NKARA, Turkey, Feb. 6
— American diplomats are engaged in delicate negotiations here that could
allow tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers to occupy part of northern
Iraq behind an advancing American army, Turkish and Kurdish officials said
today.
1. to those who queried me on
the proposed "UN mandate or other UN foam carpet":
The idea derives from the method to extinguish
some chemical fires with foam rather than with unhelpful and perhaps even
dangerous water. Essentially, letting the Iraqi opposition play
out its antagonisms on its own would amount seem to amount to a formula
for further, prolonged and regionally destabilizing disaster. A generally
acceptable and mutually helpful post-Saddam solution for Iraq - with
or without war, with or without external and/or internal asylum for Saddam
and his entourage, and with or without the proposed linkage to the Palestine/Israel
conflict by way of a second Babylon (www.solami.com/babylon2.htm)
- might thus have to be found within the confines of and with the help
of the instruments available to the UN (Trusteeship Council, Security Council
and/or General Assembly), with the genesis of Iraq as the League of
Nations' first nation-building product (.../a3a.htm)
revisited in the course of an correspondingly set up international conference.
On that occasion, the UN's role as successor to the League of Nations and
the minority protection and property rights guarantees thus enshrined in
international law might be more fully appreciated and brought to fruition
- at least as a point of departure and inspiration for all parties and
communities involved to seek, explore and find common ground for a generally
acceptable and viable formula for Iraq. This may entail a UN-mandated
interim administration for the three composite parts of Iraq (Basra Vilayet,
Baghdad Vilayet and Mosul Vilayet), with France, Germany, Iran, Jordan,
Russia, Turkey, UK and USA conceivably sharing correspondingly designed
mandates which should and could adequately reflect this area's history,
culture and applicable international law standards (notably such agreements
as the Jaffa Treaty of 1229: .../jaffa.htm,
the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: .../a33f.htm#WATERLOO
III , the Treaty of Lausanne
of 1923: .../Lausanne.htm,
the constitutive Declaration of the Kingdom Iraq of 1932: .../a3a.htm#DECLARATION,
the applicable resolutions of both the UN General Assembly and the
UN Security Council, the related Advisory Opinion of the International
Court of Justice of 1950: .../a3a.htm#367/Add.1,
and the UN Memorandum LEAGUE OF NATIONS DOCUMENTS QUESTION IRAQ'S
CLAIMS AND OWNERSHIP OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES IN KURDISH AREA of
1992 .../a3a.htm#OWNERSHIP).
2. for those who haven't received
my observations of Feb 1 to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on "Why
should Switzerland not question its NPT membership?", here they
are again:
1. I greatly
appreciate your prompt and most informative response on the "Report from
Iron Mountain" (now electronically available also at: .../iron.htm)
- even as a hoax, the study's underlying out-of-the-box analysis, in my
humble opinion, is still relevant, goes under the skin and, in my case
at least, has been quite influential, starting with our NPT studies of
1968/1975 (.../NPT68.htm
¦ .../NPT75.htm ¦
.../NPT.htm) to which I suggest
you consider including a hyperlink on your website (in the event, in return
for me including a link there to your Bulletin).
2. Linda's current Bulletin editorial "Why not Switzerland"
(http://www.thebulletin.org/),
unwittingly, may come closer to the truth than she might have thought.
Seen from my outsider perspective, there are, however, a few things she
might want to take into consideration next time around:
a) Switzerland had two overwhelming popular votes against foresaking
its nuclear armament, one even rejecting the proposal that its eventual
nuclear armament be decided not by its government but by the Swiss voters;
b) I understand that - in line with the solemn obligations accruing
from its time-tested and internationally recognized traditions of permanent
armed neutrality - Switzerland, in the 50ies at least, had very serious
intentions to keep all options open and, like in the related civil defense
matters, to be fully prepared for all eventualities, including to acquire
the wherewithall for over 100 devices, with an approximately three weeks
lead-time for assembling the parts (again, for theoretical details look
at: .../NPT.htm), and though
the corresponding delivery vehicles were not designed to reach beyond any
European theatre, Switzerland's now-replaced Mirage III jets are understood
to have been capable of delivering a device e.g. to Kiew (which capability,
incidently, reportedly was demonstrated in a never-publicly-revealed deterrent
show of force); and
c) Switzerland was thus one of the last countries
to sign and ratify the NPT, with the understanding
- that the NPT has a limited duration of 25 years,
- that if and when it will be infinitely extended,
the constitutional requirements of a mandatory Swiss vote on Switzerland's
continued NPT adherence will be respected, and
- that sovereign Switzerland might freely withdraw
from the NPT if its supreme interests require such a course of action.
Now that the NPT has been extended indefinitely,
and a popular vote thus looms on Switzerland's continued NPT membership,
the question of whether sovereign Switzerland could in reality still withdraw
from the NPT without being threatened with sanctions, etc. may become an
issue again. Also, is Switzerland thus next in line to be fingered
for disarmament? And could such flat earth visions not lead to additional
destabilizations and - perhaps overdue - questioning of the NPT's underlying
assumptions by other concerned sovereign countries, e.g. Egypt, Iran, Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.?
salve!
Iconoclast
NEW YORK TIMES
NKARA, Turkey, Feb. 6
— American diplomats are engaged in delicate negotiations here that could
allow tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers to occupy part of northern
Iraq behind an advancing American army, Turkish and Kurdish officials said
today.
A United States official confirmed that the negotiations were under way, but said that the Turks would be restricted to a limited area close to the border and that the numbers discussed by the Turks and Kurds were exaggerated.
The plan, which is being negotiated in closed-door meetings in Ankara, the Turkish capital, is being bitterly resisted by at least some leaders of Iraq's Kurdish groups, who fear that Turkey's leaders may be trying to realize a historic desire to dominate the region in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The Kurdish officials say they fear a military intervention by the Turks could also prompt Iran to cross the border and try to seize sections of eastern Iraq.
American diplomats and senior military commanders, led by President Bush's special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, are said to be encouraging the Kurdish leaders to accept the Turkish proposal. While Washington has strongly supported the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq over the past 12 years, it is eager to secure the permission of Turkey's leaders to use Turkey's bases for a possible attack on Iraq.
The proposed deal between the Americans and the Turks moved closer to fruition today when the Turkish Parliament voted to allow American engineers to begin preparing Turkish military bases for possible use by American troops. A vote on whether to allow American troops to use those bases is scheduled for Feb. 18.
The size of each projected military force — American and Turkish — is still unclear. American officials had sought to base as many as 80,000 troops in Turkey. But some Turkish officials have suggested that the American force will be significantly smaller, perhaps no more than 15,000 to 20,000. In negotiations today, Turkish officials said they wanted their forces to outnumber American ones by a ratio of two to one.
With a war looming, Turkey has sought assurances from the Americans that the toppling of Mr. Hussein would not result in the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, which it fears would encourage a revolt by Turkish Kurds.
Turkey's leaders are determined to prevent a repeat of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, when southeastern Turkey was swamped by a half million Kurdish refugees fleeing attacks by the Iraqi Army. Turkish officials say that pro-Kurdish guerrillas crossed into Turkey along with the refugees, igniting a bloody insurgency that the Turkish military has been battling ever since.
But some Kurds are making it clear that they do not want the Turks crossing Iraq's northern border.
"We have told the Americans and the Turks that any outside intervention would not be welcomed," said Safeen M. Dizayee, an official with the Iraq-based Kurdish Democratic Party, who took part in the talks. "I hope it would not get out of control. But it could be suicidal to get into something like this if it undermines political stability."
A United States official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Turks were proposing to send troops into northern Iraq but said that their role would be sharply limited. The official said that the Turkish troops would be limited to a portion of Iraqi territory near the Turkish border, and that the forces would focus primarily on humanitarian problems and on discouraging people from fleeing to Turkey. Moreover, he said, the Turkish forces would be under American command and would not be mixing with the Kurdish troops.
"It would be in a limited area, close to the border," the official said.
One of the aims of the current negotiations, the official continued, was to bring the Kurds and the Turks to an understanding about a possible Turkish intervention.
Indeed, there were signs that Iraq's Kurdish leaders were showing a willingness to work with Turkey's new government, which has deep Islamic roots and won a majority of seats in the Turkish Parliament last November. Massoud Barzani, the leader of one of the two major Kurdish groups, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, was said to have felt comfortable with Turkey's leaders during a recent visit there.
"He was very impressed with the Turkish government," Fawzi Hariri, a party spokesman, said of Mr. Barzani. "He thought they were genuine and that he could trust them."
But statements by Turkish officials suggested that their plans might be more ambitious. A Turkish official confirmed today that his government was planning to send troops into northern Iraq in numbers that would exceed those dispatched by the Americans.
The Turkish officials echoed comments made Wednesday by the Turkish prime minister, Abdullah Gul. He suggested that the Turkish Army's role would go beyond humanitarian concerns to protecting Turkish interests in the region.
"Turkey is going to position herself in that region in order to prevent any possible massacres, or the establishment of a new state," Mr. Gul told Turkish reporters.
The Turkish official, like Mr. Gul, said the Turkish troops would not take part in combat with the Iraqis but would instead seek to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. The official said the Turks could also check any re-emergence of the Kurdish insurgency that operated in southeastern Turkey during the 1990's.
The official made it clear that the Turkish troops would protect themselves if they came under attack.
In recent weeks the Turks have been building their forces on the border, and some 1,200 Turkish troops are already operating in parts of northern Iraq, mainly to hunt down pro-Kurdish guerrillas who might be trying to cross into Turkey.
Mr. Dizayee referred to the various Turkish rationales for intervention as "pretexts." Like many Kurdish leaders, Mr. Dizayee expressed pride in the democratic institutions the Kurds have built during their 12 years of autonomy. He expressed dismay at the prospect that those institutions might be swamped by an American-led military attack.
"We think these democratic institutions have set a precedent for the rest of Iraq," Mr. Dizayee said. "If they were undermined, it would reflect badly on the whole operation."
The American-led talks appear to be focused on choreographing the nearly simultaneous entry of American combat troops and Turkish soldiers into northern Iraq. One official with the other major Kurdish group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said Mr. Khalilzad had called the meeting to give each group its final marching orders for what appears to be an imminent war.
One element of the plan, the Kurdish official said, was to ensure that both Turkish and Kurdish forces left the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk to the American forces. Those cities are the centers of oil production in the region, and Washington plans to grab the oil fields before either Iraq destroys them or the Kurds seize them.
The senior official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said the Kurds were eagerly anticipating the arrival of American soldiers, but not that of the Turks.
"We regard America as liberators," the official said. "And our neighbors
as looters."
NEW YORK TIMES
he Iraq crisis has
entered a period of intensely coercive diplomacy. It is unclear how long
this phase will last — our guess is a few weeks — but the pressure is rapidly
building on Saddam Hussein to give up his evasions or even his office.
He may well do neither, inviting an American attack, but we are glad to
see the Bush administration turning up the heat before it turns to war.
President Bush added to the pressure yesterday with a strongly worded warning to Iraq. Coupled with Colin Powell's salvo on Wednesday and the disclosure that the 101st Airborne Division — with its fleet of combat helicopters — is being dispatched to the Persian Gulf region, Washington has left little doubt that it is preparing for a confrontation.
But President Bush confirmed that he was willing to allow the diplomatic dance to swirl a while longer, and would welcome another United Nations Security Council resolution. The decision reflected a wise deference to the widespread sentiment, at home and abroad, that the United States should go to war only if it has broad international support. In the aftermath of Mr. Powell's presentation, it also seemed to reflect a confidence in the administration that at the rate Mr. Hussein was burning his bridges, the additional time would help achieve a unanimous verdict at the Security Council.
If Mr. Hussein had hoped for a hung jury after Mr. Powell's summation, what he is hearing cannot be of comfort to him. Basically, it is that unless he starts telling the inspectors everything, and starts now, there may soon be no one left trying to hold the Americans back.
The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese still favor giving arms inspectors more time. But even France acknowledged that Iraq was undermining diplomatic efforts by blatantly failing to show even a smidgen of good faith, and it suggested that Feb. 14 was a reasonable deadline for Iraq to start complying with U.N. orders to disarm.
Mr. Hussein is a cagey despot, and he is certain to use the coming week
to make a dramatic concession or two. But Hans Blix, the chief inspector
for chemical and biological weapons, has demonstrated a stern resistance
to eyewash, and the Security Council seems to be tiring of Mr. Hussein's
antics. Coercive diplomacy has its limits — it didn't budge Mr. Hussein
from Kuwait a decade ago. But it is well worth trying.
NEW YORK TIMES
ecretary of State
Colin L. Powell's speech to the Security Council on Iraq was well received
abroad, but did it change any minds? Following is a sampling of opinions
from selected European newspapers.
Le Monde
France
We were waiting for the "day of evidence," but it ended up being the "day of reiterated suspicions." On the arguments that he chose — arms, the link with Al Qaeda — Mr. Powell expressed possibilities, not factual reality. We remain in doubt. Are suspicions enough to go to war? To that question, a majority of the Council answered "no," and suggested giving the inspectors time to confirm or debunk those suspicions.
Süddeutsche Zeitung
Germany
Powell's speech should come as a wake-up call for the European members of the Security Council, for the nonpermanent members Germany and Spain as well as the veto powers France and Great Britain. Their differences of opinion have, in recent weeks, only helped the hawks at the Pentagon.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Germany
The performance was undeniably brilliant. In doing so, the American secretary of state turned the Security Council into a kind of world court; he himself played the role of the prosecution. What was so impressive in the evidence was not its multimedia effects, but its breadth.
The Independent
Britain
In closing, General Powell asked the international community to understand that, in the light of all that we know about Saddam and all the intelligence that the secretary of state shared with the U.N., the United States government could not "run the risk" of allowing Saddam to remain in power. In turn, General Powell and the Bush administration must understand that much of the rest of the world is not ready to countenance the even more terrible risks involved in a war.
The policy of containment and sanctions, pursued for 12 years, has been frustrating and messy; but it has constrained Saddam. General Powell did not tell us why we must abandon it.
The Times
Britain
Colin Powell's 75-minute speech to the Security Council yesterday was a withering riposte to Iraq's taunt that the U.S. has no proof that it has hidden, and continues to hide, illicit weapons of enormous destructive power.
Containment has failed to prevent him building and hiding weapons that, he must be assumed to believe, would make him ultimately impossible to restrain. Even if it ultimately takes war, he must be stopped.
La Repubblica
Italy
In the temple of the United Nations, enclosed in the same tension that shrouded Adlai Stevenson with his photos of Cuba and an imminent nuclear war on the world, Colin Powell had in front of him the most important speech of his life, and maybe ours. He had to respond to three challenges.
The first was a personal challenge, the last test for the son of a Jamaican immigrant, in front of the cynical doctors of the world. The second was political, against internal enemies who accuse him of being too reasonable. The third challenge, and the most urgent, was to persuade an always more skeptical world of the necessity to combat Iraq.
After an hourlong speech broadcast live around the world, and after listening to the response of the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese, it's permissible to say that that he magnificently passed the personal test, shook every suspicion of a double game between hawks and doves, but his evidence convinced those who already were convinced, without really converting the skeptics.
Vremya Novostei
Russia
Powell was eloquent but not entirely convincing. Even the presence of the C.I.A. director, George J. Tenet, sitting nearby, did not help. U.S. intelligence might have been reluctant to make all information it had available to the U.N. Security Council and therefore to the rest of the world, for fear of "exposing methods and sources." But arguments for the military operation code-named Shock and Quiver seem weak at first sight.
El Mundo
Spain
If Powell and Bush are serious in their search for international support, they must set aside their threats to act alone and accept an extension to the inspectors' mandate. And also to try to seek consensus for a second U.N. resolution that would further tighten the screws on Saddam, but which could not be a blank check for an invasion.
But the crucial point of yesterday's Security Council meeting is the
confirmation that there are good reasons for keeping up the international
pressure on the Iraqi dictator, and even approve new economic and diplomatic
sanctions against him, but that there is still no clear justification for
war. There are many more reasons to intervene urgently against North Korea,
which yesterday announced it was reopening a nuclear plant where it could
make material for an atomic bomb.
NEW YORK TIMES
NITED NATIONS, Feb. 6
— Although the Bush administration is not yet assured of the nine votes
necessary to win another resolution authorizing war against Iraq, officials
see tremendous advantages to having an endorsement from the Security Council,
even if it passes with abstentions from France, Russia and China, veto-bearing
permanent powers.
American officials were encouraged to consider new Council negotiations as they perceived declining support in Europe for France and Germany, the main Council opponents to war.
Several diplomats who attended a luncheon for Security Council envoys immediately after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation at the United Nations on Wednesday, recounted, for example, a sharp exchange between Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, and Ana Palacio, his counterpart from Spain.
Ms. Palacio bluntly rejected a proposal Mr. de Villepin had offered the Council to strengthen weapons inspections by adding more inspectors and creating a United Nations inspections commissioner, the diplomats said.
She said that if Iraq was not going to cooperate, France's proposal would only send a message of weakness from the Council.
Many nations, especially in the Arab world, have said that they are ready to support the United States in a war against Iraq but would gain more domestic support if their positions could be backed up with a resolution from the Security Council.
"Getting a resolution, even without some of the permanent members, clears up any question for the allies of the legal legitimacy of the operation," a Council diplomat said.
If American and British diplomats can build support for a resolution to use force among the 10 nonpermanent members, they are relatively sure that France, in spite of recent tough talk, will not use its veto to block the measure.
"If the French veto, it would sink the Council and it would not stop the war," a European diplomat said, adding that"they would just be excluding themselves" from being players in the Middle East in the wake of the conflict.
The French president, Jacques Chirac, told several foreign leaders during telephone calls on Thursday that he continued to reject the idea that war against Iraq was inevitable, according to his spokeswoman.
In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who opposes a war, came under attack from opposition figures who said the chancellor had unnecessarily isolated Germany from its main ally and weakened its ability to play a role in international affairs.
In Moscow, President Vladimir V. Putin and Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, issued a joint statement underscoring "the importance of further intensive work with the Iraqi administration" to seek compliance with the United Nations' mandate.
Igor S. Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, said today that Mr. Powell's
speech "revealed no persuasive proof that weapons of mass production have
been produced in Iraq." While force is justified "as an extreme, last measure,"
he said, "there are no grounds to resort to this in Iraq whatsoever."
NEW YORK TIMES
OWELL Iraq
has at least seven mobile factories to make biological weapons, some on
trucks and others on rail cars. A typical truck-mounted factory consists
of two or three trucks. The mobile factories can produce anthrax and botulinum
toxin. Iraq has also developed the technique of making dry biological agents
using its mobile vehicles. The information on the mobile labs is derived
from several Iraqi defectors and informants, including some who provided
eyewitness accounts. Iraq has previously weaponized aflatoxin and ricin
in addition to botulinum toxin and anthrax.
PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE Iraq is developing the capability to produce biological weapons in mobile laboratories, though the number was not known.
Intelligence reports have indicated that Iraq is improving or expanding nominally civilian facilities that can be used to make biological weapons.
They include the Al Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute and the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant.
Iraq has failed to provide evidence that is has destroyed its biological munitions and agents.