In this issue:

Vatican and Iraq Seek Peace in Baghdad/Rome Meetings

Former Russian Prime Minister Calls for UN To Impose Israel-Palestine Solution

Weapons Inspectors Criticize U.S.-U.K. Intelligence

Sharon Rejects 'Road Map' and Escalates Genocide

EIR's Hussein Askary Presents LaRouche Analysis in Arab Press

Saudi Foreign Minister Speaks Out Against War

Momentum for Peaceful Solution: Majority at UN Again Say 'No' to Iraq War

Iraqis Will Not Be Pawns in Bush and Blair's War

From Volume 2, Issue Number 8 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Feb. 24, 2003
Mideast News Digest

Vatican and Iraq Seek Peace in Baghdad/Rome Meetings

Following an historic meeting between Pope John Paul II and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in Rome on Feb. 14, Vatican Envoy Cardinal Etchegary travelled to Baghdad for a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, held for several hours on Feb. 15. Cardinal Etchegary carried with him a letter from Pope John Paul II. The exchange of meetings occurred to the consternation of U.S. "Chickenhawks," who had attempted to prevent the Vatican meetings through the U.S. embassy in Rome (see last week's INDEPTH).

Before departing for Baghdad, Cardinal Etchegaray stated, according to a Vatican declaration, "In the name of the Pope, I dare appeal to the conscience of all those who have to decide on the future of peace in the coming days. In the end, it will be conscience that will decide, for it is stronger than any strategy, ideology, or even religion." Etchegaray had earlier appealed to all men of good will, to "believe in peace until the last second."

On Feb. 15, Tariq Aziz, a Chaldean Christian, visited the tomb of St. Francis in Assisi on Feb. 15, after his meeting with John Paul II, and prayed for peace. "The Iraqi people want peace. Millions of people in the world are demonstrating for peace," Aziz said.

Aziz also gave a press conference, where he warned that an Iraq war "would be seen as a crusade against Muslims and have bitter consequences," according to the New York Times. Describing the U.S. war as "imperialist and aggressive," Aziz said: "If other countries, especially here in Europe—the Christian countries—if they participate ... it will be interpreted by the Arab and Muslim world as a crusade against the Arabs and against Islam."

Regarding weapons inspections, Aziz said Iraq was willing to continue to comply: "We are doing our best, and we are open for more cooperation. We will do whatever possible in our hands—in our capability—to help them reach the ultimate truth about the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Aziz said. "It's an aggression, an imperialist aggression.... The main objective of this aggression is to colonize Iraq, to occupy Iraq, impose a pro-American rule on Iraq, dominate the oil of Iraq, and also reshape the whole region of the Middle East according to the American interests and to the interests of Israel."

Former Russian Prime Minister Calls for UN To Impose Israel-Palestine Solution

On Jan. 21, according to a report in the Palestine Chronicle, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, speaking from Jedda, Saudi Arabia, in his present capacity as president of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and Industry and an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, stated that it had been the international community that created Israel and imposed it on the Arabs, and now the time had arrived for "The Quartet" (U.S., EU, UN, Russia) to impose through a similar process a Palestinian state upon Israel.

Primakov elaborated that he supported the peace policy of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, stating that Israel must unconditionally withdraw to its pre-1967 boarders, while a Palestinian state was created, and the Arab states recognized Israel.

Otherwise, the news report said that, "As to an attack against Iraq, Primakov warned that it would redivide the world into two blocs, as was the case during the Cold War." Cognizant of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory, Primakov said that he feared this time a Gulf War divide would "be on the basis of religion and civilizations"- between "Islamic and non-Islamic states."

"...It could even break up countries themselves," he warned, citing such as Russia with its 20 million Muslims, and those states in Europe with growing Muslim populations.

Primakov criticized Washington for not listening to Iraq's Arab neighbors. While some Islamic states would be happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein, they could not support an attack because of the "potentially revolutionary consequences" it might have for them.

Weapons Inspectors Criticize U.S.-U.K. Intelligence

CBSNews.com revealed the truth about U.S.-U.K.-fabricated "intelligence" on Iraq, in an Internet posting on Feb. 21, which quoted one member of UNMOVIC as saying that their "hot tips" had been "garbage and garbage and garbage." Cited were the false trails on the construction of new Iraqi nuclear research sites, Presidential palaces, the aluminum tubes (which were found without question to be for missiles, not uranium enrichment), and other examples.

The report also noted that UNMOVIC Executive Director Hans Blix said that he would rule out the Al-Samoud II missile program, because it has a range 15 miles beyond the permitted 93 miles. The Iraqis argue that this is because the missile had been measured without the heavy guidance system or warhead.

Sharon Rejects 'Road Map' and Escalates Genocide

Israel's English-language daily Ha'aretz reported on Feb. 20 that while Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon always says that he agrees "in principle" to the Bush Administration's "Road Map" for a settlement between Israel and Palestine, he would emasculate it with "100 corrections." Sharon claims that the present "Road Map" no longer represents the substance of President George W. Bush's June 24 speech regarding Middle East peace because it is filled with compromises due to the interference of the other "Quartet" members, namely, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations.

Among his "100 corrections" that would compel the Palestinians to make all the concessions before Sharon does anything:

*Palestinians must give up the right of return.

*Palestinian Authority (PA) President Yasser Arafat must be thrown out of power and the entire government of the PA be changed.

*Palestinians must disarm totally, and give up sovereignty to their airspace and land to Israeli Defense Forces actions, because only Israeli borders would be inviolate.

*Palestinians would be forbidden to enter treaties with "enemies of Israel."

*The two-year timetable has to be thrown out, and only Israel can determine when to move from one stage to another.

*Any mention of the Saudi peace initiative also has to be thrown out.

While this coup against The Quartet's "Road Map" was underway, Sharon continued his genocidal policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli military has divided the Gaza Strip into three sections, and has virtually occupied Gaza City, the largest Palestinian city with 300,000, in a bloody nighttime IDF maneuver that killed at least 11 people and wounded over 25 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Also, in the West Bank city of Nablus, which has been dubbed a "terror capital" by the IDF, 16 people were killed. In Nablus there has been a constant level of arrests, and assassinations that have nothing to do with "stopping terror". Last Sunday, Feb. 15, the IDF killed three bystanders and wounded 23 others, while seeking to "arrest" a "wanted man."

Meanwhile, after meeting with leading representatives of the European Union and the United Nations, two of the sectors of The Quartet, in Ramallah on Feb. 14, Arafat told reporters that "I have decided to appoint a Palestinian Prime Minister, and I will ask the Palestinian Legislative Council to take the necessary measures to that effect." On Feb. 18-20, The Quartet met in London, but so far its discussion of implementation of the "Road Map" has not been reported, except that the UN announced that UNWRA was under-funded by $94 million to provide even the most basic food for the Palestinians, who have begun to starve between IDF closures and curfews.

EIR's Hussein Askary Presents LaRouche Analysis in Arab Press

On Feb. 14, Al-Arab International in London and Al-Bayan in Dubai published an article by EIR's Hussein Askary debunking the myth that the reason for U.S.-U.K. designs for war against Iraq were just to dominate Gulf oil.

The article provides Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche's view on the whole strategy of the war in the hands of the Anglo-American imperial faction: "...There is the American Intellectual Tradition, which is being uniquely represented today by Lyndon LaRouche, who is also the man behind the Eurasian Land-Bridge strategy. LaRouche, an American patriot, economist, and Presidential candidate, has dedicated himself to the American Intellectual Tradition, the tradition of the American Revolution which freed America from British colonialism, defeated slavery, built the greatest economy in the world, and became the beacon of hope for all freedom fighters around the world. LaRouche wants the U.S. to use all its economic and technological potential to intervene internationally as a stability and economic development factor, not a new empire. This means a new economic world order."

It is in counterposition to LaRouche's Eurasian Land-Bridge, Askary writes, that the Iraqi and Gulf oil is intended to be used as an asset by the empire faction, and to deny accessibility to it by other economic powers, especially China and India. Askary elaborates that the same design against Eurasian economic integration underlay World War I and World War II, where the "geopolitics" of Sir Halford MacKinder provided a figleaf for this purpose.

Saudi Foreign Minister Speaks Out Against War

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told BBC that any unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq would appear as an "act of aggression." The interview was conducted at the meeting of the Arab League in Cairo.

"We think war is going to be a tremendous threat to the region.... We think that, especially if it doesn't come through the United Nations' authority, that it would be a dangerous thing to do," said Prince Saud. "Independent action in this, we don't believe is good for the United States," Prince Saud warned, adding that: "But if the attack came through the UN Security Council, it would not be considered an aggression.... So we are ardently ... urging the United States ... not to create an act of individual aggression, of individually taking charge of the duties of the Security Council."

On the question of Iraqi regime change, the Prince said: "If the choice is you destroy Iraq in order to get Saddam Hussein, it is a self-defeating policy, isn't it? I mean, you destroy a country to get a person out—it doesn't work.... There has never been in the history of the world a country in which a regime change happened at the bayonets or guns, that has led to stability.... Our worry is the new emerging fundamentalism in the United States and in the West. Fundamentalism in our region is on the wane. There, it's in the ascendancy. That's the threat."

Momentum for Peaceful Solution: Majority at UN Again Say 'No' to Iraq War

In the UN debate that followed the Feb. 15 world day of resistance to an Iraq war, the "no war" responses continued to be resoundingly heard in a continuation of the debate on Feb. 18, where 59 nations—including many of the Non-Aligned—had signed up to speak before the UN Security Council. Among the speakers were:

*Gambia's Ambassador to the UN, who declared, "Africa does not want war," citing a Feb. 3 communiqué to that effect from the African Union that represents the entirety of that continent. "The voices that called for patience should be heeded," the Ambassador said, stating that it would be possible for Iraq not have to "endure the pains of war."

*The Ambassador from Turkey referred to his as "an old country," and he spoke just after Turkish President Gul had rejected the staging of U.S. troops yet another time. He praised the European Union summit calling for a "peaceful solution," noting that for the first time in 1,000 years Turkey had been unable to trade with its neighbor to the south.

*Iran's Ambassador to the UN, Javad Zarif, said that "the prospect of another destabilizing war in our immediate vicinity is a nightmare scenario of death and destruction. The Iranian people and government are first and foremost concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe.... The extent of destabilization in the region and uncertainty in Iraq in the case of a war may go far beyond our imaginations today. ... Extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq. The prospect of appointing a foreign military commander to run an Islamic and Arab country is all the more destabilizing and only indicative of the prevailing illusions."

*Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League's Permanent Observer to the UN, said that: "Any act of aggression against any Arab state ... [will be seen] as a threat to the collective security.... The countries of the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, call for stopping any ... war against Iraq.... The Arab summit that was convened in Beirut in March adopted a resolution in which it categorically rejected any attack against Iraq or threat against the peace and security of an Arab state. Such an attack was considered to be a threat to the collective Arab national security."

*Perhaps stunning was the fact that the Qatar Ambassador to the UN, whose nation would be the field "command center" for war against Iraq, rejected that military policy: "We would like to set on record that the UN should not treat some countries in a different way while it's insisting on implementation of international resolutions.... Security Council resolutions must be implemented by Israel, which possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons and refuses to join the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). We call upon the international system to subject the Israeli nuclear installations to the safeguards of the IAEA.... And, as Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Ambassador added that Qatar "has called for an extraordinary meeting—summit meeting of the OIC member states in order to discuss the best possible ways for reaching a peaceful solution."

*The Australian Ambassador to the UN presented the standard litany of the Anglo-American imperialist faction's "indictment" of Iraq.

Iraqis Will Not Be Pawns in Bush and Blair's War

On Feb. 21, Iraqi opposition intellectual and University of Exeter professor, Kamil Mahdi, wrote an article for the London Guardian opposing the Iraq war, and blasting Tony Blair's hypocrisy. "Having failed to convince people that war is justified, Blair is now invoking the suffering of the Iraqi people to justify bombing them," he says. Iraq's suffering, says Mahdi, who is no defender of Saddam Hussein, has gone on over the years for different reasons, including under British imperial rule. "To reduce the whole of Iraqi politics and social life to Saddam Hussein is banal and insulting."

Mahdi particularly attacks the "new policy," of imposing "democracy," noting that "the objective of the U.S. is to have regime change without the people of Iraq." The pro-war Iraqi "auxiliaries," supported by the U.S., have no popular base, and the opposition currents that do exist inside Iraq, oppose the war.

"The prevalent Iraqi opinion is that a U.S. attack on Iraq would be a disaster, not a liberation, and Blair's belated concern for Iraqis is unwelcome."

Meanwhile, the U.S. "auxiliaries" Mahdi identifies, especially the discredited Iraqi National Congress (INC), are furious about a "double-cross" where the U.S. government is planning to install a retired U.S. General to run Iraq (see article in this week's INDEPTH). The Feb. 15-21 London Economist quotes INC head Ahmed Chalabi saying to the U.S., "Your plan's no good." The INC, which has been funded by the U.S. government under the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, sponsored by Sens. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and McCain (R-Ariz.), wants to be declared a "government in exile," a move that President Bush has rejected. Chalabi also said that it would abridge Iraqi sovereignty to establish a military pro-consul, rather than have continuous rule of Iraq by Iraqis.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS