| ARMS
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
CURRENT
UPDATES: January 31, 2003
Dear Friends,
Many of us watched the State of the Union address this week. A few of us played the State of the Union drinking game, made up by clever Princeton students (let it be said that the ATRC does not condone drinking or drinking games, but recognizes their potential therapeutic function). Those of us who did not play, wished we had had at least one beer to go with our war talk.
The highlight for me was not the 77 applause interruptions, but when Bush showed his true colors, reveling in the killing of suspected terrorists. He said, "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies." Yuck and yuck again.
There was no inkling from the TV that there were more than a thousand protestors outside in the bitter cold, dubbing their demonstration the "The Sorry State of the Union."
In this email update, we offer Bill Hartung's take on the State of the Union, an article on increased military aid to Turkey, torture and the war on terrorism in the Philippines and an update on anti-war activities and resources for action.
Just one more note on the State of the Union. Our friends at the Institute for Public Accuracy have compiled "Fact-Checking and Spin-Checking President Bush: A Critical Assessment. This in-depth analysis of key claims in President Bush's State of the Union Address draws on the work of more than 20 analysts. The critique -- available at http://www.accuracy.org/2003 -- focuses on issues of foreign policy and the domestic economy.
In this update:
I. KING GEORGE'S STATE OF THE UNION: High Political Theater
II. TURKEY: NEW EUROPE OR OLD?
III. TERROR AND TORTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES
IV. GET YOUR PEACE ON
V. DOD ANNOUNCES TOP CONTRACTORS FOR FISCAL 2002
I. KING GEORGE'S STATE OF THE UNION: High Political Theater
By William D. Hartung
With a growing anti-war movement and increasing concerns about the President's mismanagement of the economy, the Bush administration is finally beginning to experience some healthy criticism from the mainstream media. Unfortunately, aside from a few pundits like syndicated columnist Helen Thomas and Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who have been calling it as they see it all along, most of new critiques are couched in unduly polite terms, like subjects at a rare audience with the King pleading for more enlightened policies.
The exceptions to this rule are well worth celebrating - and emulating. They often turn up in unlikely places, like a recent piece by Judith Shulevitz in the New York Times book review of January 26th that deals with a new initiative to put "great books" in the hands of U.S. military personnel. The privately funded program, which has been well received by U.S. troops stationed overseas, has allowed the Pentagon to distribute copies of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Shakespeare's "Henry V," along with a book of military profiles and a collection of soldiers' letters home.
The narrow military focus of the titles has drawn criticism from British columnists John Sutherland and Ben Macintyre, who note that the World War II program that the current book distribution was inspired by included a much wider range of books with a much greater critical depth, from Faulkner, Hemingway and Virginia Woolf to Kafka, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens. Shulevitz concurs with these criticisms, observing that "seeking out the new and the challenging is not part of the public relations agenda today."
Thankfully, literature can be a double-edged sword when used for propaganda purposes, as Shulevitz notes, describing the relevance of Shakespeare's "Henry V" to the current political situation.
"The play's plotline . . . offers more commentary on our current situation than the Pentagon probably intended. A newly crowned king's claim to the throne is subject to grave constitutional question, since his father usurped it by murdering its previous holder. The king needs to win his people's trust; he also wants them to forget his youth as a drunk and a bum. He does exactly that by skillfully and courageously prosecuting a war against France, just as his father told him to do: 'Be it thy course to busy giddy minds/ With foreign quarrels.'"
Shulevitz ends her essay by suggesting that at least some of the U.S. military personnel reading their Pentagon-approved copies of Henry V "are likely to realize that it makes something of a case against foreign wars waged by dynastic leaders for less than purely disinterested reasons." Or, as the headnote to the piece puts it "Henry leads his nation into a dangerous, unnecessary, and unjustified war." Sound familiar?
All of which brings us to George W. Bush's latest piece of political theater, his State of the Union address. Taking his cue from Donald Rumsfeld, whose motto with respect to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," our President-select turned rhetorical cartwheels to convince the American people and the world that although United Nations inspectors have yet to find proof that Saddam Hussein's regime currently possesses usable nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, there is an urgent need overthrow him by force.
Bush's skills as a dramatist are decidedly one-sided. The portions of his speech devoted to demonizing Saddam Hussein were far livelier than his long introductory attempt to prove that he is still a "compassionate conservative" who cares about the lot of the average American family. He provided a few new allegations - but no new information - to bolster his assertion that a costly war to unseat Saddam Hussein should take precedence over resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, or dismantling the Al Qaeda terror network, or shoring up a badly faltering domestic economy, or - heaven forbid - coming up with a comprehensive plan to eliminate all of the world's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, not just the ones that Saddam Hussein may or may not possess.
Ironically, a substantial portion of Bush's case against Saddam Hussein appeared to come from the very United Nations inspectors he is trying to shove out of the way so he can get on with the war. In his presentation to the Security Council the day before Bush's State of the Union performance, chief UN Inspector Hans Blix precisely laid out the areas in which Iraqi cooperation had not been forthcoming in accounting for arsenals of chemical bombs and biological agents which Iraq may have possessed as of 1998, the last time United Nations inspection teams were in Iraq. While he was clearly exasperated with Saddam Hussein's regime for not being more forthcoming in clearing up these matters, he made a sensible case for continuing with inspections, not lurching into war.
Bush was on shakier ground when he relied on "intelligence" to make his case. He reiterated the tired claim, based on information from "three defectors," that Iraq may have "several mobile biological weapons laboratories" that "can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors." Never mind that defectors are notoriously unreliable sources on sensitive matters of this sort, or that the image of mobile laboratories offers the perfect public relations image for an administration bent on proving that inspections can never work. We'll just have to trust the President and his advisors on this one. Bush also recycled the charge that Iraq had attempted to buy aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons productions," despite the fact that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have determined that the tubes Iraq sought are more likely to have been destined for a conventional rocket program, not for the enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons.
But the President's greatest dramatic stretch was his attempt to once again link Iraq with Al Qaeda, asserting that he has new evidence that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists" and that therefore "without fingerprints, he could provide one of the hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." If this new "evidence" is akin to past attempts to forge an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, it will involve assertions about an Al Qaeda operative who received medical care in Baghdad and then promptly left the country, and about a fundamentalist group in Northern Iraq - an area that is not under Saddam Hussein's control due to the no-fly zone-- that has links to Al Qaeda.
But it is extremely doubtful that the President has any evidence to suggest that Iraq would make a strategic alliance with Al Qaeda or any other global terrorist group, particularly one that involves sharing weapons of mass destruction. As New York Times correspondent Michael Gordon noted in paragraph twelve of his front page analysis of Bush's State of the Union speech, "just a few months ago, the CIA told Congress that Iraq was striving to develop weapons of mass destruction but was unlikely to orchestrate terrorist attacks in the United States unless Washington struck Iraq first. The CIA has never amended that public assessment."
But of course the CIA, even given all of its flaws, has far higher standards of evidence than Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, or the other trigger-happy neo-conservatives in Bush's inner circle. Rumsfeld's effort to force U.S. intelligence analysts to manufacture evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link would make a good Shakespearean drama in its own right, but our megalo-maniacal secretary of war would undoubtedly ruin it by demanding final review of the script.
The balance between war and peace in Iraq may depend upon how many Americans look at the facts behind the President's rhetorical bluster, and how many buy into his increasingly messianic rhetoric. The end of his speech stopped just short of asserting that King George rules America - and America rules the world - by divine right:
"America is a strong nation, and honorable in our use of our strength . . . The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. We Americans have faith in ourselves but not in ourselves alone . . .we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and human history."
It's enough to make you long for Ronald Reagan. Wasn't his favorite slogan "trust, but verify?" Or, for those of us who believe that President Bush is about to drive the country off a cliff, "distrust and verify."
II. TURKEY: NEW EUROPE OR OLD?
By Michelle Ciarrocca
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hit a nerve earlier this month when he dismissed French and German opposition to the U.S. rushing to war in Iraq, saying bluntly to reporters, "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't." He added: "I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east."
For Turkey, an old member of NATO and a key ally in the first Gulf War, the U.S. is offering to help Turkey become part of the 'New Europe' in return for its cooperation if U.S. forces invade Iraq. Turkey has been striving to become a member of the European Union for years, but a number of hurdles remain.
On the eve of the December 2002 European Union summit, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made phone calls to various EU leaders, including the Danish Prime Minister, the summit president, to urge them to set an early date for accession talks for Turkey. During the meeting, however, members decided to postpone membership talks until December 2004 due to a number of human rights, political and economic reforms Turkey needs to make. Top on the list are abolishing torture and amending the role of the army. As the Federation of American Scientists points out "the lure of membership in the European Union has resulted in the passage of several high profile 'reform packages' that, at least on paper, represent real victories for human rights advocates." But much more needs to be done.
U.S. military planners want to deploy up to 80,000 troops along Turkey's border with northern Iraq and secure access to Turkish airbases for a possible attack. The Bush administration has said they are prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading bases in Turkey. In Ankara in early December, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said "We're going to go now immediately into very concrete discussions about what facilities might be used, what forces might be employed on them, how much money needs to be invested to bring them to the level that we need." The U.S. plans to use other bases in the region as well, including two in Kuwait, one in Qatar, one in Oman, and air bases in Saudi Arabia
New NATO military commander, U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Jones met with Turkey's top general to discuss Turkish cooperation with U.S. forces. NATO has promised military support to Turkey if it comes under attack from Iraq, including the possibility of supplying Turkey with Patriot missile batteries to intercept Iraqi Scud missiles.
Recalling the price Turkey had to pay for the first Gulf War, which in economic terms estimates range from $40 billion to $100 billion lost in trade over the past decade, plus a flood of Kurdish refugees, Turkey is hesitant to support another war on its border. Turkey currently estimates that its financial losses in another Gulf War would be about $28 billion. Turkey has also been suffering from a severe recession, in the past year more than 2 million jobs have been lost and the economy shrank by 9.4% last year. Additionally, Turkey fears that a war in Iraq could re-ignite separatists movements within its own Kurdish population.
With these issues in mind, Turkey hosted a meeting of regional neighbors last week to discuss the situation in Iraq. Foreign ministers from Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt gathered. Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said "the aim of the conference is to send a very strong signal to Saddam Hussein that he needs to fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors or be prepared to face the consequences." He further noted that "Iraq also needs to prove that it is not a threat to its neighbors."
The U.S. has discussed an overall aid package that could include up to $4 billion in aid to offset the damage a war in the region could have on Turkey's fragile economy, writing off or reducing Turkey's $5 billion in military debt, and assurances on $16 billion in recovery loans from the International Monetary Fund. "On the economic assistance package, we've made some good progress. We've established an agreement on the overall structure of the assistance,'' John Taylor, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for international affairs, told reporters at the end of two days of talks in the Turkish capital. The U.S. has also offered Turkey generous terms to purchase new arms. Reuters reported that the Bush administration had approved $324 million in U.S. Export-Import Bank credits for Turkey to purchase 8 Seahawks and 6 Black Hawk helicopters.
Despite U.S. military and economic offerings, Ankara has maintained it will await a UN decision before deciding whether or not to support U.S. military action. There is strong public opposition to a war in Iraq, polls have shown that 9 out of 10 Turks are against Turkey's participation in the war, and there have been daily anti-war demonstrations. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who heads Turkey's ruling party and is considered the leader of the government, said eliminating nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is a worthy goal, "but let's not kid ourselves." He added, "No one is interested in eliminating their own weapons of mass destruction. They're interested in strengthening their own weapons of mass destruction." Commenting on the peace movements throughout the world he said, "It is unfortunate that the people of the United States and Britain are filling city squares, demanding peace while others are in favor of war. The world's decision-makers must heed this rising call for peace."
For more information on U.S. arms sales and military assistance, as well as background on Turkey check out the Federation of American Scientists, Arms Sales Monitoring Project, Country Profile
III. TERROR AND TORTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES
By Frida Berrigan
President Bush recently announced $78 million in new military aid to the Philippines, including $20 million to purchase American-made weapons and services and $21 million worth of secondhand U.S. weapons.
In the letter that accompanied the announcement, Bush wrote "While you have made important strides in the war against terror in your country, additional terrorist attacks against civilians and the resulting loss of innocent life mean there is still much to be done."
While Bush is right that there is still "much to be done" in the Philippines, it is unlikely that U.S. weapons are the right tools for making "important strides in the war against terror." In fact, a new report from Amnesty International documents the use of torture in the Philippines, suggesting that U.S. weapons and military aid could increase incidents of terror.
The report "Philippines: Torture Persists," released in January, found "the persistence of torture and ill treatment in the Philippines today… highlights the serious discrepancy between the law and its application." Amnesty documents torture techniques, including electro-shocks and the use of plastic bags to suffocate detainees, and determines that, "those most at risk include alleged members of armed opposition groups, their suspected sympathizers" along with "ordinary criminal suspects."
Amnesty is not alone in recognizing human rights abuses in the Philippines. According to the State Department's 2001 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, "there were serious problems in some areas. Members of the security services were responsible for extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention." The State Department also acknowledged that the presence of Special Forces and military advisers played a role in creating an environment in which human rights abuses increased, noting in their report that "there were allegations by human rights groups that these problems worsened as the Government sought to intensify its campaign against the terrorist Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)."
Since September 11 2001, the United States has been overseeing the steady re-militarization of the Philippines. Within the context of strengthening the Philippines capacity to be partners in the war on terrorism, the U.S. has restored military ties, increased military aid exponentially and re-deployed U.S. troops on the archipelago in a semi-permanent way for the first time the U.S. military was kicked out by an act of the Filipino Congress in 1992. Despite the fact that this military build up uses the language of the war on terrorism, U.S. military presence seems aimed at rooting out small indigenous insurgent movements that have no ties to international terrorism or the Al-Qaeda network.
The 17,000-island archipelago faces internal pressure from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) of kidnappers, and the Communist guerilla New People's Army (NPA), and an ongoing dispute with China over possession of the Spratly Islands. Since 2001, the U.S. State Department has added the ASG and NPA to its list of terrorist organizations, making them "fair game" for a better-equipped, better-trained Filipino military.
In 2001, U.S. FMF (Foreign Military Financing) for the Philippines amounted to $2 million. After the attacks of September 11th and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's pledge of support in the war on terrorism, that jumped 10 times, increasing to $19 million for 2002. President Bush's request for 2003 is just slightly higher at $20 million, but is accompanied by another $25 million in emergency support. In addition to this cold hard cash, the U.S. has supplied the Philippines with more than $100 million in military equipment, including C-130B transport aircraft, 8 UH-1H utility helicopters, 350 grenade launchers, 30,00 M-16 rifles, a Coast Guard patrol vessel and mortars, sniper rifles, and night-vision goggles.
Aid for training the Filipino military (IMET) also increased, almost doubling from $1.4 million in 2001 to $2.4 million in 2002. In 2002, the U.S. began a major joint training exercise with the Filipino military that involved thousands of troops. While the U.S. military maintained that the training exercises general and aimed at increasing Filipino military prowess, U.S. training was critical in planning and undertaking the June 2002 less than fully successful rescue of two American missionaries and a Filipino nurse Abu Sayyaf held hostage. While one hostage escaped with only minor injuries, the two others were killed in the raid.
In October 2002, another training exercise, this one involving 800 U.S. troops and taking place on Luzon Island, an area known for the activity of the New People's Army. In 2003, Manila and Washington are planning at least 11 joint exercises, with the first now underway at Clark Air Force base, the former U.S. military base involving more than 500 U.S. troops training the Filipino military in mountaineering, close quarter combat, and jungle survival.
The role of U.S. military training and advisers raise serious questions about the level of U.S. engagement in the Philippines. The Filipino constitution prohibits foreign armed forces from operating in national territory, but U.S. soldiers carried weapons and were allowed to return fire when attacked.
Anticipating the possibility that U.S. military personnel deployed in the Philippines will be accused of abuses, Washington has offered Manila $30 million in additional military aid in exchange for an agreement that would exempt U.S. soldiers operating in the Philippines from the International Criminal Court.
Links:
Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines
PHILIPPINES Torture Persists: Appearance and Reality within the Criminal Justice System
IV. GET YOUR PEACE ON
By Frida Berrigan
As war looms closer and closer, the anti-war movement in this country gets stronger and broader and more mainstream. Below are some resources, ideas, and signs of hope.
1. CITIES FOR PEACE
Cleveland became the 50th city in the country to say NO to war, passing the unanimous resolution on January 27, 2003. The Cleveland City Council stated their opposition to unilateral military action against Iraq, making them the very first in Ohio to adopt such a resolution.
An Emergency Resolution: Supporting the men and women serving in the armed forces an honoring their commitment to our national safety and security; opposing unilateral military actions against Iraq and urging President Bush to continue seeking a peaceful resolution of issues with Iraq in a diplomatic manner.
A complete list of all cities that have passed resolutions can be found at www.citiesforpeace.org
2. A WARRIOR AGAINST WAR
"I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive, "Norman Schwarzkopf, the General who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War, Washington Post, January 28, 2003
3. WORKERS AGAINST WAR
A. "We are having this meeting because our members demanded it", Jerry Zero, secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local 705 in Chicago, which hosted the gathering, said at the outset. "Our membership is split 50-50. Fifty percent don't believe a thing President Bush says, and 50 percent think he's a liar."
"Since 9.11 at least forty-two locals, fourteen district or regional councils, thirteen central labor councils, five state federations, four national labor organizations and twenty-two local committees have passed antiwar resolutions. These represent more than two million people, and that estimate is low."
"Workers Against War," by JoAnn Wypijewski, Counterpunch, January 2003.
US Labor Against the War can be contacted at katie007@msn.com
B."We're all red-blooded Americans, but I have not read any evidence that this lousy fellow over there (in Iraq) is the one who attacked us on Sept. 11." Herb Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the 260,000-member Missouri AFL-CIO. From Labor Movement Lines Up Against Possible Iraq War, By Philip Dine, January 19, 2003
4.CONGRESS
Even thought the official Democratic response to Bush's call to arms was tepid on Tuesday night, some members of Congress are sending a strong message that Bush does not have the authority to launch a military attack and needs to consult with Congress again.
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, from President Bush's home state of Texas, introduced legislation to repeal the October 2002 resolution authorizing the President to "Use of Force Against Iraq."
In a press conference on January 21st she said that Congress passed that resolution "prior to the deployment of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, and at a time when the current nuclear crisis in North Korea had not reached its present level of dangerous tension." She noted that "today's new threats pose new challenges to our nation… Congress is obligated to examine the new challenges that face our country and the world and to make crucial decisions based upon all of the information available."
To learn more about Congresswoman Jackson Lee's legislation (H. Con. Res.2) read the Press Release or call her office at (202) 225-3816.
Senators are raising similar questions. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced a resolution calling on Bush to seek Congressional approval before beginning military action. Senator Robert Byrd (D. W.VA) proposed a separate resolution, calling for a vote in the United Nations Security Council before any attack.
"It is wrong for the administration to beat the drums of war," said Mr. Kennedy, who said President Bush had "totally failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our security." Mr. Byrd said, "What concerns me greatly is that this president appears to place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations."
5. NOBELS AGAINST WAR
41 American Nobel Prize winners in Science and Economics signed onto a statement opposing war in Iraq. Nobel winning chemist Dr. Walter Kohn, a former adviser to the Pentagon, spearheaded the effort, because he said, "No voice was speaking against the war," he said. "So I asked, 'Can I somehow make myself useful?'"
The declaration reads:
"The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support. Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world." Read it at Common Dreams
6. IN THE STREETS...........
.........OF THE UNITED STATES:
Columnist Geov Parrish writes that in addition to the 250,000 (or more) protestors in Washington, DC on January 18th there were protests around the country. "In San Francisco, another record-breaking crowd, of up to 300,000 people, crowded the waterfront. Portland, Oregon saw 25,000 -- the largest such protest in the city's history -- railing against Bush's folly. In Tampa, Florida -- one of many cities not accustomed to this sort of thing -- 2,000 rallied at the gates of MacDill Air Force Base. Other places reporting over a thousand people protesting this weekend - in some place, far more -- included cities as diverse at Honolulu, Chicago, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Lincoln (Nebraska), Salt Lake City, Spokane, San Luis Obispo, Tucson, Albuquerque, Ann Arbor, Santa Barbara, Orange County (at the Nixon Library), and Milwaukee. In the state capital of Montpelier, Vermont, 3,000 people rallied in a town of 8,000."
Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist, he writes the daily Straight Shot for WorkingForChange
............AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
In London, where British Prime Minister Tony Blair has offered Europe's strongest support for Bush's stance on Iraq, hundreds gathered near the permanent joint headquarters of the British armed forces.
In Paris, an anti-war rally drew 6,000 people, according to police, as a range of left-wing activists demanded that Washington lay aside its war plans. Organizers said 20,000 people marched through the French capital.
Another 10,000 people rallied in France's southern city of Marseille, according to organisers, crying "Bush, Blair, Chirac, we don't want your dirty war!" Police put protester numbers at 5,000. Peace protests were planned in some 40 other French cities.
In Germany, two demonstrations -- in the northeastern port city of Rostock and in the southwestern university town of Tuebingen -- brought thousands out in support of peace.
In the Irish republic, around 1,500 activists gathered outside the Shannon airport to protest the possible refuelling there of Gulf-bound US warplanes in the event of war, police said.
Sweden, too, saw up to 5,000 demonstrators march through the southwestern city of Gothenburg.
Austrians got an early start in Vienna late Friday with 1,000 mostly
students and school children burning a US flag and chanting "Stop the War".
In Japan, rally organizers from World Peace Now said up to 5,000 protestors had marched through Tokyo's glitzy shopping district Ginza.
Near the Pakistani capital, a human chain of more than 1,000 people -- including hundred schoolchildren -- wove through the streets of Rawalpindi in a collective call for peace.
Massive rallies were staged throughout the Middle East, including a march through the Syrian capital that brought 15,000 people into the streets.
In neighboring Lebanon, more than 8,000 protestors marched to UN offices in central Beirut in the largest anti-war rally held in support of Iraq in the past year.
A protest in Cairo had a more modest turnout, with only 300 people assembling in the central Sayeda Zeynad Square, as a heavy police presence prevented others from joining in.
US anti-war protests were planned for Washington and San Francisco and other cities, synchronized with the rallies in a total of 18 countries, including Argentina and Mexico.
Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday the US president was happy to allow the US rallies, since they are a sign of the "strength of our democracy."
From an article in Agence France-Presse, Thousands across the world rally against war in Iraq, January 19, 2003, (edited for length)
7. RESOURCES AGAINST WAR:
A. COLLATERAL DAMAGE: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq
US-led attack on Iraq could kill between 48,000 and 260,000 civilians and combatants in just the first three months of conflict, according to a study by medical and public health experts. Post-war health effects could take an additional 200,000 lives. The report, Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq, was issued by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, and produced by Medact, the organization's United Kingdom affiliate.
B. UNDERSTANDING THE U.S.-IRAQ CRISIS: A Primer by Phyllis Bennis
A pamphlet of the Institute for Policy Studies, January 2003
C. Talking Points on the U.S.-Iraq Crisis by Phyllis Bennis
(author of Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: A Primer), 20 January 2003
V. DOD ANNOUNCES TOP CONTRACTORS FOR FISCAL 2002
The Department of Defense announced today that the fiscal year 2002 report of "100 Companies Receiving the Largest Dollar Volume of Prime Contract Awards (Top 100)" is now available on the World Wide Web. The web site address for locating this publication and other DoD contract statistics is www.dior.whs.mil/peidhome/procstat/p01/fy2002/top100.htm
According to the new report, the top 10 Defense contractors for fiscal 2002 were (in billions):
1. Lockheed Martin Corp. $17.0 billion
2. The Boeing Co. 16.6
3. Northrop Grumman Corp. 8.7
4. Raytheon Co. 7.0
5. General Dynamics Corp. 7.0
6. United Technologies Corp. 3.6
7. Science Applications Int. Corp. 2.1
8. TRW Inc. 2.0
9. Health Net Inc. 1.7
10. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. 1.7
In fiscal 2002, DoD prime contract awards totaled $170.8 billion, $26.2 billion more than in fiscal 2001. www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/b01232003_bt034-03.html
Reports
| Recent News Coverage
| Updates
|
