World Media Watch for July 22, 2002

BUZZFLASH NOTE: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.

* * *

1//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting, USA--IRAQ: SADDAM'S SURVIVAL PLAN (With the U.S. government doing nothing to hide that a campaign against Iraq is at least in the planning stages, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has plenty of time to prepare. His first priority will be to prevent a U.S. attack entirely, or at least to bog down the United States in a long drawn-out campaign -- thus reducing Washington's appetite for battle...this is also the political weakness of the American strategy. In attacking Iraq, Washington is moving from a limited operation against a particular Islamic movement -- al Qaeda -- into a broader operation against a general feeling within the Islamic world. And the United States cannot carry out this operation by itself.)

2//The Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates--IRAQI OFFICIAL WARNS AGAINST RADIOACTIVE THREAT TO REGION (According to former US attorney-general, Ramsey Clark about fifty thousand depleted-uranium missiles and rockets were fired from US aircraft in more than 110,000 aerial sorties over Iraq. He said US aircraft had dropped over eighty-eight thousand tons of bombs on the country, the equivalent of seven-and-a-half bombs of the size of the atomic bomb that incinerated Hiroshima. But later research proved that there were probably more than 900,000 rounds of depleted uranium ammunition fired on Iraq. Research by three American specialists on the use of DU by the US Department of Defence during the attack on Iraq by the thirty-state coalition, has confirmed that depleted uranium rounds had been used, for the first time in the history of modern warfare, during the Gulf War...)

3//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates-- KHAMENEI BLASTS U.S. FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS (U.S. criticism of Iran, branded by President George W. Bush as part of an "axis of evil", has enraged Iranian conservatives, wary of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to the east and nervously eyeing a possible U.S. attack on Iraq to the west.)

4//The Moscow Times, Russia--OPEC TELLS RUSSIA NOT TO BE FOOLISH "Hitting out at Russia now, when the oil price is exactly where OPEC wants it, is a clear sign of the growing concern about oil price weakness in the second half of 2002 and in 2003," Weafer said. "If the U.S. attacks Iraq later this year or early next year, then it can be assumed that a 'rehabilitated' Iraq will be allowed and helped to grow its oil production and exports and will quite quickly be able to reach at least 4 million barrels per day from 1 1/2 million now," Weafer said. "No OPEC member country will want to allow such a large quota inclusion.")

5//The Independent, UK--US WARY OF PAKISTAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES' LINKS TO AL-QA'IDA (The FBI is becoming almost as distrustful of its Pakistani counterpart as the CIA is of the warlords across the border in Afghanistan... All in all, the civil police and the Americans might learn more by talking to the ISI. But no one is sure for whom their individual members work.)

6//The Hindustan Times, India--AFGHAN TERRORISTS GATHER IN PoK TO ATTACK INDIA (Hundreds of Islamic terrorists returning from Afghanistan after collapse of the Taliban regime have moved to Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and are ready to join armed operations against Indian forces on the other side of the border, Pakistani media reports said.)

* * *

1//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting 19 July 2002
http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=205356

IRAQ: SADDAM'S SURVIVAL PLAN
Summary

With the U.S. government doing nothing to hide that a campaign against Iraq is at least in the planning stages, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has plenty of time to prepare. His first priority will be to prevent a U.S. attack entirely, or at least to bog down the United States in a long drawn-out campaign -- thus reducing Washington's appetite for battle.

Analysis

(SNIP)

Hussein's survival strategy is based on two lines of defense. First, he will do everything possible to prevent an attack. Second, if he cannot to do this, he will seek to defeat or at least bog down U.S. operations to the point that Washington must accept only a partial victory, as it did in 1991.

For Hussein, preventing the attack is of course the optimal solution. For the United States, an Iraq strike is part of a much broader and complex war against al Qaeda. The U.S. government has reached the conclusion that the real threat does not come so much from al Qaeda as an organization but from the general anti-U.S. sentiment that has taken root in the Islamic world. Simply defeating al Qaeda as a distinct organization will not eliminate the threat posed to the United States within the Islamic world.

(SNIP)

But this is also the political weakness of the American strategy. In attacking Iraq, Washington is moving from a limited operation against a particular Islamic movement -- al Qaeda -- into a broader operation against a general feeling within the Islamic world. And the United States cannot carry out this operation by itself.

(SNIP)

The United States needs support from two classes of countries. First, it needs the direct support of countries neighboring Iraq in order to launch operations. Second, it needs the support of a global coalition to carry out anti-terrorism operations having nothing to do with Iraq. Hussein is carrying out a two-phased political strategy to disrupt this coalition.

Regionally, he is seeking to deny the United States basing near Iraq. Saudi Arabia already has opted out, afraid of the internal repercussions of another U.S. buildup in the kingdom. The Iranians, although deeply tempted to see their own enemy dismembered, are equally afraid of unchecked American power and are unlikely to provide material support.

The Jordanians appear to be prepared to allow U.S. forces to use their territory, but Hussein will use the fact that such forces would likely have to come by way of Israel (unless they slip in through the tiny Jordanian port of Aqaba) to increase Arab support against such a U.S. plan. Hussein has friends in Jordan, and the country's ruler King Abdullah knows it. Hussein has been careful not to alienate Abdullah permanently, nor let him forget his internal vulnerabilities, so as to limit his cooperation with Washington.

The key is Turkey, where there are two variables: oil and Kurds. Turkey profits from the Iraqi oil trade and is fine with the status quo. Moreover, the Turks are wary of anything that may lead to an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, which Ankara fears would encourage separatist Kurdish fighters in eastern Turkey.

Since U.S. strategy likely will rely heavily on the Kurds (a possible U.S. attack from Turkey into Iraq would have to run through Kurdish territory, and the ethnic group maintains its own fighting forces), the Turks may well choose not to play. Hussein is playing both cards deftly against the United States. And since the Turkish government is collapsing -- due to recent resignations from the ruling coalition of ailing Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit -- a clear commitment from even the closest U.S. ally in the region may not be easy to get.

But it is in the global coalition that Hussein is most effective, simply by doing nothing and remaining inoffensive. Over the long haul, the Americans need the Europeans, who are prepared to cooperate against al Qaeda. But they are not interested in redefining the Islamic world. Quite the contrary, the Europeans are doing extensive business in that world and are more than a little interested in doing business in Iraq.

(SNIP)

For Hussein, the optimal method for splitting the coalition is to do as little as possible. The natural dynamic of the coalition is designed to actually limit U.S. operations. The particular U.S. operations against Iraq seem to be modeled vaguely on the Afghan model:

· · An air campaign designed to paralyze Iraqi state operations and, in this case, to decapitate the regime by killing key leaders, particularly Hussein.
· · A ground campaign combining Special Operations forces and indigenous forces, along with air operations, to destroy Saddam's military capability.
· · The insertion of light-infantry forces to seize and hold key positions and support indigenous forces in forming a government.

Obviously, the scale of forces will be greater than in Afghanistan, but this appears to be the core model. The methods Hussein will use to counter this attack likely will include:

· · Extensive air defenses to impose at least some level of attrition on attacking air forces.
· · A campaign of dispersal and deception designed to deny the air campaign the real-time intelligence needed to conduct a decapitation attack.
· · Use of Iraq's counterintelligence capability to monitor U.S. covert operations in Iraq and in particular to identify potential collaborators. Allow these to remain in place until shortly before the attack, then strike and liquidate them, leaving the U.S. military without the indigenous support it would expect.
· · Disperse heavy forces in such a way as to pose a threat to light-infantry forces if and when inserted. The Iraqis understand that the air campaign will cause heavy attrition to Iraqi armored and mechanized forces. However, they also understand that an effective air campaign against these forces, if it can be extended by Iraqi deception, could create an unacceptable situation for U.S. air power, already stretched thin by other simultaneous operational requirements and denied support.

The key for Hussein militarily is to create a situation in which the American campaign has a high probability of dragging out for months. The political costs for the coalition would be too high. The key to extending the war would be to slow down the rate at which his forces are destroyed, by denying U.S. air power the intelligence needed to identify and destroy targets. In particular, by keeping his nuclear, chemical and biological deployments as opaque as possible, the risk factor shifts in Hussein's favor. And the general ability to disperse, secure and camouflage Iraqi assets will increase the cost of the campaign.

This in turn would decrease the American appetite for a battle. The longer and more costly the campaign appears to be, the less likely Washington will be to mount it. Therefore, Hussein is now engaged in three operations: hardening air defenses, dispersing forces, and monitoring U.S. intelligence efforts and identifying potential collaborators, particularly in the Iraqi army.

Hussein has proven very adept in the intelligence war. He is also far from omnipotent. The United States has never mounted a campaign of the scope that is currently being envisioned and, from the intelligence standpoint, implemented. In recent wars the United States has shown a remarkable ability to achieve low-cost goals. On the other hand, it has not come up against the Iraqis lately. There are those who argue that recent wars are a model for Iraq as well. Hussein will do everything possible to prove them wrong.

2//The Khaleej Times 21 July 2002. 11 Jamadi Al Awwal, 1423.
http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/lead.htm

IRAQI OFFICIAL WARNS AGAINST RADIOACTIVE THREAT TO REGION
By Muawia E. Ibrahim

AN Iraqi official has warned that the entire region will be affected by depleted uranium elements used by the coalition forces against Iraq during the Gulf War unless an immediate action is taken to remove its elements from the Iraqi soil.

"The international community should take collective action to avert disastrous impact of depleted uranium (DU) bombs used by the US and Britain in their attack against Iraq in 1991. The region should be cleared from the elements of DU, not only for the safety of the Iraqis, but for the people in neighbouring countries," Dr Fahmi Fuad Al Qaisi, Director, Legal Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in Abu Dhabi yesterday.

Speaking at Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up, Dr Qaisi said weapons of mass destruction used by the coalition forces against his country had left behind radioactive and toxic substances which should be removed from the soil to prevent them from being blown away to other areas in the region.

(SNIP)

Dr Qaisi said the use of DU was a violation of the UN Charter and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War. "Besides, it is listed as a weapon of mass destruction that causes unnecessary huge losses and human suffering. DU also destroys environment and endangers our life," he said.

He called for a collective action to help the DU victims in Iraqi cities. He also said that the first step that should be taken was the immediate lifting of sanctions against Iraq.

The Iraqi population was exposed to the explosion of thousands of tonnes of ammunition in the course of military operations. Some of it was used for the first time in history of warfare. Former British foreign secretary Robin Cook and defence minister Malcolm Rifkind admitted that his country and the US had used DU against Iraq.

According to former US attorney-general, Ramsey Clark about fifty thousand depleted-uranium missiles and rockets were fired from US aircraft in more than 110,000 aerial sorties over Iraq. He said US aircraft had dropped over eighty-eight thousand tons of bombs on the country, the equivalent of seven-and-a-half bombs of the size of the atomic bomb that incinerated Hiroshima.

But later research proved that there were probably more than 900,000 rounds of depleted uranium ammunition fired on Iraq. Research by three American specialists on the use of DU by the US Department of Defence during the attack on Iraq by the thirty-state coalition, has confirmed that depleted uranium rounds had been used, for the first time in the history of modern warfare, during the Gulf War and countless Iraqi soldiers had been killed either directly by the DU shells or as a result of exposure to their radiation.

They estimated that fifty thousand Iraqi children had probably died during the first eight months of 1991 from various diseases, including cancer, kidney failure and previously unknown internal diseases, caused by the use of DU.

The reluctance of governments, particularly the USA, to study and publicise the hazardous effects of the use of depleted uranium has been attributed by the researches to their apprehensions about paying compensations to the victims of radiation exposure.

Gulf War veterans supported the claims of independent investigation into the effects of DU weapons. After returning from the Gulf, several American and British soldiers complained of physical ailments. But the US and Nato deny that these ailments had any connection at all with DU.

3//Gulf News Online Tehran |Reuters | 21-07-2002
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=58287

KHAMENEI BLASTS U.S. FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS

Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United States yesterday of double standards, saying it spread "war and death" while pressuring others on human rights and elections.

U.S. criticism of Iran, branded by President George W. Bush as part of an "axis of evil", has enraged Iranian conservatives, wary of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to the east and nervously eyeing a possible U.S. attack on Iraq to the west.

"America on one hand, has spread the shadow of war and death in the region, threatening officially to overthrow the people and government of Iran and cries out democracy and people's right to elections, freedoms and progress on the other," said Khamenei.

(MORE)

4//The Moscow Times Monday, Jul. 22, 2002. Page 7
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/07/22/043.html

OPEC TELLS RUSSIA NOT TO BE FOOLISH
Combined Reports

OPEC President Rilwanu Lukman said Friday that Russia would be foolish to think OPEC would continue to sacrifice market share to it and warned Moscow that OPEC exporters would win any price war.

OPEC hopes to see room to increase output toward the end of the year as the world economy recovers, but Lukman said any future output cuts would be conditional on other countries, including Russia, joining in.

"The Russians would be foolish to expect us to continuously reduce our market share in order to support higher volumes for them. That would not be acceptable, certainly not in the long term, and they know that," Lukman said at a London conference. Lukman said OPEC had 6 million barrels of spare oil output capacity and lower production costs than Russia.

"We know what their costs are, and if it comes to competition, we know who is going to win, but we are not engaging in a price war," Lukman said.

OPEC watchers said Lukman's comments were an indication of infighting among cartel members, who are increasingly concerned over short-term price stability.

"There is growing evidence of a rift within OPEC on a range of issues that include dealing with rising non-OPEC production, the future re-integration of very large Iraqi production and the allocation of quotas within OPEC," Christopher Weafer, head of research at Troika Dialog investment bank and an adviser to OPEC on trends in the Russian economy and oil sector, said by e-mail from London.

Russia, which is not a member of OPEC, has increased output by 15 percent to 7.5 million barrels per day in the last two years, surpassing OPEC's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has slashed its flow rates by 20 percent since early 2001 to keep prices up. Russia has said it is prepared to adjust output to keep prices in the range of $20 to $25 per barrel, while OPEC has a higher target of $22 to $28.

(SNIP)

Lukman said OPEC would look seriously at raising its production in the fourth quarter, to avoid prices overheating this winter, but any future cuts would again be conditional on meaningful help from other countries.

"We will make it conditional on other people cooperating with us as a whole. Russia is part of the game because it stands to gain from higher prices," Lukman said. "It doesn't make sense for us to cut production to support higher prices for people to ride on our back. Those days are gone," he added.

"Hitting out at Russia now, when the oil price is exactly where OPEC wants it, is a clear sign of the growing concern about oil price weakness in the second half of 2002 and in 2003," Weafer said. "If the U.S. attacks Iraq later this year or early next year, then it can be assumed that a 'rehabilitated' Iraq will be allowed and helped to grow its oil production and exports and will quite quickly be able to reach at least 4 million barrels per day from 1 1/2 million now," Weafer said. "No OPEC member country will want to allow such a large quota inclusion."

5//The Independent 21 July 2002 21:35 BDST
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=316895

US WARY OF PAKISTAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES' LINKS TO AL-QA'IDA
By Robert Fisk in Islamabad

The FBI is becoming almost as distrustful of its Pakistani counterpart as the CIA is of the warlords across the border in Afghanistan.

During the trial of journalist Daniel Pearl's murderers - which ended with the conviction of the British public schoolboy Omar Sheikh - one small but disturbing fact never made its way into the headlines: that one of the co-accused was a former Pakistani police officer. The final testimony of the trial - released only yesterday morning - must owe something to his evidence.

It revealed, for example, that Mr Pearl made two escape attempts from his captors and that it was this which prompted them to murder him. Three Yemenis were brought in to perform his throat-cutting. But all we know of the ex-cop is that - even at the time of his arrest - he was still working for the Pakistan Special Branch.

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the powerful state institution which helped arm Afghan fighters against the Soviets and then supported the Taliban, was supposedly reformed once the Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf, joined President George Bush's "war on terrorism".

Few in Pakistan believe it. There are rumours, for example, that intelligence officers helped to hide three al-Qa'ida members after a gun battle in a village in Waziristan, in the border tribal territories on 25 June in which 10 soldiers were killed. US agents in Pakistan suspect that several of their raids on remote villages in Waziristan were betrayed to al-Qa'ida operatives in advance. Since then, both the FBI and the Pakistan army have preferred not to inform local police officers of their activities.

Although authorities in Islamabad insist that US forces cannot operate alone inside Pakistani territory, recent reports suggest the contrary. Last week, for example, three Pakistani tribesmen were apparently picked up by US troops from the border town of Angoor Adda and flown across the frontier to the US base at Birmal in Afghanistan. It also appears that American forces have been using their old Afghan device of handing out wads of cash in return for local tribal loyalty.

(SNIP)

Because of the past co-operation between the Taliban - and by extension al-Qa'ida and Pakistan's intelligence services - many Pakistan Special Branch and Field Security Wing officers are working blind, forced to build up entirely new files on militants who remain well known to elements of the ISI. Only patient police work in Karachi, for instance, uncovered hitherto unknown connections between Islamist and secular groups, leading to a series of arrests.

All in all, the civil police and the Americans might learn more by talking to the ISI. But no one is sure for whom their individual members work.

6//The Hindustan Times Sunday, July 21, 2002 | Updated: 16:26 IST
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_24548,0000.htm

AFGHAN TERRORISTS GATHER IN PoK TO ATTACK INDIA
Press Trust of India

Hundreds of Islamic terrorists returning from Afghanistan after collapse of the Taliban regime have moved to Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and are ready to join armed operations against Indian forces on the other side of the border, Pakistani media reports said.

"Most of these terrorists are associated with the three outfits banned by the Musharraf regime (Laskhar-e-Taiba, Jaish e-Muhammad and Harkatul Mujahedeen)," Newsline weekly said in an article.

It said the crackdown by the Pakistani regime "has had little effect on these organisations which have shifted their headquarters to PoK and started working under new names".

Questioning the ability of Musharraf regime to rein in these outfits, another article in the same magazine quoted political observers as saying "the military will not allow him (Musharraf) to go beyond a limit in curbing the activities of Islamic terrorists, who most soldiers believe have been fighting for a Pakistani cause".

"He faces an imminent revolt from his soldiers if he takes any further action without some signs of flexibility from the Indian side," the article said.

It also quoted former ISI chief Lt Gen Hamid Gul as saying "by calling those attacking the Indian forces terrorists, Gen Musharraf is only echoing the Indian position".

The article said Musharraf had made major changes in the army high command several times since last October "to sideline conservative generals opposed to his policy of joining the US-led anti-terror coalition".

"The successive purges helped Gen Musharraf to bring loyal, liberal officers to key positions, but many of those fallen from grace are still sitting in military headquarters, though at less important positions and can capitalise on the crisis situation," it said.

Stating that Musharraf now faces the "toughest challenge" of a "conflict of interest" between militants and military, former Lt Gen Talat Masood was quoted as saying that the Pakistan President "cannot allow the militants to take over the country".

(SNIP)

"Veteran" Kashmiri militants were quoted as saying that communication links between militants inside the Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir and on the Pakistani side had been "cut off" and training centres in PoK "closed down".

A militant "commander" said "many of our colleagues are stuck across the border without reinforcements and supplies".

Hinting at more suicide attacks, this "commander" said "with limited chances of their (militants stuck in the Indian side) returning home, they would step up the attacks".

* * *

© 2002, Gloria R. Lalumia
insight@zianet.com

More at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical

* * *