6 AGOSTO
1990: inizia l'embargo ai danni della popolazione irachena, con
decisione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU su istigazione
statunitense - dopo che gli USA avevano boicottato ogni possibilita' di
soluzione politico-diplomatica della crisi del Kuwait - e con
l'opposizione di Cuba e dello Yemen.
Il conflitto vero e proprio, noto come "Guerra del Golfo", sara'
scatenato il 17 gennaio 1991. L'embargo proseguira' anche dopo la sua
conclusione con il ritiro delle truppe irachene dal Kuwait. Negli anni
successivi, aerei britannici e statunitensi continueranno a bombardare
sporadicamente di propria iniziativa il territorio iracheno.
---
COMUNICATO STAMPA
Consegnate a Violante 30.211 firme per chiedere che l'Italia si dissoci
unilateralmente dall'embargo all'Iraq.
Venerdì 21 luglio 2000, alle ore 11, una delegazione della Campagna
"Rompere
l'embargo" ha incontrato il Presidente della Camera dei Deputati,
On.Luciano
Violante, al quale ha consegnato l'ultima parte delle oltre 30.000 firme
raccolte sulla petizione popolare che chiede al Parlamento italiano di
rompere unilateralmente l'embargo contro l'Iraq, abrogandone la legge di
attuazione.
La delegazione, composta dai rappresentanti di alcune delle principali
associazioni fra le centinaia che hanno aderito alla Campagna. ("Un
ponte
per…", che l'ha promossa assieme al Comitato Golfo, l'Associazione per
la
pace, il COCIS-coordinamento delle ONG, Mani Tese, il Servizio Civile
Internazionale, la UISP e altre), ha ricordato al presidente Violante la
tragedia del popolo iracheno e l'importanza che un paese come l'Italia
compia un passo coraggioso di dissociazione dal genocidio che ha ucciso
in
dieci anni oltre un milione di civili innocenti, in maggioranza bambini
sotto i cinque anni.
Una richiesta - dicono i promotori della Campagna - che oggi arriva da
una
parte largamente maggioritaria della società civile italiana.
Il Presidente della Camera si è dimostrato molto sensibile alle ragioni
della petizione, e ne ha assicurato che la trasmissionie immediata alla
Commissione Esteri perché venga messa in calendario per la discussione.
Violante ha aggiunto che intende recarsi in Iraq in autunno,
reciprocando la
recente visita in Italia del presidente del Parlamento iracheno Sadoon
Hammadi.
La Campagna "Rompere l'embargo" ha intanto annunciato come prossima
iniziativa la convocazione di una Convenzione Nazionale a Roma per metà
ottobre, che radunerà tutti i firmatari e le associazioni che hanno
sottoscritto la petizione. L'occasione sarà lo scadere dei tre mesi
previsti
nell'ultima risoluzione approvata dalla Camera dei Deputati, che impegna
il
governo ad operare in modo concreto ed esplicito nelle sedi
internazionali
per arrivare alla revoca delle sanzioni contro l'Iraq.
Per contatti e informazioni:
rompere-lembargo@...
---
L'ESASPERAZIONE E L'ORGOGLIO DEGLI IRACHENI
Il Sole 24 Ore di giovedì 29/6:
Uccisi due funzionari della Fao a Baghdad.
Per protestare contro l'embargo Onu verso l'Irak, un uomo armato ha
preso in ostaggio oltre 40 persone negli uffici Fao di
Baghdad, uccidendo due persone e ferendone sette prima di essere
arrestato dalla polizia.
IRAQI AMBASSADOR: PEOPLE OF IRAQ HAVE NOT GIVEN UP
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) The people of Iraq have not given up,
they are continuing their struggle and will fight until the final
victory,
Iraqi ambassador to Yugoslavia, Sami Sadoun Gatie Al Kinami, said in an
interview to Radio Yugoslavia on the occasion of Iraqi National Day
(July 17).
Speaking about IraqiYugoslav bilateral relations, whose trade has
reached dozens of millions of dollars in the past few years and is
expected
to reach one billion dollars this year, the Iraqi ambassador set out
that
relations between these countries have been traditional and firm for
years
and are based on joint interests.
"We want this exchange to exceed one billion dollars during this
year and in the coming period within the U.N. oil for food program which
enables Iraq to import food and medications to cover its basic
requirements," he said.
---
1999: ANNO-RECORD DEI BOMBARDAMENTI BRITANNICI SULL'IRAQ
http://www.the-times.co.uk (Britai)
The Times (UK)
June 8 2000
BRITAIN
Sharp rise in RAF attacks on Iraq
BY MICHAEL EVANS
RAF bombing of Iraqi air defence sites has increased sharply in the past
18 months, according to the latest figures published by the Ministry of
Defence.
Since mid-December 1998 RAF bombers have dropped 78 tonnes of bombs on
Iraqi military targets; that compares with 2.5 tonnes between April
1991, after the Gulf War, and mid-December 1998.
The MoD's figures show that the average monthly release of bombs has
risen from 0.025 tonnes to five tonnes.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Foreign Affairs and
Defence, who acquired the figures from parliamentary answers, said
yesterday: "The number of occasions on which ordnance has been released
together with the total tonnage raises questions about the true purpose
of these operations."
He added: "There is persuasive evidence that there is an attritional
campaign against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems. This
represents a significant policy shift which has never been explained to
Parliament."
The MoD said yesterday that the reason for the increase was "because
we've been shot at and threatened far more since December 20, 1998, than
in the previous period."
-
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
The following article appeared in today's Guardian. It incorrectly
states
that the no-fly zones were "agreed by the UN" after the 1991 Gulf war,
despite the fact that previous articles in the Guardian (e.g.
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/311.html) have stated that
the
no-fly zones have no legal basis.
The following discussion list posting discusses the legality
of the no-fly zones:
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/357.html (also see 352.html).
People might like to write to the Guardian to correct them on this
matter?
(letters@...)
seb
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,329490,00.html
Step-up in bombing of Iraq questioned
Iraq: special report
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 8, 2000
British bomber pilots have dramatically increased their strikes on Iraq
in
the "secret war" against Saddam Hussein, official figures reveal.
An estimated 150 bombs - 78 tonnes of weapons - have been dropped on
southern Iraq by British aircraft since December 1998. This compares
with
2.5 tonnes over the previous six years.
"There is now persuasive evidence that there is an attritional campaign
against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems that has gone way
beyond the original purpose of the no-fly zones," Menzies Campbell, the
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said yesterday. "This
represents a significant policy shift, which has never been announced or
explained to parliament."
Mr Campbell was given the figures by Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary,
in
response to a series of written parliamentary questions. Mr Hoon
admitted
that on two occasions since December 1998, ordnance unleashed by British
aircraft "appears to have hit unintended targets".
He also disclosed that the British commander in the southern no-fly zone
had asked the government to "attack targets beyond his delegated
authority".
He refused to explain the circumstances but sources suggested yesterday
that permission was sought to hit Iraqi aircraft moving north, away from
the no-fly zone.
In military action which is rarely reported, Mr Hoon says that while
Iraqi
aircraft violating the no-fly zone accounted for 51% of the "threats" to
British and US war planes, 95% of the targets attacked consisted of
ground-based air defence systems.
Two no-fly zones, policed by British and American planes, were agreed by
the UN after the 1991 Gulf war. They were established to protect the
Shia
minority in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north.
"It's very good training but it is not achieving anything," Andrew
Brookes, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said
yesterday. He described it as a "sterile political mission of people who
can't think of anything better to do".
Mr Hoon said Britain and the US went to "exceptional lengths to ensure
that the right target is hit, including the employment of very strict
target clearance procedures and precision-guided munitions". However, he
acknowledged: "In practice, it is extremely difficult to give estimates
of
civilian casualties despite the painstaking battle damage assessment
that
the coalition routinely carries out".
Britain has 14 Tornado bombers stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain, and four
Jaguars based at Incirlik in Turkey.
---
QUALE STRATEGIA PER IL MOVIMENTO INTERNAZIONALE CONTRO L'EMBARGO?
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, #206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
fax 212-633-2889
iacenter@...
www.iacenter.org
Which way for the anti-sanctions movement
By Brian Becker
It’s no surprise that there is increasing
worldwide opposition to the U.S.-imposed economic
sanctions against Iraq. Five thousand perfectly
blameless infants and children perish each month
in Iraq because they are unable to get clean
drinking water, adequate food and even the most
basic medicines.
There is now a worldwide movement demanding an
end to sanctions. Unfortunately, one sector of
this growing movement has injected a new demand
into its slogans: calling for the continuation of
“military sanctions” against Iraq.
Some of these same groups actually raised the
slogan “sanctions not war” back in 1990.
The International Action Center, which has
campaigned relentlessly for the last 10 years
against sanctions, has issued a powerful statement
explaining the disastrous effects of adopting a
demand that sanctions be reshaped instead of
immediately terminated (on the World Wide Web at
http://www.iacenter.org/delink.htm).
Unless this slogan is repudiated it could
seriously weaken and derail the movement.
“Those who want to stop the Iraqi people’s
suffering must direct their demand at the
aggressors, at the U.S. and Britain whose war
planes bomb Iraq routinely, almost daily, who have
dropped thousands of bombs on Iraq in the last
year,” says Sara Flounders, co-director of the IAC.
The United States and Britain are bombing Iraq.
Iraq has never bombed the cities of the United
States. The progressive movement must ask itself:
Does Iraq have the right to defend itself against
such attacks? Shouldn’t anti-war forces in the
United States call for demilitarizing the Pentagon
instead of demilitarizing the victims of U.S.
aggression?
A tactic in a larger war
Why does the United States maintain the sanctions
and blockade of Iraq?
Is it just a mistaken policy by U.S. political
leaders that needs some “humanitarian” fine-
tuning? Or should sanctions be understood as a
tactic in a larger multi-pronged war to return
Iraq to the status of semi-colonial slavery?
Should the progressive movement oppose sanctions
because that tactic causes undue harm to
civilians? Or should it also reject the
imperialist goals and objectives that are the real
motivation for a destabilization strategy that
includes economic sanctions, routine bombings of
the country, CIA covert operations, plans to
assassinate the Iraqi leadership, creating no-
flight zones over most of the country, and placing
tens of thousands of U.S. troops, warships,
aircraft and advanced missiles on the outer
perimeters of Iraq?
The sanctions against Iraq began 10 years ago, in
August 1990. The Bush administration bullied the
United Nations into imposing economic sanctions as
a prelude to the full-scale 1991 air war against
Iraq.
The sanctions were initially put into place to
help evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, according to
the propaganda of the Bush administration. Iraq
had invaded Kuwait, an oil-rich territory under
the domination of an U.S.-backed monarchy, in
August 1990, after a protracted and complicated
dispute between the two countries.
The original pretext for the economic sanctions
was a lie. It was purely for public consumption.
If the sanctions were meant only to drive Iraqi
troops from Kuwait then why, nearly a decade after
the last Iraqis left, does the United States
still impose the “most complete embargo of any
country in modern times,” in the words of Samuel
Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national
security adviser?
Two blockades: Iraq and Cuba
The unstated but fairly obvious reason that
Washington carries out the economic blockade of
Iraq is that it wants to destabilize the country,
overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and
replace it with a pro-U.S. regime. The United
States has tried the same thing against socialist
Cuba.
The political leaderships in Iraq and Cuba are
very different. Cuba’s leadership is communist and
the Iraqi government is anti-communist. But both
governments have one thing in common. Iraq and
Cuba both suffered the impoverishment and
humiliation of colonialism and neo-colonialism
imposed by U.S. and British imperialism.
Both countries had far-reaching revolutions
within a year of each other–1958 and–1959. Both
revolutions immediately came under direct
aggression from the imperialist overlords who had
colonized or enslaved their countries.
The Iraqi Revolution in 1958 prompted Britain to
rush thousands of troops to fortify its hold on
tiny but oil-rich Kuwait. As it had with Hong Kong
in China, British colonialism sliced the key port
area of Kuwait out of Iraq and declared it a
British protectorate. While British troops secured
Kuwait in 1958, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower
dispatched 10,000 U.S. marines to Lebanon the very
next day to shore up Washington’s own interests.
In the case of the Cuban Revolution in 1959,
Eisenhower ordered the CIA to begin planning the
assassination of Fidel Castro. Two years later,
under John F. Kennedy, the U.S. government
organized a mercenary invasion of Cuba by CIA-
trained counter-revolutionaries.
Cuba used socialist economic methods to bring
literacy, full employment and free universal
health care to its people. It was able to free
itself of economic neocolonial enslavement by
integrating into the trading bloc with the Soviet
Union, East Germany and the other socialist
countries.
Although Iraq nationalized its oil industry and
other economic sectors, its revolution never went
beyond the boundaries of capitalist property
rights. But because of its vast oil wealth and the
nationalist development model adopted by the
leadership, Iraq too was able to effect rapid
social and economic progress for the mass of the
population after the 1958 revolution.
Official U.S. policy has been hostile to both
Iraq and Cuba since their revolutions. The
“hostility” was remarkably consistent regardless
of whether a Republican or Democrat occupied the
White House.
The only exception to the policy of unmitigated
hostility was during the Iran-Iraq war between
1980 and 1988. The United States supplied weapons
to Iraq and encouraged Iraq’s initial military
actions against Iran in 1980. But this should be
understood for what it was: a cynical ploy to
weaken and exhaust the 1979 Iranian mass
revolution that had swept out the dynastic rule of
the shah—whose army had served as proxy and
gendarme for the Pentagon and CIA in the Persian
Gulf.
The United States armed Iraq to fight Iran in the
early 1980s—but it also sent arms to Iran, as was
revealed during the 1986 Iran-Contra hearings in
Congress. In the words of former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, “We wanted them to kill
each other.”
Once Washington had accomplished its objective of
weakening the Iranian Revolution through the war
between Iran and Iraq, Pentagon war doctrine was
reconfigured to target Iraq as the next “potential
enemy.” Plans and complex war games for a U.S.
war with Iraq were drafted in 1988, immediately
after the close of the Iran-Iraq war and two
years before Iraq fatefully sent its troops
against the Kuwaiti mon archy in August 1990.
(“The Fire This Time,” Ramsey Clark,
Thundersmouth Press, 1992)
Slogans should be consistently anti-imperialist
The U.S. government represents the interests of
Big Oil and the biggest imperialist banks. It
seeks to dominate the Middle East not to bring
“human rights” and “democracy” but to possess and
profit from the fabulous oil wealth
under the soil.
Iraq has 10 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Combined with
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, this region contains the largest share of oil
on the
planet.
Effective sanctions of any type, be they for economic or military
commodities,
require the sanctioning countries to position military forces around
the
targeted country so that ships, trucks and airplanes can be interdicted
and
searched. Thus, calling for the United States or UN to maintain
military
sanctions on Iraq provides a political and even “legal” justification
for the
continued military occupation of the Gulf region by U.S. military
forces.
>From a practical point of view, if the demand for U.S./UN economic sanctions
to be replaced by “military sanctions” were realized, it would still
have a
devastating impact on Iraq’s civilian population. The United States
would
claim that almost anything that the civilian economy imports could
also be
used for military applications.
Referring to these items as “dual use” commodities, the United States
has
already halted or postponed 450 out of every 500 contracts that were
approved
by the UN Sanctions Committee under the much touted Oil-for-Food
program.
Washington will use the category of “military sanctions” as a technical
method
to prevent Iraq from acquiring commodities that are essential for
sustaining
civilian economy and human life. For example, the United States has
banned
pencils for schoolchildren because these pencils contain graphite,
which is
also a lubricant. It has banned batteries, X-ray machines and
ambulances
because they could be used in military conflicts.
Iraq is now barred from importing adequate supplies of chlorine to
purify its
water. Why chlorine? It could be used as a component in a chemical
weapon.
Computers too have potential military uses. So importing computers has
been
prohibited for 10 years.
It can only miseducate the broad public about the
real issues in the Middle East if the progressive
movement supports the imperialist powers in
demanding the demilitarization of Iraq. The
movement cannot be consistently progressive
without thoroughly exposing the true dynamics of
imperialist military and political strategy that
tries to re-colonize the Arab people.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
---
VERSO NUOVI MASSICCI BOMBARDAMENTI SULL'IRAQ?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIXHWTKGBC.html
Aug 3, 2000 - 11:37 AM
Officer: U.S. Suspects Iraq Has Resumed Arms Program
By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The United States suspects that Iraq has taken
advantage of the absence of U.N. arms inspectors to rebuild its arsenal
of mass-destruction weapons, a senior U.S. officer said Thursday...
Subject: [iac-disc.] ACTION ALERT! - Stop the U.S. from Bombing
Iraq in Aug.!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:42:48 -0400
From: "Ramsey Kysia" <mbakery@...>
To: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
***please distribute widely***
ACTION ALERT – Stop the U.S. from bombing Iraq in August 2000!
1. Background
2. Mailing Address
3. Sample Letter
BACKGROUND:
On Aug. 6th ‘90, the UN imposed broad, economic
sanctions on Iraq for invading Kuwait. Sanctions were
re-imposed on April 3rd 1991, after the Gulf War, to
force Iraq to destroy its “weapons of mass destruction.”
However, the Gulf War bombings of Iraq’s civilian
infrastructure & the ongoing sanctions blockade have
instead resulted in widespread poverty & skyrocketing
childhood mortality. The UN estimates that between
500,000 & 720,000 children have died because of the
sanctions. According to UNICEF, a child dies every
10 minutes in Iraq due to sanctions.
In Dec. ‘98, a series of confrontations between
UNSCOM weapons inspectors & the Iraqi government
resulted in “Desert Fox,” a U.S. bombing campaign
that killed 10,000 people according to Pentagon
estimates. One month after the bombings, the
Washington Post & the Boston Globe both reported
that Iraq’s main objection to the weapons inspectors,
namely that they U.S. spies, was in fact true. The
ensuing scandal over U.S. infiltration of UNSCOM led
to a year-long deadlock at the UN. In Dec. ‘99, the
Security Council passed (with France, Russia & China
abstaining) Resolution 1284, creating UNMOVIC, a
new inspection team. This team will be ready to begin
new inspections next month.
Since “Desert Fox,” the U.S. has continued regular
bombings of Iraq on the average of 3-4 times a week:
the longest running U.S. air war since Vietnam.
However, both Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM,
and Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector, have
predicted that Iraq’s refusal to allow UNMOVIC into the
country next month will likely create a new crisis that
could result in an intensified U.S. bombing campaign
against Iraq – with thousands of casualties. Says Scott
Ritter, “The new commission, UNMOVIC, will not be
allowed into Iraq in August, three months away from the
election. You have got a Vice-President, Al Gore,
trailing behind in the polls and what better way to appear
tough and switch attention away to a so-called foreign
threat. The UN Security Council did not vote on Desert
Fox and we can expect the same thing to happen again.”
We MUST not let this happen again. Please take a few
minutes to write Sandy Berger, the U.S. National
Security Advisor & Clinton’s principle foreign policy
strategist, & demand that the U.S. stop killing civilians
in Iraq and end sanctions & bombings against Iraq –
rather than increase them.
For more information on a possible August bombing, please visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/sanction230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/saddam230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/usarms280600.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j071000.html
For more information on the Iraq crisis, please visit:
http://www.iraqaction.org
(...)
*** Iraq Action Coalition Discussion Forum ***
http://iraqaction.org/discussion.html
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
1990: inizia l'embargo ai danni della popolazione irachena, con
decisione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU su istigazione
statunitense - dopo che gli USA avevano boicottato ogni possibilita' di
soluzione politico-diplomatica della crisi del Kuwait - e con
l'opposizione di Cuba e dello Yemen.
Il conflitto vero e proprio, noto come "Guerra del Golfo", sara'
scatenato il 17 gennaio 1991. L'embargo proseguira' anche dopo la sua
conclusione con il ritiro delle truppe irachene dal Kuwait. Negli anni
successivi, aerei britannici e statunitensi continueranno a bombardare
sporadicamente di propria iniziativa il territorio iracheno.
---
COMUNICATO STAMPA
Consegnate a Violante 30.211 firme per chiedere che l'Italia si dissoci
unilateralmente dall'embargo all'Iraq.
Venerdì 21 luglio 2000, alle ore 11, una delegazione della Campagna
"Rompere
l'embargo" ha incontrato il Presidente della Camera dei Deputati,
On.Luciano
Violante, al quale ha consegnato l'ultima parte delle oltre 30.000 firme
raccolte sulla petizione popolare che chiede al Parlamento italiano di
rompere unilateralmente l'embargo contro l'Iraq, abrogandone la legge di
attuazione.
La delegazione, composta dai rappresentanti di alcune delle principali
associazioni fra le centinaia che hanno aderito alla Campagna. ("Un
ponte
per…", che l'ha promossa assieme al Comitato Golfo, l'Associazione per
la
pace, il COCIS-coordinamento delle ONG, Mani Tese, il Servizio Civile
Internazionale, la UISP e altre), ha ricordato al presidente Violante la
tragedia del popolo iracheno e l'importanza che un paese come l'Italia
compia un passo coraggioso di dissociazione dal genocidio che ha ucciso
in
dieci anni oltre un milione di civili innocenti, in maggioranza bambini
sotto i cinque anni.
Una richiesta - dicono i promotori della Campagna - che oggi arriva da
una
parte largamente maggioritaria della società civile italiana.
Il Presidente della Camera si è dimostrato molto sensibile alle ragioni
della petizione, e ne ha assicurato che la trasmissionie immediata alla
Commissione Esteri perché venga messa in calendario per la discussione.
Violante ha aggiunto che intende recarsi in Iraq in autunno,
reciprocando la
recente visita in Italia del presidente del Parlamento iracheno Sadoon
Hammadi.
La Campagna "Rompere l'embargo" ha intanto annunciato come prossima
iniziativa la convocazione di una Convenzione Nazionale a Roma per metà
ottobre, che radunerà tutti i firmatari e le associazioni che hanno
sottoscritto la petizione. L'occasione sarà lo scadere dei tre mesi
previsti
nell'ultima risoluzione approvata dalla Camera dei Deputati, che impegna
il
governo ad operare in modo concreto ed esplicito nelle sedi
internazionali
per arrivare alla revoca delle sanzioni contro l'Iraq.
Per contatti e informazioni:
rompere-lembargo@...
---
L'ESASPERAZIONE E L'ORGOGLIO DEGLI IRACHENI
Il Sole 24 Ore di giovedì 29/6:
Uccisi due funzionari della Fao a Baghdad.
Per protestare contro l'embargo Onu verso l'Irak, un uomo armato ha
preso in ostaggio oltre 40 persone negli uffici Fao di
Baghdad, uccidendo due persone e ferendone sette prima di essere
arrestato dalla polizia.
IRAQI AMBASSADOR: PEOPLE OF IRAQ HAVE NOT GIVEN UP
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) The people of Iraq have not given up,
they are continuing their struggle and will fight until the final
victory,
Iraqi ambassador to Yugoslavia, Sami Sadoun Gatie Al Kinami, said in an
interview to Radio Yugoslavia on the occasion of Iraqi National Day
(July 17).
Speaking about IraqiYugoslav bilateral relations, whose trade has
reached dozens of millions of dollars in the past few years and is
expected
to reach one billion dollars this year, the Iraqi ambassador set out
that
relations between these countries have been traditional and firm for
years
and are based on joint interests.
"We want this exchange to exceed one billion dollars during this
year and in the coming period within the U.N. oil for food program which
enables Iraq to import food and medications to cover its basic
requirements," he said.
---
1999: ANNO-RECORD DEI BOMBARDAMENTI BRITANNICI SULL'IRAQ
http://www.the-times.co.uk (Britai)
The Times (UK)
June 8 2000
BRITAIN
Sharp rise in RAF attacks on Iraq
BY MICHAEL EVANS
RAF bombing of Iraqi air defence sites has increased sharply in the past
18 months, according to the latest figures published by the Ministry of
Defence.
Since mid-December 1998 RAF bombers have dropped 78 tonnes of bombs on
Iraqi military targets; that compares with 2.5 tonnes between April
1991, after the Gulf War, and mid-December 1998.
The MoD's figures show that the average monthly release of bombs has
risen from 0.025 tonnes to five tonnes.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Foreign Affairs and
Defence, who acquired the figures from parliamentary answers, said
yesterday: "The number of occasions on which ordnance has been released
together with the total tonnage raises questions about the true purpose
of these operations."
He added: "There is persuasive evidence that there is an attritional
campaign against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems. This
represents a significant policy shift which has never been explained to
Parliament."
The MoD said yesterday that the reason for the increase was "because
we've been shot at and threatened far more since December 20, 1998, than
in the previous period."
-
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
The following article appeared in today's Guardian. It incorrectly
states
that the no-fly zones were "agreed by the UN" after the 1991 Gulf war,
despite the fact that previous articles in the Guardian (e.g.
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/311.html) have stated that
the
no-fly zones have no legal basis.
The following discussion list posting discusses the legality
of the no-fly zones:
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/357.html (also see 352.html).
People might like to write to the Guardian to correct them on this
matter?
(letters@...)
seb
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,329490,00.html
Step-up in bombing of Iraq questioned
Iraq: special report
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 8, 2000
British bomber pilots have dramatically increased their strikes on Iraq
in
the "secret war" against Saddam Hussein, official figures reveal.
An estimated 150 bombs - 78 tonnes of weapons - have been dropped on
southern Iraq by British aircraft since December 1998. This compares
with
2.5 tonnes over the previous six years.
"There is now persuasive evidence that there is an attritional campaign
against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems that has gone way
beyond the original purpose of the no-fly zones," Menzies Campbell, the
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said yesterday. "This
represents a significant policy shift, which has never been announced or
explained to parliament."
Mr Campbell was given the figures by Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary,
in
response to a series of written parliamentary questions. Mr Hoon
admitted
that on two occasions since December 1998, ordnance unleashed by British
aircraft "appears to have hit unintended targets".
He also disclosed that the British commander in the southern no-fly zone
had asked the government to "attack targets beyond his delegated
authority".
He refused to explain the circumstances but sources suggested yesterday
that permission was sought to hit Iraqi aircraft moving north, away from
the no-fly zone.
In military action which is rarely reported, Mr Hoon says that while
Iraqi
aircraft violating the no-fly zone accounted for 51% of the "threats" to
British and US war planes, 95% of the targets attacked consisted of
ground-based air defence systems.
Two no-fly zones, policed by British and American planes, were agreed by
the UN after the 1991 Gulf war. They were established to protect the
Shia
minority in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north.
"It's very good training but it is not achieving anything," Andrew
Brookes, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said
yesterday. He described it as a "sterile political mission of people who
can't think of anything better to do".
Mr Hoon said Britain and the US went to "exceptional lengths to ensure
that the right target is hit, including the employment of very strict
target clearance procedures and precision-guided munitions". However, he
acknowledged: "In practice, it is extremely difficult to give estimates
of
civilian casualties despite the painstaking battle damage assessment
that
the coalition routinely carries out".
Britain has 14 Tornado bombers stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain, and four
Jaguars based at Incirlik in Turkey.
---
QUALE STRATEGIA PER IL MOVIMENTO INTERNAZIONALE CONTRO L'EMBARGO?
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, #206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
fax 212-633-2889
iacenter@...
www.iacenter.org
Which way for the anti-sanctions movement
By Brian Becker
It’s no surprise that there is increasing
worldwide opposition to the U.S.-imposed economic
sanctions against Iraq. Five thousand perfectly
blameless infants and children perish each month
in Iraq because they are unable to get clean
drinking water, adequate food and even the most
basic medicines.
There is now a worldwide movement demanding an
end to sanctions. Unfortunately, one sector of
this growing movement has injected a new demand
into its slogans: calling for the continuation of
“military sanctions” against Iraq.
Some of these same groups actually raised the
slogan “sanctions not war” back in 1990.
The International Action Center, which has
campaigned relentlessly for the last 10 years
against sanctions, has issued a powerful statement
explaining the disastrous effects of adopting a
demand that sanctions be reshaped instead of
immediately terminated (on the World Wide Web at
http://www.iacenter.org/delink.htm).
Unless this slogan is repudiated it could
seriously weaken and derail the movement.
“Those who want to stop the Iraqi people’s
suffering must direct their demand at the
aggressors, at the U.S. and Britain whose war
planes bomb Iraq routinely, almost daily, who have
dropped thousands of bombs on Iraq in the last
year,” says Sara Flounders, co-director of the IAC.
The United States and Britain are bombing Iraq.
Iraq has never bombed the cities of the United
States. The progressive movement must ask itself:
Does Iraq have the right to defend itself against
such attacks? Shouldn’t anti-war forces in the
United States call for demilitarizing the Pentagon
instead of demilitarizing the victims of U.S.
aggression?
A tactic in a larger war
Why does the United States maintain the sanctions
and blockade of Iraq?
Is it just a mistaken policy by U.S. political
leaders that needs some “humanitarian” fine-
tuning? Or should sanctions be understood as a
tactic in a larger multi-pronged war to return
Iraq to the status of semi-colonial slavery?
Should the progressive movement oppose sanctions
because that tactic causes undue harm to
civilians? Or should it also reject the
imperialist goals and objectives that are the real
motivation for a destabilization strategy that
includes economic sanctions, routine bombings of
the country, CIA covert operations, plans to
assassinate the Iraqi leadership, creating no-
flight zones over most of the country, and placing
tens of thousands of U.S. troops, warships,
aircraft and advanced missiles on the outer
perimeters of Iraq?
The sanctions against Iraq began 10 years ago, in
August 1990. The Bush administration bullied the
United Nations into imposing economic sanctions as
a prelude to the full-scale 1991 air war against
Iraq.
The sanctions were initially put into place to
help evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, according to
the propaganda of the Bush administration. Iraq
had invaded Kuwait, an oil-rich territory under
the domination of an U.S.-backed monarchy, in
August 1990, after a protracted and complicated
dispute between the two countries.
The original pretext for the economic sanctions
was a lie. It was purely for public consumption.
If the sanctions were meant only to drive Iraqi
troops from Kuwait then why, nearly a decade after
the last Iraqis left, does the United States
still impose the “most complete embargo of any
country in modern times,” in the words of Samuel
Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national
security adviser?
Two blockades: Iraq and Cuba
The unstated but fairly obvious reason that
Washington carries out the economic blockade of
Iraq is that it wants to destabilize the country,
overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and
replace it with a pro-U.S. regime. The United
States has tried the same thing against socialist
Cuba.
The political leaderships in Iraq and Cuba are
very different. Cuba’s leadership is communist and
the Iraqi government is anti-communist. But both
governments have one thing in common. Iraq and
Cuba both suffered the impoverishment and
humiliation of colonialism and neo-colonialism
imposed by U.S. and British imperialism.
Both countries had far-reaching revolutions
within a year of each other–1958 and–1959. Both
revolutions immediately came under direct
aggression from the imperialist overlords who had
colonized or enslaved their countries.
The Iraqi Revolution in 1958 prompted Britain to
rush thousands of troops to fortify its hold on
tiny but oil-rich Kuwait. As it had with Hong Kong
in China, British colonialism sliced the key port
area of Kuwait out of Iraq and declared it a
British protectorate. While British troops secured
Kuwait in 1958, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower
dispatched 10,000 U.S. marines to Lebanon the very
next day to shore up Washington’s own interests.
In the case of the Cuban Revolution in 1959,
Eisenhower ordered the CIA to begin planning the
assassination of Fidel Castro. Two years later,
under John F. Kennedy, the U.S. government
organized a mercenary invasion of Cuba by CIA-
trained counter-revolutionaries.
Cuba used socialist economic methods to bring
literacy, full employment and free universal
health care to its people. It was able to free
itself of economic neocolonial enslavement by
integrating into the trading bloc with the Soviet
Union, East Germany and the other socialist
countries.
Although Iraq nationalized its oil industry and
other economic sectors, its revolution never went
beyond the boundaries of capitalist property
rights. But because of its vast oil wealth and the
nationalist development model adopted by the
leadership, Iraq too was able to effect rapid
social and economic progress for the mass of the
population after the 1958 revolution.
Official U.S. policy has been hostile to both
Iraq and Cuba since their revolutions. The
“hostility” was remarkably consistent regardless
of whether a Republican or Democrat occupied the
White House.
The only exception to the policy of unmitigated
hostility was during the Iran-Iraq war between
1980 and 1988. The United States supplied weapons
to Iraq and encouraged Iraq’s initial military
actions against Iran in 1980. But this should be
understood for what it was: a cynical ploy to
weaken and exhaust the 1979 Iranian mass
revolution that had swept out the dynastic rule of
the shah—whose army had served as proxy and
gendarme for the Pentagon and CIA in the Persian
Gulf.
The United States armed Iraq to fight Iran in the
early 1980s—but it also sent arms to Iran, as was
revealed during the 1986 Iran-Contra hearings in
Congress. In the words of former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, “We wanted them to kill
each other.”
Once Washington had accomplished its objective of
weakening the Iranian Revolution through the war
between Iran and Iraq, Pentagon war doctrine was
reconfigured to target Iraq as the next “potential
enemy.” Plans and complex war games for a U.S.
war with Iraq were drafted in 1988, immediately
after the close of the Iran-Iraq war and two
years before Iraq fatefully sent its troops
against the Kuwaiti mon archy in August 1990.
(“The Fire This Time,” Ramsey Clark,
Thundersmouth Press, 1992)
Slogans should be consistently anti-imperialist
The U.S. government represents the interests of
Big Oil and the biggest imperialist banks. It
seeks to dominate the Middle East not to bring
“human rights” and “democracy” but to possess and
profit from the fabulous oil wealth
under the soil.
Iraq has 10 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Combined with
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, this region contains the largest share of oil
on the
planet.
Effective sanctions of any type, be they for economic or military
commodities,
require the sanctioning countries to position military forces around
the
targeted country so that ships, trucks and airplanes can be interdicted
and
searched. Thus, calling for the United States or UN to maintain
military
sanctions on Iraq provides a political and even “legal” justification
for the
continued military occupation of the Gulf region by U.S. military
forces.
>From a practical point of view, if the demand for U.S./UN economic sanctions
to be replaced by “military sanctions” were realized, it would still
have a
devastating impact on Iraq’s civilian population. The United States
would
claim that almost anything that the civilian economy imports could
also be
used for military applications.
Referring to these items as “dual use” commodities, the United States
has
already halted or postponed 450 out of every 500 contracts that were
approved
by the UN Sanctions Committee under the much touted Oil-for-Food
program.
Washington will use the category of “military sanctions” as a technical
method
to prevent Iraq from acquiring commodities that are essential for
sustaining
civilian economy and human life. For example, the United States has
banned
pencils for schoolchildren because these pencils contain graphite,
which is
also a lubricant. It has banned batteries, X-ray machines and
ambulances
because they could be used in military conflicts.
Iraq is now barred from importing adequate supplies of chlorine to
purify its
water. Why chlorine? It could be used as a component in a chemical
weapon.
Computers too have potential military uses. So importing computers has
been
prohibited for 10 years.
It can only miseducate the broad public about the
real issues in the Middle East if the progressive
movement supports the imperialist powers in
demanding the demilitarization of Iraq. The
movement cannot be consistently progressive
without thoroughly exposing the true dynamics of
imperialist military and political strategy that
tries to re-colonize the Arab people.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
---
VERSO NUOVI MASSICCI BOMBARDAMENTI SULL'IRAQ?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIXHWTKGBC.html
Aug 3, 2000 - 11:37 AM
Officer: U.S. Suspects Iraq Has Resumed Arms Program
By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The United States suspects that Iraq has taken
advantage of the absence of U.N. arms inspectors to rebuild its arsenal
of mass-destruction weapons, a senior U.S. officer said Thursday...
Subject: [iac-disc.] ACTION ALERT! - Stop the U.S. from Bombing
Iraq in Aug.!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:42:48 -0400
From: "Ramsey Kysia" <mbakery@...>
To: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
***please distribute widely***
ACTION ALERT – Stop the U.S. from bombing Iraq in August 2000!
1. Background
2. Mailing Address
3. Sample Letter
BACKGROUND:
On Aug. 6th ‘90, the UN imposed broad, economic
sanctions on Iraq for invading Kuwait. Sanctions were
re-imposed on April 3rd 1991, after the Gulf War, to
force Iraq to destroy its “weapons of mass destruction.”
However, the Gulf War bombings of Iraq’s civilian
infrastructure & the ongoing sanctions blockade have
instead resulted in widespread poverty & skyrocketing
childhood mortality. The UN estimates that between
500,000 & 720,000 children have died because of the
sanctions. According to UNICEF, a child dies every
10 minutes in Iraq due to sanctions.
In Dec. ‘98, a series of confrontations between
UNSCOM weapons inspectors & the Iraqi government
resulted in “Desert Fox,” a U.S. bombing campaign
that killed 10,000 people according to Pentagon
estimates. One month after the bombings, the
Washington Post & the Boston Globe both reported
that Iraq’s main objection to the weapons inspectors,
namely that they U.S. spies, was in fact true. The
ensuing scandal over U.S. infiltration of UNSCOM led
to a year-long deadlock at the UN. In Dec. ‘99, the
Security Council passed (with France, Russia & China
abstaining) Resolution 1284, creating UNMOVIC, a
new inspection team. This team will be ready to begin
new inspections next month.
Since “Desert Fox,” the U.S. has continued regular
bombings of Iraq on the average of 3-4 times a week:
the longest running U.S. air war since Vietnam.
However, both Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM,
and Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector, have
predicted that Iraq’s refusal to allow UNMOVIC into the
country next month will likely create a new crisis that
could result in an intensified U.S. bombing campaign
against Iraq – with thousands of casualties. Says Scott
Ritter, “The new commission, UNMOVIC, will not be
allowed into Iraq in August, three months away from the
election. You have got a Vice-President, Al Gore,
trailing behind in the polls and what better way to appear
tough and switch attention away to a so-called foreign
threat. The UN Security Council did not vote on Desert
Fox and we can expect the same thing to happen again.”
We MUST not let this happen again. Please take a few
minutes to write Sandy Berger, the U.S. National
Security Advisor & Clinton’s principle foreign policy
strategist, & demand that the U.S. stop killing civilians
in Iraq and end sanctions & bombings against Iraq –
rather than increase them.
For more information on a possible August bombing, please visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/sanction230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/saddam230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/usarms280600.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j071000.html
For more information on the Iraq crisis, please visit:
http://www.iraqaction.org
(...)
*** Iraq Action Coalition Discussion Forum ***
http://iraqaction.org/discussion.html
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------