if the region is unstable, "those warriors who are ready to sacrifice themselves for their rights" would increase in number. The old colonialist methods, if applied, will turn the region into a cemetery, and a cradle for revolutionary movements against the security of the region and the world. Rafsanjani said that Iran expects other forces to intervene, to prevent the explosives from exploding. He expressed his hope that Britain and America would consider the situation carefully, and realize that military power can not solve the problem. They, he said, should solve the problem which they created. Iran would be ready to help.

Rafsanjani forecast that if the crisis in the Persian Gulf explodes, then the whole world will experience a serious shock, global markets will be affected, and unpredictable events will occur.

A military intervention in Iraq, he repeated, may appear to be successful initially, but, as the Afghan case shows, even American forces on the ground would not be secure. For security in Afghanistan, what is required are jobs, infrastructure and development. The Iraqi people, in his view, would not take an American military attack as the Afghans did. If the U.S. were to install a military commander in Baghdad for two years, it would not be able to replace controlling institutions, like the Baath party, the army, the intelligence agencies of the country, which have been around for 30 years old. One might be able to suppress the country, turn it into a cemetery, but not control it in the long term.

Rafsanjani concluded with an appeal to heed the lessons of history, and opt for wisdom, in place of greed, dialogue and negotiations, in place of force. It is to be hoped, that such a message be considered with care, in Washington. (mlm)

[Source: Ha'aretz, Mar.16,2003]

IN ITS LEAD EDITORIAL THE DAILY HA'ARETZ ATTACKED THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES' (IDF) USE OF "UNBRIDLED FORCE," AFTER IT KILLED TWO ISRAELIS. 

"The IDF's spirit is changing, and from an army of values, it is becoming a terminator. The IDF's senior command are the first that ought to be shocked by this development. The missions that the political echelons impose on the IDF do not enable its commanders, over a period of time, a clear look at the internal processes that the army is undergoing.... The public, mourning its victims, is fatigued by the Palestinian murderousness, and is indifferent to the reports of losses and destruction on the Palestinian side. The awful mistake that led to the `get them no matter what' killing of two security guards, now rouses, for a moment, the public horror. For a moment, out of a sense of identification with the victims, the public sees what happens every day under the mantle of prevention, deterrence and targeted killings."

Pointing to the fact all this killing is being done, because the Sharon government does not want to engage in peace negotiations, Ha'aretz concludes, "The public must demand an end to the waste of precious time the army provides, at heavy cost, to the political echelon ... the public, must strive for a solution." [dea]

[source: Haaretz 3/17/03]

THE WORLD IS IGNORING THE PALESTINIAN KILLING FIELDS. 

The level of killing by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has earned them the title, ``Israeli Killing Forces.'' Early on March 17, they killed eight Palestinians, when they attacked the Nusseirat refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, with a force of 30 tanks and helicopter gunships. In another Warsaw Ghetto-style Nazi attack, three people were killed, including a 13-year-old, and a baby, when they did not evacuate a house, which the Israelis blew up anyway. Ali Rabah, the chief of emergency at the hospital in the central Gaza Strip, said the death toll could rise substantially, in the very crowded refugee camp where 16,000 refugees live.

These incidents followed only a few days after the IKF killed two ISRAELI security guards, using the same brutality they always employ in ``targeted assassinations.'' This ``accidental'' assassination of their own people show how arbitrary the so-called ``targeting'' is. One was killed in a hail of 200 bullets and the other was killed by an anti-tank rocket fired from a IKF helicopter gunship, when he tried to aid the first man.

On Sunday, March 16, Rachel Corrie the 23-year-old American peace volunteer was run over, TWICE, by an IKF bulldozer crushing a Palestinian house, in another ``accident,'' as her colleague screamed at the driver to stop. [dea]