DGB Euro Eq.

Maybe that's not ultimately as important as questions like whether preemptive wars are morally justifiable or if there will be a "domino democracy" chain reaction in the Mideast unleashed by regime change. But it's a good sign of what one of the biggest postwar battles will be fought over: Who gets to rebuild Iraq, and how? On Wednesday, Darrel Issa, a Republican congressman from Southern California, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking him to make sure that the U.S. builds a CDMA cell system in Iraq – the same system that's used in America, and one developed by Qualcomm, which happens to be one of Issa's most generous donors. The Defense Department had apparently been thinking of setting up a GSM system in Iraq, but Issa warned Rumsfeld that such a system, which is the standard in Europe and elsewhere in the Mideast, would benefit "French and European sources, not U.S. patent holders." On Thursday, Issa introduced a bill that would make his policy recommendations law. There are no official co-sponsors, but under the headline "Parlez-vous français?" on his Web site, a statement says that many lawmakers have already expressed their support for an American cellphone system in Iraq. It's not clear if members of Congress – many of whom, remember, were for telecom deregulation in the U.S. – will want to mandate the cellphone standard of postwar Iraq. But even if Issa's bill isn't passed into law, its broad policy goal – putting American firms at the front of the line in a Saddam-free Iraq – already seems to be the Bush administration's attitude. Of the $75 billion in war-related money the White House has requested from Congress to cover the costs of war in Iraq, $3.5 billion is set aside for reconstruction and relief in Iraq. In the months ahead, as the specific needs of postwar Iraq become clearer, American companies are expected to get most, if not all, of the lucrative contracts provided by the new money. Already, there has been domestic and international criticism of the manner in which the money has been handed out. Russian officials are more optimistic about their chances in Iraq. "We are currently working on the immediate return of Russian firms, which have interests in Iraq, to the country as soon as peace is restored," Igor Yusufov, the country's energy minister, told the Russian press on Thursday. And Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, recently said in a speech that "We will have to defend our interests so that the contracts which were signed under Saddam Hussein are not annulled as lacking legal force and to make sure the Iraqi debt owed us is respected." Ivanov added that "Iraq does not need democracy brought on the wings of Tomahawks." At least so far in the war, though, there have been few scenes of freed Iraqis dancing in the streets. And if it does indeed turn out that Iraqis are less than pleased with their American "liberators," will they not feel some satisfaction in making it very difficult for American business in Iraq? "I don't see how American executives can work when their lives will be at risk," one French Finance Ministry official recently told Reuters. "There will be such hatred toward Americans." http://www.alternet.org/

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minster, began his political retreat before a shot was fired. Mr Berlusconi was a signatory of the Anglo-Spanish letter that backed the US before the conflict begun. That did not translate into concrete military support, however. Last week, Mr Berlusconi was at pains to insist that the deployment in northern Iraq of 1,000 US paratroopers who had been stationed in Italy did not break a pledge that Italian bases would not be used for direct attacks on Saddam Hussein. Denmark, which has backed the action, had to scale back its small military deployment because of parliamentary opposition. The Netherlands, which did not sign the Anglo-Spanish letter but was sympathetic, has ruled out military involvement, fearful of destabilising negotiations to form a coalition government. Countries which took a tough, pro-American line are encountering political difficulties. Jose Maria Aznar, the Prime Minister of Spain, which has dispatched 9,000 troops to Iraq for humanitarian work, is under intense pressure from domestic opposition. The publication of pictures of elite Polish troops posing for photos with US soldiers in Iraq provoked a backlash in Poland. Although Warsaw remains a firm supporter of the US, surveys suggest only 20 per cent of Poles think their troops should be involved in fighting. The weight of public opposition has forced countries to face in opposite directions. Ireland has made Shannon airport available to the US, but failed to endorse the war. Across the ex-Communist nations of Europe, identified by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, as part of the "coalition of the willing", sentiment has proved ambivalent. One explanation is that the Anglo-Spanish letter endorsed by three of the applicant nations, and a subsequent declaration by a further 10 eastern European states, did not commit them to supporting hostilities. Some leaders went along with the formulation on the basis that taking a tough line might force President Saddam to back down. In others the politics have changed: in Czech Republic, which is included in Washington's list of coalition nations, the Anglo-Spanish letter was signed by the outgoing president, Vaclav Havel. His successor Vaclav Klaus has warned that using force to impose democracy on Iraq is a notion "from another universe" and sets a dangerous precedent. Several nations provided logistical support because failing to do so would have provoked a diplomatic schism with Washington. Yet these nuances have been brushed aside by a Pentagon in its efforts to present the image of broad support. Croatia was presented as part of the "coalition of the willing" on the basis that it opened its airspace and bases to US civilian aircraft. But Stipe Mesic, the President, denounced the war as "illegitimate" because it lacked UN backing. Slovenia has also rejected the idea that it backs the conflict. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=392773

From March 21 to March 24, 2003, Iranian air-space had been violated with impunity by US aircraft. The US attacked the oil-industry communities of Khorramshahr, Abadan and Manyuhi in Iran not far from the US-UK-Kuwaiti controlled Faw Peninsula and Umm al Qasr--control points for the Shatt al Arb through which billions of gallons of crude oil have passed to the US, UK and Japan. The oil refinery and depots in Abadan were the primary targets. The were casualties but no deaths. US and UK bombers have also circled over Arvand-Kenar in Iran on their way into Iraq. Iranian officials have protested these violations of International Law, but to no avail. Pentagon officials declared the cause of the attacks to be "stray" cruise missiles and bombs. That is improbable. These attacks (and overflights), it seems, were part of the preprogrammed target packages planned early on by US military commanders to test, or light up, Iranian air defenses for the invasion of Iran which is likely to take place if George Bush II takes the US presidency in 2004. They serve as a stark warning to Iran not to meddle in what has now become the American, British and Kuwaiti sphere-of-influence in the southeastern sector of Iraq. Between April of 2003 and November 2004, the US, UK and Israel will accelerate instability operations in Iran and engage in global disinformation campaigns to belittle the political and military leadership there. They will take to the airwaves to portray to Americans a country beset by internal strife and dissension. Corporate media will revisit the Iranian Hostage Crisis and display for war-hungry Americans footage from the 1978-80 timeframe. That will include images of Khomeni's henchmen hanging and executing the Shah's secret police. Movies such as Sally Field's Not Without My Child portraying many Iranians as "evil doers" will be broadcast by all the networks. Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah of Iran, will be featured with greater frequency on CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. Images from the 1983 bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Lebanon allegedly by Iranian backed Hezbollah will be aired and printed. Coincidently, in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2003, relatives of US Marines killed in Lebanon were allowed to proceed with a lawsuit to collect $2 billion in damages from the Iranian government. According to the sometimes reliable Washington Post, "U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ruled that survivors and family members can sue Iran under the provisions of a 1996 law that allows U.S. citizens to take legal action against nations that sponsor terrorism.'The U.S. military force . . . embodies everything that is resented by the enemies of this country,' Lamberth wrote. 'Failure to permit military service member [lawsuits] would create a perverse incentive for state sponsors of terrorism to target noncombatant U.S. military personnel.' Hundreds of family members turned out for the first day of what is expected to be two days of testimony and evidence designed to document Iran's role in the bombing. Iran did not send a representative to the trial." Once Iraq is successfully occupied, the media will turn its attention to Iran and that lawsuit. Already, sources report that elements of the CIA are busy in and around Iran, and that US-UK-Australian special operations teams operating out of Afghanistan and Kuwait--and the US Province of Iraq--have been surreptitiously setting up shop in Iran for months. Iran now finds itself pinned on all sides by pro-US, UK forces. Operation Liberate Iran will take place using the same strategy and tactics employed in the Massacre of Iraq. Iran has few options. One, is the accelation of their nuclear program and a successful test or demonstration of a nuclear device. That may slow a US led invasion. A second option would be become part of a new counter-US alliance that would include Russia, India, France, Germany and China. The last, of course, is to "disarm" or go into "exile". John Stanton is a Virginia Based writer specializing in national security matters.

While the U.S. military finds itself bogged down on the road to Baghdad, the real hitch in Bush administration's grand vision for post-war Iraq may well be the man slated to take charge of it -- arms-dealer and former "Star Wars" guru General Jay Garner. In a move typical for what passes for U.S. diplomacy these days, the Pentagon developed and announced its occupation plan without consulting the rest of the alleged coalition (no, not even trusty Britain) or the State Department. Worse, to this highly visible and important position, it picked a man with a dubious past and ideological credentials worthy of a Bush appointee. A unilateralist hawk, the retired general is an ideological soulmate of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, his main collaborators in developing the "axis of evil" approach to U.S. foreign policy. But when it comes to the Middle East, his track record is even more alarming. In 2000, Garner and 26 other U.S. officers signed a statement released by the right-wing Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) praising the Israeli Defense Forces for its "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority." Indeed, the choice of Garner seems designed to enflame local and regional resistance. This is a man who after one JINSA junket declared, "A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on." Fortune magazine burbled that "Garner's civilian status is a big plus." But although his official title is "co-ordinator of civilian administration," Garner has always been a die-hard advocate of all things military -- sometimes at the expense of the facts. During the first Gulf War he went to Congress and touted the success of the Patriot missiles during the Iraqi attack on Israel. He did not issue a retraction when it was revealed that the Patriots caused more damage to Israel than the Iraqi Scuds they were supposed to bring down. The man who will be in charge of the disarmament of Iraq was also a fervent proponent of the fatally flawed Star Wars missile defense system, touting its virtues even when the results of its testing was later revealed to be rigged. Garner's so-called civilian career was also closely related to the Pentagon. In a classic example of the military-industrial complex at work, Garner retired from the military in 1997 to become President of SY Technology, a defense contractor specializing in missile defense systems.The company soon landed non-competitive contracts as part of the Star Wars program that Pentagon whistleblower, former Lt. Colonel Biff Baker, alleged were procured through Garner's influence. SY Technology sued Baker for defamation and for "causing loss of privacy" for Garner. The case was settled out of court in January this year, just as Garner was moving to his new and very public position. And by a yet another startling coincidence, the company was awarded a $1.5 billion contract this year to provide logistics services to U.S. special operations forces.The Iraqis themselves may be unhappy, if not surprised, to hear that their to-be satrap's former company has contracts to help build Patriot missile systems for Israel and Kuwait. The Bush administration has been busy spinning Garner's record to make him appear the perfect, sensitive, team player that Iraq needs to rebuild itself in the American image. But it seems entirely appropriate that Garner was unilaterally appointed on Jan. 20, even as the US was still officially trying to get a UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq. Nor did Garner's visit to the UN impress the aid officials. He made it clear the only job for the UN in Iraq is to help finance the U.S.-led occupation. But if anything can save Iraq from Garner's tender clutches, it will be the need for UN money. The Bush Administration is like the Red Queen in Alice in the Looking Glass, perfectly able to believe in three impossible things before breakfast. This is a White House that has committed itself both to tax cuts and an expensive war. It claims Iraqi oil fields are the property of its people even as it prepares to pay the post-war reconstruction with the same oil. The same administration that pledged to ensure a role for the UN at the Azores Summit had already announced plans for an all-American administration headed by Jay Garner. At the heart of Washington's contradictory and constantly shifting position is the desire to monopolize the control of Iraq but persuade the rest of the world to split the bill. The U.S. attitude is best epitomized by the junior diplomat who turned up at the United Nations in the first week of the war and asked the UN officials to hand over the money they had allocated for relief and humanitarian aid -- money that the White House sorely needed since Congress had failed to appropriate any money for the worthy effort. Not surprisingly, Kofi Annan refused. The two sides finally reached a temporary compromise on Friday when the Security Council unanimously passed a short-term measure allowing the UN to take charge of the oil-for-food program and sign off on food shipments, which then will be distributed by the coalition forces to the Iraqis. But the resolution also made it very clear that the UN is not interested in financing a U.S.-ruled Iraq. It stressed that "to the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population." So when the time comes to set up a post-war administration in Iraq, the U.S. will either have to pay its own way or play ball with the rest of the Security Council. But so far, there are few signs that the White House is willing to change its greedy ways. Even the British were not impressed with the U.S. decision to let the infamous union-busting company, Stevedoring Services of America, run the newly "liberated" port of Umm Qasr -- a role that they thought rightly belonged to the Iraqis. Aiming General Jay Garner at the innocent civilians of post-war Iraq will be yet another ham-handed, arrogant decision that guarantees an aftermath that is as messy and potentially disastrous as its initiation.