Veterans for Common Sense

Baltimore – In a rare leak that could prove embarrassing to the U.S. government, a British newspaper has printed a seemingly authentic National Security Agency memo ordering stepped-up eavesdropping against countries on the U.N. Security Council whose votes are crucial in the U.S. effort to build support for war against Iraq.

Intelligence experts say the memo, dated Jan. 31, marked “Top Secret” and printed Sunday in The Observer, appears genuine. While no surprise to those familiar with the global eavesdropping the NSA conducts from Fort Meade, the memo may complicate U.S. diplomacy by underscoring that the intelligence agency routinely monitors phone calls, faxes and e-mail not only of hostile countries but of allies and neutral nations.

“As you’ve likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council members (minus US and GBR [Great Britain] of course) for insights as to [how] membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE:Iraq,” says the memo, from Frank Koza, described as NSA’s chief of staff for “Regional Targets.”

It asks the unnamed eavesdroppers who got the memo – apparently NSA staff members or their British counterparts at Government Communications Headquarters – to report “the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises.”

Specifically, it asks the recipients to target Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, while putting “extra focus” on Pakistan.

All the named countries except Bulgaria are among the so-called “middle six” on the United Nations Security Council whose votes are being sought by pro- and anti-war factions, though Pakistan has indicated that it is likely to back the United States. Bulgaria has been a strong supporter of the U.S. and British position that war may be required to disarm Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Nine votes are needed in the 15-member Security Council to approve any resolution.

The leaked memo was dated five days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s dramatic presentation to the U.N. General Assembly at which he played NSA intercepts of Iraqi officers and showed satellite photos of efforts to hide banned weapons. The memo says the eavesdropping push “will probably peak” after Powell’s speech.

A critical speech by the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is expected Friday, with a Security Council vote possible next week.

Intelligence historians say U.S. eavesdropping at the United Nations is routine. The NSA’s predecessors listened in on foreign delegations to the United Nations’ founding conference in San Francisco in 1945 and pushed for its permanent location in New York to make listening in more convenient, historians say.

“One would have to have the innocence of an unborn child to believe that espionage doesn’t go on every day at the United Nations,” said Loch K. Johnson, an authority on intelligence at the University of Georgia. “From a purist point of view, it’s unfortunate in a way, because after all, we’re the host nation for the United Nations. But the reality is, Europeans and everyone else engages in espionage in New York City, much of it focused on the United Nations.”

What is a surprise, experts say, is the apparent leak, which political analysts speculated may have come from someone at the British eavesdropping agency who opposes the push for war. A Senate intelligence committee staff member said the panel would investigate the leak, which would violate federal law designed to protect sensitive intelligence methods.

A former U.S. ambassador with experience in U.N. affairs called the memo’s disclosure “shocking.”

In a climate of international opposition and skepticism to the war, he said, the perception that the United States is subverting U.N. deliberations through espionage could hurt already shaky public opinion abroad.

“Diplomatically, it may stiffen opposition to the United States,” he said. “It’s not a helpful development.”

A Pakistani official said yesterday that the revelation of the NSA’s targeting of his country is disappointing, especially after the close Pakistani-U.S. cooperation in the capture Saturday of a key al-Qaida leader, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

“One realizes that high politics is something that Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts don’t engage in,” the official said. “But for Pakistan, given the level of intelligence sharing with the United States that’s going on right now, it means they don’t trust what we say behind closed doors. … It is overkill. It won’t be appreciated.”

The targeted U.N. delegations had little to say yesterday about the memo. Maria Aliaga, the spokeswoman for Chile’s delegation, said her country asked the British foreign minister to investigate the memo’s authenticity. How Chile will react “depends on the answer,” she said.

The Observer’s headline called the NSA eavesdropping “U.S. dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war,” and initial reports from France to Australia picked up similar accusatory language.

U.S. officials declined to comment on the memo. “As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence,” said Ari Fleischer, the Bush administration spokesman.

Patrick Weadon, an NSA spokesman, said: “At this point, we’re not issuing a statement.” Koza could not be reached for comment.

Martin Bright, the home affairs editor at The Observer and lead writer on the story, said yesterday that a free-lance reporter was shown the electronic message and allowed to copy its contents. The Observer’s reporters spent two weeks consulting intelligence experts before feeling confident enough about the memo’s authenticity to publish.

“We verified it as best as we can,” he said, adding that its publication is likely to inflame “perceptions of American bully-boy tactics.”

James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the memo sounds authentic, particularly in its use of such NSA lingo as “surge” for a boost in eavesdropping coverage and “product lines” for areas of NSA specialization.

“Whether this memo is real or not, there’s probably a memo very much like this one,” Bamford said. “This is what NSA’s there for, basically.”

If the memo is authentic, the leak is highly unusual, Bamford said. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen an actual memo get out so quickly. Leaks come out every so often, but they’re usually verbal.”

Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian writing a book on the NSA, said he recognized the memo’s purported author, Koza, as the name of a “senior operational manager” at the NSA.

“This guy is saying, ‘Let’s be on the lookout.’ … We really want to know how these countries are thinking and how they’re going to vote,” Aid said.

U.S. eavesdropping on foreign delegations to international bodies goes back virtually to the invention of electronics, including the Washington Naval Disarmament Conference in 1921 and 1922, Bamford said.

“The major powers got together to decide how to disarm Japan,” he said. “Then it was Japan. Now it’s Iraq.”

Eavesdropping on foreigners on U.S. soil – such as delegates to the United Nations – is overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret in a high-security room at Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

It is a delicate business for the NSA, which is not permitted to deliberately target U.S. citizens for eavesdropping and must delete names of Americans that turn up by chance in foreign phone calls.

For operations on U.S. soil, the NSA works closely with the FBI, whose agents usually place room bugs and target phone numbers as directed by NSA intelligence officers.

More than 30 times in the last seven months, Bush has used variations on a theme to describe the U.S. as vulnerable. For example, speaking to a conference of religious broadcasters in Nashville on Feb. 10, he said that before 9/11, “we thought oceans would protect us forever.”

The same day, at an informal press conference, Bush said: “The world changed on Sept. 11…. In our country, it used to be that oceans could protect us — at least we thought so.” Meeting with small-business owners in Georgia on Feb. 20, he invoked the oceans again.

But since Pearl Harbor, the oceans have not served as a buffer. And the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union kept the U.S. in a bull’s-eye for 40 years, notwithstanding our vaunted seas.

Why does Bush insist on such rhetoric? “This notion of unprecedented vulnerability is absolutely crucial to the Bush team’s anti-constitutional program,” says Mark Crispin Miller, author of “The Bush Dyslexicon.” “What that statement really means is, ‘We were safe, now we’re in danger, and the danger is so severe that you must give me all possible power. What the oceans once did, now only I can do.’ “

In another example, Bush called Iraq a “mounting threat” in his State of the Union speech. In Georgia, he called it a “growing danger.” On Wednesday, he called it a “direct and growing threat.” How can Iraq be a “mounting” or “growing” threat when British and American planes have intensified their bombing raids on Iraqi military facilities, when U.N. inspectors are now going anywhere they want anytime they want, and when U.S. spy satellites can survey every inch of Iraqi territory?

One final example: Twice in his State of the Union speech and again Wednesday, Bush used the words, “if war is forced upon us.” No one is forcing war on the U.S. or on the administration. Quite the contrary: Bush has been forcing the war issue for months now. For him to claim otherwise is to shirk responsibility for the grave consequences his war may have.

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?

Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks’ agenda.

It’s heart-warming to hear Tony Blair’s concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have.

Mr Blair’s sudden sympathy for the Iraqis’ political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN.

But I’m a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I’m sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC – “The Project For The New American Century” – but has he looked at their website? http://www.newamericancentury.org

As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush – Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It’s a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.

PNAC’s stated aims are to: “to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests”, to achieve “a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad”, “to increase defence spending significantly”, and to pursue “America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

They don’t split hairs at the PNAC. George W. Bush and his advisers’ stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what’s more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy – that’s old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might.

Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called “Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000”? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: “Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate.”

So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a “threat” to America – they don’t mean he’s going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) – what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East.

Does Tony Blair know that’s what they mean?

In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush’s advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

So Iraq is merely “the immediate justification” and Saddam’s regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf.

Does Tony Blair know that?

If he has read PNAC’s Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and – most important perhaps – to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy.

On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read “Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000” or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn’t he?

Go to your computer now, Mr. Blair. Look at the reality behind all this sanctimonious wringing of hands over the plight of the Iraqi people. Read what your American Republican friends are really intending.

Please.

New York (The Observer) – The United States government is conducting a secret ‘dirty tricks’ campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.

Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.

The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency – the US body which intercepts communications around the world – and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input.

The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations ‘particularly directed at… UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)’ to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York – the so-called ‘Middle Six’ delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia.

The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is ‘mounting a surge’ aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also ‘policies’, ‘negotiating positions’, ‘alliances’ and ‘dependencies’ – the ‘whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises’.

Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441.

It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the ‘Regional Targets’ section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests.

Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US’s ‘QRC’ – Quick Response Capability – ‘against’ the key delegations.

Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also ‘pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations’.

Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: ‘We’d appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].’ Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: ‘I suspect that you’ll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.’

Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council.

It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US.

Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.

The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations.

The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.

The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza’s office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told ‘You have reached the wrong number’.

On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza’s extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up.

While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US communications intercepts targeted against the New York-based missions.

The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the countries have been complaining about the outright ‘hostility’ of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid packages.

The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organisations in Europe. ‘The Americans are being very purposeful about this,’ said a source at a European intelligence agency when asked about the US surveillance efforts.

HERE IS A COPY OF THE “TOP SECRET” NSA MEMO

To: [Recipients withheld]

From: FRANK KOZU@Chief of Staff (Regional Target) CIV/NSA
on 31/01/2003 0:16

Subject: Reflections of Iraq debate/votes at UN – RT actions and potential for related contributions

Importance: High

TOP SECRET/COMINT/XL

All,

As you’ve likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc – the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We’ve also asked ALL RT topi’s to emphasise and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes.

We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognise that we can’t afford to ignore this possible source.

We’d appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you’ll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels – especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState’s presentation to the UNSC.

Thanks for your help.

Ankara, Turkey (AFP) The United States suffered a double setback in its war designs on Iraq when Turkey unexpectedly refused to allow US forces to deploy on its soil, and the Arab league turned thumbs down on any Arab participation in such a war.

The Turkish parliament, facing widespread domestic opposition to a US-led war on Iraq, narrowly voted against a US bid to deploy 62,000 US troops in southern Turkey for a northern flank attack.

In a letter to the president released on the eve of his State of the Union address, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose alumni include both figures close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as most of their top aides, called for increasing the defense budget by as much as $100 billion next year.

“Today’s military is simply too small for the missions it must perform,” said the letter whose signatories included mainly key neo-conservatives, former Reagan administration officials, and a number of individuals close to big defense manufacturers like Lockheed Martin. “By every measure, current defense spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities.”

The letter, which also suggested that Washington should prepare for confrontations with North Korea, Iran and China, was to be published in the Weekly Standard, the conservative journal financed by Rupert Murdoch and edited by William Kristol, PNAC’s co-founder and chairman.

Publication of the letter comes as public confidence in Pres. Bush’s leadership, and particularly his apparent eagerness to invade Iraq, has slipped substantially, according to recent by recent polls.

The same surveys show increasing concern as well about his management of the economy, including the return of $300 billion budget deficits fueled mostly by military and security-related spending and tax cuts.

It also comes as veteran foreign-policy analysts here and abroad warn that anti-American sentiment is rising sharply in both the Islamic world and among U.S. allies in both Europe and North-east Asia due to the perception that the Bush administration is insensitive to their views and seeks permanent military domination of Eurasia.

In his State of the Union Address scheduled at Final Call press time, Pres. Bush was expected to lay out his budget and other priorities for the coming year. If the administration asks increases urged by PNAC, public concerns about Bush’s intentions both here and abroad are likely to rise steeply.

On the other hand, PNAC’s past letters, particularly its recommendations on its anti-terrorist campaign and Middle Eastern policy, have anticipated to a remarkable degree the administration’s policy evolution.

Just nine days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, PNAC issued an open letter that called on Bush to take his anti-terrorist war beyond Afghanistan by ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, severing ties with the Palestinian Authority, and preparing for action against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

PNAC in many ways is the latest incarnation of a series of hawkish groups dominated by Jewish neo-conservatives dating back to the 1970s, when they fought the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party and combined with Republicans like Mr. Rumsfeld to oppose detente with Moscow.

Midge Decter and her husband, Norman Podhoretz, for example, helped found the Committee on the Present Danger in the late 1970s and the Committee for the Free World in the early 1980s, which Ms. Decter co-chaired with Mr. Rumsfeld. Both signed the new letter.

Among PNAC’s charter members were Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their chief deputies, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby, respectively, as well as a dozen other top administration policy-makers today.

The administration, which already won an $80 billion increase in the defense budget for fiscal 2003, has called for further increases up to $442 billion by 2007. But hawks have warned that this will not match what is needed if Bush’s global ambitions are to be realized.

“A year into this activist foreign policy,” wrote Frederick Kagan, a military historian late last year, “the defense agencies that will prosecute the war on terrorism remained starved of resources. Increases of some $100 billion annually or more—over and above the increases already called for—will be necessary to provide for a defense establishment able to fulfill the president’s national security strategy.”

The hawks insist this is realistic, because an increase of $100 billion will bring the defense budget’s percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to only four percent, still lower in percentage terms than what the Pentagon received in the mid-1980s.

“Less than a nickel on the dollar for American security in the 21st century is cheap at the price,” according to the letter.

It enumerates the challenges that U.S. power must address, noting that the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan was “an essential first step” and that “an overwhelming military coalition (is) now ready to end the threat of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.”

“Removing Saddam is but the first step toward reconstructing a decent government in Iraq and carrying out your strategic vision for the Middle East. Other rogue states remain a major problem,” the letter added.

© Copyright 2003 by FinalCall.com

The United States, Britain and Spain have proposed a resolution declaring that Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm. If approved, it could clear the way for a U.S.-led war on Iraq, which Russia, France and China oppose.

“We will consider any new resolutions that support the weapons inspectors’ work. But we will not support any resolutions that directly or indirectly authorize using force against Iraq,” Ivanov told a Beijing news conference following two days of meetings with Chinese officials.

“We hold veto power. We would use it if it were for maintaining world stability.”

The Security Council is in the midst of a fractious debate over the proposed follow-up to U.N. Resolution 1441, which allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq.

Russia, France and rotating council member Germany have proposed extending inspections and beefing up inspectors’ staff, equipment and surveillance capabilities before resorting to war.

Some of the non-permanent members of the Security Council are backing a Canadian plan that would give Iraq a specific list of tasks to accomplish by March 28 to demonstrate its commitment to disarmament.

On Thursday Ivanov and his Chinese counterpart, Tang Jiaxuan, issued a communiqué following talks in the Chinese capital explaining that both Moscow and Beijing support fully implementing Resolution 1441 instead of adopting a new resolution.

“Russia does not think it’s necessary to adopt any new resolutions right now,” Ivanov told reporters. “The inspectors on the ground have the power and have been provided with proper conditions to work.

“Today we have all the necessary conditions to resolve this problem using political means. And the international community must not miss this opportunity.”

Ivanov said he is suspicious of the U.S. argument for a new resolution and the call for regime change.

“Recently the issue has become less the matter of disarming Iraq than about the change of regime in the country,” Ivanov said. “At the same time claims are being made that there is no interest in Iraqi oil.”

The Russian foreign minister then said the United States is now trying to sell the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a means of promoting Arab democracy.

In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute this week, U.S. President George W. Bush said ending Saddam’s threat would bring stability to the entire Mideast.

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty said Russia has made previous statements about being prepared to use its veto if necessary, but that Ivanov’s statement “went further than anyone on the Russian side” so far.

“He went on to say it appears that the U.S. and Britain have already decided what to do,” she said. There are two things Russia doesn’t want, she said: a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force, and a statement that calls for regime change in Iraq.

On the North Korean nuclear issue, Ivanov said Russia and China could play a role to promote diplomatic dialogue, but said the key issue was for direct dialogue to take place between Washington and Pyongyang.

— CNN producer Steven Jiang contributed to this report

The initiation of a war against Iraq by the self-styled “coalition of the willing” would be a fundamental violation of international law. International law recognises two bases for the use of force.

The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent.

The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections).

Members of the “coalition of the willing”, including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law. The United States has proposed a doctrine of “pre-emptive self-defence” that would allow a country to use force against another country it suspects may attack it at some stage.

This doctrine contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II – the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes.

The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international community by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to justify a pre-emptive strike underlines the practical danger of a doctrine of pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective security contained in Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and return us to the pre-1945 era, where might equalled right. Ironically, the same principle would justify Iraq now launching pre-emptive attacks on members of the coalition because it could validly argue that it feared attack.

But there is a further legal dimension for Saddam Hussein on the one hand and George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard and their potential coalition partners on the other to consider. Even if the use of force can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant limits on the means and methods of warfare.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Protocols set out some of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives. Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause “incidental” loss of life or injury to civilians “which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” constitutes a war crime at international law.

The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15. The use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive attack would seem to fall squarely within the definition of a war crime.

Until recently, the enforcement of international humanitarian law largely depended on the willingness of countries to try those responsible for grave breaches of the law. The creation of the International Criminal Court last year has, however, provided a stronger system of scrutiny and adjudication of violations of humanitarian law.

The International Criminal Court now has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity when national legal systems have not dealt with these crimes adequately. It attributes criminal responsibility to individuals responsible for planning military action that violates international humanitarian law and those who carry it out. It specifically extends criminal liability to heads of state, leaders of governments, parliamentarians, government officials and military personnel.

Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath.

From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition’s war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Respect for international law must be the first concern of the Australian Government if it seeks to punish the Iraqi Government for not respecting international law. It is clearly in our national interest to strengthen, rather than thwart, the global rule of law.

Humanitarian considerations should also play a major role in shaping government policy. But, if all else fails, it is to be hoped that the fact that there is now an international system to bring even the highest officials to justice for war crimes will temper the enthusiasm of our politicians for this war.

THE EXPERTS

Don Anton, senior lecturer, ANU; Peter Bailey, professor, ANU; Andrew Byrnes, professor, ANU; Greg Carne, senior lecturer, University of Tasmania; Anthony Cassimatis, lecturer, University of Queensland; Hilary Charlesworth, professor and director, Centre for International and Public Law, ANU; Madelaine Chiam, lecturer, ANU; Julie Debeljak, associate director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law; Kate Eastman, Wentworth Chambers, Sydney; Carolyn Evans, senior lecturer, Melbourne University; Devika Hovell, lecturer, University of NSW; Fleur Johns, lecturer, Sydney University; Sarah Joseph, associate director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University; Ann Kent, research fellow, Centre for International and Public Law, ANU; David Kinley, professor and director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University; Susan Kneebone, associate professor, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law; Wendy Lacey, lecturer, Adelaide University; Garth Nettheim AO, emeritus professor, UNSW; Penelope Mathew, senior lecturer, ANU; Ian Malkin, associate professor, Melbourne University; Chris Maxwell QC, Melbourne Bar; Tim McCormack, Red Cross professor and director, centre for military law, Melbourne University; Sophie McMurray, lecturer, UNSW; Anne McNaughton, lecturer, ANU; Kwame Mfodwo, lecturer, Monash Law School; Wayne Morgan, senior lecturer, ANU; Anne Orford, associate professor, Melbourne University; Emile Noel, senior fellow, New York University Law School; Dianne Otto, associate professor, Melbourne University; Peter Radan, senior lecturer, Macquarie Law School; Rosemary Rayfuse, senior lecturer, UNSW, Simon Rice OAM, president, Aust ralian Lawyers for Human Rights; Donald Rothwell, associate professor, Sydney University; Michael Salvaris, senior research fellow, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University; Chris Sidoti, professor, Human Rights Council of Australia; John Squires, director, Aust ralian Human Rights Centre, UNSW; James Stellios, lecturer, ANU; Tim Stephens, lecturer, Sydney University; Julie Taylor, University of WA; Gillian Triggs, professor and co-director, Institute for International and Comparative Law, Melbourne University; John Wade, professor and director of the Dispute Resolution Centre, Bond Univer sity; Kristen Walker, senior lecturer, Melbourne University; Brett Williams, lecturer, Sydney University; Sir Ronald Wilson, former High Court judge and president, Human Rights Commission.

Hollywood, Florida (AP)- The nation’s largest labor federation declared its opposition Thursday to war against Iraq at this time, saying President Bush has not made a case for an attack without broad support from U.S. allies.

The executive council of the AFL-CIO, made up of 65 unions, ended its four-day meeting by unanimously passing the carefully worded resolution, which also says Saddam Hussein (news – web sites) must be disarmed — with “multilateral resolve, not unilateral action.”

Organized labor had tough words for President Bush, without naming him directly, saying the United States has squandered the goodwill it enjoyed after the terrorist attacks and insulted the nation’s allies.

“The president has not fulfilled his responsibility to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world,” the resolution said.

Organized labor has typically backed military action in the past, including strong support for the Vietnam War. “By historical standards, this is unusual and this is significant,” Robert Bruno, labor professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said of Thursday’s resolution.

Morton Bahr, president of the Communications Workers of America, said the resolution was the result of a number of briefings on Iraq with officials who worked in the Clinton administration, including former national security adviser Sandy Berger and former chief of staff John Podesta.

“We had real broad input from these guys who had been living with this for a long time,” Bahr said, adding that organized labor has historically taken positions on wars that involve American workers and their families.

The resolution urges the Bush administration to pursue broad, global consensus to put pressure on Iraq, “ensuring that war, if it comes, will truly be a last resort.”

Labor officials ended the meeting with a sense of unity in a time of uncertainty, with mounting job losses, a poor economy and a presidential administration that is hostile to their cause, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said.

Perhaps the defining moment was Wednesday’s address by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, which shocked and enraged labor leaders, Sweeney said.

They were particularly angry about her response to a question about the department’s proposed new financial reporting requirements. She read from a paper a list of criminal charges involving one union.

Teamsters Union President James P. Hoffa, a White House ally whom officials said was growing frustrated with Bush for his administration’s anti-union tactics and policies, was particularly enraged over Chao’s remarks. He told colleagues in the closed meeting that unions should support a presidential candidate friendly to working Americans.

Teamsters spokesman Bret Caldwell said Thursday that the union received calls from White House political director Ken Mehlman and Labor Department (news – web sites) lawyer Andrew Siff.

Substantive conversations have not yet occurred, Caldwell said, “but the White House certainly is concerned about our dissatisfaction with their approach to labor at this point.”

An insider trading scandal at a union-owned life insurance company had been expected to dominate the meetings this week. But the executive council took no action or stance regarding Ullico Inc., choosing to wait until a special committee completes its review and issues recommendations regarding the special stock sale that some union leaders took advantage of, netting millions of dollars. The Labor and Justice departments also are investigating, as is a grand jury.

AFL-CIO: http://www.afl-cio.org/

Abu Dhabi — The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.

Perle, who is close to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is said to be one of the architects in the Bush administration on the policy of the toppling of the Saddam regime, Middle East Newsline reported. He has played a leading, if behind-the-scenes role in diplomatic, political and military aspects of the current Iraqi-U.S. confrontation as well as the war against terrorism.

“Change is needed in all those three countries [Iran, Libya and Syria], and a few others besides,” Perle told the London-based author and analyst Amir Taheri.

But Perle said the regimes in Iran and Syria could be changed without direct U.S. intervention. He said the United States would help democratic reform movements in those countries.

“I think Iran can be changed by the action of the Iranian people,” Perle told Taheri, an Iranian exile. “I believe that Syria, too, can organize change from within.”

In a separate interview with the London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat, Perle listed what Washington would demand from Damascus. The key demand is the expulsion of groups deemed by the State Department as terrorist groups.

“A lot will be required from Syrian President Bashar Assad not only in terms of reform, but also the closure of the offices of terrorist organizations and the return of Lebanon to the Lebanese.

Perle told Taheri that Washington would be tougher with Libya, which has been accused of developing medium-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. But Perle would not elaborate.

“As for Libya, it is a weird case,” Perle said. “For the time being it is out of world reality. But the colonel knows that we have our eyes on him.”

Perle said he does not expect significant Arab opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. He said the U.S. effort against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has garnered the support of at least 12 Arab countries. He did not name them.

“Not a single Arab state is making the slightest move against our policy on this issue,” Perle said. “And at least a dozen are actively cooperating with us in whatever field we require. What interests me is that almost all Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of their own interests on this issue.”