Veterans for Common Sense

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.

But the speech was notable as much for its venue as its content.

AEI’s foreign policy “scholars” are closely identified with the most unilateralist and pro-Likud elements in the Bush administration. The institute serves as the hub of a tightly knit network of neo-conservative activists and groups, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Since even before the 9/11 attacks, the AEI and its associates have pushed a series of radical foreign policy proposals to: align U.S. policy in the Middle East with the Likud; cut ties with traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; oppose negotiations with North Korea; provide direct security guarantees to Taiwan; and treat China as a strategic threat.

In op-eds in the mainstream press and sympathetic rightwing publications and almost constant television appearances,they have aggressively attacked anyone who disagrees with their hard-line positions, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is a favorite target. Bush’s decision to deliver his speech on the Middle East to the AEI, echoing the think tank’s vision for the region, made clear the extent to which the most radical hawks in the administration have prevailed in the internal policy debate.”The fact that Bush would choose AEI, of all audiences, to talk about his vision for a democratic Iraq and peaceful Middle East, has to be profoundly demoralizing to Powell,” noted one Congressional aide whose boss has supported Powell’s efforts to keep the hawks in check.

Right after persuading Bush to realign U.S. policy decisively toward Likud and against Arafat last June, AEI associates led by Richard Perle began their drive against Iraq in earnest. Cloaking their language in Wilsonian rhetoric, they argued that the military ouster of Saddam Hussein would be a first step in “reshaping,” “transforming” and “democratizing” the entire Middle East – which was, not surprisingly, the main subject of Bush’s address. Earlier in 2002, another AEI associate, Joshua Muravchik, called for aggressive pro-democracy policy in the region after the Taliban’s ouster. Citing a survey conducted by Freedom House, a New York-based neo-conservative think tank (which found Arab states to be the least “free”), he argued that “far from pointing toward a relaxation of military efforts [in the war against terror, the survey] suggests that the more terror-loving tyrannies the United States can topple, the better.”

Bush’s speech on Wednesday touched repeatedly on this neo-Wilsonian theme of bringing democracy to the Middle East. “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,” he declared. “It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world – or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim – is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.”

In making his case for war, Bush also reiterated a much-favored claim of the neoconservatives – the alleged connection between Iraq and terrorism. The claim was first made by Richard Perle, who presides over AEI’s foreign policy program, and his cohorts within 48 hours of the 9/11 attack. Perle helped mobilize support for an open letter to Bush by PNAC, whose offices are located on the fifth floor of the AEI building in downtown Washington. Published nine days after the attacks and signed by 40 prominent right-wingers and neo-conservatives, the letter argued that the war on terror must include ousting Saddam Hussein, “even if evidence does not link him to the [Sep 11] attack.”

While the White House has repeatedly linked Hussein to Al Qaeda without evidence, in Wednesday’s speech Bush contented himself with connecting Hussein to Palestinian suicide bombers, to whom he has given small amounts of money. Bush declared, “The passing of Saddam Hussein’s regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.” The “warning” is, in fact, aimed at Syria and Iran – the next on the neoconservative list of targets because of their support of the Hezbollah.

Bush also made clear that his post-war ambitions for the Middle East are just as firmly aligned with AEI’s pro-Likudnik line. In his speech, Bush took clear aim at Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, linking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein with the prospects for new leadership in Palestine. He said, “Without this (Iraqi) support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders: true leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people.”

Bush’s speech and choice of venue – delivered amid an intense diplomatic battle over the fate of Iraq and rising tensions throughout the Arab world – was an ominous sign of his administration’s intentions. It was a clear message to Americans and allies alike about just who is framing the nation’s foreign policy today.

Why the priority and urgency of regime change in Iraq over dealing with other enemies in the “axis of evil”? North Korea has nuclear weapons and the apparent ability to deliver them to the United States.

And isn’t al-Qaida’s threat more urgent? Where is the hard evidence of a partnership between Osama bin Laden’s stateless terrorists and Baghdad? Are we prepared for retaliatory attacks after our invasion? What are our specific plans for the aftermath of a predictable victory in Iraq?

Why, finally, are President Bush and most of his advisers unmoved by the millions around the globe who are asking these questions?

Perhaps one reason these questions are not being effectively engaged is that they are not really germane. The invasion is not a response to a specific event such as the 9-11 attack or to a perceived imminent Iraqi threat. The transformation of Iraq has been on the drawing board for years.

It is part of an imperial vision for the United States promoted by such neoconservative advisers as Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy; Elliot Abrams, in the National Security Council; John Bolton, undersecretary for arms control and international security; John Negroponte, the U.N. ambassador; and Richard Perle.

These advisers advocate an interventionist U.S. role in world affairs. They are impressed with our superpower status and think in terms of a virtual American Empire. They are impatient with, often dismissive of, treaties and international organizations. They are not averse to unilateral action. They note that the world has a number of regimes that are … well, evil.

The justification for pre-emptive warfare is the defeat of evil regimes and installation of more democratic institutions under U.S. direction. The goal is to restructure political power in the Middle East. Presumably there will be ongoing initiatives to liberate other evil systems, creating new democratic enclaves around the world.

The corollary assumption of identifying the enemy as evil is identifying one’s own purposes as righteous, even pure. These “realists” with their appetite for imperialist initiatives, interestingly enough, are very moralistic. They tend to discuss issues without what others judge to be due respect for their complexity. They are willing “to speak in black-and-white terms,” to use National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s words. Thirty-seven years ago, the late U.S. Sen. William Fulbright wrote “The Arrogance of Power.” In that book he warned, “Power confuses itself with virtue and tends to take itself for omnipotence.”

History is replete with stories of powerful nations that failed to discern what was within their realm of power and what was not. In their overextended commitments they came to grief.

Only in the military realm can we perhaps, for the time being and in selected theaters, act without allies. In economics, in communications, we are enmeshed in a global web. In securing the peace in Iraq or anywhere else, we must work with others. If we desire their respect, we must respect them and not engage in bullying bluster.

Those who bring a religious squint to things should remember that a transcendent reference point is sovereign over all nation-states and empires. The challenge for any nation with power as great as ours is to balance it with wisdom. And our received tradition of republican humility should serve as a check on imperial attitude.

—

(Leo Sandon is distinguished teaching professor of religion and American studies at Florida State University. E-mail him at lsandon@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)

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.”