Saddam replacement(s) in the making

v vivekanand

US-engineered moves are under way to establish a new
group of Iraqis opposed to Saddam Hussein as a
possible alternative to the known factions that are
deemed by American intelligence agencies as unsuitable
to serve US interests in post-war Iraq.
Iraqi exile sources said talks were being held in
Washington, Europe and in the Middle East on the shape
of the new group that is expected to be favoured by
the US to take over power in Baghdad under an American
umbrella.
Washington launched the moves after facing stiff
opposition to its plans to have a military
administration in post-war Iraq and a second-layer
civilian set-up backed by elements of the present
regime to run the bureaucracy.
Iraqi exile groups such as the Iraqi National
Congress, the Iraqi National Accord, the Constituional
Monarchy Movement and the dominant Kurdish groups in
northern Iraq as well as the main Shiite opposition
faction opposed the US plan.
As a result, the US agreed that Iraqi exile groups
would be given power in post-war Iraq although the
details of the arrangement have yet to be worked out.

The American "change of mind" was reported last week
by one of the Kurdish group, the Kurdistan Democratic
Party (KDP), and the Shiite faction, the Supreme
Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Washington has not commented on the reported
agreement. US President George Bush's special envoy,
Zalmay Zhalilzad, is in Turkey for talks with the
Iraqi exile groups.
Zhalizad rushed to Ankara after Turkey said it wanted
to send its military into northern Iraqi in order to
check Iraqi Kurds from seizing control of oil-rich
regions there to boost their moves towards
independence that could spell trouble for Ankara among
Turkish Kurds.
Zhalilzad has managed to secure a Turkish undertaking
that any Turkish deployment in northern Iraq would be
co-ordinated with the Americans.
And now he faces the task of working out the post-war
arrangements with the Iraqi exile groups.
The Iraqi exile sources said Zhalilzad was expected to
work with a "leadership council" established at the
conclusion of a January meeting which grouped almost
all Iraqi exile groups. That meeting was held in
northern Iraq..
Meanwhile, another meeting is being planned to be held
in London by Iraqi exiles who prefera United Nations
administration in Iraq when Saddam Hussein is toppled
rather than a United States administration.
The gathering is expected to name itself the Iraqi
Democracy Group and seeks a civil administration
.until the situation will be right for a general
election to elect the new government of Iraq.
organiser Saad Abdel Razek says the "group of Iraqi
liberals from all countries" would choose retired
Iraqi dissident Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign
minister, to lead the new group.
Pachachi, who lives in Abu Dhabi, has rejected the
idea of a US military administration for his country.
He also rejected a seat on a leadership council
formed by the other Iraqi opposition groups meeting in
Iraqi Kurdistan last month.
Ahmed Chalabi, who heads the umbrella group Iraqi
National Congress (INC) of iraqi dissiddents, opposes
major role for the United Nations in a post-war Iraq.
Chalabi argues that UN is too weak to deal with the
political intrigues of Iraq, the destruction of
weapons of mass destruction and the dismantling of
Saddam's security services.
Chalabi, who wants to succeed Saddam as president,
says he wants allied troops to remain after the war
until a referendum and then elections were held to
establish democracy and independence.
"The only ones who can mobilise the Iraqi people are
the opposition, and so far there is little role for us
in this war," says Chalabi, who claims his grop has
"tens of thousands of fighters throughout the
country."
"The leadership of the opposition are in a position to
declare a provisional government, which could play a
very important role in dealing with the security
situation," Chalabi said.
While the US has not made its position clear on
whether it favours Chalabi, reports indciate that
Washington has little respect for any of the existing
groups and that is why it favours setting up an
alternative leadership for Iraqi exiles.
The american moves are kept cloaked in secrecy and it
is not even known who the people the us is dealing
with. but, as a highly informed source put it, "soon
enough the world would know who the US favours."
One thing is sure: The US would not allow the UN to
have any major say in running post-war Iraq; nor would
the major powers in the world body would permit the US
to take control either






Opinion...



Iraq has seen a week of fierce fight. But the end to
the conflict is not in sight. But another war has
begun, the diplomatic war. It is to decide who is
going to control Baghdad once President Saddam Hussein
is ousted. Although the US-British war plans have gone
awry despite the "shock and awe" blitzkrieg, the war
planners are plotting the next move.
The only planning that is on course is the
pulverisation of Iraq with precision-guided bombs and
rockets. There is massive destruction of
infrastructures. It is assumed that in the first week
of military action there have been more than 4,000
civilians casualties. The number of dead could be as
much as 350.
Iraq, a country crippled by 10 years of backbreaking
United Nations sanctions, is putting up resistance.
The massive high-tech weaponry of the US could not
subdue the Iraqis which American military leaders
initially thought could be accomplished in a matter of
days. Now even the most optimistic scenario speaks of
months of military engagement.
The fears that the US forces are getting mired in the
Iraqi rubble and desert have dampened confidence of
the market worldwide. It is thought the war might last
for months. US President George W.
Bush said on Thursday the war would last "however long
it takes to win." This negative sentiment has resulted
in loss of consumer and business confidence. And that
is going to hit corporate earnings, the economy and
the market. The result is already there: Oil is up,
the dollar is down and safe haven gold is soaring
There is growing anger at the US for farming out
lucrative contracts for reconstruction work. However,
it is a message meant for France, Germany, Russia and
China for refusing to be part of the “coalition of the
willing.” They are denied participation. French
Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has therefore
demanded the UN must be at the heart of Iraq
reconstruction. The European Union insists the world
body must be "in the driving seat" in post-war Iraq.
This is an issue before Bush and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair at the Camp David summit. The
only way Blair could tackle his critics at home for
joining America’s war on Iraq is to find a formula to
allow UN participation in post-Saddam Iraq. He could
hope to help mend ties with the European allies if
Britain is able to persuade the US to allow others
some role in post-war Iraq. But Bush does not appear
too keen on giving the UN a role. He has a grudge
against it for impeding his war plans through what he
considers the diplomacy farce aimed at delaying
decisions.
The Bush thinking is revealed by Secretary of State
Colin Powell who said Washington is not keen to cede
control of Iraq to the UN. The US does not take on
“this huge burden with our coalition partners not to
be able to have a significant dominating control over
how it unfolds in the future." The former US military
chief, who conducted the first Gulf War on behalf of
Bush’s father, is precise in explaining US objective:
Take control of Iraq and establish American political
and economic control.
Powell has rejected UN oversight of the transitional
authority it is planning for Iraq. It would be
initially led by a US military commander. He would be
at Iraq’s “centre of gravity.” After the
consolidation of the interim authority, which would
have Iraqis on board, the US might consider a role for
the UN. The Iraqi interim administration would be the
nucleus of new government and exert authority over
every aspect of emerging Iraqi government. Powell
promises the US would take care of Iraq with the full
understanding of the international community with a UN
special co-ordinator joining at a later date.

Apparently what Washington is expecting is a neat
surgical operation to remove Saddam and transplant a
government to America’s liking. Alas, in a war such
carefully planned operation can go wrong as is
happening now. The US war planners were expecting a
quick and decisive win in three or four days.
It would be wise if the US listens to Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak. He has warned that post-war
Iraq would be even more dangerous than the war itself.
Although he did not elaborate, his officials have
cautioned that instability may spread across the
region. The “democracy domino” that Bush hopes for
with US friendly regimes in place across the Middle
East is a myth for neo-conservative intellectuals to
mull over. Such a presumption is based on a lack of
understanding of the socio- political culture of the
region. Bush should have understood this when the
first shot was fired at Iraq.
Many independent analysts have warned that the ouster
of Saddam is likely to trigger radical nationalism.
Its impact would be hostility towards Washington.
Nobody can ignore the anger and sadness of the Muslim
and Arab nations that have been getting a raw deal for
over five decades. The epitome is the Palestinian
struggle that could not be resolved because of
involvement of the US as a biased peacebroker. The
inability of the US-led forces in restoring normalcy
in Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban regime,
the pathetic conditions of Afghans in the Guantanamo
Bay detention centre and denial of justice to them
have incensed right-thinking people.
The US attempts to sugarcoat the planned military
occupation of Iraq as liberation are bound to fail.
The rising wave of Iraqi pride and anger cannot be
stymied. The military crusade against Iraq would go
bust as in the colonial past. Let the Iraqis decide
their future. Leave them alone for the sake of peace
in the region.

US duplicity again...

by pv vivekanand


IT IS IRONIC THAT the US is insisting that Iraqi respect the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war in relevance to the American soldiers who were captured by the Iraqi army while it is oblivious to the decades-old demand that Israel apply the same in the case of the Palestinians.
Israel has steadfastly refused to apply any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, whether related to prisoners of war or civilians under occupation.
Under the principles of the Geneva Convention, the Palestinians are entitled to adopt any means available to them to resist the Israeli occupation of their land as long as their actions do not go beyond the occupied territory.
Attacks against civilian targets of the occupying force does not apply here since the occupying force is not supposed to have such targets in the occupied territory in the first place.
The Arab countries have for long sought to force Israel into accepting that the Geneva Conventions as applicable to the Palestinian territory and its people under is occupation.
But Israel refuses to accept them by citing the paradox that it seized the territory from Jordan in the 1967 war and since Jordan was not entitled to the land -- its annexation of the West Bank in 1951 was not internationally recognised -- the issue concerns a stateless people. Its interpretation is that the Geneva Convention could be applied only between two states (the occupier and occupied) and that since the Palestinians do not have a state the convention has no relevance to the dispute.
Calls for forcing Israel into changing its rejectionist stand are a regular feature at every review conference of the Geneva Conventions, but the US has always supported the Israelis and warded off international pressure on the Jewish state.
The last such conference was to take place in 2000 but any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian issue was scuttled because the United States warned all others to stay off.
In the US-Iraq context, the issue of Geneva Conventions came up after Iraqi Television as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera Television on Sunday broadcast images of several dead bodies, apparently US soldiers killed in Iraq, along with five prisoners, including two wounded, one of them a woman.
This was interpreted by the US as violation of Article 13 and 14 of the Geneva Convention.
The relevant paragraphs in Article 13 say: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention."
"....Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Article 14 says:
"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture."
Article 129 of the convention says: "Each party to the convention has an
obligation to search for those suspected of having committed such
breaches and bring them to justice before its own courts or hand
them over for trial to another party."
US President George W. Bush warned on Sunday that he expected the Iraqis to treat the PoWs in a "humane" manner and those who do not would be tried as "war criminals."
Even before Bush spoke, Iraq said it would apply the Geneva Conventions in the case of PoWs.
For those who might argue that the US has no right to demand the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the war with Iraq since the war itself was not authorised by the United Nations and thus has no legitimacy, the convention has the answer in Article Two which says:
"The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognised by one of them."
Indeed, the "embedded" US televison crews travelling with the American-British invading force into Iraq have broadcast footage of Iraqi captives, including civilians as well as soldiers. Wouldn't that constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be splitting hairs to note that the American captives were forced to speak on camera while captive Iraqis were also shown speaking to American television crew?
One might argue that the US government has no control over the private-run television channels while the Iraqi government controls the state-run channel and thus could be held responsible for what the channel broadcasts. However, the counterpoint is that the American television cameras would not have been able to see the Iraqi civilian and military prisoners had it not been for Washington's permission to have them along as "embedded" in the invading force.

US hypocrisy over Geneva Conventions

by pv vivekanand


IT IS IRONIC THAT the US is insisting that Iraqi respect the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war in relevance to the American soldiers who were captured by the Iraqi army while it is oblivious to the decades-old demand that Israel apply the same in the case of the Palestinians.
Israel has steadfastly refused to apply any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, whether related to prisoners of war or civilians under occupation.
Under the principles of the Geneva Convention, the Palestinians are entitled to adopt any means available to them to resist the Israeli occupation of their land as long as their actions do not go beyond the occupied territory.
Attacks against civilian targets of the occupying force does not apply here since the occupying force is not supposed to have such targets in the occupied territory in the first place.
The Arab countries have for long sought to force Israel into accepting that the Geneva Conventions as applicable to the Palestinian territory and its people under is occupation.
But Israel refuses to accept them by citing the paradox that it seized the territory from Jordan in the 1967 war and since Jordan was not entitled to the land -- its annexation of the West Bank in 1951 was not internationally recognised -- the issue concerns a stateless people. Its interpretation is that the Geneva Convention could be applied only between two states (the occupier and occupied) and that since the Palestinians do not have a state the convention has no relevance to the dispute.
Calls for forcing Israel into changing its rejectionist stand are a regular feature at every review conference of the Geneva Conventions, but the US has always supported the Israelis and warded off international pressure on the Jewish state.
The last such conference was to take place in 2000 but any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian issue was scuttled because the United States warned all others to stay off.
In the US-Iraq context, the issue of Geneva Conventions came up after Iraqi Television as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera Television on Sunday broadcast images of several dead bodies, apparently US soldiers killed in Iraq, along with five prisoners, including two wounded, one of them a woman.
This was interpreted by the US as violation of Article 13 and 14 of the Geneva Convention.
The relevant paragraphs in Article 13 say: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention."
"....Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Article 14 says:
"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture."
Article 129 of the convention says: "Each party to the convention has an
obligation to search for those suspected of having committed such
breaches and bring them to justice before its own courts or hand
them over for trial to another party."
US President George W. Bush warned on Sunday that he expected the Iraqis to treat the PoWs in a "humane" manner and those who do not would be tried as "war criminals."
Even before Bush spoke, Iraq said it would apply the Geneva Conventions in the case of PoWs.
For those who might argue that the US has no right to demand the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the war with Iraq since the war itself was not authorised by the United Nations and thus has no legitimacy, the convention has the answer in Article Two which says:
"The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognised by one of them."
Indeed, the "embedded" US televison crews travelling with the American-British invading force into Iraq have broadcast footage of Iraqi captives, including civilians as well as soldiers. Wouldn't that constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be splitting hairs to note that the American captives were forced to speak on camera while captive Iraqis were also shown speaking to American television crew?
One might argue that the US government has no control over the private-run television channels while the Iraqi government controls the state-run channel and thus could be held responsible for what the channel broadcasts. However, the counterpoint is that the American television cameras would not have been able to see the Iraqi civilian and military prisoners had it not been for Washington's permission to have them along as "embedded" in the invading force.