In this issue:

British Government Brawl Over Iraq War

Germany Feels U.S. Strongarming over Iraq Issue

German Cabinet Ministers Air Differences with U.S.

German Chancellor Repeats Opposition to Iraq War; U.S. Ambassador Protests

Italy's Berlusconi: On Iraq, We Need Hard Evidence

Le Figaro Piece: Does It Lay Basis for French Policy Shift on Iraq?

Swedish Government Protests Reuters Story on Alleged Plan for Terror Attack by Swedish Muslim

German Authorities Arrest German-Born Turk for Planning a Sept. 11 Attack

Senior Italian Politician: International Debt Disrupts Common Good

European Union's 'Stability Pact Is Dead,' Says German Economist

'A Masterpiece of Disinformation'

From the Vol.1 No.27 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly

Western European News Digest

British Government Brawl Over Iraq War

The "war party" faction in the British government is fully on board the Iraq war drive, despite massive opposition to the war in various parts of the British Establishment. The London Observer, which is close to Tony Blair's ruling Labour Party, reported last week that Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon would fly to the U.S. this week for six days, for a "war summit" with Bush Administration officials, at which he will be briefed on plans to launch a military strike against Saddam Hussein. The Observer called this is "clear signal" that armed action against Iraq is "moving to the top of the political agenda," especially as the war summit has been "specially convened to coincide with the anniversary of the terrorist attacks" of Sept. 11.

Hoon will meet with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 11, and will make a major speech at the University of Louisville, during which he will stress British solidarity with the United States.

Meanwhile, according to BBC Sept. 6, out of 100 Labour Party Parliamentarians surveyed by BBC, almost 90% insist there are currently insufficient grounds to declare war on Iraq, with 86 of them demanding a debate in the House of Commons, before any decision on war is taken.

There are warnings of a split in the Labour Party over Iraq. A member of Labour's national executive committee, Mark Seddon, asserts that there is "hardly a voice" to be heard, in support for a preemptive strike on Iraq.

Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, declared that "It is deeply wrong to sleepwalk into war with additional strikes" such as recent ones in which almost 100 British and American war have planes attacked an air defense base, in the "no-fly zone" in western Iraq. He demanded that Prime Minister Tony Blair "has a moral duty to recall the House of Commons," now formally in recess until October. According to Dalyell, "it is important to recall Parliament, so that the diversity of opinion in Britain is clear to American decision-makers."

Labour MP Glenda Jackson said it is "ludicrous" that the issue has not been debated in the House of Commons, since her constituents were expressing concerns hourly "about what they see as this country engaging in a military action without the hard, verifiable evidence that, appalling though Saddam Hussein and his regime may be, they are at this moment a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. Let's see the evidence."

On the eve of his whirlwind Sept. 7 visit to the U.S. to consult with President Bush at Camp David, Tony Blair told BBC's Hotline program, which was aired Sept. 8: "Britain decides its own policy, and although I back America, I would never back America if I thought they were doing something wrong. If I thought that by committing military action in a way that was wrong, I would not support it. But I have never found that, and I don't expect to find it in the future."

Blair was asked by the show's host, whether Britain is prepared to send troops, to "pay the blood price." Blair replied: "Yes. What is important, though, is that at moments of crisis, they [the United States] don't need to know simply that you are giving general expressions of support and sympathy. That is easy, frankly. They need to know, 'Are you prepared to commit, are you prepared to be there when the shooting starts?' "

Germany Feels U.S. Strongarming over Iraq Issue

In an interview published in the current issue of the German weekly Der Spiegel, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice repeated that the world should not wait for Saddam Hussein to start an attack with weapons of mass destruction, but should work for a regime change in Baghdad, before he does so. The post-9/11 solidarity between the Americans and Europeans made sense for Germany as well as the U.S., she commented, since the attacks on 9/11 could as well have hit European targets, because "the terrorists hate Berlin, London, and Paris as much as they hate New York and Washington."

Even blunter were remarks by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Dan Coats, who, in response to continued criticism from the German government over the Iraq war plans, said that if Germany had been hit as the U.S. was on 9/11, they would think differently. Furthermore, said Coats, it seems strange to him that Germans are not discussing the Djerba attack—when a terrorist rammed a gasoline truck into a Tunisian synagogue filled with tourists, most of whom were German—despite the fact that it is clear that al-Qaeda terrorists were behind the attack.

German Cabinet Ministers Air Differences with U.S.

In an interview in last week's week's issue of Der Spiegel, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, Cabinet Minister of Justice, said that she has told her U.S. counterpart, Attorney General John Ashcroft, that Germany will not provide evidence for the U.S. trial against terror suspect Zaccarias Moussaoui, unless the Americans give clear assurances that the material will not be used to secure a death sentence against him.

She said that the German law bans the death penalty and all activities related to it, which implies that evidence on Moussaoui's relations to radical Islamic cells in Germany cannot be given to the U.S., because if found guilty, Moussaoui faces a death sentence.

Furthermore, German Cabinet Minister of Defense Peter Struck reiterated in a DLF radio interview Sept. 3 that a preemptive war on Iraq would be a violation of international law, if Iraq had not previously attacked any other state. He also confirmed that even a new UN Security Council mandate that would allow military operations against Saddam Hussein would not be binding for Germany. There is no majority in the German Bundestag, or Parliament, for a war against Iraq, Struck said.

Also, Wolfgang Thierse, chief speaker of the Bundestag, said Sept. 2 that the German Constitution bans all wars of aggression and any German militry role in such. A preemptive war against Iraq as defined recently by Dick Cheney would be a war of aggression, he argued, and for Germany to take part in that, would violate its Constitution, Thierse said.

German Chancellor Repeats Opposition to Iraq War; U.S. Ambassador Protests

The controversy between the governments of the United States and Germany over the Iraq issue is growing more intense: On Sept. 4, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder reiterated his criticism of the present U.S. policy, on the grounds that it was a "mistake" by the U.S. to reject an inspections-oriented approach by the United Nations, and that there is no American political concept what to do with Iraq and the rest of the region, after a war. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the Bush Administration is committing a "fatal mistake."

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Dan Coats took to the dpa news service to protest these statements Sept. 4, saying they aggravate U.S.-German relations. Coats also called it wrong to say, as the Germans have been doing, that in case of a war over Iraq, the German ABC (atomic-biological-chemical) defense units would be pulled out of Kuwait, where they currently back up U.S. troops. Their remaining would make sense precisely if there were a war with Iraq, Coats said, adding that a lot of what is currently being said in Germany, may be related to the ongoing election campaign. He claimed that Germany is isolating itself within Europe, with its anti-American remarks.

German government spokesman Uwe Karsten Heye responded by saying that Coats must examine whether his remarks were in compliance with the rules of diplomacy. Schroeder himself said, "Friendship cannot mean that you do what the friend wants even if you have another opinion. Anything else would not be friendship, but submission—and I would consider that wrong." Schroeder challenged Tony Blair's remark Sept. 4 that Iraq represents "a real and unique threat," saying, "With all respect for Tony Blair: Just like anyone else, he will not speak for Europe alone on this issue or on others.... We have absolutely no reason to change our well-founded position. Under my leadership, Germany will not take part in an intervention in Iraq."

As for Coats' claim that Germany was isolating itself in Europe: European Union foreign policy spokesman Xavier Solana told the Berliner Zeitung, "We oppose a preventive war against Iraq. Such action would not be covered by international law."

Italy's Berlusconi: On Iraq, We Need Hard Evidence

Speaking to journalists before the European Union foreign ministers' meeting in Elsinore, Denmark, Italian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Silvio Berlusconi said that Italy shares the "doubts" expressed by European allies regarding a war against Iraq. The United States, Berlusconi said, must produce "hard evidence on the dangerousness of Iraq's weapons system."

The Italian Prime Minister also insisted there be a mission of UN inspectors, and is reportedly convinced that U.S. will take "action to involve Europe and the international community," because it is not convenient for Washington "to proceed isolated."

Le Figaro Piece: Does It Lay Basis for French Policy Shift on Iraq?

A long opinion column in the Sept. 3 issue of the French paper Le Figaro, may lay the basis for a possible shift in French policy, in favor of a second Gulf war. The piece, by Francois Gere, director of the Institute of Defense and Diplomacy, a center-rightwing institution representing French interests, comments that "An intervention in Iraw makes sense if it is a prelude to complete regional realignment."

In a less flamboyant way, the piece is Laurent Murawiec without the Murawiec (referring to the low-level RAND analyst whose July briefing to the Defense Policy Board, in which he claimed that Saudi Arabia was the enemy, caused such a furor in the U.S. and abroad).

"Really, nobody likes Saddam Hussein," Gere writes, adding that he is feared throughout the Middle East. "Whence, therefore, comes this strange diplomatic concert aimed at dissuading the U.S. from bringing the dictator's career to an end? The 'anguish' comes from a realization that the status quo laid down for the region by the French and the British at the San Remo conference in 1920, and reaffirmed by the U.S. after the war, could blow up."

But this order is already non-existen, claims Gere: The invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqis was a blow to it; Israel's borders are no longer secure; Saudi Arabia has gone from being a reliable ally to being an Islamic danger; the world is no longer so dependent on the region's oil.

What new order should be installed in the region? he wonders. Afghanistan must be pacified and bin Laden arrested; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved, and Jordan must be induced to participate in a process that could lead to the creation of a Jordanian-Palestinian federation; Saddam should be replaced in a secure environment created among Jordan, Turkey, Iran, and Syria; negotiations should be opened with Iran and Syria. Last but not least, there should be a global re-composition of power in the Arabian peninsula, since "September 11 has shown that the Riyadh regime today constitutes a major obstacle to a general settlement in the region."

All these problems could be solved "provided that Washington does not confirm the suspicion that it wants to impose by force a situation in conformity only with its imperial interests."

It is here, continues Gere, that France, the United Kingdom, and Europe can contribute positively if they have the will. "If it is a matter of accompanying the United States in a military expedition without any declared future, what's the use? If it's a matter of accompanying a great ally to contribute, at his side, to a global settlement, that becomes desirable and even necessary!"

Swedish Government Protests Reuters Story on Alleged Plan for Terror Attack by Swedish Muslim

According to public protests from the Swedish government, the arrest at Sweden's Vaesteras Airport at the end of August of Kerim Chatty, a Tunisian-born Swede with a handgun in his luggage, is not what a Reuters story and numerous international media have made out of it: a plan to hijack the plane and fly it into a U.S. embassy somewhere in Europe. The plane was scheduled to fly to Birmingham, England, where Chatty and 20 more passengers wanted to attend a Muslim event.

The Swedish government, the SEAPO anti-terror authorities, and the national prosecutor all denied that there was any evidence for the Reuters and related stories. The government also protested the Reuters claim that the authorities in Sweden were playing down the incident and terrorist threats in general because, in view of the Sept. 22, national elections, Sweden wanted to avoid racial friction between nationals and foreigners.

German Authorities Arrest German-Born Turk for Planning a Sept. 11 Attack

According to Reuters Sept. 6, the German authorities have arrested a German-born Turk and his American girlfriend for planning an attack on Sept. 11, which the U.S. has arrested an Afghan-born German from Hamburg on similar charges.

The German arrest, near Heidelberg, the home of U.S. Army Europe headquarters, found explosives, chemicals, and shells for five bombs. The suspect works in a chemical factory near Karlsruhe, while the American girlfriend works at a supermarket on the U.S. base. The suspect was described by Thomas Schaeuble, Interior Minister for Baden-Wuerttemberg, as "a follower of Osama bin Laden who is deeply religious and harbors a hatred for Americans and Jews"; Schaeuble said the government had evidence "that an attack was planned for Sept. 11." The United States provided help on the case, apparently resulting from the arrest in New York in August of an Afghan-born German from Hamburg, now being held in Virginia, who travelled to the United States in July.

Senior Italian Politician: International Debt Disrupts Common Good

Riccardo Pedrizzi, chairman of the Parliament Finance Committee, published an op ed entitled "The debt that divides the world," in the Sept. 3 issue of the daily Il Giornale, owned by the family of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. Two years ago, Pedrizzi was the initiator of the Parliamentary movement for a New Bretton Woods along the lines of Lyndon LaRouche's proposal, at a time when Pedrizzi's party, Alleanza Nazionale, was in the opposition. Pedrizzi was also on the board of the Vatican Jubilee initiative for debt cancellation.

"The sacred character of each individual must be the starting point of our reflections on international debt," Pedrizzi writes; a debt "which today appears as a factor disrupting the national and international common good." After describing the poverty of indebted and less developed countries, Pedrizzi states that "Most indebted poor countries in Africa pay interest higher than the money necessary to implement the main projects of fighting against malnutrition, illness, illiteracy, and infant mortality ... debt is paid, when it is paid, with the absence of infrastructures (roads, schools, hospitals), with which one could fight against poverty and create conditions to start development—which, in turn, would guarantee repayment of loans. Instead, international financial institutions (IMF and World Bank) often force those poor countries to accept austerity Structural Adjustment Polices (SAPs) which have disastrous effects.... Furthermore, SAPs are based on free-market economic theories which are considered universal, and therefore applied in a uniform way.... These policies, which should launch the development of the poorest peoples, instead make them forever dependent and slaves of richer countries."

European Union's 'Stability Pact Is Dead,' Says German Economist

"The Stability Pact is dead," states Ruediger Pohl, president of the Halle Institute for Economic Research, one of the leading German economic research institutes, referring to the European Union's iron-clad measures restricting economic freedom among its members. In an interview with the German Financial Times last week, Pohl noted that in a situation where four Euro members—Germany, France, Italy, and Portugal—are having great problems meeting the fiscal criteria laid down by the EU treaties, it's politically impossible to force through the sanction mechanism of the Euro "Stability Pact." From the economic perspective as well, he said, it would be better to bury the thing.

Other economists interviewed by the German FT are—suddenly—expressing similar views. Juergen Hagen of the Bonn Research Center for European Integration states that "the faster we revise it, the better." Those public investments that in the long run produce growth, and therefore increase the tax base, should not be cancelled due to "book-keeping criteria." Fixed rules should never rule fiscal policy, he says. Instead, there must always be competent individuals making judgments on individual cases.

Ulrich Beckmann of Deutsche Bank states that "under present economic conditions, it makes absolutely no sense from a macro-economic view to cut investments just in order to fulfill the 3% criteria" of the Maastricht Treaty codicils.

The Sept. 5 issue of Die Welt continues the debate, reviewing voices from among the "leading economists" saying the Stability Pact won't work. "The European heads of state should agree that the deficit criteria do not need to be adhered to this year and next," Deutsche Bank chief economist Norbert Walter told Die Welt, saying that, although this may mean that Germany, France, and Italy break the regulations for new debts incurred, "I believe this measure will not be harmful, but urgently required," if it is "coupled with a pledge to a zero deficit by the middle of the decade."

Die Welt also quotes the head of the most prestigious German economic institute, the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Klaus Zimmermann, as saying it must be possible to surpass the pact's limits, if there is a downturn of the economy. In light of the bad economic situation, a reform of the Stability Pact is "necessary and probable," Zimmermann is quoted as saying.

But German Bundesbank vice president Juergen Stark contributes ravings in the opposite direction, in his Sept. 4 column in the Financial Times. Under the headline "A pact worth keeping," Stark declares that "any going back on Europe's budgetary pledges would risk undermining the foundations of monetary union." Stark explicitly rejects the idea that the pact "impedes the financing of public investment projects," saying that "calls for greater leeway for public spending initiatives within the framework of the stability pact are based on the economic policy approaches of past decades."

Plainly, Stark is in stark denial of the demise of the New Economy. He hails the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union as a "turning point in economic policy, with its strict medium-term orientation toward stability as the basis for growth and employment.... Another objective, however, was to convince the public and the financial markets of the [European] Community's ongoing orientation toward stability. The pact is therefore part of the foundation of the monetary union" that created Euroland and its currency the euro.

Hysterically, Stark continues: "Any weakening of the pact would severely damage the very foundations of monetary union ... any weakening of the pact would send a disastrous signal to the markets and would trigger increased volatility and greater instability.... It is unacceptable that the countries calling for a relaxation in the pact's rules are also the ones that have made insufficient efforts to constrain their budgets. There must be no backsliding into the fiscal sloppiness that prevailed during the 1970s: the introduction of the single currency is an irreversible process that demands discipline from all the member states."

'A Masterpiece of Disinformation'

Better late than never. Economics Professor Fredmund Malik of Switzerland's prestigious St. Gallen University, has come to conclusions which won't surprise the readers of this publication—but may surprise some others. In an interview with the Sept. 2 edition of the German magazine Der Spiegel, Prof. Malik described the 1990s "American economic miracle" as nothing but a "media event, a masterpiece of disinformation."

Government statistics for GDP and productivity growth were been "systematically massaged upwards" by methods like the "hedonic price indexing," he noted; the U.S. economic "boom" was just a "giant bluff." Growth in the U.S. was limited to the computer sector, which represents only a tiny section of the total economy, and to the "speculative bubble." In real terms, the U.S. economy of the 1990s was characterized by zero growth. The stock market boom was based on "greed, debt, the fear of missing a once-in-a-lifetime chance, and systematic misinformation."

In America, the entire savings of two generations are at stake. Pensioners still hope for a rebound. "But what happens, once they realize that reserves are gone? Following the last great economic crisis, America did not suffer social conflict. I fear, the story will not end as smoothly this time."

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS