k e r a l a m o n i t o r n e w s February 21, 2003

IRAQ: U.S., U.K. To Seek Majority Security Council Support For New Resolution

The United States and the United Kingdom have reportedly shifted their tactic on an expected new resolution on Iraq, White House officials said yesterday. Rather than seeking unanimity, they will try to persuade nine of the 15 council members to back the resolution -- expected as early as Monday -- authorizing the use of force against Iraq, then challenge the other of the five permanent members --- France, Russia and China -- to veto the will of the council majority.

U.S. and British officials worked yesterday to hammer out the resolution's language in efforts to win over six wavering nonpermanent council members, known informally as "the middle six" -- Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan. The strategy would then be to pressure Russia, France and China to acquiesce by abstaining, according to White House officials.

The current draft of the resolution would declare Iraq in "further material breach" of its obligations to disclose its weapons and disarm, and would declare that there would be "serious consequences." U.S. and British diplomats continue to disagree on whether to include an explicit deadline in the resolution for Iraq to disclose its weapons and start disarming and a reference to the resolution presenting the last chance for Iraq to avoid war. The six undecided countries "are really feeling the heat, and they're going to be feeling even more heat in coming days," an administration official said. "On the other side, the French and Germans are turning up the pressure, too" (Weisman/Barringer, New York Times, Feb. 21). Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the question of a veto is "an extreme measure to be used in a responsible way."

"We are not against a second resolution in principle, but we must see what purpose it would serve," he said. "Russia's intention is not to divide the Security council but, on the contrary, to maintain maximum unity" (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo! News, Feb. 20). Ivanov warned yesterday that "very strong pressure" was being exerted on the inspectors in Iraq, "in order to provoke their departure from Iraq, or to force them to present material to the Security Council that can be used as a pretext to start military operations" (Turner/Khalaf, Financial Times, Feb. 21).

British U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock is scheduled to meet with all 10 nonpermanent members of the Security Council today, the New York Times reports. But after meeting with French officials in Paris today, the leaders of several African countries, including Angola, Guinea and Cameroon, issued a statement endorsing the French position, calling on Iraq to disarm and supporting "the continuation of the inspections and the substantial enhancement of their human and technical capabilities."

Next Blix Report To Security Council Scheduled For March 7

The next report to the Security Council by chief U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is scheduled for March 7. The Bush administration has said it hopes Blix will be more specific concerning Iraqi noncooperation. "Iraq has provided the United Nations with nothing," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Private interviews with inspectors have dried up. Iraq has insisted on a 48-hour advance notification of the U-2 flights, making U-2 spy missions, designed to determine what is happening, predictable."

U.N. officials said Blix was preparing to send a letter to Baghdad today that will likely contain a demand for the destruction of its al-Samoud 2 missiles, which he said last week have a range beyond the 150-kilometer limit set by the United Nations (Weisman/Barringer, New York Times, Feb. 21). Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri discounted this claim, however, reiterating yesterday that Iraq wants U.N. technical experts to come to Iraq "to see that these missiles cannot exceed in any way 150 kilometers and not to limit themselves to a written paper, a theoretical report" (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo! News, Feb. 21).

According to the London Times, Blix is also preparing a list of up to 40 questions for Iraq that could be incorporated into the new resolution and form the basis for an ultimatum for war issued by the Security Council. Blix plans to discuss the unresolved questions at a meeting of his advisory board on Monday and Tuesday and is then expected to put forward a "to do" list for Iraq to the Security Council (James Bone, London Times, Feb. 21).

Bush Outlines Plans For Post-Hussein Iraq

The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, installing U.S. military and civilian administrations for an indeterminate time to establish security, locate and disable weapons of mass destruction and direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid in the country, according to a blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.

Officials said other governments would be recruited to participate in relief and reconstruction efforts under U.S. supervision, with initial food supplies provided by the United States. They added that negotiations with the World Food Program are underway to administer a nationwide distribution network

"We have a load of plans that could be carried out by an international group, a coalition group, or by us and a few others," one senior U.S. official said, adding that Bush is waiting until the participants in a military action are known and the postwar situation becomes clear (DeYoung/Slevin, Washington Post, Feb. 21).

Relief agencies are preparing for the humanitarian fallout from the potential armed conflict in the region by placing food, tents and medical supplies in countries surrounding Iraq, but U.N. resident coordinator Christine McNab said more must be done to help the 34,000 aid workers now supplying food to a majority of the Iraqi population.

"The worst-case scenario is that the food chains within Iraq break down [because] we're talking about 60 percent of the population being totally reliant on these food rations. Then you might see big flows of people moving, looking for food," she said. "In Jordan we still haven't been allocated enough money even to prepare the camps. We know where they are, where they will be, we have all the supplies we need now for the first surge of refugees and third country nationals, but we can't move ahead," she said (Peter Kenyon, National Public Radio Morning Edition, Feb. 20, Note: You may have to download free software to access this audio link).
U.S. Deal With Turkey Remains Undecided

The United States is still negotiating with Turkey on a deal to allow U.S. troops to open a northern front against Iraq from its territory in the event of a war. While some administration officials said they were pessimistic that an accord could be reached, others expressed incredulity that Turkey would turn down a $26 billion offer in aid, the New York Times reports.

Turkey said it would make its position known today (Weisman/Barringer, New York Times, Feb. 21). Turkish Foreign Minister Yasir Yakis said today his country had broad agreement with the United States on conditions for deploying U.S. troops (Harmonie Toros, AP/Yahoo! News, Feb. 21).

Corruption rampant under BJP rule: Sonia

Kullu,Friday, February 21, 2003: Congress president Sonia Gandhi today hit the campaign trail in Himachal Pradesh launching a scathing attack on the BJP saying terrorism is spreading and corruption has become rampant under its rule.

"The BJP had promised to free the country from hunger, fear and corruption. But the crime rate in increasing and terrorism is spreading under its rule. There is a spate of scandals and scams," Gandhi said addressing a massive rally at the temple town of Kullu. "When we expose the scams like petrol pump, UTI, Tehalka and conffingate, they put the blame on Congress," she said. "Nothing can be more ridiculous than the BJP raising the issue of corruption." On BJP's claim of liberal financial aid provided to the state by the Centre, Gandhi said "they are making tall claims .....There is something fishy (about the claims)......How come the state's debt burden increased phenomenally if their claims of liberal financial aid from the Centre is true? Why the commonman and farmers are under heavy debt?".

Court to hear Centre's plea for vacation on Ayodhya ban on Mar 6

New Delhi,Friday, February 21, 2003: Ignoring the February 23 deadline set by VHP for resolution of the Ayodhya issue, the Supreme Court today fixed March 6 for hearing on the plea of the government to vacate its interim order banning all religious activities in the 67 acres of acquired land around the disputed site. Rejecting the vehement pleas by All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Babri Masjic Action Committee and Babri Masjid Movement Coordiantion Committee against early hearing, a Bench comprising Chief Justice V N Khare and Justice AR. Lakshmanan directed listing of the Centre's application along with the main petition before a five-judge constitution Bench on &nbspMarch 6.

When counsel for the opposite parties said the Government was working under the pressure of February 23 deadline set by VHP to begin the process for commencing construction work on the acquired land and that it was dragging the courts into the high-voltage pressure-game, the Bench retorted saying "We are never pressurised. Be sure of it."

The main petition filed by Mohd Aslam alias Bhure had sought handing over of the 67 acres of acquired land to the Army till a final decision was reached by the Allahabad High Court on the title suits claiming rights over the six acres of disputed area. The Government, immediately after the demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992, had acquired 67 acres of land around it to facilitate passage to the disputed area after a decision on the title suits.

Human Shields in Iraq Puts Obligations on U.S.

k e r a l a m o n i t o r n e w s February 21, 2003

(New York, February 20, 2003) -- The use of human shields in Iraq would dramatically increase the danger to civilians and the level of care the United States and its allies must take to protect them in the event of any attack, Human Rights Watch said today. In releasing a new fourteen-page briefing paper, International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War in Iraq, Human Rights Watch outlined a range of grave risks for Iraq’s civilian population, including the prospect of extensive urban combat, the possible use of
human shields and weapons of mass destruction, and the dependence of
Iraqis on humanitarian assistance for food and medical supplies. In a news conference yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the use of human shields in Iraq would be a violation of the laws of war and a crime against humanity, but failed to note U.S.legal responsibilities if human shields were used.

“If Iraq uses people as human shields, that is a war crime,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But Secretary Rumsfeld told only half the story yesterday. If the United States attacks targets that are shielded by civilians without demonstrating an overwhelming military necessity to do so, that would be a war crime,
too.” The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, has said that the U.S. military would take any possible civilian shields into account when making targeting decisions. Human Rights Watch takes no position on the legality of the use of
military force, including possible U.S.-led military action in Iraq. Its work on Iraq focuses on continuing human rights abuses and, if there is a war, the compliance by all parties with international humanitarian law and protections for Iraqi civilians.

“International humanitarian law is not just a tool to be used against Baghdad," said Roth. "It also imposes essential obligations on the United States and its allies in a possible war with Iraq." Iraq has used human shields at least twice in the past, during the 1991
Persian Gulf War and in advance of U.S. and British bombardment in 1998. The Iraqi government says it will use foreign volunteers and possibly Iraqi citizens as human shields, but that would clearly violate international humanitarian law regardless of the willingness of the civilians involved.

Human Rights Watch urged all parties to a potential conflict in Iraq to:

· separate and distinguish military objectives from civilian populations, · renounce the use of weapons of mass destruction and other indiscriminate or inhumane weapons, and · make immediate preparations to secure public order and assistance necessary to the survival of the civilian population in occupied areas. Human Rights Watch in its briefing paper analyzed these issues in light of past Iraqi and U.S. practice, and evolving standards of international law. Among its conclusions:

· No party to a conflict in Iraq would be legally justified in using any weapon of mass destruction – chemical, biological or nuclear -- under any circumstances. · In the event of urban warfare, defending forces must avoid locating military objectives near populated areas, and attacking forces must provide adequate warnings and escape routes to civilians. · Armed attacks designed to undermine civilian morale are illegal. · So-called dual-use targets that are essential to the survival of the civilian population, such as electrical generation facilities, must not be attacked. Other dual-use targets should, insofar as possible, only be incapacitated, not destroyed, if attacked. · Before a target is attacked, every effort must be made to correctly identify the target.

· Only precision munitions should be used in air attacks on populated
areas.· Antipersonnel landmines and cluster bombs must not be used.
· The United States and its allies must immediately provide security and
humanitarian services for the civilians in any territory they come to
control. · Journalists and human rights monitors should be given maximum access
to assess the effect of war on civilians. "The dangers to civilians are high enough from any war," says Roth. "Strict respect for international humanitarian law is essential if these
risks are to be minimized in Iraq." k e r a l a m o n i t o r n e w s February 21, 2003