WELCOME TO IWPR'S IRAQI CRISIS REPORT, No. 05, March 19, 2003

NOTE: READERS FROM OTHER IWPR PUBLICATIONS MUST SUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY TO
CONTINUE RECEIVING IRAQ REPORTS. PLEASE VISIT
https://www.global-list.com/secure/iwpr/subscribe_pop.asp

CRUMBLING AT THE EDGES As phone lines are cut, late reports from within
Iraq suggest defections and other challenges, small and large, to an
expiring regime. By Julie Flint in London.

COMMENT: THE ARAB CRISIS Arabs want and need change, but not imposed from
Washington with its own political agenda. By Walid Khadduri in Nicosia.

LETTER: THE SILENT COUNTDOWN In final quiet moments, Kurds are evacuating
Erbil, reflecting on the past and hoping for a short war. By Ali Sindi in
Pirmam.

FINDING A NEW ROLE Having opposed the war, the UN begins to think about a
role in the aftermath. By Ian Williams in New York.

****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net ***************

NOTE: All readers who wish to continue receiving Iraqi Crisis Report after
issue number 4, please subscribe directly, at
https://www.global-list.com/secure/iwpr/subscribe_pop.asp

*******************************************************************

As an educational charity, IWPR depends on grants and donations. To
support IWPR's educational, training and reporting programmes directly,
you can now give online, at: http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?top_donate.html

*******************************************************************

Readers are urged to subscribe free to IWPR's full range of electronic
publications on Afghanistan, the Balkans, Belarus, the Caucasus, Central
Asia and the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. To manage your own
subscriptions, visit:
https://www.global-list.com/secure/iwpr/subscribe_pop.asp

****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net ***************

CRUMBLING AT THE EDGES

As phone lines are cut, late reports from within Iraq suggest defections
and other challenges, small and large, to an expiring regime.

By Julie Flint in London

Hours before the expiry of America's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, the
Iraqi army has reportedly withdrawn from the strategic oil city of Kirkuk,
strengthening fears that the Iraqi president will set fire to Iraq's oil
wells to prevent them falling into the hands of the Anglo-American forces
that are seeking to remove him from power.

Qosrat Rassoul, commander of the Kurdish forces in the "liberated" area of
northern Iraq, said regular army units had moved out of Kirkuk together
with all their tanks and were travelling south towards Tikrit, Saddam's
home town.

Speaking by telephone from northern Iraq, Rassoul said the Arab population
of Kirkuk had also been ordered to leave the city, just outside the Kurds'
"safe haven". He said Gen. Izzat Ibrahim el-Douri - the commander who
crushed the popular uprising in southern Iraq in 1991, currently in charge
of the war's northern sector - had remained in Kirkuk with units of Iraq's
elite Republican Guard.

Rassoul speculated that el-Douri was under orders to set fire to the oil
wells at the first sign of, or even in advance of, an attempt to seize
control of Kirkuk.

Earlier in the day, Kurdish officials said a "significant number" of Iraqi
soldiers and officers from Kirkuk and Mosul had surrendered to Kurdish
forces. As the government sought to quell rumours that Deputy Prime
Minister Tariq Aziz had left the country, airing an undated clip of a
meeting between Aziz and the president, usually reliable sources suggested
that the mayor of Kirkuk had also defected to the Kurdish area.

In southern Iraq, close to the Kuwaiti front, Iraqis defied a government
curfew as night fell and left their homes for fear of being trapped in an
unprecedented aerial bombardment whose first target is the capture and
control of Iraq's main population centres.

With most international phone links between Iraq and the outside world
shutting down - at the instigation of Baghdad, according to exiles -
information about developments inside Iraq on the presumed eve of the
Anglo-American war was scarce. But reports from Iraqi Shias on the border
quoted civilians leaving Basra and other major cities as saying that Iraqi
troops opened fire on people who ignored the curfew near the Kuwaiti
border.

"Iraqis in the south are expecting a terrible bombardment tonight and are
refusing to stay in their homes," said Sayyed Abdul Magid al-Khoei, a Shia
cleric in London, who spoke to people from the border area by telephone
before lines fell. "People arriving at the border are saying that the army
used artillery against civilians in Um Alsewich," which is south of Basra.

Twelve years ago, after the Allied war to liberate Kuwait, southerners
rose up against Saddam's regime in cities like Basra and turned their
wrath on officials and symbols of the ruling Ba'ath party. But Saddam
reasserted his authority with ground troops and gunships. To prevent
another popular uprising as American forces now target Saddam himself, the
Iraqi president has put in charge of the southern sector the man with the
most fearsome reputation in his regime - Ali Hassan al-Magid, nicknamed
"Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988.

Before night fell, US planes arrived in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq
and huge convoys moved across the Kuwaiti desert towards southern Iraq.
There were indications that the regime was crumbling at the edges ahead of
President Bush's 0100 GMT deadline for Saddam and his two sons to leave
Iraq or be overthrown by force.

Reports from southern Iraq before telephone communications were cut said
government employees were refusing to turn up for work and even
checkpoints were left unmanned. In the city of Nasiriya, a donkey wandered
through the streets spray-painted with the words: "1,000 Americans, but
not one Tikriti" - a reference to Saddam Hussein's own tribe.

Local people said it was a sign of the weakness of the regime that the
animal was not killed at once. Another sign was that they dared speak of
the donkey, and the insult to Saddam Hussein, over international telephone
lines that are usually closely monitored.

Julie Flint, a long-time correspondent from the Middle East and a former
IWPR trustee, is coordinating editor of the Iraqi Crisis Report.


COMMENT: THE ARAB CRISIS

Arabs want and need change, but not imposed from Washington with its own
political agenda.

By Walid Khadduri in Nicosia

Events in the Arab world have moved into the realm of the incredible,
crossing all the red lines that the Arabs drew for themselves in the past.

The most recent example: Facing the prospect of the occupation of Iraq and
the resulting, inevitable damage to Arab interests, Arabs have been
regaled with the spectacle of Arab leaders meeting to discuss the crisis
and descending to an exchange of insults among themselves.

Today it is clear to the Arab public that their governments are unable to
provide the most basic conditions of national security, unable even to
protect the independence and sovereignty of their own countries. One
reason for this impotence is the loss of trust between rulers and ruled,
the total contempt shown for citizens' rights and human rights as set down
in constitutions, international covenants and accords. Then, too, there
are the complicating factors of corruption, economic weakness and the
total lack of inter-Arab cooperation.

Arab states and people alike have lost self-respect - and the world has
lost respect for them.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, it is clear that the US
administration has had, for some time, a clear road map for a major
campaign against Arab states in the region. While the first signs of this
were apparent before 11 September, the political ingredients needed for it
to be acted upon multiplied after that.

The aim is to topple a number of the regimes in the region and change the
policies and attitudes of some of the others. This campaign is being made
possible both by the enormous clout of the US on the international stage
and the debilitating cancer that is spreading through the Arab world.

The main goals of this policy are, first, to boost US influence in the
Middle East and, second, to change the regimes in the region. The aim of
this change is not to bring them into the US orbit - because they are
already there. Rather the goal is to change their nature, structure, laws,
and political, economic and social cultures to make them conform to the
demands of the neo-conservatives in the US administration.

These conditions, attractive at first sight, will demand living with
Israel in line with the conditions of the Zionist right wing. They will
be, or even more importantly they will be seen to be, imposed from the
outside, in coordination with a hard-line Israeli agenda.

What are these developments going to mean for Arabs? First of all, the
imminent occupation of an Arab state - a catastrophe comparable in scale
to that which occurred in Palestine in 1948. The tragedy this time is that
the occupation is being carried out by the most powerful state in the
world in partnership with other states with a variety of claims and
aspirations in the Arab world. Despite the welter of explanations relating
to the nature of the forthcoming foreign occupation in Iraq, there will be
only one outcome: military rule.

From that moment on, the operative words will be resistance to foreign
occupation, with all that this implies.

This means a long period of unrest and turmoil stretching forward a decade
or more. We will witness the appearance of political movements that are
completely different from the ones we have known in the past. Some will
advocate secularism, others religious extremism or ultra-nationalism.
Others will cooperate voluntarily with the new foreign initiative.

It is vital, then, that contemporary Arab political forces unite to bring
large segments of the public together to achieve an Arab civil and
democratic society in which all people feel they enjoy dignity and
equality of citizenship.

Finally, the problem that is perhaps the most difficult to solve: dealing
with our own governments in the region. It is clear that there is a gap
that cannot be bridged between the public and the regimes. There is no
mutual trust and no intention to change on the part of governments that
deal with the symptoms of the problem but leave the causes to get worse.

This was possible in the past. But not today. Now, there is impending
occupation and with Arab citizens losing all semblance of dignity, in the
region and elsewhere. Now, exile is the only way to build a decent life.
War will thus only cause an already bad situation to deteriorate - if such
a thing is possible.

Two challenges will face post-Saddam Iraq and the wider region: to check
foreign hegemony, and to carry out internal reform and promote democratic
regimes and constitutional institutions. Failing this, some young people
will resort to acts of terrorism and anarchy, exacerbating the tragic
situation that faces us today.

Walid Khadduri, an Iraqi journalist, is editor-in-chief of the Middle East
Economic Survey.


LETTER: THE SILENT COUNTDOWN

In final quiet moments, Kurds are evacuating Erbil, reflecting on the past
and hoping for a short war.

By Ali Sindi in Pirmam

It is around 12.30 a.m. on March 19, and I am writing from Pirmam.
Salaheddine is the name the Iraqi government uses, if you want to find me
on a map. Less then 30 hours are left in President Bush's ultimatum.

Tonight the weather is very windy. The Kurds believe that wind is the best
protection against chemical and biological weapons, especially if it comes
with rain. It is like that tonight. Are the Kurds to be lucky this time? I
hope so, because we don't have masks or vaccines.

Every year on March 21, the Kurds celebrate Newroz, the beginning of the
Kurdish year. The most important thing to do at Newroz is to light a fire.

There is a Kurdish legend that says thousands of years ago, an evil king
named Zohak made a pact with the devil in order to maintain his rule. To
keep his power, the devil told the king to drink the blood of two children
every day. One day, the people decided to stop what has happening to their
children. They rose up behind a local blacksmith named Kawa, who killed
Zohak and liberated his people. We Kurds celebrate this victory of good
over evil on Newroz.

I am not going to judge which part of this story is true and which is
imagination, but I know for sure that today there is a Zohak in Baghdad.
In his speech on Monday night, President Bush mentioned that the day for
Iraqis to be liberated is very close. I am an Iraqi and I hope it will be
soon.

Here in northern Iraq it is silent. Although Kurds have evacuated cities
near the front lines with Saddam's troops - half of the families in this
town have already left - they are generally optimistic. The expectation,
and the news, is that the war will be short. Fifteen years ago this month,
weapons of mass destruction were used against the Kurds and the world just
watched. Now people here decided to evacuate the big cities as a
precautionary measure since even now we have no prevention against
chemical attack. Hopefully Saddam will not have the chance to use
anything.

For now security in the region is completely under control. In Erbil, a
city of around one million, up to 40 per cent of population has left. But
not a single theft was recorded during the last 24 hours, according to the
police chief, who is a friend of mine. Despite the fear and the confusion
about what might happen in the next few days and hours, the evacuation is
not a mess. Iraqi Kurds are experts in this issue. There is no one of my
age and above who has not experienced leaving his home at least once.

I remember the evacuation of 1991, after the Kuwait war. It was at exactly
this time of year - twelve years ago, but it seems like yesterday! I was
single then and two years out of medical school. Kurds were fleeing toward
the borders followed by Saddam's troops and helicopters, which we believe
got a green light from the United States. The Iranian and Turkish borders
were closed and two million people were waiting on the borders. I am not
exaggerating. Those who give a smaller figure are underestimating because
of the embarrassment the true figures mean for those responsible.

My parents, sisters, brother and relatives were all among the two million.
I saw children and old people dying from diarrhoea and malnutrition in
front of my eyes. As a newly graduated, enthusiastic medical doctor I
could do nothing. Instead of treating people, I helped to bury them.

Today the situation is different. Helped by the "safe haven" protection
provided by the United States and Britain over the past 10 years, the
Kurds have reconstructed their region. Nearly half the 4,000 villages
destroyed during the 1980s have been rebuilt and inhabited. The 2,000
villages in the mountainous regions provide good strategic depth for a
withdrawal if and when necessary. Remembering the experience of 1991, the
Kurds have decided to die this time rather than go toward Turkey or Iran.

After a decade of self-rule, the Kurds are more organised and better
prepared. Today US interests match Kurdish interests - a change of rule in
Baghdad, the opposite of what seemed to be the aim in 1991. While all the
surrounding countries including Kuwait, where most US troops are based,
are announcing that their troops won't participate in the war, the Kurds
will participate and are ready to be on the front line.

Stories and rumours about the war are beginning to reach us from the Iraqi
side. One of these stories says that a poor man started cheering a group
of Iraqi soldiers wearing American uniform - a plan, the story says, by
the Iraqi government to confuse the American troops. The man thought
Americans had arrived. He was hurrahing President Bush. But the
"Americans" were Republican Guards. They arrested him.

Ali Sindi, a graduate of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, is a
Kurdish surgeon and former deputy minister of health in the Kurdish
government.


FINDING A NEW ROLE

Having opposed the war, the UN begins to think about a role in the
aftermath.

By Ian Williams in New York

As American tanks raced towards Iraq's southern border with Kuwait, the UN
Security Council met to discuss the work of its weapons inspectors - now
withdrawn from Iraq. The deliberations were surreal, but the only
alternative was for the Security Council to recognise, and thereby
condone, the imminent war it had rejected.

Reality intruded, briefly, in the form of US Secretary General Kofi Annan,
who addressed the Security Council to remind belligerents of their
responsibility for the protection of civilians. "Without in any way
assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, we in the United
Nations will do whatever we can to help," he said.

Annan said he would propose an amended oil-for-food programme - which
already feeds half of Iraq's population and which may, after the war, have
to feed the other half too - to enable the UN to replace the Iraqi regime
in contracting for supplies. The US had been in quiet discussions with the
UN Secretariat for weeks over post-war scenarios and the UN had to tread
with care so as not to be seen to condone an invasion which Annan himself
has said would violate the UN Charter.

While President George Bush was insouciant about his failure to get a UN
resolution, he knew that his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, needed it to legitimise his participation in war. In addition to
securing rhetorical commitment to Iraqi ownership of their own oil (while
sidestepping the question of who would be allowed to buy it), Blair was
able to wrest one major concession FROM BUSH: a public promise that the UN
would be involved in reconstruction, including a post facto resolution to
legalise the occupying regime.

Politically, the promise was enough to enable Blair to retain his
development minister, Claire Short, who only days earlier had threatened
to resign over the prime minister's "reckless" diplomacy. Robin Cook,
Blair's former foreign secretary, had already resigned, delivering a
powerful and punishing resignation speech.

The model for the UN's new role, such as it is, seems to be be Kosovo. In
that case, international intervention was not approved by an explicit
Security Council vote. But the UN gave a retrospective seal of approval by
setting up a UN civil administration. Countries which had opposed the
bombing, such as Russia, were keen to climb back into the game, and the
Americans reluctantly consented.

In Iraq in 2003, it seems unlikely that Washington will allow more than
token UN participation in the post-war.

Most Security Council member are despairing over the damage they feel has
been done to the UN Charter. Most believe that if the Council could not
prevent war, it will be able to provide the resolution to end it - even if
France Russia and Germany will play hardball with the US on the details.

Justice will be one such troubling detail. Washington has announced a list
of most-wanted Iraqis. Yet it has appeared to contradict itself by
offering Saddam Hussein exile - and, implicitly, amnesty.

The venue of any trials will be problematic. Washington has vehemently
opposed the International Criminal Court, so that option can be
discounted. But shuttling detainees off to Guantanamo Bay, even without
charges, risks adding to regional anger over the intervention. Some kind
of ad-hoc UN-sponsored tribunal seemed a possible compromise that could
confirm, also, a UN role.

The UN may also seek to revive the role of the inspectors. Although Hans
Blix's job has ended for now, his team has amassed vast expertise on Iraqi
weapons systems. In the aftermath of war, as the US seeks to publicize the
extent of Iraq'S weapons of mass destruction, many at the UN hope the
inspectors will be called back to provide independent confirmation of any
findings - even if this confirms the solidity of Washington's stated
reason for going to war.

Ian Williams, a former US editor for IWPR, is a long-time UN
correspondent.

****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net ****************

The reports are also being published on the Web in English, Arabic and
Kurdish.

This project is supported by the Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation and
International Media Support. IWPR also thanks the following for
institutional or development support which has assisted in the launch of
this project: the Dutch Foreign Ministry, the Ford Foundation, the
Ploughshares Foundation.

For further details on this project, other publications and IWPR
educational and media development programmes, visit: www.iwpr.net

Iraqi Project Coordinating Editor: Julie Flint

IWPR Project Development and Support -- Executive Director: Anthony
Borden; Director of Operations: Alan Davis; Managing Editor: Yigal Chazan;
Senior Operations Manager: Duncan Furey; Associate Editor: Alison
Freebairn

The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) is a London-based
independent non-profit organisation supporting regional media and
democratic change.

Lancaster House, 33 Islington High Street, London N1 9LH, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7713 7130, Fax: +44 (0)20 7713 7140 E-mail: info@iwpr.net
Web: www.iwpr.net

The opinions expressed in Iraqi Crisis Report are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR.

Copyright (c) 2003 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting

IRAQI CRISIS REPORT No. 05