Rallies aim to save Canadian drug sales
By Alice Dembner, Globe Staff

Boston Globe 
February 20, 2003

Tens of thousands of American consumers who have turned
to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs will launch a
boycott of the world's second-largest drug company
today in an effort to preserve the Canadian pipeline.

Concerned about the growing number of Americans using
Canada as a back-door approach to prescriptions,
GlaxoSmithKline PLC cut off supplies this month of its
prescription medications to Canadian pharmacies that
sell to Americans.

In response, groups representing senior citizens, AIDS
patients, minority-owned businesses, and churches will
urge members to spurn Tums, Contac, Geritol, Polident,
and other over-the-counter products made by Glaxo.

More than 1 million Americans and thousands of
Massachusetts residents now fill prescriptions over the
northern border, reimporting American-made drugs at
prices 30 to 90 percent less than those at the corner

As final planning for the action began yesterday, Glaxo
asked to meet with the organizers.

''We see this as an issue of unbridled greed, hurting
the health and safety of American citizens who have no
choice but to look at less costly alternatives,'' said
Peter Wyckoff, executive director of the Minnesota
Senior Federation, a coalition with 15,000 members.

Wyckoff is supporting ''Tums Down to Glaxo'' protests
today in at least 10 states, from New York to
California. In Philadelphia, senior citizens plan to
picket Glaxo's US headquarters; in New York, they have
set a rally at the Canadian consulate; in San
Francisco, they intend to pressure drugstores to remove
Glaxo products.

A coalition of consumer groups and Canadian pharmacies
ran full-page advertisements yesterday in Philadelphia
newspapers and last week in The New York Times, urging
senior citizens to join the boycott, call Congress, and
dump Glaxo stock.

In Massachusetts, senior citizens planned rallies for
next week. ''What they're doing is restraint of
trade,'' said Phil Mamber, president of the 2,500-
member Massachusets Senior Action Council, whose
executive committee supports the boycott. ''If they can
afford to sell the drugs to Canada for that price, why
should they object when Canada sells them back here?''

Glaxo officials say the company decided to block
reimportation from Canada out of concern for patient
safety. Although consumers may be getting the very same
drugs they would buy in the United States, the London-
based firm says the drugs may be damaged in transport,
mislabeled, or otherwise adulterated. Instead of
turning to Canada, they say Americans should take
advantage of drug company discount programs and lobby
Congress to pass a Medicare drug benefit.

''This is not a financial issue for GlaxoSmithKline,''
said spokeswoman Nancy Pekarek. ''The amount of money
we estimate is involved in Internet sales from Canada
is less than 1 percent of our sales in the US. But
obviously Internet sales are growing, and, as the
business increases, so does the potential risk to

Canadian drug sales to Americans took off in the last
two years, as more Americans lost health coverage,
Congress deferred action on a Medicare drug benefit,
and drug prices rose sharply. A survey of senior
citizens last year found that one-quarter had skipped
doses or had not filled prescriptions because of the

Others turned to Canada, where drugs approved by the US
Food and Drug Administration and often manufactured in
the United States are sold cheaply because of price
controls. With help from doctors, consumer groups, and
for-profit middlemen, American consumers are now
spending between $500 million and $1 billion a year on
drugs in Canada.

Last fall, Canadian sales got a major boost when
several American health insurers agreed to reimburse
members who filled prescriptions in Canada. Leading
politicians in Maine and Vermont also encouraged
citizens to turn to Canada when courts struck down
their state-sponsored discount programs. This winter,
senior citizen groups in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Indiana joined to negotiate even lower prices from
Canadian suppliers by purchasing drugs in large volume.

An informal survey last summer of Canadian pharmacies
counted more than 1.2 million American buyers,
according to Elizabeth Wennar, executive director of a
nonprofit Vermont group that helps consumers in every
state to buy Canadian drugs. Wennar's group and some
others screen pharmacies to ensure that in handling
prescriptions they maintain safety standards comparable
to those in the United States.

Reimporting drugs in that way violates US law. Although
the FDA has warned consumers about the risks, it has
not taken action against those who buy drugs for their
own use.

Congress passed a law in 2000 easing access to Canadian
drugs, if the administration certified that
reimportation was safe. Both the Clinton and Bush
administrations have cited concerns about counterfeit
drugs and expired or contaminated medicines in refusing
to implement the law. So far, there have been few
safety problems.

Glaxo's decision to cut off the supply of its drugs
until pharmacies stop selling to Americans will affect
millions of dollars worth of prescriptions, according
to estimates from the Manitoba pharmacists association.
Among the drugs made by Glaxo are the AIDS medicine
Retrovir, respiratory drugs Flovent and Advair, the
antidepressant Paxil, and the sinus drug Flonase.

The National Community Pharmacists Association, which
represents 25,000 pharmacists in the United States, is
supporting Glaxo's move to fight the cross-border sales
and urging stronger FDA enforcement. Wyeth, Merck, and
Lilly have also warned Canadian pharmacists about sales
to Americans, but have not moved to cut them off.

So far, Canadian pharmacies selling to Americans are
drawing on stockpiles of Glaxo medications and have not
had to turn away any American prescriptions.

''Of course, we're in it for the money, but we're
upfront about it,'' said Paul Clark, owner and
pharmacist at Hometown Meds in Manitoba. ''If Glaxo was
really concerned about patient safety, they'd be
concerned that we aren't able to supply all of our
customers with life-saving drugs. Glaxo has never
approached our industry or our government and said they
believe safety is being compromised. Let's work out a

Glaxo and other pharmaceutical company representatives
plan to meet tomorrow with Canadian pharmacists, the
FDA, and Canadian drug regulators to discuss cross-
border sales.

In the meantime, Una Moore of Marlborough will be
joining the boycott. A retired licensed practical nurse
with no pension, she has turned to Canada for four of
the medications she takes daily, saving hundreds of
dollars a year.

''I'm terrified that the other companies will follow
Glaxo,'' she said. ''We have to get together and find a
way to beat these guys.''

Alice Dembner can be reached at D embner@g...

. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

For Immediate Release, 2/18/2003

Sanders Introduces Legislation To Protect Americans' 
Access to Canadian Medicines
Bill Is A Response To 
GlaxoSmithKline's Latest Actions

Washington, DC - Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced
today that he has introduced a bill to prevent
pharmaceutical companies from cutting off Canadian
pharmacies who supply American patients. The
legislation, called the Preserving Access to Safe,
Affordable Canadian Medicines Act of 2003 (HR847),
would subject drug companies with civil money penalties
of up to $1 million if they tried to discriminate
against U.S. consumers who are accessing cheaper
prescription drugs from Canada. The bi-partisan
legislation, which has 33 original co-sponsors, is in
direct response to GlaxoSmithKline's recent move to cut
off Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers who sell its
products to U.S. consumers.

Sanders said; "Americans are being charged the highest
prices in the world for their prescription drugs by the
pharmaceutical industry which, year after year, runs up
record breaking profits. In an increasingly globalized
economy, the American people have the right to purchase
safe and affordable medicine in Canada where prices, in
some cases, can be 90% less for the same exact brand
name product sold in the U.S. At a time when Americans
are suffering and, in some cases, dying because they
can't afford their medicine, it is not acceptable for
GlaxoSmithKline to stop Americans from buying medicine
in Canada."

GlaxoSmithKline's recent move to cut off American
consumers is a response to the increasing number of
U.S. patients who have turned to Canada for reasonably
price prescription drugs. The result is millions of
American prescriptions now head north to be filled. In
addition to Americans driving across the border, there
are now about 70 Internet pharmacies operating in

Congressman Sanders was the first Member of Congress to
take American patients over the border into Canada to
highlight the disparity in medicine prices. He has also
been a leading proponent of allowing U.S. pharmacists
and wholesalers the right to purchase FDA-safety
approved prescription drugs in Canada that they could
then sell to their American customers at a
significantly lower cost.

Sanders concluded, "At a time when millions of
Americans are struggling to afford the outrageously
high price of prescription drugs in the U.S., we cannot
allow pharmaceutical companies to slam the door on a
source of safe and affordable medicine for an
increasing number of Americans, namely Canada. This is
a matter of life and death, and Congress must take a
stand against this outrageous assault on American

For More Information: Visit the PRESCRIPTIONS section.

Contact: Joel Barkin at (202) 225-4115

Printed From Congressman Bernie Sanders' (I-VT)
Coalition Attacks Glaxo's Canadian Drug Ban 
Wed Feb 12,
5:30 PM ET 
By Karen Pallarito

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A coalition of US and
Canadian health and business groups on Wednesday
launched a national advertising campaign urging
consumers to fight GlaxoSmithKline's decision to cut
off drug supplies to Canadian pharmacies that ship
medicines to patients in America.

In Yahoo! Health:

Visit the Heartburn and GERD Center

The full-page ad, appearing in Wednesday's edition of
The New York Times, urges readers to contact their
legislators for support, call Glaxo to complain, shed
any stock they hold in the company and seek out
alternatives to its products if they are receiving
those drugs from a Canadian pharmacy.

Glaxo's stable of top-selling prescription drugs
includes the HIV treatments Combivir and Trizivir, the
antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and the asthma
drug Advair.

The ad also suggests consumers consider boycotting
Glaxo's over-the-counter products--including Contac,
Citrucel, Polident, Tums and Nicoderm--by switching to
comparable products made by other manufacturers.

The coalition, whose members include senior advocacy,
AIDS (news - web sites) and mail order pharmacy groups,
launched the campaign in retaliation for Glaxo's
refusal to supply its drugs to Canadian pharmacies and
wholesalers that sell to US consumers at discounted

"This is not a good corporate citizen is what we're
saying," said Michael Burgess, executive director of
the New York Statewide Senior Action Council, a
coalition member. He said his group is pushing state
Comptroller Alan Hevesi to pull state retirement funds
tied up in 5 million shares of Glaxo stock.

Glaxo, the world's second-largest drugmaker, said its
policy reflects patient safety concerns. The company
does not believe the authenticity and origin of a
product can be assured when medicine is sold cross-
border via the Internet.

The actual amount of those sales for Glaxo "is quite
small," said spokeswoman Nancy Pakarek. But as the
Internet pharmacy industry grows, "the risk to patient
safety grows," she said.

Coalition leaders aren't buying it.

"If patient care was a genuine worry, Glaxo would have
come forward much earlier. They wouldn't have waited
nearly three years while Canadian pharmacies have grown
to serve millions of uninsured and underinsured
Americans," Dr. Elizabeth Wennar, the head of a Vermont
physician organization that runs a drug re-importation
program, said in a statement.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, another coalition member, urged widespread
support for the boycott. He said people with AIDS are
being forced to pay too much for Glaxo drugs and
"should be able to buy lower priced drugs rather than
choose between their anti-retroviral treatment and


Healdsburg medical group joins Glaxo boycott

February 19, 2003
The Press Democrat

A Healdsburg medical practice has joined the national
boycott against drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, refusing to
write new prescriptions for the company's products
unless it lowers its prices or lets American patients
buy its drugs for less from Canada.

The four physicians with Healdsburg Primary Care, which
has roughly 10,000 patients, said they are fed up with
watching patients, especially seniors on fixed incomes,
pay up to 70 percent more for drugs in the United
States than they would from pharmacies in Canada.

"I think pharmaceuticals in this country are
tremendously overpriced and I would like to see the
cost for everybody come down," said Dr. Douglas Pile, a
family physician with Healdsburg Primary Care. "Our way
to do that is to not prescribe their products until
they have a more reasoned approach."

Pile said it's common for seniors, which account for
about half of his practice's patients, to buy their
prescription drugs on the Internet from pharmacies in
Canada that sell to Americans.

One elderly patient can save $200 to $300 a month on
the eight drugs she needs by buying them from Canada,
Pile said. A three-month supply of name-brand drugs
will cost his patient about $1,300 in the United
States, but she can find them for $500 on the Internet,
Pile said.

In late January, Glaxo stopped shipping prescription
drugs to Canadian pharmacies that sell to Americans
over the Internet, claiming the practice violates U.S.
laws designed to protect patients. Glaxo, the world's
second-largest drug manufacturer with $29.5 billion in
annual sales, makes several popular prescription drugs,
including the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin, and
Flonase for hayfever.

Senior groups in return accused Glaxo of trying to
protect its profits by limiting sales in Canada. Drugs
often are cheaper across the border because of a
favorable currency exchange rate and Canadian
government price controls on prescription medications.

In response to Glaxo's decision, hundreds of senior
groups across the country organized a boycott of all
Glaxo products -- from its prescription drugs to over-
the-counter medications like Tums antacid and the
toothpaste Aquafresh. Organizers are planning a rally
outside Glaxo's U.S. operations in Philadelphia on

The Healdsburg doctors said they are not asking
patients to participate in the full boycott and stop
buying all Glaxo products. In fact, Pile said he and
his colleagues will continue to write prescriptions for
Glaxo drugs for patients who already are on the

But the physicians will not accept free samples from
Glaxo and will not write new prescriptions for Glaxo
products unless there is no other drug available, Pile
said. He said he knows of no other doctors in Sonoma
County who are refusing to write prescriptions for
Glaxo drugs.

"There are numerous other medications that are one-
tenth the cost and will do the same thing," Pile said.
"There are a lot of factors that make drugs expensive,
but why they should cost 60 percent to 70 percent more
across the border doesn't make sense."

Glaxo officials did not return phone calls about the
Healdsburg doctors' decision, and Pile said he has not
heard from the British drugmaker since he sent an e-
mail last week explaining his office's new policy.

In a statement last week, Glaxo said the sale of
cheaper drugs over the Internet "is not the way to
resolve the issue of affordability of medicines in the

The company has said it is illegal and potentially
unsafe for Americans to buy prescription drugs from
other countries because they have not been approved by
the FDA -- even if the drugs are identical to ones sold
in the United States. Federal authorities have said
they will not prosecute individuals who purchase
prescription drugs from Canada.

Glaxo also has noted that it already has in place a
savings program that can reduce prices by up to 40
percent for eligible seniors.

But Pile said those savings don't help the vast
majority of his patients, who make too much money to
qualify for the discounts but are still paying hundreds
of dollars a month for their drugs and consider it a
major financial burden.

"Yes, GSK is making some effort, but the vast segment
of the population is still having to pay high prices,"
Pile said. "It doesn't help the middle class person who
is having to pay the $1,000 a month for prescription

You can reach Staff Writer Erin Allday at 521-5494 or

For copyright information visit our
User Agreement page at

 Back to Main News Page


: [blackthought] double standards 
Date: 2/20/2003 9:19:33 PM Eastern Standard Time 
From: dominique21_2000@yahoo.com 
Reply-to: blackthought@yahoogroups.com 
To: blackthought@yahoogroups.com 
Sent from the Internet (Details) 

Got this from a Zimbabwean mailing list...nice to know the rest of 
the world thinks of us so highly (j/k we're the only ones who don't 
know what's goingon):

What do you call someone who explodes a bomb and kills innocent 
- A terrorist.
What do you call someone who drops a bomb from a plane and kills 
- A brave American pilot.
What do you call it when a Palestinian uses violence against the 
have illegally occupied his land?
- A terrorist attack.
What do you call it when an Israeli helicopter fires rockets at
Palestinian youths armed with stones?
- Self-defense.
What do you call it when someone gives money to a government 
return for favors?
- Bribery.
What do you call it when a large corporation gives money to a 
official in return for favors?
- A campaign contribution.
What do you call the form of government where a small elite exploits 
intimidates the citizens?
- A dictatorship.
What do you call the form of government where a small elite exploits 
intimidates the citizens, and the citizens can choose
every few years which part of the elite should occupy the government
- A democracy.
What do you call it when someone carrying a gun enters your house and
steals your valuable possessions?
- An armed robbery.
What do you call it when a multinational corporation supported by 
forces enters your country and steals your
valuable possessions?
- Free trade.
What do you call it when a group of people take the law into their 
hands and kill people without a fair trial?
- A lynching.
What do you call it when the US takes the law into its own hands and 
people without a fair trial?
- Operation Enduring Freedom.
What do you call someone who steals from the rich and gives to the 
- Robin Hood.
What do you call someone who steals from the poor and gives to the 
- The US government.
What do you call a weapon that can kill thousands of people?
- A weapon of mass destruction.
What do you call a weapon that has killed 1.5 million Iraqis, 
more than 500,000 children?
- Sanctions.
What do you call an army that will fight for whoever pays the most 
- Mercenaries.
What do you call an army in Afghanistan that will fight for whoever 
the most money?
- The Northern Alliance (or United Front).
What do you call an attack on the Pentagon, a command and control 
center in
the US?
- A cowardly attack on American freedom and democracy.
What do you call the destruction of an Afghan village by US bombs?
- An attack on a Taliban command and control center.
What do you call it when just over 3 thousand people were killed in 
September 11 attack on the US?
- An atrocity.
What do you call it when nearly 5 million people were killed in the
Vietnam war?
- A mistake.
What do you call it when very rich people exploit poor people?
- Greed and selfishness.
What do you call it when very rich countries exploit poor countries?
- Globalization.
What do you call a foreign oppressor in the last century that 
the economical and social life of a country?
- A colonialist power.
What do you call a foreign oppressor in this century that controls 
economical and social life of a country?
- The International Monetary Fund.
What do you call it when people are slaughtered?
- A massacre.
What do you call it when 100.000 to 200.000 Iraqi's are slaughtered 
US at a loss to American forces of 148 (46 of
which were killed by friendly fire)?
- The Gulf War.
What do you call members of the Ku Klux Klan, a white racist 
- American patriots.
What do you call members of the Black Panther party, a black racist
- Prisoners on death row.
What do you call the extermination of a people?
- Genocide.
What do you call the extermination of native Americans in the US?
- A glorious episode in American history.
What do you call a US president who says, "Read my lips - no new 
and later breaks his promise?
- George Bush.
What do you call a US president who says, "No new taxes- over my dead
body", and later ...?
- George W. Bush.
What do you call someone who stands up in front of a crowd and tells
- An entertainer.
What do you call someone who stands up in front of a crowd at the 
and tells stories?
- Donald Rumsfeld.
What do you call a television station that broadcasts only the 
- A propaganda station.
What do you call the BBC when the World News consists solely of half 
hour of a Pentagon briefing?
- Fair and impartial.
What do you call the 2002 presidential election in Zimbabwe where 
serious irregularities?
- A flawed election.
What do you call the 2000 presidential election in the US where 
serious irregularities?
- A victory for democracy.
What do you call it when American Whites advocate an exclusively 
state and the expulsion of all non-Whites?
- Racism.
What do you call it when Israeli Jews advocate an exclusively Jewish 
and the expulsion of all non-Jews?
- Zionism.

    Back to Main News Page



GOP Threats Halted GAO Cheney Suit 
By Peter Brand and Alexander Bolton 

Wednesday 19 February 2003 

Threats by Republicans to cut the General Accounting Office (GAO) budget influenced its decision to
abandon a lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, The Hill has learned. 

Sources familiar with high-level discussions at the GAO said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, met with GAO Comptroller General David Walker earlier this year and
"unambiguously'' pressured him to drop the suit or face cuts in his $440 million budget. 

Walker yesterday acknowledged meeting Stevens, but denied the senator threatened to cut funding for
the investigative agency. However, he confirmed that such threats were made, although he said they came
from a lawmaker not "in a position to deliver'' on them and did not occur recently. 


The decision to drop the lawsuit has raised concerns that Congress's all-purpose auditor has sacrificed
its traditional role as an independent arm of Congress. 

"I met with Stevens in his capacity of president pro tempore,'' the comptroller said: "In the conversation
with Sen. Stevens there was no assertion or inference [of funding cuts]. He didn't even raise the issue of

Walker did say, however, that several lawmakers have threatened in the past year to cut agency funding
if it persisted with the controversial lawsuit. He also said the budget threat was among a number of factors
that tipped his Feb. 7 decision to halt litigation. 

A GAO staff member and several Stevens's aides attended the meeting. 

Stevens's offices were closed at press time and neither the senator nor his spokeswoman could be
reached for comment. 

The controversy with Cheney came to a head in December after U.S. District Court Judge John Bates,
citing separation of powers, ruled that Walker lacked sufficient grounds to compel Cheney to disclose the
records of a White House energy task force that he had headed. 

Walker had filed the suit against Cheney in February 2002 at the request of House Democrats. This
was the first time in its 81-year history that the GAO, acting in its capacity as the investigative arm of
Congress, sued the executive branch to obtain withheld information. 

Walker said he initiated all the meetings on Capitol Hill and "I did what I thought was right.'' 

Before deciding not to appeal Bates's decision, Walker said he met senior Republicans and Democrats
in both chambers, and most lawmakers of them urged him not to pursue the matter. He said, "I considered
all the facts and circumstances and am very comfortable with my decision.'' 

But several House Democratic leaders and key members of the Democratic Caucus have stringently
criticized Walker's decision. 

"I thought it was a bad decision,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the
Government Reform Committee, who along with Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the senior Democrat on the
Energy and Commerce Committee, pressed Walker to file the suit last year. 

"If you have a GOP Congress not interested in exercising the role of oversight, and GAO doesn't act
independently of the Congress, there is nobody providing the job of checks and balances called for in our
Constitution,'' said Waxman. "This jeopardizes GAO's ability to act independently in the future.'' 

Bates, who was nominated to the bench by the current president, ruled against the GAO because
"neither a house of Congress nor any congressional committee has issued a subpoena for the disputed

By not appealing this ruling, House Democrats argue, GAO will not be able to pursue sensitive
information in the future without permission from the majority party. 

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Walker's decision was a "very unfortunate undermining
of GAO's independence and effectiveness.'' 

Rep. Bob Matsui (D-Calif.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign committee, said, "This not only
undermines the independence of the GAO, but it also makes it difficult to get information.'' 

"With the congressional committees controlled by the Republicans, I think it's unlikely you'll see GAO
pursue something adversarial, and that's a problem,'' Matsui added. Matsui said he believed that Walker
probably faced political pressure to drop the lawsuit. 

On the floor of the House last Wednesday, Waxman condemned Walker's decision. 

"GAO will be able to continue [its] routine work. And if a Republican controlled committee ever urges
GAO to pursue a controversial investigation of the Bush administration, GAO may be able to do this. But
don't hold your breath.'' 

Walker said that while Republican control of Congress and the White House makes GAO investigations
more complicated, it wouldn't affect his judgment. If the GAO is unable to obtain information from the
executive branch, Walker said he would ask the appropriate committee of jurisdiction for a subpoena. 

In response to allegations that the agency's effectiveness would be diminished, Walker pointed to
GAO's annual report, which shows that the agency saved taxpayers $37.7 billion in return for its
approximately $440 million budget. 

Walker, a former aide to President Reagan who took office in November 1998, is serving a 15-year term.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

Back to Main News Page




Turkey is currently in hot and heavy negotiations with the US Administration over the use of Turkish territory for a "northern front" against
Iraq. Thanks to Floyd Rudman, here is contact information for Turkey. Please contact them and ask them to refuse the use of their
territory for a war against Iraq. (ACTION REQUESTED)


Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:10:23 -0500 
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:10:21 -0500 (EST) 
From: Floyd Rudmin <frudmin@yahoo.ca> 
Subject: email addresses 

Turkey’s UN email address: 
Phone ( 1-212) 949 01 50-51-52-53- 949 01 57 
Fax ( 1-212) 949 00 86 - 949 09 17 
E-mail: turkuno@aol.com

Turkey’s Embassy in Washington: 
Phone: (202) 612-6700 
Fax: (202) 612-6744 
E-mail: info@turkey.org

Turkey’s consulate in Texas: 
Phone: (713) 622-5849 
Fax: (713) 623-6639 
E-mail: turcon@ix.netcom.com

Turkey’s consulate in LA: 
Phone: (323) 937-0118 
Fax: (323) 932-0061 
E-mail: turkcgla@pacbell.net

Turkey’s consulate in NYC: 
Phone: (212) 949-0160 (4) 
Fax: (212) 983-1293 
E-mail: tcbkny@broadviewnet.net

Turkey’s consulate in Chicago: 
Phone: (312) 263-0644 ext 28 
Fax: (312) 263-1499 
E-mail: chicago@trconsulate.org

Turkey’s mission to the EU: 
E-mail: turkdelegeu@euronet.be

Turkey’s mission to NATO: 
E-mail: natodt@euronet.be

Turkish Newspapers with email addresses: 
( from: http://www.byegm.gov.tr/TURKBASINI/gazete-ingilizce.htm )

Milli Gazete: E-mail: milli@milligazete.com.tr 

Milliyet: E-mail: okur@milliyet.com.tr 

Posta: E-mail: posta@simge.com.tr 

Star: E-mail: editor@stargazete.com

Turkey’s Chamber of Commerce: 
Email: info@ege.ebso.com.tr 

[This message sent using the IPPN Announce e-mail list. You can join this
low-traffic email group on alternative politics by sending a blank email to:
ippn-announce-subscribe@topica.com You can unsubscribe by writing ippn-announce-unsubscribe@topica.com

To participate in a more active discussion of independent and third
party politics, please send a blank email to:

Back to Main News Page



Financial Times
February 17, 2003

Cuba leads way on Aids treatment and

By Clive Cookson in Denver 

Cuba has much to teach the world about tackling Aids,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science
heard yesterday.

A wide-ranging prevention and treatment programme,
backed by strong political action, has given the
Caribbean country the lowest prevalence of Aids and HIV
infection in the western hemisphere - and one of the
lowest rates in the world.

Since 1985, when Cuba's first Aids case was diagnosed,
4,500 people have been infected and 1,050 have died of
Aids, according to Jorge Perez, the country's leading
infectious disease specialist.

Today just 0.03 per cent of the 11m population is HIV-
positive. The infection rate in the US was 14 times
higher, said Byron Barksdale, director of the Cuba Aids
Project, an American medical charity licensed by the US
government to circumvent the economic embargo of Cuba
for humanitarian reasons.

Monica Ruiz, a public health specialist with the US
National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
said the Cuban experience "shows the important role of
political will in dealing with an epidemic. And this is
a country where public health is seen very broadly as
an important public good".

Cuba took drastic action even before Aids had reached
the country. On the advice of Dr Perez, the government
set up a National Aids Commission in 1983 and destroyed
all foreign-derived blood products.

Although this put a great strain on the country's
health system, Dr Perez's "educated hunch" enabled Cuba
to escape the transmission of HIV to haemophiliacs and
other blood recipients.

As soon as Aids appeared on the island, an aggressive
HIV screening programme swung into action, with
compulsory testing for all expectant mothers, people
with sexually transmitted diseases and sexual contacts
of HIV patients.

There was also extensive voluntary testing. More than
20m HIV tests had been performed on the Cuban
population since 1986, Dr Barksdale said. At the same
time condoms were introduced to prevent sexual

The most controversial part of the programme was
compulsory quarantining of everyone who tested positive
in special HIV sanatoria. This was relaxed in 1994, but
anyone newly diagnosed still had to go to a sanatorium
for "eight weeks of education," Dr Barksdale said.

Treatment of Cuban Aids patients has improved greatly
over the past two years, because the country's
pharmaceutical industry has started producing generic
copies of the main anti-HIV medicines.

The next challenge will be to maintain and improve
Cuba's HIV/Aids programme in the face of an enormous
increase of tourism. www.ft.com/science

Journals to curb data publication because of terrorism

The world's leading scientific journals have agreed
measures to restrict the publication of research which
could be used by bioterrorists, writes Clive Cookson.

In a joint statement released at the annual meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the journals' editors say concerns over
terrorism must not affect the release of valuable
biomedical research.

But they recognise there may be occasions when new
research data should be withheld from publication
because it could be abused.

The statement was signed by the editors of 32 journals,
including Nature, Science and the Lancet, and others
will be invited to make a similar commitment.

It does not lay down blanket rules; each journal will
draw up its own procedures for identifying and, if
necessary, suppressing potentially dangerous


Back to Main News Page


February 17, 2003

Analysis: Giant demos transform Europe 

By Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- The Atlantic Alliance was
already in bad shape before the mass demonstrations
throughout Western Europe this weekend. It is in
terminal crisis now.

The problem for the venerable Transatlantic partnership
that won the Cold War is not merely that nearly 4
million people took to the streets across Western
Europe Saturday to protest the expected U.S. war on
Iraq. It is where the biggest protests took place.

The protests were relatively smaller, though still
impressive, in France, Germany and other countries
whose governments had already come out strongly in
opposition to the Bush administration over Iraq. But
they were truly colossal -- and unprecedented -- in
Britain, Italy and Spain -- the three countries whose
governments had all defied Paris and Berlin to support
U.S. policy.

That means the political impact of the demonstrations
will be far greater on the very governments that the
Bush administration was relying upon for support. And
they look likely to derail even broader, long-term Bush
strategies towards Europe.

For despite fierce French and German opposition to the
looming war, backed by Russia, Bush strategists in the
White House, National Security Council and Department
of defense had been congratulating themselves over the
past two weeks on what they thought were profound
shifts in their favor in Europe.

First, France and Germany were taken by surprise by the
decisive action of 10- European governments, including
Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the new Central
European members of the European Union in breaking with
them and supporting America.

This split boosted hopes within the administration and
conservative think tanks supportive of it that France
and Germany would not be able to maintain their
traditional domination of the EU, which only in
December expanded from 15 nations to 25 at the
Copenhagen summit. The more pro-American new Central
European members, it appeared, would make common cause
with the pro-American governments of Spain and Italy to
split the EU from within and neutralize its traditional
Franco-German power center.

But now the huge protests in Barcelona and Rome -- not
to mention the unprecedented colossal one in London --
is sending precisely the opposite message. It is
telling the British, Italian and Spanish governments
that their support for the war is massively unpopular
with their own populations and that the policies of
France and Germany are not just popular at home, they
also have immense support in other Western European
nations, too.

This news could not have come at a more opportune time
for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He has been
reeling in recent weeks over the heavy-handed way their
overplayed their opposition to U.S. policies on Iraq
while the consequences of Schroeder's failure to pull
the ailing German economy out of its doldrums have
dominated domestic political discussion. Schroeder has
just been humiliated by a sweeping state election loss.
And no one doubted that if last September's federal
elections were held again now, he would go down to
sweeping defeat at the hands of a resurgent Christian
Democrat opposition led by Angela Merkel.

But the scale of this weekend's demonstrations, not
just in Berlin, where half a million people turned out
in the biggest German popular demonstration since the
collapse of communism, but throughout the EU, puts Iraq
rather than the economy back on center stage. And it is
likely to give the stumbling Schroeder a new lease of
political life.

The effect of the demonstrations may be even more dire
for the Bush administration in Italy and Spain. Both
countries hold key strategic positions in the
Mediterranean and along air supply routes to the likely
Middle East battlefronts. And Bush strategists were
counting on the free use of their air bases in the
expected war.

That may still happen. But the governments of Prime
Ministers Silvio Berlusconi in Rome and Jose Maria
Aznar in Madrid will now have to be far more cautious
about fully and uncritically cooperating with
Washington. If they go too far, they could even be
thrown out of office by parliamentary rebellions
responding to enormous popular pressure.

The situation is even more dire for Bush's only fully
militarily supportive major power ally, Prime Minister
Tony Blair of Britain. Blair was already increasingly
isolated and unpopular in his own restive ruling Labor
Party even before Iraq. And polls now show an
extraordinary 90 percent of the British public
rejecting his position on the war. The London
demonstration was unprecedented in its scale. No
protest in British history over the last century and a
half came to anything near such a scale -- even on
domestic matters.

Blair remains determined to send 42,000 British troops
to fight alongside U.S. forces against Iraq. But if the
war should drag on longer than its projected three
weeks, should public opinion in Britain and elsewhere
get inflamed over massive civilian Iraqi casualties or
-- even worse -- if Britain should suffer significant
military casualties in the conflict or be mauled by
some new mega-terrorist attack associated with the war
then, as one Labor Party insider told United Press
International, "Blair's gone."

It appears increasingly possible, as UPI Editor at
Large Arnaud de Borchgrave has steadily predicted since
the Seattle World Trade Organization protests two and a
half years ago, the scale and impact of the
demonstrations across Europe may see the revival of the
militant left in a new anti-globalist and anti-free
trade grouping, with a power and popularity not seen in
over 30 years.

But even if that does not happen, or if it does not
happen yet, this weekend's demonstrations are already
transforming the diplomatic map of Europe, and in ways
that Bush administration planners never expected and
certainly do not want.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

Back to Main News Page



Scientist: Dolly's Death Shows Dangers 
Sat Feb 15, 9:17 AM ET

Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

By ALEXA OLESEN, Associated Press Writer 

SINGAPORE - A Singapore-based scientist who was part of the team that created Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal,
said Saturday her premature death was proof of the many dangers of cloning. 

Dolly was put to death Friday, after premature aging and disease raised questions about the practicality of cloning. 

"I think it highlights more than ever the foolishness of those who want to legalize (human) reproductive cloning," said Alan Colman,
one of the scientists behind Dolly's birth in 1996. 

"In the case of humans, it would be scandalous to go ahead given our knowledge about the long-term affects of cloning," Colman

Scientists decided to end Dolly's life at age 6 — about half the life expectancy of her breed — because a veterinarian confirmed
she had a progressive lung disease, according to the Roslin Institute, the Scottish lab where she was created and lived. 

Last year, Colman was lured away from his post as research director of Edinburgh, Scotland-based PPL Therapeutics, which
helped clone Dolly. He considers himself one of Dolly's "godfathers." 

"Obviously it is the end of a sort of era," Colman said. "I was very fond of the old girl." 

Dolly was the first mammal cloned from an adult stem cell. Since then, whole herds of cattle, sheep, pigs and other animals have
been cloned. 

Colman moved to the Southeast Asian city-state last year to set up a laboratory for an Australian-based venture. 

His move here was a coup for Singapore, which has been aggressively trying to promote its biotechnology industry. The city-state
is an investor in his new company, ES Cell International. 

Back to Main News Page



The Weapon We Gave Iraq 
By Scott Taylor 
Canada Globe and Mail 

Monday 17 February 2003 

Depleted uranium maims and kills, say Iraqi scientists. Our soldiers think so, too, and fear they'll be
exposed again, warns military analyst. 

Since U.S. President George W. Bush put Saddam Hussein on notice that the "game is over," a
countdown to a military intervention in Iraq appears to have begun. This prospect has heightened concerns
from the allied veterans of the last war in the Persian Gulf, many of whom still suffer from serious health
problems that they believe resulted from exposure to depleted uranium. 

A senior Iraqi medical official warns that any U.S.-led military action against Iraq will face this threat. "If
they wish to launch Gulf War II, they had better be prepared to lose many of their soldiers to Gulf War
Syndrome II," said Dr. Mona al-Jibowei, dean of the science faculty at Baghdad University. "The allied
soldiers went home after being exposed to depleted uranium. Iraq has lived with its devastating effects for
the past 12 years." 

Since the end of the gulf war, tens of thousands of allied veterans have developed debilitating illnesses.
These ex-service members have been compensated by Washington and other allied governments, yet U.K.
and U.S. officials say there is no scientific proof their illnesses are linked to service in the Persian Gulf or
exposure to depleted uranium. 

Depleted uranium is the waste byproduct of nuclear reactors. In the 1980s, U.S. researchers recognized
that the material's density gave it tremendous armour-piercing potential. Not only can shells coated with
depleted uranium punch through layers of hardened steel, they ignite on impact, creating a fiery burst of
radioactive particles inside an enemy armoured vehicle. It is this "aerosol" that most experts believe causes
the variety of long-term health problems associated with gulf war syndrome. 

A former paratrooper and representative for the French gulf war veterans association, Norbert Simion
served with the French division that swept into Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. He and his comrades
engaged and destroyed an Iraqi armoured force outside the desert village of As-Salman. As a result, French
and Iraqi soldiers alike were exposed to the depleted uranium aerosol created by the exploding tank shells.

"When our troops first began developing strange illnesses, our military doctors told us it was all in our
heads," said Mr. Simion. Last April, Mr. Simion and a delegation of allied gulf war veterans visited old battle
sites in an effort to initiate co-operation between Western journalists and Iraqi health officials on the effects
of depleted uranium. "As the casualty figures rise and independent scientists continue revealing the
dangers of DU, the French government keeps telling us there is no proof." 

Depleted uranium itself contains only low levels of radiation. But once tiny aerosol particles are breathed
in and become lodged in the lymph nodes, their radiation can attack the immune system and affect

A British-educated toxicologist, Dr. al-Jibowei is on the executive committee of a special Iraqi research
project to monitor the health hazards associated with depleted uranium and has discussed DU with other
international experts. "The gulf war was the first time that depleted uranium munitions were used on an
actual battlefield," she says. "No one at the time had any idea what effect they would have on the body." 

To press for an international study of those regions in Iraq most affected by DU weapons, Mr. Simion's
Paris-based organization has joined forces with British, U.S. and Canadian gulf war veterans. Canadian
activist Louise Richard, a former field hospital nurse now suffering from an array of illnesses, says she
cannot believe that it has come to this: looking to the Iraqis for help. "But after years of being stonewalled
and treated like collateral damage by our Defence Department, we have little choice." 

Iraqi researchers say that the epicentre ("Ground Zero") for DU effects is around the city of Basra, in
southern Iraq. It was here, in 1991, that U.S. and coalition jets ravaged the retreating Iraqi army, leaving
behind the smoldering hulks of thousands of vehicles. The U.S. and British air forces expended an
estimated 300 tonnes of depleted-uranium ammunition in and around this area; it has since been dubbed
the "Highway of Death." 

The preponderance of birth defects among children born in the Basra region over the past decade defies
explanation. Birth-deformity cases in other parts of Iraq are often traced to Basra. Geneticist Selma Taher,
part of an Iraqi research team studying this phenomenon, discovered that three babies born with a similar
congenital anomaly in the village of Dholuiya, about 700 kilometers from Basra, were fathered by men who
served in the same regiment on the Highway of Death. 

Should U.S.-led forces again invade Iraq, and should Canadians join them (something that has not been
ruled out by Defence Minister John McCallum), they would probably move from Kuwait straight up the
Highway of Death to Basra. The aerosol from the depleted-uranium-coated shells has long since dissipated
from the hulks of Iraqi vehicles along the road. But Iraqi scientists believe the particles remain in the desert
sands. Uranium possesses a radioactive half-life of 200 million years; it would still pose a serious risk. 

Despite increasing evidence linking DU to degenerative health disorders, the British and U.S. militaries
steadfastly refuse to suspend their use of such weapons. On Aug. 16, 2002, at the annual UN Human
Rights Convention, a motion was tabled to ban the use of depleted-uranium munitions until a full-scale
medical survey could be conducted. The only two countries to vote against the motion were Britain and the
United States. 

"If the Americans do attack us, they will inherit a hostile environment of radioactive toxicity," said Dr.
al-Jibowei. "They will face the same tragedy that Iraq is already suffering. Everyone will end up buried in

A former soldier, Scott Taylor is the editor of Esprit de Corps magazine. He covered the 1991 gulf war
as a correspondent. He has just returned from Baghdad. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

Back to Main News Page



A Monument to Hypocrisy 16/02/2003

Every one of us must raise our voices, and march in
protest, now and again and again, writes Edward Said


It has finally become intolerable to listen to or look
at news in this country. I've told myself over and over
again that one ought to leaf through the daily papers
and turn on the TV for the national news every evening,
just to find out what "the country" is thinking and
planning, but patience and masochism have their limits.
Colin Powell's UN speech, designed obviously to outrage
the American people and bludgeon the UN into going to
war, seems to me to have been a new low point in moral
hypocrisy and political manipulation. But Donald
Rumsfeld's lectures in Munich this past weekend went
one step further than the bumbling Powell in unctuous
sermonising and bullying derision.

For the moment, I shall discount George Bush and his
coterie of advisers, spiritual mentors, and political
managers like Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and Karl
Rove: they seem to me slaves of power perfectly
embodied in the repetitive monotone of their collective
spokesman Ari Fliescher (who I believe is also an
Israeli citizen). Bush is, he has said, in direct
contact with God, or if not God, then at least
Providence. Perhaps only Israeli settlers can converse
with him. But the secretaries of state and defence seem
to have emanated from the secular world of real women
and men, so it may be somewhat more opportune to linger
for a time over their words and activities.

First, a few preliminaries. The US has clearly decided
on war: there seem to be no two ways about it. Yet
whether the war will actually take place or not (given
all the activity started, not by the Arab states who,
as usual, seem to dither and be paralysed at the same
time, but by France, Russia and Germany) is something
else again. Nevertheless to have transported 200,000
troops to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, leaving aside
smaller deployments in Jordan, Turkey and Israel can
mean only one thing.

Second, the planners of this war, as Ralph Nader has
forcefully said, are chicken hawks, that is, hawks who
are too cowardly to do any fighting themselves.
Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush, Cheney and others of that
entirely civilian group were to a man in strong favour
of the Vietnam War, yet each of them got a deferment
based on privilege, and therefore never fought or so
much as even served in the armed forces. Their
belligerence is therefore morally repugnant and, in the
literal sense, anti-democratic in the extreme. What
this unrepresentative cabal seeks in a war with Iraq
has nothing to do with actual military considerations.
Iraq, whatever the disgusting qualities of its
deplorable regime, is simply not an imminent and
credible threat to neighbours like Turkey, or Israel,
or even Jordan (each of which could easily handle it
militarily) or certainly to the US. Any argument to the
contrary is simply a preposterous, entirely frivolous
proposition. With a few outdated Scuds, and a small
amount of chemical and biological material, most of it
supplied by the US in earlier days (as Nader has said,
we know that because we have the receipts for what was
sold to Iraq by US companies), Iraq is, and has easily
been, containable, though at unconscionable cost to the
long-suffering civilian population. For this terrible
state of affairs I think it is absolutely true to say
that there has been collusion between the Iraqi regime
and the Western enforcers of the sanctions.

Third, once big powers start to dream of regime change
--a process already begun by the Perles and Wolfowitzs
of this country --there is simply no end in sight.
Isn't it outrageous that people of such a dubious
caliber actually go on blathering about bringing
democracy, modernisation, and liberalisation to the
Middle East? God knows that the area needs it, as so
many Arab and Muslim intellectuals and ordinary people
have said over and over. But who appointed these
characters as agents of progress anyway? And what
entitles them to pontificate in so shameless a way when
there are already so many injustices and abuses in
their own country to be remedied? It's particularly
galling that Perle, about as unqualified a person as it
is imaginable to be on any subject touching on
democracy and justice, should have been an election
adviser to Netanyahu's extreme right-wing government
during the period 1996-9, in which he counseled the
renegade Israeli to scrap any and all peace attempts,
to annex the West Bank and Gaza, and try to get rid of
as many Palestinians as possible. This man now talks
about bringing democracy to the Middle East, and does
so without provoking the slightest objection from any
of the media pundits who politely (abjectly) quiz him
on national television.

Fourth, Colin Powell's speech, despite its many
weaknesses, its plagiarised and manufactured evidence,
its confected audio-tapes and its doctored pictures,
was correct in one thing. Saddam Hussein's regime has
violated numerous human rights and UN resolutions.
There can be no arguing with that and no excuses can be
allowed. But what is so monumentally hypocritical about
the official US position is that literally everything
Powell has accused the Ba'athists of has been the stock
in trade of every Israeli government since 1948, and at
no time more flagrantly than since the occupation of
1967. Torture, illegal detention, assassination,
assaults against civilians with missiles, helicopters
and jet fighters, annexation of territory,
transportation of civilians from one place to another
for the purpose of imprisonment, mass killing (as in
Qana, Jenin, Sabra and Shatilla to mention only the
most obvious), denial of rights to free passage and
unimpeded civilian movement, education, medical aid,
use of civilians as human shields, humiliation,
punishment of families, house demolitions on a mass
scale, destruction of agricultural land, expropriation
of water, illegal settlement, economic pauperisation,
attacks on hospitals, medical workers and ambulances,
killing of UN personnel, to name only the most
outrageous abuses: all these, it should be noted with
emphasis, have been carried on with the total,
unconditional support of the United States which has
not only supplied Israel with the weapons for such
practices and every kind of military and intelligence
aid, but also has given the country upwards of $135
billion in economic aid on a scale that beggars the
relative amount per capita spent by the US government
on its own citizens.

This is an unconscionable record to hold against the
US, and Mr Powell as its human symbol in particular. As
the person in charge of US foreign policy, it is his
specific responsibility to uphold the laws of this
country, and to make sure that the enforcement of human
rights and the promotion of freedom --the proclaimed
central plank in the US's foreign policy since at least
1976 --is applied uniformly, without exception or
condition. How he and his bosses and co-workers can
stand up before the world and righteously sermonise
against Iraq while at the same time completely ignoring
the ongoing American partnership in human rights abuses
with Israel defies credibility. And yet no one, in all
the justified critiques of the US position that have
appeared since Powell made his great UN speech, has
focused on this point, not even the ever-so-upright
French and Germans.

The Palestinian territories today are witnessing the
onset of a mass famine; there is a health crisis of
catastrophic proportions; there is a civilian death
toll that totals at least a dozen to 20 people a week;
the economy has collapsed; hundreds of thousands of
innocent civilians are unable to work, study, or move
about as curfews and at least 300 barricades impede
their daily lives; houses are blown up or bulldozed on
a mass basis (60 yesterday). And all of it with US
equipment, US political support, US finances. Bush
declares that Sharon, who is a war criminal by any
standard, is a man of peace, as if to spit on the
innocent Palestinians' lives that have been lost and
ravaged by Sharon and his criminal army. And he has the
gall to say that he acts in God's name, and that he
(and his administration) act to serve "a just and
faithful God". And, more astounding yet, he lectures
the world on Saddam's flouting of UN resolutions even
as he supports a country, Israel, that has flouted at
least 64 of them on a daily basis for more than half a

But so craven and so ineffective are the Arab regimes
today that they don't dare state any of these things
publicly. Many of them need US economic aid. Many of
them fear their own people and need US support to prop
up their regimes. Many of them could be accused of some
of the same crimes against humanity. So they say
nothing, and just hope and pray that the war will pass,
while in the end keeping them in power as they are.

But it is also a great and noble fact that for the
first time since World War Two there are mass protests
against the war taking place before rather than during
the war itself. This is unprecedented and should become
the central political fact of the new, globalised era
into which our world has been thrust by the US and its
super-power status. What this demonstrates is that
despite the awesome power wielded by autocrats and
tyrants like Saddam and his American antagonists,
despite the complicity of a mass media that has
(willingly or unwillingly) hastened the rush to war,
despite the indifference and ignorance of a great many
people, mass action and mass protest on the basis of
human community and human sustainability are still
formidable tools of human resistance. Call them weapons
of the weak, if you wish. But that they have at least
tampered with the plans of the Washington chicken hawks
and their corporate backers, as well as the millions of
religious monotheistic extremists (Christian, Jewish,
Muslim) who believe in wars of religion, is a great
beacon of hope for our time. Wherever I go to lecture
or speak out against these injustices I haven't found
anyone in support of the war. Our job as Arabs is to
link our opposition to US action in Iraq to our support
for human rights in Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Kurdistan
and everywhere in the Arab world --and also ask others
to force the same linkage on everyone, Arab, American,
African, European, Australian and Asian. These are
world issues, human issues, not simply strategic
matters for the United States or the other major

We cannot in any way lend our silence to a policy of
war that the White House has openly announced will
include three to five hundred cruise missiles a day
(800 of them during the first 48 hours of the war)
raining down on the civilian population of Baghdad in
order to produce "Shock and Awe", or even a human
cataclysm that will produce, as its boastful planner a
certain Mr (or is it Dr?) Harlan Ullman has said, a
Hiroshima-style effect on the Iraqi people. Note that
during the 1991 Gulf War after 41 days of bombing Iraq
this scale of human devastation was not even
approached. And the US has 6000 "smart" missiles ready
to do the job. What sort of God would want this to be a
formulated and announced policy for His people? And
what sort of God would claim that this was going to
bring democracy and freedom to the people not only of
Iraq but to the rest of the Middle East?

These are questions I won't even try to answer. But I
do know that if anything like this is going to be
visited on any population on earth it would be a
criminal act, and its perpetrators and planners war
criminals according to the Nuremberg Laws that the US
itself was crucial in formulating. Not for nothing do
General Sharon and Shaul Mofaz welcome the war and
praise George Bush. Who knows what more evil will be
done in the name of Good? Every one of us must raise
our voices, and march in protest, now and again and
again. We need creative thinking and bold action to
stave off the nightmares planned by a docile,
professionalised staff in places like Washington and
Tel Aviv and Baghdad. For if what they have in mind is
what they call "greater security" then words have no
meaning at all in the ordinary sense. That Bush and
Sharon have contempt for the non-white people of this
world is clear. The question is, how long can they keep
getting away with it?

*Al-Ahram Weekly

Back to Main News Page



Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq 
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, northern Iraq 

Monday 17 February 2003 

The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein,
according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials. 

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will
lead to radical political change in the region. 

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government
in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with
senior US military officers. 

It undercuts the argument by George Bush and Tony Blair that war is justified by the evil nature of the
regime in Baghdad. 

"Conquerors always call themselves liberators," said Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the
Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr Bush's speech last week in which he said US troops were
going to liberate Iraq. 

Mr Abdul-Rahman said the US had reneged on earlier promises to promote democratic change in Iraq.
"It is very disappointing," he said. "In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials
and replace them with American military officers." 

Kurdish officials strongly believe the new US policy is the result of pressure from regional powers,
notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey. 

The US appears to be quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would make Iraq a model
democracy in the Middle East. In Iraq, free elections would lead to revolutionary change because although
the Shia Muslims and Kurds constitute three-quarters of the population, they are excluded from power in
Baghdad by the Sunni Muslim establishment. 

Kurdish leaders are deeply alarmed by US intentions, which only became clear at a meeting in Ankara
earlier in the month and from recent public declarations by US officials. Hoshyar Zebari, a veteran Kurdish
leader, said: "If the US wants to impose its own government, regardless of the ethnic and religious
composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash." 

Mr Abdul-Rahman accuses the US of planning cosmetic changes in Iraq. "This is to give the
government on a platter to the second line of Ba'athists [the ruling party]," he said. 

The US appears to be returning to the policy it pursued at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. It did seek to
get rid of President Saddambut wanted to avoid a radical change in Iraq. The US did not support the
uprisings of Shia Muslims and Kurdsbecause it feared a transformation in Iraqi politics that might have
destabilised its allies in the Middle East or benefited Iran. 

The two Kurdish parties -- the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which rules western Kurdistan, and
the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan -- are at the heart of the Iraqi opposition. Together they rule four million
people in an area the size of Switzerland that has been outside President Saddam's control since 1991. 

The change in American policy means marginalising the Iraqi opposition which has been seeking to
unite. In response to the US decision, the Kurds and their allies have accelerated moves to hold a
conference of opposition parties in Salahudin, the headquarters of the KDP, now scheduled for tomorrow.
"We want to know if we are partners in regime change or not," Mr Zebari said. 

He spoke scathingly of any attempt by America "to bring in an Iraqi from the United States who has not
seen his country for years and impose him by armed force". 

The destabilising impact of the impending war is already being felt in the mountains of northern Iraq.
Turkey has demanded that its troops be allowed to take over a swath of territory along the border inside
Iraq. The ostensible reason is to prevent a flood of Kurdish refugees trying to flee into Turkey, but the
Kurdish parties say they are quite capable of doing this themselves. They say the Turkish demand, to
which they suspect the US has agreed in return for the use of Turkish military facilities, is the first step in a
Turkish plan to advance into Iraqi Kurdistan. 

The Kurds fear that a US-led war against President Saddam might be the occasion for a Turkish effort to
end the de facto independence enjoyed by Iraqi Kurds for more than a decade. One Kurdish leader said:
"Turkey has made up its mind that it will intervene in northern Iraq in order to destroy us. 

Peace activists who want to be "human shields" arrived in Baghdad yesterday. The activists, who had
18 Britons among them, left London on 25 January in three double decker buses. They will deploy at likely
bombing targets. 

Patrick Cockburn is a visiting fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington
and the co-author of 'Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession'. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

Back to Main News Page



Blair, Increasingly Alone, Clings to Stance 
By Alan Cowell 
New York Times 

Monday 17 February 2003 

ONDON, Feb. 16 -- After a watershed weekend following setbacks at the United Nations and on the
streets of his own capital, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain -- Washington's main ally in the effort to
disarm Iraq -- looked lonely today, his destiny pinned to the uncertain progress of the campaign against
Saddam Hussein. 

As he prepares for a summit meeting of European leaders on Monday, Mr. Blair is heading for the
gathering armed with little more than a sense of high moral purpose and an alliance with President Bush --
neither of which has done much to persuade fellow Europeans to join a war in Iraq. 

His cherished role as Europe's bridge to America has been severely damaged by a Franco-German axis
opposed to war in Iraq or, in Berlin's case, to war altogether. Prospects of winning United Nations
authorization to invade Iraq -- a key to swinging opinion his way at home and abroad -- are under challenge
from influential Security Council opponents including France, Russia and China. 

As millions across this divided continent marched in Europe's biggest antiwar demonstrations on
Saturday, with at least 750,000 in London, Mr. Blair seemed to acknowledge that his increasingly vocal
moral commitment to ousting Saddam Hussein had set him apart from many of his own people. 

"I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honor," Mr. Blair said at a meeting of his Labor Party in
Glasgow, billed as a major attempt to swing his fractious party behind him. "But sometimes it is the price
of leadership and the cost of conviction." 

Yet, that shift to a moral argument -- sidestepping the diplomatic formulations of the United Nations
Security Council -- was perhaps the most telling response to the antiwar protests this weekend.
Significantly, the biggest demonstrations were in London, Rome and Madrid, whose national governments
side with the White House. 

"Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity," Mr. Blair said in Glasgow, in what was
widely taken to be an unequivocal commitment to "regime change," the policy long espoused by Pentagon
hawks. "It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane." 

There is a sense here that in doing so, Mr. Blair has taken a fateful step. British analysts are divided
over whether Mr. Blair's political survival is at stake. Many argue that a quick victory in Iraq, supported by
the United Nations and confirming Iraq's willful failure to disarm would provide enormous vindication. 

But "a disastrous campaign in Iraq would cost the prime minister dearly," said Matthew d'Ancona, a
columnist for the conservative Sunday Telegraph. "He would be seen to have pursued a personal crusade
with calamitous consequences. His credibility would be forever tainted, his wings broken." 

With the marches on Saturday, though, Mr. Blair and the other pro-Bush European leaders were forced
into a recognition that they are already fighting a two-front war, one in international diplomacy and one for
the support of their own people. 

The continent has not seen protests on that scale in memory. The crowds were so vast in Barcelona
and Madrid that they jammed the streets and were unable to march. Protest organizers usually exaggerate
numbers, but from official accounts alone at least three million people marched across Europe. Other
nonpartisan accounts put the total at between four and six million. Even in Italy, which has sought to qualify
its support for the United States, at least 600,000 people and possibly many more thronged Rome. 

The breadth and magnitude of the demonstrations opened a rift between ruler and the ruled, convincing
many that street protest had overtaken conventional democracy in expressing the popular will. 

"The real question is not about intervention," said John Game, 38, a doctoral student at London
University, gesturing to the crowd around him as he marched Saturday. "It's about why Tony Blair is not
listening to the people of Britain. That's not democracy; this is what democracy looks like." Among the
demonstrators' posters were some that read, "Regime change begins at home." 

That was a remarkable turnabout for a prime minister who once prided himself on touching the pulse of
the nation in moments of crisis. 

"One of the most repeated riffs of the protest was that they, not Tony Blair, speak for public opinion,"
said Andrew Rawnsley, a columnist, referring to the marchers who filled the capital yesterday. "Ownership
of `the people,' that misty mass which the self-styled `People's Prime Minister' used to call his own, is now
claimed by the Stop the War coalition." 

Those sentiments have left Mr. Blair little option but to change script and invoke the moral issues. In
Glasgow, for instance, Mr. Blair said the peace marchers had displayed "a right and entirely
understandable hatred of war. It is moral purpose, and I respect that. But the moral case against war has a
moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be
according to the U.N. mandate on weapons of mass destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do
have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience." 

Unless he persuades his European adversaries to agree to a second United Nations resolution
authorizing force, however, Mr. Blair will find it difficult to carry dissidents within his own party and
government into a "go it alone" war at America's side, according to Mr. Rawnsley. 

For the summit meeting on Monday, moreover, the huge weekend demonstrations seem likely to play
into the existing rifts. They will enable leaders like Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of
Germany to argue that their antiwar sentiments have received a mandate from the streets, while leaving Mr.
Blair and José María Aznar of Spain seeming to swim against Europe's tide. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

Back to Main News Page




Millions March
Worldwide To
Denounce Bush's
War Plans

• Rome: 2.5 million 
• Madrid: 2 million 
• London: 1.5 million 
• Barcelona: 1 million 
• Paris: 800,000
• New York City: 500,000
• Berlin: 500,000 
• Seville: 250,000
• Melbourne: 200,000 
• Athens: 200,000
• Oviedo, Spain: 200,000
• Montreal: 150,000
• Dublin: 100,000+ 
• Los Angeles: 100,000 
• Brussels: 100,000 
• Lisbon: 100,000
• Las Palmas, Spain: 100,000
• Cadiz, Spain: 100,000
• Amsterdam: 80,000 
• Toronto: 80,000
• Stockholm: 80,000
• Los Angeles: 75-100,000
• Glasgow: 60,000+
• Oslo: 60,000
• Seattle: 55,000
• Mexico City: 50,000
• Montevideo: 50,000 
• Stuttgart, Germany: 50,000
• Thessaloniki, Greece: 40,000
• Copenhagen: 35-40,000
• Berne, Switzerland: 40,000
• Sao Paulo: 30,000
• Girona, Spain: 30,000
• Vancouver: 30,000
• Goteborg, Sweden: 30,000
• Tokyo: 25,000
• Budapest: 20,000
• Newcastle, Australia: 20,000
• Vienna: 20,000
• Lyon: 20,000
• Perth, Australia: 20,000
• Irunea, Basque Country: 20,000
• Montpeilier, France: 15-20,000
• Luxemburg: 15-20,000
• Buenos Aires: 15,000
• Rio de Janeiro: 15,000
• Helsinki: 15,000
• Canberra, Australia: 10-15,000
• Trondheim, Norway: 11,000
• Kolkata, India: 10,000
• Johannesburg: 10,000
• Minneapolis: 10,000
• Zagreb, Croatia: 10,000
• San Diego: 10,000
• Philadelphia: 10,000
• Edmonton, Canada: 10,000
• Auckland: 8-10,000

And other cities: Tel Aviv: 1500, Adelaide, Bellingen, Bregenz:
1500, Bratislava, Cape Town: 5000, Christchurch, Dunedin,
Durban: 3000, Iraklio: 4000, Maine, Patras: 3500, Prague: 1000,
Quito: 250, Rethimno: 2000, Rhodes: 2000, Santiago: 3000,
Taipei, Tampere: 2000, Tudela: 5000, Turku: 5000, Volos: 3000,
Warsaw, Wellington...

Back to Main News Page


101 slogans from today's peace rally 
What a great post!, what a great day! 
Here's a few more: 

preemptive peace 
U.S., out of North America 
I asked for health care and all I got was a lousy stealth bomber 
Bush has the fascist gun in the west 
White collar crime is still a crime 
and Empty warheads found in White House 
(should be: Empty war-heads found in White House 
or Empty war heads found in White House) 



a$$es of evil - bush, cheney, blair 
how many lives per gallon? 
regime change starts at home 
sometimes the french are right 
just say no to oil-ocracy 
bush: let us prey 
orphans make great terrorists 
cockroaches for armageddon 
bush is the chimp; we're the chumps 
go solar not ballistic 
how'd our oil get under their sand? 
bush is a dumb ass 
mend your fuelish ways 
code green - go for peace 
be a patriot - ride a bike. 
duct tape is not the answer 
george w. bush - war monger 
let's bomb texas, they have oil 
balm iraq 
war = terrorism with a big budget 
roll joints, not tanks 
suck dick cheney 
impeach president moron 
hey bush, war is so last century 
W: daddy, i want my own war 
if war is inevitable - start drafting SUV drivers 
war makes the victor stupid and the vanquished vengeful [nietzsche] 
there are alternatives to war AND oil 
don't let a rogue president make us a rogue nation 
no dubya dubya III 
our country has been hijacked by lunatics 
killing for peace = fucking for virginity 
quick, let's bomb more iraqi children before they starve to death 
when the rich wage war it's the poor who die [sartre] 
democracy RIP - 1776-2000... ah well, we had a good run. 
preemptive war = terrorism 
bush + ashcroft + rumsfield = terrorist network 
our tax dollars should educate american children, not kill iraqi children 
proud to be an american against the war 
danke, deutschland. merci, france 
we're the ones who gobble up the oil 
if you're not outraged you're not paying attention 
bush is wrong, war is wrong 
emperor bush is wearing no clothes 
collateral damage has a face 
war, what is it good for? absolutely nothing. say it again 
now boys, don't hit ... use your words! 
no ruler has the right to ignore the will of the world 
rage against the machine 
i went to the gulf war and all i got was this lousy syndrome 
abort the bush die-nasty 
let iraqi children have a future, mr. bush 
bush lost 
war, greed, hypocrisy - we demand a change in policy 
george bush = son of satan 
draft the bush twins 
hey - red neck, go back to texas 
bush - endangering america, enraging the world 
yep, let's kill the desperately poor on behalf of the obscenely rich 
21st century bush doctrine - accept US imperialism or die 
impeach the son of a bush 
stop mad cowboy disease 
first casualty of war: the truth 
shut down the war machine 
choose peace 
regime change - in the white house 
smoke pot, not people 
merci a la france 
republic not empire 
red alert - bush is dangerous 
no more blood for oil 
hans blix, look over here 
got terror? 
i didn't bring my children into the world to kill for the rich 
listen to old europe 
buck fush 
bush is a moron 
bush = white kkknight for oil industry 
engineers against drafting 
bush hates america 
murdering innocent children is in the highest moral tradition of our country 
save the humans 
preemptive peace 
smush bush 
the only bush i trust is the one on me 
the last time someone listened to a bush they ended up wandering through the 
desert for 40 years 
dissent - the essence of democracy 
stop the blair bush project 
teach peace 
war leaves every child behind 
support our troops. bring them home 
dissent is patriotic 
thou shalt not kill 
the emperor is mad 
drop bush not bombs 
wake up, contest the war 
bush - public enemy #1 
wage peace 
bush, enron, cheney, halliburton 
bad plan, dude 
fight the power 
jews for burning bush 

Back to Main News Page



Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth 

Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage 

FORWARD STAFF Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that
Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the
Forward has learned. 

However, far from pointing to Israeli spying against U.S. government and military facilities, as
reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis
in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links
to Middle East terrorism. 

In particular, a group of five Israelis arrested in New Jersey shortly after the September 11
attacks and held for more than two months was subjected to an unusual number of polygraph
tests and interrogated by a series of government agencies including the FBI's
counterintelligence division, which by some reports remains convinced that Israel was
conducting an intelligence operation. The five Israelis worked for a moving company with few
discernable assets that closed up shop immediately afterward and whose owner fled to Israel. 

Other allegations involved Israelis claiming to be art students who had backgrounds in signal
interception and ordnance. (See related story, Page 8.) 

Sources emphasized that the release of all the Israelis under investigation indicates that they
were cleared of any suspicion that they had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks, as
some anti-Israel media outlets have suggested. 

The resulting tensions between Washington and Jerusalem, sources told the Forward, arose
not because of the operations' targets but because Israel reportedly violated a secret
gentlemen's agreement between the two countries under which espionage on each other's soil
is to be coordinated in advance. 

Most experts and former officials interviewed for this article said that such so-called unilateral
or uncoordinated Israeli monitoring of radical Muslims in America would not be surprising. 

In fact, they said, Israeli intelligence played a key role in helping the Bush administration to
crack down on Islamic charities suspected of funneling money to terrorist groups, most
notably the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation last December. 

"I have no doubt Israel has an interest in spying on those groups," said Peter Unsinger, an
intelligence expert who teaches justice administration at San Jose University. "The Israelis
give us good stuff, like on the Hamas charities." 

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be
named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis
arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and
that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front. 

After their arrest, the men were held in detention for two-and-a-half months and were
deported at the end of November, officially for visa violations. 

However, a counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them
were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was
regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials. 

"The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives
employed by it," he said. "The conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs
but that they could leave because they did not know anything about 9/11." 

However, he added, the bureau was "very irritated because it was a case of so-called
unilateral espionage, meaning they didn't know about it." 

Spokesmen for the FBI, the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service refused to discuss the case. Israeli officials flatly dismissed the allegations as untrue. 

However, the former American official said that after American authorities confronted
Jerusalem on the issue at the end of last year, the Israeli government acknowledged the
operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington. 

The five men — Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel —
were arrested eight hours after the attacks by the Bergen County, N.J., police while driving in
an Urban Moving Systems van. The police acted on an FBI alert after the men allegedly were
seen acting strangely while watching the events from the roof of their warehouse and the roof
of their van. 

In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were
compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man
carried two passports and another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering
wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background. 

The Bergen County police immediately handed the suspects to the INS, which turned them
over to a joint police-FBI terrorism task force set up after September 11 to deal with all
possible links with the attacks. 

The five Israelis were detained in the high-security Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn
in solitary confinement until mid-October. On September 25, they all signed papers
acknowledging violations of Uimmigration law. At the end of October, the INS issued a
deportation order which was enforced a month later after a review by the Justice Department
and prodding by Jewish and Israeli officials. 

However, the former official said, this is just the official story. 

In fact, he said, the nature of the investigation changed after the names of two of the five
Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives, he said. At that
point, he said, the bureau took control of the investigation and launched a Foreign
Counterintelligence Investigation, or FCI. 

FBI investigations into possible links to the September 11 attacks are usually carried by the
bureau's counterterrorism division, not its counterintelligence division. 

"An FCI means not only that it was serious but also that it was handled at a very high level
and very tightly," the former official said. That view was echoed by several former FBI officials

Steven Gordon, an American lawyer hired by the families to help secure their release, said he
could not confirm which FBI division was in charge of the investigation. However, he
acknowledged that "there were a lot of people involved, including counterintelligence officials
from the FBI." 

The men all underwent at least two polygraph tests each, the lawyer added. He said one of the
Israelis took the test seven times, a very unusual total according to several polygraph experts
interviewed by the Forward. 

After the men were arrested, FBI agents searched the warehouse of Urban Moving Systems in
Weehawken, N.J., seizing computer hard drives and documents. The warehouse was closed on
September 14, said Ron George, a spokesman for the New Jersey State Division of Consumer

On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining
inside the warehouse. The state also has a lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and
its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen. 

The FBI questioned Mr. Suter once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to
Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for
this article. 

Earlier this year, the New York State Department of Transportation revoked Urban Moving
System's license after discovering that the company's midtown Manhattan base was only a
mailing address. 

After they returned to Israel at the end of November, the five men told local media that they
were kept in solitary confinement, beaten, deprived of food and questioned while blindfolded
and in their underwear. 

Mr. Ellner, one of the five Israelis, said on two occasions in recent weeks that the five men
had decided not to grant any interviews right now "because we went through a very difficult
period and we are not ready for this." 

Their Israeli lawyer, Ram Horwitz, told the Forward he was still waiting for the results of the
medical tests undertaken by the men in Israel to make a decision on an eventual lawsuit in
the United States for mistreatment. 

Mr. Horwitz insisted the men were not intelligence officers. 

Irit Stoffer, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said the allegations were "completely
untrue" and that there were "only visa violations." 

"The FBI investigated those cases because of 9/11," Ms. Stoffer said. 

Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice
Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation. 

"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified
material," added Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI in New York. 

One leading expert in American intelligence operations, Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at the
Boston-based Political Research Associates, explained that there "is a backdoor agreement
between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn't do too much harm, he
goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always a visa violation."

Back to Main News Page




One Man Against the World

by Uri Avnery 

- A great, civilized nation democratically elected a fanatic demagogue, who
preached war. Actually, he did not really receive the majority of votes, but,
somehow, his ascent to power was arranged nevertheless. 

- Soon after assuming power, he manipulated a dramatic incident in order to tighten his grip upon
the country and prepare for attack on smaller nations. An immense propaganda machine turned
“enemies” into devils, the incarnation of evil. 

- The call for war enabled him to unite the whole people behind him, to silence all opposition,
gradually abridge human rights, overcome the economic crisis and embark upon a voyage towards
world dominion. 

- He loved being photographed in uniform, walking along lines of soldiers, pretending to be a great
military leader --- 

I mean, of course, Adolf Hitler. 

The German people, which gave him power and followed him with closed eyes even when he
committed heinous crimes, paid a heavy price. It has learned the lesson. Now it abhors war, any
war, from the depth of its soul. Hundreds of thousands – young people, children, grandchildren and
grand-grandchildren of that generation – march these days through the streets of Germany 
to protest against Bush’s war. Their leader, Schroeder, was reelected solely because he expressed this deep
longing for peace. The most warlike people has turned into the most anti-warlike. 

That’s great, isn’t it? Not at all! American and British leaders condemn Germany 
for its refusal to go to war. The Israeli government heap scorn on its head. Wet rugs, these Germans! Damn
pacifists! Cowards! Pitiful people who refuse to fight! 

All this less than 60 years since Hitler’s suicide. Who would have believed. 

And this is not the only miracle that is happening these days. Not by any means. 

A personal memory (excuse me if you have read it before): when I was 8 years old, two years
before my family fled Germany after Hitler’s coming to power, I was a pupil in the third class of an
elementary school in Prussia, a Social Democratic bulwark at the time. 

Once the teacher told us about Hermann, the national hero, who had succeeded in 9 AD to lure the
Roman army into a trap and annihilate it. The Roman commander, Varus, fell on his sword and
Augustus Caesar uttered his despairing cry: “Varus, give me back my legions!” On the spot where
the historic battle was supposed to have taken place, there stands now a huge statue of Hermann. 

“Hermann stands with his face towards the Erbfeind (hereditary enemy)!” our teacher proclaimed.
“Children, who is the Erbfeind?” All the pupils in the class shouted in unison: “Frankreich!
Frankreich (France)!” 

Now Germany 
and France, the hereditary enemies, stand together, shoulder to shoulder, against Bush’s war plans. The
Americans curse and abuse them, but they stand firm: Enough of war. Enough of destruction and bloodshed.
Other ways to solve problems must be found. 

That is another miracle. But even this is a minor one compared to the third, historic miracle that is
happening in front of our eyes: 

President Putin appeared in Berlin 
and Paris , embraced Chirac and Schroeder and added his voice to theirs. One front from Cherbourg on the
Atlantic to Vladivostok on the Pacific. That has never happened before. 

From earliest times, European history is full of alliances of some states against others. Germany 
and Russia divided Poland between them. France and Russia allied themselves several times to contain
Germany . Napoleon tried to unite Europe and did not succeed. The Texan cowboy is succeeding where the
Corsican emperor has failed. 

Bush has invented the childish term “Axis of Evil” to group together Iraq 
, Iran and North Korea . That’s nonsense. But in the meantime a French-German-Russian axis has come into
being and is facing the United States . 

(The term “axis” to design a coalition of states was also invented at the time of Hitler. The original
axis of evil included Germany 
, Italy and Japan . When using this term, Bush intended to recall that memory.) 

It is too early to say if this new axis will hold on and if it will be strong enough to face the enormous
might of the United States 
. But even if it will be broken this time, its very birth is a harbinger of things to come. 

These three countries, contemptuously called by the American Secretary of Defense “Old Europe
,” are, on the contrary, united by considerations pertaining to the New Europe
. This Europe worries the Americans. It is becoming an economic superpower, able to compete with, and
perhaps overtake, the United States . A symbol of this is the fact that the euro has indeed overtaken the dollar. 

As I remarked in a previous article, the war in Iraq 
is primarily a war against Europe and Japan . The American occupation of Iraq will ensure American control
not only over the vast oil reserves of Iraq itself, but also of the Caspian Sea and the Gulf States . The hand on
the oil tab of the world can choke Germany , France and Japan , because it can manipulate at will the price of
oil throughout the world. Lower the price, and you choke Russia . Raise the price, and you choke Europe and
Japan . 

Therefore, preventing the war is an essential European interest, in addition to the profound longing
for peace of the European peoples. 

does not even hide its desire to bring Europe to its knees. Lately, there is a crude American effort to create a
coalition of peripheral countries in order to oust Germany and France from the leadership of the European
Union. America is organizing a bloc of the former Communist nations, who are about to join the Union, together
with the UK, Spain and Italy . The Paris-Berlin axis, aided by Moscow , is designed as a defense against this
ploy, too. 

This war, then, goes much beyond the Iraqi problem. It is not a war against Saddam’s microbes. It
is, quite simply, a war for world dominion, economic, political, military and cultural. Bush is ready to
spill a lot of blood to achieve this (as long as it is not American blood). 

Israel is involved in this game without quite knowing what it is doing there, a boy in a game of
world-league bullies. It has nothing to gain, it can only lose. 

February 17, 2003

Back to Main News Page


Future Hope column, Feb. 16th, 2003

Two Days That Shook the World

By Ted Glick

How to absorb it? How to understand it? How to keep building upon it?

Some of the questions following the one-two punch delivered to the Washington Warmongers
February 14th and 15th, at the United Nations on Friday and throughout the entire world on

Who would have thought it? Remember back, just a short 17 months ago, after September
11th. Anyone who would have predicted this uprising of the world for peace, uniting,
seemingly, just about everyone except the most rabid and most confused, would have been
seen as delusional.

Another important lesson to be reminded of: THINGS CHANGE. Nothing is more definite than
this fact. What once seems impossible can, all of a sudden, seem possible. 

Including an end to the Bush regime. And not just that. An end to it on our terms, more or
less. Not on the Democratic Party’s terms but our own. 

How do we do it?

Let’s begin with what must continue to be our immediate focus: stopping this planned war
of aggression. We need to be immediately putting massive pressure on Congress, beginning
on Tuesday the 17th, flooding the Capitol Hill switchboards and fax machines with the kind
of outpouring we saw last fall which led to 155 Congresspeople, far more than the
political “experts” were predicting, voting against giving Bush a blank check to go to war
whenever he wanted to.

Indeed, there’s a Congressional recess happening right now. Congresspeople are back home.
We should flood the local Congressional offices with calls, faxes and determined
delegations of activists who refuse to leave until a public statement against the Bushite
war plans is issued and the Congressperson signs on to legislation that has already been
introduced in both houses of Congress calling for Bush to have to come back to Congress
for a war resolution before he undertakes one.

Other actions are planned and should be supported, including the National Youth and
Student Peace Coalition’s Student Strike on March 5th and International Women’s Day
actions on March 8th.

It feels as if it is within our grasp, following yesterday’s world call for peace and the
linkages that now exist among organized progressives on an international basis, that we
can see a reversal of the war drive within the next period of time. We should not
underestimate the perfidy and desperation of the Bushites, but we should also not be taken
in by the corporate media when they uncritically pass on the government’s propaganda.

If we are successful in this immediate objective, we can’t let up with the mass political
mobilization. If this Iraq war crisis is resolved, it is unlikely that we will be able to
turn out the massive numbers that we have been seeing around the many other issues that
continue to be critical, but we must think creatively and collectively, in a unified way,
about how to keep our mass movement for peace, justice and democracy on a role and as
visible as possible. We must prioritize support to the Palestinian struggle and an end to
the brutal Israeli occupation, continued movement-building for global justice and against
corporate globalization, the demands for racial justice, affirmative action and
reparations, and an economic justice agenda that addresses the hard times experienced and
the insecurity felt by many.

We should begin raising the demand to impeach George Bush. If Bill Clinton could be
impeached for having sexual relations with “that woman,” Bush the warmonger should
certainly be impeached for his attacks against the Constitution. Although it is unlikely
this will happen, by raising this demand and putting forward specific reasons why we think
it is the right thing to do, we will help to weaken these evil men, and a few women, and
their dangerous schemes.

And we should start talking up on a mass scale and talking to each other as organizers
about how we can build a campaign to bring out a big chunk of that 50% of the eligible
voters in this country who are so alienated by two-party, corporate-dominated
politics-as-usual that they don’t come out and vote. Most of these people are young
people, low-income people, workers and/or people of color, our natural constituencies.
This great mass of people, this sleeping giant, is the achilles heel of the rulers. If and
as this sleeping giant is mobilized, politics in this country will change to a degree and
in a way that we have not seen for many decades.

Some of these new voters, probably most, will vote for progressive Democrats, at least
those progressive Democrats who are either genuinely progressive or who develop some spine
to stand up and speak out as a result the movement we are building. Other voters will vote
for Greens or other independents, including a likely Green Party Presidential candidate
next year unless, speaking of the impossible, Rev. Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich captures
the Democratic Party nomination. If that would happen, the Greens will need to seriously
reconsider running a Presidential candidate in 2004.

And if there is a Green Party Presidential candidacy, some astute tactical decisions need
to be made, such as concentrating the campaign in those 70-80% of the states where either
Bush or the Democrat is very likely to win. Let’s use the reality of the Presidential
election being a state-by-state affair, rather than being determined by a national popular
vote, in a politically mature way. We can get the Bushites out of office and we can also
demonstrate the growing strength of the independent political movement at the same time.

It seems to me that some incredibly hopeful possibilities are opening up for our movement
right now. We have it in our hands to create something of great significance for us, for
our peoples and for the world. Let’s not let ego, racism, sexism, turf battles, government
repression or anything else stop us, brothers and sisters. The stakes are too high.

Ted Glick is the National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network
(www.ippn.org), which has initiated a Democracy 2004 project building towards November,
2004. He can be reached at futurehopeTG@aol.com or P.O. Box 1132, Bloomfield, N.J. 07003.

Back to Main News Page


Our Designated Killers, 'Where Is the Outrage?' 
By Nat Hentoff 

Friday 14 February 2003 

The People are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. 
--Thomas Jefferson 

We have a choice. We can fight and win a just war against terrorism . . . Or, we can
win while running roughshod over the principles of fairness and due process that we
claim to cherish, thus shaming ourselves in the eyes of the world and--eventually, when
the smoke of fear and anger finally clears--in our own eyes as well. 
--Bob Herbert, The New York Times, December 3, 2001 

The disciplined Bush administration strives continually to keep out of the news those of its security
operations that are creating what The Washington Post accurately and ominously describes as an
"alternative legal system." Or, as I call it, "a shadow Constitution." 

Too often, the media are complicit in this secrecy because of their shallowness on constitutional
issues, but sometimes they put sudden light on government orders and subsequent actions that were
meant to remain deep in the shadows. This happened to the Rumsfeld-Poindexter Total Information
Awareness system that, because of press exposure, has now been blocked, for a time, in the Senate, by
both Democratic and Republican legislators. They may have become aware that this all-seeing eye, out of
1984, could be looking into their own personal information. 

But there has been little follow-up to this front-page story in the December 15 New York Times: "The
Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency [under George
Tenet] is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military
and intelligence officers said." 

Acting on that presidential authorization, "a pilotless Predator aircraft operated [by the CIA] fired a
Hellfire antitank missile" at a car in a remote region of Yemen, killing six, including an Al Qaeda leader,
Salim Sinan al-Harethi, and "one suspected al-Qaeda operative with United States citizenship." 

That dead American passenger was Kamal Derwish, who, according to the Bush administration, was
the leader of an alleged cell of Al Qaeda sleepers in Lackawanna, a Buffalo, New York, suburb. As
syndicated columnist Charles Levendosky--a constant and accurate chronicler of the Bush shadow

"[Derwish was labeled] an enemy combatant, but only after his death. . . . Derwish was never accused
of any crime in a court of law. Essentially, he was killed because of the company he kept"--and it was too
late for him to tell his side of the story. 

Further, as Seymour Hersh--who brought glaring sunlight to the My Lai massacre by American troops
during the Vietnam War--reportedin the December 23 & 30 New Yorker, "There is no indication that
American or Yemeni officers knew in advance who was in the car with al-Harethi. . . . 

"The Yemeni official told me that there was no thought of blocking the highway and attempting to
capture al-Harethi and his passengers, because he had evaded earlier attempts. . . . The official said, 'From
past experience, this was the most effective way.' " 

Remote-controlled assassination sure does the job. 

David Wise, a veteran expert on espionage and covert action, asked a question (Time, February 3)
about the termination of Mr. Derwish that should have been on editorial pages around the nation: 

"An American citizen not charged [with] or convicted of any crime was killed by a CIA Predator,
targeted with the cooperation of the Pentagon [Donald Rumsfeld, CEO], and there was hardly a peep of
protest in this country. Where is the outrage? . . . It seems unlikely that being zapped by the CIA is
exactly the sort of due process that the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution." 

But aside from the New York Times story, which was not followed up in that paper, and the brief
mentions by Levendosky, Hersh, and Wise, most Americans had almost no information about this sudden,
summary execution of an American citizen and the others in the car. Nor have there been any wide-scale
media investigations of the CIA's designated killers and how their hit lists are compiled. Also largely
unreported is that it is not only the CIA that has official vigilantes. 

In his New Yorker article "Manhunt: The Bush Administration's New Strategy in the War Against
Terrorism," Seymour Hersh reveals another lethal Bush administration directive that involves Donald
Rumsfeld's Defense Department. How many of you have heard of a July 22 secret directive by the defense
secretary, as Hersh notes, "ordering Air Force General Charles Holland, the four-star commander of
Special Operations [Green Berets, Delta Force, the Navy Seals, the 75th Ranger Regiment, et al.] to
develop a plan . . . to capture terrorists for interrogation, or if necessary, to kill them, not simply to arrest
them in a law-enforcement exercise"? 

Hersh quotes a Pentagon consultant: "We've created a culture in the Special Forces--20- and
21-year-olds who need adult leadership. They're assuming [the military has] legal authority, and they'll do
it--eagerly eliminate any target assigned to them. Eventually, the intelligence will be bad, and innocent
people will be killed." 

But since the Hersh article appeared, there's been little of depth in the media about these manhunters,
except for Doyle McManus's masterful "A U.S. License to Kill" in the January 11 Los Angeles Times (more
of which next week). 

There have been no full-scale investigations of the CIA's torturing of prisoners in secret interrogation
centers on our military bases. 

Dana Priest was one of the reporters who broke the torture story in the December 26 Washington Post.
Recently, I asked her why there's been so little follow-up in the rest of the media. "It's hard," she said, "to
keep a story going when there's no outrage, as in Congress"--where there have been no calls for hearings.
Moreover, as Daniel Ellsberg told Editor & Publisher (January 27), "People in newspapers are reluctant to
build on or give credit to someone else's scoop." 

The ungenerous free press--handmaidens to the Bush administration's alternative legal system and
shadow Constitution! 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

Back to Main News Page



One Million. And Still They Came 
The Observer UK 

Sunday February 16, 2003 

Euan Ferguson reports on a historic peace march whose massive turnout surpassed
the organisers' wildest expectations and Tony Blair's worst fears. 

'Are there any more coming, then?' 

There have been dafter questions, but not many. At 1.10 yesterday afternoon, Mike Wiseman from
Newcastle upon Tyne placed his accordion carefully on the ground below Hyde Park's gates and rubbed
cold hands together. Two elderly women, hand in hand in furs, passed through, still humming the dying
notes from his 'Give Peace A Chance'. They were, had he known it, early, part of a tiny crowd straggling
into Hyde Park before the march proper. 

Half a mile away, round the corner in Piccadilly, the ground shook. An ocean, a perfect storm of people.
Banners, a bobbing cherry-blossom of banners, covered every inch back to the Circus - and for miles
beyond, south to the river, north to Euston. 

Ahead of the marchers lay one remaining silent half-mile. The unprecedented turnout had shocked the
organisers, shocked the marchers. And there at the end before them, high on top of the Wellington Arch,
the four obsidian stallions and their vicious conquering chariot, the very Spirit of War, were stilled, rearing
back - caught, and held, in the bare branches and bright chill of Piccadilly, London, on Saturday 15
February 2003. 

Are there any more coming? Yes, Mike. Yes, I think there are some more coming. 

It was the biggest public demonstration ever held in Britain, surpassing every one of the organisers'
wildest expectations and Tony Blair's worst fears, and it will be remembered for the bleak bitterness of the
day and the colourful warmth of feeling in the extraordinary crowds. Organisers claimed that more than 1.5
million had turned out; even the police agreed to 750,000 and rising. 

By three o'clock in the afternoon they were still streaming out of Tube stations to join the end of the two
routes, from Gower Street in the north and Embankment by the river. 'Must be another march,' grumbled
the taxi driver, then, trying in vain to negotiate Tottenham Court Road. No, I said; it's the same one, still
going, and he turned his head in shock. 'Bloody Jesus! Well, good luck to them I say.' There were, of
course, the usual suspects - CND, Socialist Workers' Party, the anarchists. But even they looked shocked
at the number of their fellow marchers: it is safe to say they had never experienced such a mass of

There were nuns. Toddlers. Women barristers. The Eton George Orwell Society. Archaeologists Against
War. Walthamstow Catholic Church, the Swaffham Women's Choir and Notts County Supporters Say
Make Love Not War (And a Home Win against Bristol would be Nice). They won 2-0, by the way. One
group of SWP stalwarts were joined, for the first march in any of their histories, by their mothers. There
were country folk and lecturers, dentists and poulterers, a hairdresser from Cardiff and a poet from

I called a friend at two o'clock, who was still making her ponderous way along the Embankment - 'It's
not a march yet, more of record shuffle' - and she expressed delight at her first protest. 'You wouldn't
believe it; there are girls here with good nails and really nice bags .' 

Cheer upon cheer went up. There were cheers as marchers were given updates about turnout elsewhere
in the world - 90,000 in Glasgow, two million on the streets of Rome. There was a glorious cheer, at
Piccadilly Circus, when the twin ribbons met, just before one o'clock. 

The mood was astonishingly friendly. 'Would you like a placard, sir?' Sir? The police laughed. One,
stopping a marcher from going through a barricade in Trafalgar Square, told him it was a sterile area, only
to be met with a hearty backslap. 'Sterile area? Where did that one come from.' 'I know,' shrugged the
bobby. 'Bollocks language, isn't it?' And the talk was of politics, yes, but not just politics. There were not
the detailed arguments we had had, even during the last peace march in November, over UN resolutions
and future codicils. This march was not really about politics; it was about humanitarianism. 

'I'm not political, not at all. I don't even watch the news,' said Alvina Desir, queuing on the Embankment
for the start of the march at noon. 'I've never been on a march in my life and never had any intention. But
something's happened recently, to me and so many friends - we just know there's something going wrong
in this country. No one's being consulted, and it's starting to feel worrying - more worrying than the
scaremongering we've been getting about the terrorist threat. I simply don't see how war can be the answer
and I don't know anyone who does. And, apart from anything else, as a black woman in London, it feels
dangerous to spread racial tension after all that's been done.' 

A Cheshire fireman nearby said: 'They will take notice of a protest like this. Our MPs, and Blair himself ,
were voted in by ordinary people like those here today. Blair is clever enough not to ignore this.' 

Linda Homan, sitting on bench at 9.30 in the morning, watching a bright and dancing Thames, had
come down early from Cambridge and was wondering at that stage whether many would turn up. Palettes
of placards lay strewn along the Embankment, waiting. A trolley was pushed past filled with flags and
whistles; there were more police - then, way back then - than marchers. 'I've never felt strongly enough
about anything before. But this is so different; I would have let myself down by not coming and I think this
will be something to remember.' 

For Linda, like so many along these streets, it was her first march. Twelve-year-old Charlotte Wright,
who came up by train from Guildford, Surrey, on her own. 'My parents aren't very happy about this but I
think it's important. Bombing people isn't the right way to sort a problem out.' Jenny Mould, 36, a teacher
from Devon. 'I drove up last night. It took seven hours but it was definitely worth it; the Government should,
it must, listen to the people, otherwise what's the point in democracy?' 

Retired solicitor Thomas Elliot from Basildon, Essex, a virgin marcher at 73, said: 'I remember the war
and the effect the bombing had on London. War should only be used when absolutely necessary.' Andrew
Miller, 33, from New Zealand, whose feeling, echoed by all around, was that 'all the different groups that are
marching today show the world that the West is not the enemy, that British people do not hate Islam and
Arabs and the coming together of people is the greatest way forward.' Lesley Taylor, a constitutional law
lecturer who's lived across here for 29 years, holding a forlorn placard reading 'American against the war.'
Why only one? 'I don't know any other Americans here. In the Eighties here I saw a lot of anti-American
resentment, and now it's back. I accept that the perception of George W. Bush has something to do with
this, but still... these are the same people the thinking middle-classes, who were so shocked and honestly
sympathetic after September 11: how can they turn so nasty so quickly? 

'Because America is making your Prime Minister go against the huge majority of the British people.
And that won't be forgiven. Look about you. That's what this is about; not fierce party politics but a simple
feeling that democracy, British democracy, has been forgotten.' 

Chris Wall, a Nottingham mother who had brought down eight children with her: 'They talk about it at
school and that's a good thing. Children need to be aware of what's happening in the world. And this is, of
course, a peaceful protest.' It remained so all day, despite the numbers; by five o'clock police were
reporting only three arrests. 

In Hyde Park itself, a long line of purple silk lay on the grass, facing Mecca, and Muslims took off their
shoes to pray. Beside it, artist Nicola Green had set up her Laughing Booth, and was encouraging people
in to, obviously, start laughing, on their own, and be recorded; it was, she says, the most disarming of all
weapons. The sky above the nearby stage grew dark, and the park grew even more astonishingly full. 

Charles Kennedy won loud applause for stating that 'The report from Hans Blix gives no moral case for
war on Iraq'; George Galloway won both applause and laughter for suggesting a new slogan: 'Don't attack
Chirac'. Mo Mowlam warned: 'We will lose this war. It will be the best recruiting campaign for terrorists that
there could be. They will hate us even more.' 

Will yesterday, astonishing yesterday, change anything? The facts are undeniable. Perception is all. 

If you look more carefully, in fact, at the warlike Wellington statue, a new tale emerges. The driver of the
chariot is a boy. The reins are slack. The horses are not rearing with anger, but pulling up in mid-charge.
Behind, the fierce, all-powerful figure is not the Spirit of War but the angel of peace, carrying an olive

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational

Back to Main News Page



REPORTS FROM PORTSIDERS, the www and others, Feb.16,2003

1.February 15 organizing staff of United for Peace and Justice
2.k.lynch (BRC listserve)from Athens, Greece
3."penned in"
5.Chris Kromm from North Carolina
6.Peter Kosenko from Santa Monica
- - - - -

1. From: The February 15 organizing staff of
United for Peace and Justice

We made history together yesterday -- congratulations to
everyone. This phenomenal mobilization drew at least 500,000
people to New York City despite frigid temperatures and
repeated efforts by the NYPD to limit our freedom of
expression. We stood with millions around the world in
saying no to war on Iraq, in the largest coordinated day of
protest ever known.

The National Lawyers Guild estimates that 350 people were
arrested yesterday. Had the police cooperated with us and
issued us a march permit, we believe not one of these
arrests would have happened. The police refused to
accomodate the huge crowd that packed into New York City for
February 15 and instead shoved, herded, attacked,
surrounded, and arrested people who were simply trying to
get to the rally.

Indeed, according to the National Lawyers Guild, the
overwhelming majority of those arrested were people who were
just trying to get to First Avenue.

Most of the arrestees have by now been released with
summonses to appear before a judge; their charges are minor.
Another 70 people are still being held for arraignment on a
range of charges.

If you need information about a friend or family member who
was arrested, or if you were arrested yourself and have
legal questions, call the National Lawyers Guild at

Please note that the UFPJ office phones remain down, having
stopped working at about 11:30AM yesterday, or a half hour
before the rally was to begin.

- - - - -

just wanted to add there were estimated 500,000 anti-war
demonstrators in Athens Greece. They gathered at Syntagma
Square and walked to the US embassy. the march lasted
several hours there were so many people.

k. lynch
from BRC listserve

- - - - -

3. A friend who went with us to the NYC Demonstration wrote me
this morning:

>As I read and saw the coverage of the protests all over
>the world, it dawned on me that the only people restricted
>and penned in were us. In the ENTIRE WORLD!.

Judy Atkins
- - - - -

Sun, 16 Feb 2003

The estimated 500,000+ people who participated in
yesterday's New York City protest included the largest labor
antiwar presence to date.

At 11 a.m., 1,000 or more trade unionists held a brief rally
at 59 St. and Fifth Ave. Then, along with thousands of
other protesters, they defied the city's refusal to grant a
permit by marching in the streets to the main rally on First

Meanwhile, a large 1199SEIU contingent gathered on First
Ave., while many other union members arrived at the rally
site in smaller groups.

Labor speakers at the main rally were Dennis Rivera,
President of 1199SEIU; Larry Cohen, Executive Vice-President
of CWA; and Brenda Stokely, NYCLAW Co-Convener and President
of AFSCME DC 1707.

Below are media reports of antiwar labor's participation in
the massive protest.


**Washington Post, Feb. 16, 2003

Labor unions, too, took a big role. Five major national
unions oppose the war.

"We are going to stop this war," said Dennis Rivera, leader
of SEIU 1199, a powerful health-care workers union that
brought thousands of mostly black and Latino workers to the
rally. "If they can march in Rome and Barcelona and London,
we can march in New York, too."

[Full text:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14348-2003Feb15.html ]


Boston Globe, Feb. 16, 2002

"We haven't seen much widespread opposition like this to any
American war at its beginning. I think you probably will
have to go back to the end of Vietnam, when there were
massive protests, and before that it was World War I," said
Michael Letwin, of New York City Labor Against the War.
"Does that mean Bush will pay attention? They don't want to
listen to anybody. . . . Nonetheless, I think they may not
have a choice."

[Full text:


**NY1, Feb. 15, 2003

Thousands of union members from across the city also joined
in with the crowds to oppose a war with Iraq.

'Union members are coming out by the thousands today because
they are opposed to this war, as most Americans appear to
be,' said Michael Letwin of the organization New York City
Labor Against War. 'Workers, I think, in particular know
that it's working people and poor people at home who are
going to pay for the war. They'll pay for it with their
children in uniform, being the ones that die on the front
lines. They'll pay for it in terms of cuts in our social
services and all the government spending that could go to
union services at home but are going to war instead.'

[Full text:


**Village Voice, Feb. 15, 2003

For Millicent Petersen, a unit clerk in a Long Island
hospital who rallied with her union sisters and brothers
from 1199-SEIU, "there's just no purpose to this war that
makes sense."

[Full text:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0308/solomon.php ]

NYC labor bodies endorsing the protest were:

**AFM L.1000
**AFSCME DC 1707
**AFT Local 3882
**APWU NY-Metro/Local 10
**Bergen Co. (NJ) CTLC
**CWA District 1
**CWA Local 1180
**Federation of Union Reps.
**IAM Lodge 340
**NJ Labor Against the War
**NJ Industrial Union Council
**NY Taxi Workers Alliance
**NY Teachers Against the War
**NYC Labor Against the War
**NWU/UAW Local 1981
**Org. of Staff Analysts
**PACE Local 1-149
**PSC-CUNY/AFT Local 2334
**TWU Local 100
**UAW Region 9A NYC
**UNITE Local 169
**UUP/AFT Local 2190
**Working Families Party

- - - - -

5. Subject: 10,000 march in North Carolina
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003
From: "Chris Kromm"

Feb 15: 7,500 (our figure; newspaper said 6,000) descended
on the North Carolina capitol. Very diverse crowd. African
American churches sent good sized delegations. Speakers
included veterans, N.C. Labor Against the War, a state
representative, key African American leaders, people of
faith, students/youth, and reps from Latino, Arab-American
and Asian-American advocacy organizations. In the background
we had a great DJ from the local group Hip Hop Against the
War. A march that stretched throughout the city went by the
offices of Senator John Edwards, the Next Clinton, and
loudly berated his pro-war, Bush-loving stance. People were
VERY pumped up and left ready to act. Several thousand also
assembled for Feb 15 demonstrations in Asheville, Charlotte,
and Wilmington. So all told, well over 10,000 marched in
North Carolina. Pretty good for Jesse Helms territory.

Chris Kromm, Director,
Institute for Southern Studies

- - - - -

6. A interesting visual from the Santa Monica beach protest.
Picasso's "Face of Peace."


This was done at the end of the four hour rally, so I would
guess that a third of the crowd had left. The idea was a
response to the insistence on draping the Picasso "Guernica"
mural at the U.N. during Colin Powell's Security Council

Los Angeles is very spread out, unlike New York and San
Francisco. There were two main locations. Hollywood and
Santa Monica. I don't know the real head count. Obviously
not nearly San Francisco and New York.

In Santa Monica, speakers included Kevin McKeon, Mayor Pro
Tem (the Council passed an anti-war resolution last week),
and former and current State Senators Tom Hayden and Shiela
Keuhl, Blase Bonpane of the Office of the Americas, and a
variety of other activists.

Peter Kosenko

Back to Main News Page


The new anti-war movement and the future of politics

By Peter Dobkin Hall, h-state editor

Feb 16, 2003, Originally posted on<H-STATE@H-NET.MSU.EDU>

The NYC anti-war demonstration in NYC yesterday -- as well
as its counterparts in London, Rome, and Berlin -- merit the
attention of scholars of nonprofits, voluntary action, and

The NYC anti-war demonstration was *huge* -- far, far larger
than the media reported. By noon, First Avenue was packed
solid with people from 30th to 90th streets, with people
backed up for blocks along 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th, 70th, and
80th -- the crosstown streets police had kept open for folks
headed for the demo. When these filled up, people filled
Second and Third Avenues. There were easily half a million
people and probably more.

We (wife Kathryn, 15 year old daughter Becca) never made it
to the demo. We started from Grand Central, hoping to rally
with the Green Party contingent, which was gathering in
Bryant Park, behind the NY Public Library at 5th and 42nd.
By 11 o'clock, the flow of people bound eastward was so
dense that we gave up trying to head west and moved along
with the crowd, first eastward along 42nd to Third, then up
third to the first open cross street at 50th. As we arrived
at each supposedly open cross street, we found it closed
because First Avenue up to that point was too filled with
demonstrators to accomodate any more.

When we got to 70th Street around and still couldn't get
across, we gave up and headed back to Grand Central. As we
were leaving, people were still arriving. In fact, when we
got to Grand Central, people were still getting off trains
heading for the demo.

It was a very good natured crowd, mostly made up of people
in the 30-70 bracket. I never heard a cross word spoken,
despite the cold and the clear fact that the police didn't
know what they were doing and, thanks to the court order
forbidding a march down First Avenue, were faced with a
nearly impossible task of crowd control. The police too were
pleasant and calm.

Unlike the big Vietnam era mobilizations in DC, this march
had no central organization and no marshalls to direct and
assist participants. People simply took responsibility for
themselves and spontaneously helped one another, passing
information along about directions and conditions.

Mainly, everyone there seemed astonished at the number of
people who'd turned out. There was a general feeling among
those of us who are horrified by Bush's domestic and
international policies that we weren't isolated cranks -
that, in fact, there are millions of Americans who share our
concerns who have been kept in ignorance of one another by a
right wing media conspiracy.

In line with this, the press was conspicuous by its absence.
I didn't see a single TV van, other than the one in New
Haven covering the departure of the two trains chartered by
the Green Party (which brought more than 5000 demonstraters
from CT to the rally).

Media reports were either grossly inaccurate or went out of
their way to minimize the scope and scale of the event. CBS,
NY's major news station spoke of hundreds (rather than
hundreds of thousands) of participants -- and focused on
"incidents" between police and demonstrators. National
Public Radio, which has effectively been taken over by the
right, gave more attention to demonstrations in London and
Rome than to the one in NY. WNYC, New York's NPR outlet
played its normal program schedule - reruns of Prarie Home
Companion and other trivia.

The only broadcaster that made any effort to cover the event
with any accuracy was WBAI, NY's Pacifica station - which
had reporters in the streets at crucial points.

Of course, neither the print nor the broadcast media
provided much (and in most cases any) information in advance
of the demonstration. Whatever people knew, they learned
through the internet. If anyone doubts the power of the net
as a political force, this event shows just how powerful it
is -- and just how irrelevant and corrupt the major media
(and the major political parties) have become.

The event powerfully affirmed the vitality of our voluntary
capacity. Hundreds of formally organized political and
social advocacy groups were present. It was also clear that
even those who weren't members of formal groups came as
parts of informal ones -- clusters of neighborhood
activists, networks of friends.

Though I'm generally skeptical of the claims of techno-
utopians about the political potential of the new technology
and have tended to agree with critics like Skocpol and
Putnam directed against the faux membership organizations
that now dominate national interest politics, this event
has given me reason to re-think these positions. Obviously
technology has limits. Obviously nonprofit advocacy has its
flaws. At the same time, there may be new formations
emerging in public life involving voluntary groups and the
uses of technology that warrant our attention.

Back to Main News Page