Conn Hallinan: Forget about the Geneva Convention. The new "E-Bomb" which may be used over Iraq will fry everything electronic. If you are in a civilian Baghdad hospital that uses electrical equipment, your survival chances are nil. Lloyd Dumas: Murphy's Law--that whatever can go wrong, will--grew out of the Space Program. The Columbia disaster shows we still haven't fully learned its lesson. What is its application to high-tech weapons that actually kill people? Anita Dancs: What do Sports Utility Vehicles have to do with National Security? Pass the oil, please. Crocker Snow: Will George Bush opt for a shootout, or settle for a face-saving solution? ANTI-AMERICANISM IS BACK IN STYLE Boston University professors Margaret and Melvin DeFleur have updated their study of attitudes about America in different countries of the world. Click here to see the an interactive guide. Click here for the full report as a pdf file   THE GLOBAL BEAT'S INTERACTIVE REPORTS Why We Are Hated,Nuclear Bunker busters AND Post-Moscow Disarmament

New York University

David Isenberg's critique of Homeland Security and recommendations for improvements
[click on image to go to the executive summary]

THE SEARCH FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPON FOR LIMITED CONFLICTS
Mark Bromley and David Grahame report on the Pentagon's search for a nuclear "bunker buster"

THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL

Rose Gottmoeller:
an interactive assessment of nuclear disarmament after the Moscow Summit,

COMPETING DRAFT RESOLUTIONS SPLIT THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL
The U.S. and Britain are circulating a carefully drafted second resolution in the Security Council which deftly declares Iraq in violation of previous U.N. resolutions, but stops short of openly declaring war. The resolution is intended top provide the justification for a U.S. attack without forcing a veto from France, Russia or China. The U.S. needs Britain’s support to proceed with the war, and Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair needs another U.N. resolution to counter growing resistance to the war from the British public. Any hopes that the resolution would pass without a fight disappeared Monday when France and Russia began circulating their own counter resolution. The French version states clearly that Iraq has to do more, but it is premature to resort to war at this point in time.
The U.S. & British Draft resolution is available from the BBC website.
The French and Russians’ alternative plan is clearly aimed at undercutting the U.S. initiative. An excerpt: "…. Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant (U.N. Security Council) resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled… While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field…"
The maneuvering behind closed doors at the U.N.
The Guardian looks at the consequences in Britain

HELPING A FRIEND WHOSE HELP IS VITAL
George Bush took a risk in asking for a second UN Resolution on Iraq, but he had to do it help his only supporter in Western Europe, Tony Blair. It was not a generous act. Without Blair, the U.S. will go into an unpopular war completely isolated.
Patrick Tyler analyzes the situation in the New York Times Feb 25, 2003

WHO IS SELLING THE WAR?
Whether one agrees with it or not, the obsession with edging the United States into an unpopular war with Iraq, is only part of a much larger reorientation of American foreign policy. That reorientation is being conducted with little or no meaningful national debate. In fact, President Bush emphasizes that he doesn’t believe in being swayed by public opinion, or by the public at all—which raises an interesting question: if the American people are not influencing American policy, who is?
Some would argue that it is a small group of neo-conservative radicals, who until recently were on the fringes of the U.S. diplomatic establishment. Their goal is an audacious revolution in America’s relationship to the rest of the world. It calls for the current administration to extract the United States from 50 years of international cooperation, and to exploit America’s super power status to impose peace by force –the ultimate Pax Americana--on the rest of the world. PBS’s Front Line has compiled what may be the most comprehensive collection yet of interviews, essays and analysis on the new direction in American policy, with the key administration players, observers and critics. The Front line documentary, THE WAR BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, is viewable on-line as of February 25, 2003.
PBS Front Line, February 25, 2003

A TIMETABLE FOR THE ATTACK
Peace demonstrations are OK, but the fact is that the Pentagon is still far from ready to invade Iraq. The real danger is that with nothing to lose, Saddam might jump the gun and launch his own preemptive assault against Saudi Arabia, or another unsuspecting neighbor before U.S. troops are ready to go into action. Paul Rogers analyzes the military’s schedule in foreign Policy in Focus, February 24, 2003.

TURKEY UPS THE ANTE
A small flotilla of U.S. ships has spent the last week or so waiting for permission to land troops in Turkey. Despite a U.S. offer of $6 billion in outright grants and another $20 billion in loans, the Turks say they want more. The real problem, however, is that the Turkish public, like most of the rest of the world, is dead set against the U.S. launching a war against Iraq. The Turks point out that they received the brunt of the instability created by Desert Storm in 1991, including an influx of a half million refugees. There are other considerations. One reason that the U.S. wants troops in Northern Iraq fast is to keep the Turks from capturing Iraq’s northern oil fields. The prospect of U.S. troops caught in a stand off with troops of a key NATO ally is a prospect that no one wants to contemplate right now. Zeyno Baran, Henri Barkey and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor discuss the implications on the Jim Lehrer News Hour.

FOR TURKEY, THE REAL PRIZE COULD BE KIRKUK
The Kurdish city in northern Iraq sits on top of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil, and would be just the thing to sponsor a Kurdish rebellion that would almost certainly attract the oppressed Kurds of Turkey. On the other hand, if the 12,000 to 20,000 Turkish troops already in Northern Iraq, get there first, the oil could offset the estimated $28 billion that George Bush’s war is likely to cost Turkey.
Ian Urbina sketches the background to that scenario in The Asia Times, Feb. 1, 2003.

AID ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED THAT IRAQ WILL BE FAR MORE DIFFICULT THAN OTHER CRISES
Afghanistan received assistance from hundreds of non-government organizations willing to help the civil population. Iraq is a different story. Only seven aid organizations have been operating there on a regular basis, and the surrounding countries—Syria and Iran, especially—are almost as difficult to access as Iraq. Reuter’s Alertnet gives a run down of current concerns.
Reuters alertnet, February 2003

EGYPT ADDS UP THE COST
The Egyptian parliament spent most of last week exploring war scenarios. When you count the loss in tourism, disrupted business in the Middle East, stopped remittances from Egyptians working in the Gulf and lost revenues from the Suez Canal, the war is projected to cost Egypt around $8 billion.
Al Ahram, 20-26 February 2003

DOES ANYONE STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WAR?
The International Crisis Group analyzes the alternative scenarios for dealing with Iraq and takes a hard look at the reasons and dangers of launching an attack. The bottom line is that the ICG’s analysts remain almost as divided in the end as the public at large. Nevertheless, the discussion helps to clarify the issues.
ICG, February 24, 2003

U.S. PROFESSOR ACCUSED OF BEING THE KEY PLAYER IN A PALESTINIAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
Police have been trailing South Florida University professor Sami Al-Arian for years. After his arrest last week, Attorney General Ashcroft insisted that the details are in an 118-page indictment filed by the Justice Department.
The story in the New York Times

ISRAEL ADDS TWO GERMAN SUBMARINES TO ITS FLEET
Satisfaction with four German subs it bought earlier is one reason for the purchase, another may be a new determination to move Israel’s nuclear deterrence from a land-based operation to one that is undersea and harder for emerging middle eastern nuclear powers to target. Think Mutual Assured Destruction with shaky third world governments sharing responsibility for pushing the button. The subs won’t be deliverable until 2008, and to make the deal a reality Israel will probably need to find $850 million in new financing from the U.S.
By Amos Harel in Ha’aretz, February 24, 2003

A CHANGE IN ISRAEL’S STRATEGY THAT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR MUCH OF THE 1990s
The initial purchase was at the end of the 1990s. In an article in 1998, Ha’aretz explores the issues of Israel’s use of submarines as part of its strategic defense. George Bush’s father initially hesitated at fueling a new middle eastern arms race, but eventually gave in. In the current climate, George W. Bush is likely to prove a much more willing donor.
Ha’aretz, June 9, 1998.

IRAN BUYS GAS FROM CHINA THAT IS A CRUCIAL ELEMENT IN BUILDING AN ATOMIC BOMB
International Atomic Energy Agency chairman, Mohamed ElBaradei, visited Tehran over the weekend to look into Iran’s possession of UF6, a gas used to enrich weapons grade uranium. Iran purchased the gas two months ago, but kept it secret until a short while ago.
Ha’aretz, February 24, 2003

US Force Deployment in the Middle East, as of February 21, 2003
Center for Defense Information, feb. 21, 2003

THE DANGERS OF FAILED STATES
The Center for Strategic and International Studies publishes its study of post conflict reconstruction. The danger of abandoning a failed state is that it is likely to become a breeding ground for the next Al Qaeda. The commission was convened by the CSIS and the Association of the U.S. Army. The 25-page report is downloadable as a pdf file.

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
Ethnic targeting by U.S. immigration officials has led to a massive flight to Canada. As the New York Times describes Jalil Mirza’s case, refugees often find they can’t win. Mirza, 45, wanted to ask for political asylum from Canadian authorities but was told to come back in two weeks. When he tried to return to the American side of the border, he was arrested along with his two teenage sons. American immigration officials left his wife and five other children wailing in the cold with no help or recourse.
By Susan Sachs, The New York Times, Feb. 25, 2003

REPUBLIC OR EMPIRE?
Joseph Wilson headed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad during Desert Storm. Wilson thought Desert Storm was necessary. "The goal was explicit and focused,"Wilson says." war was the last resort." In contrast, Wilson thinks that war this time is a different matter. "This war is not about weapons of mass destruction," says Wilson. "The underlying objective of this war is the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations." Wilson notes that while hawks compare the war to Japan and Germany, it could look a lot more like Lebanon, Northern Ireland and Somalia.
Joseph Wilson in The Nation, March 2003.

PESH MERGA: PREPARED TO DIE?
By clearing the way for up to 60,000 Turkish troops to enter Northern Iraq with the express purpose of preventing Kurdish independence, the Bush administration risks making the Kurds look on Saddam as the lesser evil. The Kurds have enjoyed 10 years of de facto autonomy, and it is understandable that they are hesitant to surrender that to Turkey, especially since Turkey has systematically suppressed the ethnic identity of its own Kurdish minority. So much for liberating Iraq to turn it into a democracy. The U.S. insists that Turkish troops will leave when U.S. troops pull out, but given past history, the Kurds are understandably nervous.The BBC explains the issues.

Turkey closes its borders with Iraq
Kurdish opposition listens to U.S. explanations

Can the Kurds trust the U.S. this time?

WHOSE REGIME IS BEING CHANGED?
The National Security Archives' John Prados notes that Iraq's government is not the only regime that is likely to be different after a new Gulf War.
As Prados explains in the current issue of TomPaine.com: "The present course of the Bush administration quite plainly threatens regime change. Not changes in Iraq's regime, although American military power may well bring that about, but a transformation of the entire pattern of the United States' relationships with the world. Americans have long been taught that international alliances and cooperation form the bedrock of our standing in the modern world. Global economics depends on that kind of cooperation; global politics builds on it. Talking about the United States as a "hyperpower" obscures the fact that we exist within an international system. That system required decades to craft, but now finds itself under threat after only two short years of the Bush administration. The juxtaposition of the current war on terrorism with a near-certain conflict in Iraq throws these developments into sharp relief. Americans need to pay attention to Bush administration demands on the international system, as these strains are triggering subtle changes that are not in our best interests...
"But today's situation is unprecedented, and possibly irreparable; one need only look to the Bush administration's foreign policy actions for glaring evidence. Rather than defying the system on a single demand or issue, George W. Bush has shocked America's friends on multiple counts. Bush's renunciation of the Kyoto standards, U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and the administration's "unsigning" from the treaty establishing an international war crimes tribunal (actually illegal under applicable international law), plus its disputes over commodities and preferences within the World Trade Organization -- all these posed direct challenges to our global partners. Separately and together, these issues were sparking conflict before September 11, 2001. Politically, Bush actually profited from the 9/11 attacks, which diverted everyone's attention from the growing discord within NATO...
The looming question is, how long will America's allies put up with Bush's behavior? Europe -- and this is a hidden development -- is stronger and more united today than ever before, with increasing reason to resent American arrogance. A European political move to the right will be about building an autonomous superpower -- not about cooperating more fully with the United States. At the same time, another round of U.S. pocketing support then rejecting European concerns -- which looks likely if a "coalition of the willing" attacks Iraq -- will push our traditional alliance partners in the same direction. Meanwhile the issues in the European-American relationship that were masked by 9/11 have not disappeared; they are simply submerged at the moment. Those issues will resurface to disturb a harmonious alliance, and push our friends toward independence in the form of a United States of Europe. It's ironic that the net result of the Bush war could do more for European integration than decades of economic and political efforts; it will be doubly so if a strengthened Europe supplants a United States weakened by war and economic recession as the new world hyperpower.
John Prados
TomPaine.com, February 2003

Zoned for Debate
NYU's Webforum on current issues in journalism

Click here, or on the image of the Zoned for Debate web page

Need information, but having trouble with a broken link? Send an e-mail to wtd2@nyu.edu
or click here
We may be able to help

For quick access to the Global Beat, set your bookmark to:
http://globalbeat.org