29 December 2002
Grenoble, France
 

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

The Grenoble Research Center for the Advanced Study of American
Institutions and Social Movements has received much mail these past few
days, and pro-war and anti-war mobilizations continue. One important item
concerns the question of propaganda over debate. Recently, a propaganda
piece by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was printed in a
widely-read bulletin that is published by a large labor-union-led
organization within the prestigious French research institution, the CNRS.
Below, Marc Olivier, a research associate at CEISMA, criticizes "CAES
Magazine" for printing without commentary this blatant propaganda, under
the guise of tolerating all points of view. [See item A.1.] The publication
of Ms. Rice's article in this magazine is perceived by many as an
irresponsible decision, promoting disinformation and confusion among
working-class readers and intellectuals who are in need of meaningful
information.

Propaganda flows from Washington, D.C. like water from the Potomac.
Translating it and broadcasting it in a labor publication without any
critique, in the name of free speech, might well appear as an act of
charlatanism, like selling water from Lourdes to cure cancer. [Read Items
A.2./3. below --in French or English-- and make up your own mind.]

On another note, David Peterson has forwarded us an article on new
assassination tactics that would make Machiaveli blanch. Murder has
graduated from an art to a high-tech science, and guess who is paying the
bills.... [Please see item B. below]

Finally, our research associate Michael Albert, at Zmag.com has sent us an
important exposé on U.S. ans European corporations that helped arm Sadem
Hussein, when he was an efficient American ally against Arab socialists and
Iranian and Kurdish nationalists. The many thousands of millions of dollars
of chemical, biological, and "conventional" weapons that American
corporations sold to Iraq are finally portrayed in the U.S. Media as
weapons of "terror," which of course they always were. The fact that
American corporations arm terrorists (often with the assistance of U.S.
government officials) is an inconvenient fact, that even the magicians of
American media cannot make disappear. [please see item C. below.]
 

Sincerely,
F. Feeley
Professor/Director of Research

_____________________________________________
A.1
Cher Francis bonjour
Je te remercie vraiment beaucoup d'avoir pris la peine de traduire le texte
de C.Rice. Cette traduction m'intéressait parce que j'avais dans l'idée de
la communiquer à nos amis aux USA, dont la plupart ne comprennent pas le
Français.
A ta question "que veux tu faire maintenant ?" et au commentaire
d'Elisabeth Chamorand, j'ai actuellement la réponse suivante:
- Evidemment je ne crois pas que la rédaction de "CAES Magazine" croie tout
ce qu'écrit Condoleeza Rice. Mais cela m'est égal: chacun a le droit de
croire ce qu'il veut dans notre pays. Ce qui me pose problème, c'est la
décision de publier ce taxte dans une publication animée par les syndicats
et envoyée aux 25.000 salariés du CNRS, dans le contexte géopolitique
actuel (et sans faire état des fonctions éminentes qu'elle remplit auprès
de Bush). A mes yeux, il s'agit de pure propagande politique. Nous en
sommes abreuvés à longueur de journée par les main stream medias et il me
semble que cette publication augmente la confusion que l'équipe Bush
s'efforce d'entretenir sur ses buts de guerre (et par conséquent affaiblit,
ne serait-ce que marginalement, la résistance à ces objectifs).
- La publication de ce texte s'inscrit dans la ligne d'une nouvelle
politique éditoriale du magazine, qui cherche à développer les débats
d'opinions différentes sur les grands problèmes de société. J'approuve
totalement cette orientation, à condition que les paroles qui s'expriment
soient libres et indépendantes. A mon avis, cela exclut toute personne
impliquée directement -surtout à des postes au sommet- dans l'exercice du
pouvoir éxécutif, car on ne peut attendre de telles personnes que la
justification de leur action et non une position personnelle indépendante.
Il est clair qu'un collaborateur direct de Chirac défendra par exemple son
slogan de "l'impunité zéro" alors qu'il est en train d'organiser l'impunité
totale pour lui-même... A mon avis ce serait donc une faute de lui ouvrir
les colonnes de notre magazine.
- Cette publication a évidemment provoqué quelques remous (mais moins à ma
connaissa&nce que je le croyais -Cependant la période des fêtes n'y est pas
favorable...) et un ou deux syndicats du CNRS seraient d'accord pour
essayer de faire publier un texte comparable écrit par un opposant à la
politique de Bush. J'ai donc pensé envoyer la traduction de Rice à l'un
d'entre eux, par exemple Ramsey Clarke, en lui demandant une réaction de
format comparable. Qu'en penses tu? As tu d'autres suggestions ?
- Je n'ai pas pris contact avec Elisabeth Chamorand pour le moment, mais tu
peux lui faire part de ce message. Quant à Susan George, je lui ai envoyé
un mail resté jusqu'ici sans réponse, mais j'avais une autre adresse que
celle que tu me donnes et peut être ne l'a-t-elle pas reçu.
En attendant, je te présente mes meilleurs voeux pour toi et tous ceux qui
te sont proches à l'occasion de la nouvelle année. J'espère qu'elle ne
verra pas le déclanchement d'une nouvelle apocalypse!
Amicalement,

Marc
 

___________________________________
A.2.
ORIGINAL COPY OF TEXT IN FRENCH :

from Controverse,19, décembre 2002
 

"Les États-Unis et leurs alliés : valeurs et intérêts communs"

Il existe depuis longtemps un débat entre l'analyse “réaliste” et
l'interprétation “idéaliste ” des relations internationales. On peut
simplifier grossièrement cet argument en disant que lorsqu'il s'agit de
stabilité et de paix, les réalistes minimisent le rôle des valeurs et
mettent l'accent sur l'importance de l'equilibre des pouvoirs. Les
idéalistes, quant à eux, considèrent que les valeurs et le caractère des
sociétés sont des élémonts cruciaux du comportement des États vis-à-vis des
autres.

Cela constitue peut-être un débat intellectuel fascinant mais, en réalité,
le pouvoir et les valeurs sont inextricablement liés. Les grandes
puissances peuvent influencer des millions de vies et changer l'histoire.
Les valeurs des grandes puissances sont donc importantes. Si l'Union
soviétique avait gagné la guerre froide, nous vivrions aujourd'hui dans un
monde bien différent.

Les États-Unis et leurs alliés dans le monde ont des valeurs en commun,
notamment un engagement général envers la démocratie, la règle de droit,
l'économie de marché et le libre-échange. En outre, depuis le il septembre,
les grandes puissances de ce monde resserrent de plus en plus lèurs rangs
contre les forces de la terreur et du chaos. Nous sommes de plus convaincus
que le temps joue en faveur de ces valeurs communes. Cette confluence de
valeurs et d'intérêts crée une occasion unique. Au lieu de répéter le
schéma historique de la rivalité entre grandes puissances, il est possible
d'essayer de stimuler la coopération entre les puissances afin de régler
divers problèmes, du terrorisme à l'environnement, qui appellent des
solutions multilatérales.

Certes la sécurité doit reposer sur la force militaire, mais ce n'est pas
suffisant. Afin de continuer d'établir ce que le président Bush appelle un
“équilibre des pouvoirs qui favorise la liberté”, nous devons propager le
plus possible les bienfaits de la liberté et de la prospérité dont nous
jouissons dans le monde développé. Nous avons la responsabilité de bâtir un
monde meilleur et plus sur.

Avec l'appui de leurs partenaires, les États-Unis lutteront contre la
pauvreté, la maladie et l'oppression parce que cela est juste et
intelligent. Nous avons vu comment les États pauvres peuvent s'affaiblir au
point de s'effondrer, constituant une proie facile pour les réseaux
terroristes, avec toutes les conséquences catastrophiques que l'on sait.

Nous prendrons la tête des démarches visant à établir un régime commercial
mondial prospère et plus libre. L'expansion du commerce est essentielle au
développement des pays pauvres et à la santé économique de tous les pays.
Nous allons continuer de mener la lutte internationale contre le VIH/sida,
une pandémie qui menace notre humanité et des sociétés tout entières.

Nous chercherons à inclure chaque État dans un cercle de plus en plus grand
de développement. En début d'année, le président Bush a proposé une
augmentation de 50 % de l'aide des États-Unis au développement. Mais il a
clairement signifié que ces nouveaux fonds seraient associés à de nouvelles
conditions. Seuls les pays qui gouvernent justement, qui investissent dans
la santé et l'éducation et qui encouragent la liberté économique auront
accès à ces nouvelles ressources.

Notre action commune doit être animée par la résolution de se tenir du côté
des hommes et femmes de toutes nations qui défendent ce que le président
Bush a qualifié d'“ exigences non négociables de la dignité humaine”, à
savoir la liberté d'expression, l'égalité devant la justice, le respect des
femmes, la tolérance religieuse et le contrôle des pouvoirs de l'État.

Dans leur aide au développement leur diplomatie, leurs diffusions
internationales et leur soutien à l'éducation, les nations éprises de
liberté doivent promouvoir la modération, la tolérance et les droits de
l'homme.

Il faut rejeter les arguments condescendants selon lesquels la liberté ne
peut pas fleurir au Proche-Orient et les musulmans ne partagent tout
simplement pas notre désir de liberté. La joie manifestée dans les rues de
Kaboul l'année dernière prouve le contraire. Par ailleurs, dans un récent
rapport de l'ONU, un groupe de trente intellectuels arabes reconnaissent
que pour participer pleinement au progrès de notre temps, leurs pays
devront accorder une plus grande liberté politique et économique, émanciper
les femmes et se doter d'une éducation plus moderne.

Il ne s'agit pas d'imposer la démocratie aux autres. Nous cherchons
uniquement à aider à créer les conditions qui permettent aux peuples de se
créer un avenir plus libre. Nous reconnaissons également qu'il n'y a pas de
solution “à taille unique” L'Allemagne, l'Indonésie, le Japon, les
Philippines, l'Afrique du Sud, la Corée du Sud, la Pologne, Taïwan et la
Turquie sont la preuve que la liberté se manifeste de diverses façons dans
le monde, et que des libertés nouvelles peuvent trouver leur juste place au
sein de traditions anciennes.

Dans plusieurs pays, tels le Bahreïn, la Jordanie, le Maroc et le Qatar,
des réformes sont en cours. Elles prennent un visage différent selon les
circonstances locales. D'ailleurs, cette année en Afghanistan, une
assemblée traditionnelle, la Loya Jirga, a débouché sur la création du
gouvernement le plus représentatif de l'histoire du pays.

Du fait de leur propre histoire, les États-Uns savent qu'ils doivent être
patients et faire preuve d'humilité. Le changement, même pour le mieux, est
souvent difficile. Parfois, les progrès sont lents. L'Amérique n'a pas
toujours été à la hauteur de ses propres nobles idéaux. Cela fait deux cent
vingt-six ans que nous avons gagne notre propre liberté, mais nous sommes
toujours en train d'essayer de la parfaire.

Ensemble, les pays épris de liberté ont la capacité de forger un xxle
siècle qui sera à la hauteur de leurs
Espoirs au lieu de confirmer leurs craintes.
Mais cela ne se réalisera que Si nous nous montrons persistants et patients
dans l'exercice de notre influence au nom de nos idéaux, et pas seulement
de nous-mêmes. Condoleezza Rice

_________________________________________________________

A.3.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE RICE TEXT :
 

from Controverse, 19 December 2002
 

"The United States and its Allies: Common Values and Interests"

For a long time a debate has existed in the field of international relations
between realist analysis and idealist interpretation. This argument can be
grossly simplified by saying that where peace and stability are concerned,
the realists minimize the role of values and place emphasis on the
importance of the balance of powers. As for the idealists,  they consider
that values and the character of societies constitute elements crucial
to understanding the behavior between states.

While this is perhaps a fascinating intellectual debate, in reality power
and values are inextricably linked. The Great Powers can influence millions
of lives and change history. The values of the Great Powers are therefore
important. If the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, we would be living in a
very different world.

The United States and its allies in the world share common values, namely, a
general commitment to democracy, rule by law, the free-market economy.
Moreover, since September 11, the Great Powers of this world have been closing
ranks more and more against the forces of chaos and terror. We are
increasingly convinced that time is on the side of our collective values.
This convergence of values and interests has given birth to a unique
opportunity. In stead of repeating the historic outline of rivalry between
Great Powers, it is now possible to try to stimulate cooperation between
Powers in order to solve diverse problems, from terrorism to the
environment, that demand multilateral solutions.

Certainly security must be based on military force, but that alone is not
sufficient. In order to continue establishing what President Bush calls "a
balance of powers which favors freedom," we must prolong as much as possible
the benefits of liberty and prosperity which we in the developed world now
enjoy. We have the responsibility to build a better and safer world.

With the help of its partners, the United Starts will fight against poverty,
illness, and oppression because this is just and intelligent. We have seen
how poor states can weaken to the point of disillusion, becoming easy pray
for terrorist networks, with all the catastrophic consequences that we have
seen.

We will take the lead in this crusade aiming at the establishment of a
system of prosperous global trade and more freedom. The expansion of trade
is essential to the development of poor countries and to the economic health
of all countries. We are going to continue to carry on the international
struggle against HIV positive/AIDS, a pandemic threat to humanity and to all
societies.

We will try to include each state in an ever-growing circle of
development. At the beginning of this year, President Bush proposed a 50%
increase in U.S. aid to development. But he clearly indicated that these new
funds would be linked to new conditions. Only those countries which govern
justly, which invest in health care and education, and which encourage
economic freedom will be allowed access to these new resources.

Our collective action must be guided by our resolve to stand beside men and
women of all nations who defend what President Bush  has described as "the
non-negotiable demands of human dignity" --that is freedom of expression,
equality of justice, respect for women, religious tolerance and control of
state power.

With their aid for development, their diplomacy, their international
communications and their support for education, those nations fond of
liberty must promote moderation, tolerance and human rights.

The condescending arguments that freedom cannot flourish in the Middle East
and that Muslims simply do not share our desire for freedom must be
rejected. The joy seen last year in the streets of Kabul prove the contrary.
Besides, in a recent UN report, a group of thirty Arab intellectuals have
recognized that in order to participate fully in the progress of our time
their countries must allow greater political and economic freedom, liberate
women, and provide more modern education.

It is not a question of imposing democracy on others. We only seek to help
create conditions which permit people to create a freer future for
themselves. We also realize that there is not a "one-size-fits-all"
solution. Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South
Korea, Poland, Taiwan, and Turkey are proof that freedom manifests itself in
diverse ways in the world, and that new freedoms can find their just place
in the heart of ancient traditions.

In several countries, such as Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco and Qatar reforms
have already begun. They take different features, according to the local
conditions. Moreover, this year in Afghanistan a traditional assembly, the
"Loya Jirga," has cleared the way for the  creation of the most
representative government in the history of the country.

Because of its own history, the United States knows the importance of
remaining patient and demonstrating humility. Any change, even one for the
better, is often difficult. Sometimes progress is slow. America has not
always lived up to its noble ideals. Two hundred-and-twenty-six years ago we
gained our own liberty, but we are still in the process of trying to perfect
it.

Together, countries loving freedom have the capacity to forge a twenty-first
Century that will live up to their hopes rather than conform to their fears.

But this will only happen if we show ourselves to be persistent and patient
in the exercise of our influence in the name of our ideals, and not simply
in our own names.

Condoleezza Rice

______________________________________________________________
B.

From: david peterson <davidpet@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: ASSASSINATION
AS MANIFEST DESTINY
( * It seems that our glorious leaders and masonic defenders of the
security of our threatened homeland have finally discovered the ultimate
manifest destiny of this great country of ours: ASSASSINATION. Whew. And
here I thought that our Ship of State had all but become unmoored.)

from The Guardian, Thursday December 19, 2002:

The name of the game is assassination: The Pentagon has learned from
Israel's policy of 'targeted killings'
                                 by Tony Geraghty and David Leigh
 

Israeli hardliners had the pleasure this week of seeing their controversial
tactic of "targeted killing" of their enemies vindicated by being imitated.
For it has emerged that their close allies in the US administration have now
drawn up a target list for a systematic policy of assassination against
those they call terrorists.
Considering the closeness of the Israeli right and the hawks at the
Pentagon, this development should come as no surprise. The US has borrowed
not just their policy, but their techniques too. It was Israel that
pioneered the use of the Hellfire missile for summary executions such as the
US carried out last month in Yemen.
Developed as a tankbuster during the cold war, Hellfire hits its target at
950mph. On November 3, a Landcruiser with an alleged al-Qaida leader and
five other men was stalked from the air by a pilotless Predator controlled
by a US team in Djibouti, 150 miles away. The Hellfire it carried enabled
them to kill their prey from the comfort of an office chair.
A decade earlier, another terrorist, Sheik Abbas Moussawi, leader of
Lebanon's fundamentalist Hizbollah group, was stalked from the air in this
way. On February 16 1992, he was vaporised by an Israeli helicopter armed
with Hellfire.
In biblical times, David made do with just one missile to cut down Goliath.
But since Moussawi's Mercedes was in a guarded convoy, he got five. His wife
Siham and their son Hussein, aged five, were killed with him.
Israel's defence minister, Moshe Arens, rejoiced over "a message to all
terrorist organisations... whoever opens an account with us, we will close
the account with them".
Three years later, Israel assassinated another Hizbollah leader, Rida
Yassin, in a similar way as he drove along a road east of Tyre. Two Cobra
helicopter gunships fired the radar-guided missiles, again believed to be
Hellfires. One reportedly exploded inside the vehicle, burning Yassin and an
aide alive. The other set fire to trees and bushes, hindering rescue
workers.
The US's recent technical contribution has been to marry Israel's novel use
of Hellfire with unmanned drones. The Predator was conceived in 1994 as a
spy plane, operated from a safe position by a member of the "joystick
generation" - and three others managing cameras and communications.
Airforce chiefs then transformed it into a tankbuster. The first successful
test was in Nevada on February 21 2001. Air combat command moved on to try
satellite links against the harder challenge of a moving target.
Al-Qaida's attack on the twin towers soon afterwards dramatically changed it
targets - to "take out" not tanks, but individuals.
In this, it seems clear the Pentagon drank at the well of Israel's
experience as a "laboratory for fighting terror". This May, Douglas Feith,
the Pentagon's hawkish undersecretary for policy, went to Tel Aviv to talk
to Ariel Sharon and his defence minister, Binyamin Ben Eliezer. The Israeli
paper Ha'aretz said they discussed "war games, intelligence sharing and
other cooperation".
Feith is such an enthusiast for the Israeli right that the reactionary
Zionist Organisation of America describes him approvingly as "the noted
pro-Israel activist".
Four weeks later, Israel's top two security chiefs went to Washington to
propose a new US-Israeli office specifically to combat terrorism. Brigadier
General David Tzur and Uzi Landau, minister of interior security, met Feith
on June 27.
The joint office, to be based in Washington, would involve a communications
link between the proposed US department of homeland defence and the Israeli
government, it was explained. Visa policies, terrorist profiles and other
internal security data - except classified intelligence - would be swapped
by computer, fax and telephone. The topic of the US-Israeli meeting was
confirmed as "homeland security". Mr Landau said: "Israel is a laboratory
for fighting terror."
It was only a matter of days after those talks that defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld drafted a secret directive. It is reported he ordered Air force
General Charles Holland on July 22 "to develop a plan to find and deal with
members of terrorist organisations".
"The objective is to capture terrorists for interrogation or if necessary to
kill them, not simply to arrest them in a law-enforcement exercise," he
wrote.
Following the Yemen attack - what the Pentagon apparently hopes was the
first of many successful operations - the third of the Pentagon's trio of
hawks, deputy secretary Paul Wolfowitz, told CNN the killing was regarded as
"a very successful tactical operation".
That opinion seems likely to be cheered to the echo in an embattled Israel.
But others will regard with profound alarm this latest systematisation of
murder.

cheiron@onetel.net.uk, david.leigh@guardian.co.uk

_______________________________________________________
C.

from: Znet

Subject: U.S. Corps implicated in Iraq.

First, when the massive pile of documents from Iraq appeared, in photos,
in the paper, and the U.S. immediately pulled out all stops to get first
access, to shut down wide dissemination, etc. -- the smart money said
that buried in the morass there would be evidence of U.S. (and European)
culpability in aiding the Iraqi weapons programs, dating back to before
the Gulf War, but covering the period of Hussein's rise and his worst
crimes, etc.
And lo and below...to be reported in tomorow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin
daily), here is a list of US corporations that alegedly supplied Iraq
with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to
1991. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the
Security Council. This is a big breaking story in Europe - read the clip
from this morning's Independent (London) below the list.
---
U.S. corporations involved...
A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets
(missiles)
1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

Additionally to these 24 companies based in the US, are nearly 50
subsidiaries of foreign enterprises whose arms co-operation with Iraq
seems to have been operated from the US. In addition, Ministries for
defense, energy, trade, and agriculture, as well as the foremost U.S.
nuclear weapons laboratories at Lawrence Livermore. Los Alamos, and
Sandia, are designated as suppliers for the Iraqi arms programs for A,
B, and C-weapons as well as for rockets.
Here is the report from this morning's Independent, in London...
Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam
By Tony Paterson
The Independent (UK)
Baghdad's uncensored report to UN names Western companies alleged to
have developed its weapons of mass destruction.
Wednesday, 18 December, 2002
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign
companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France,
that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme, a
German newspaper said yesterday.
Berlin's left-wing Die Tageszeitung newspaper said it had seen a copy of
the original Iraqi dossier which was vetted for sensitive information by
US officials before being handed to the five permanent Security Council
members two weeks ago. An edited version was passed to the remaining 10
members of the Security Council last night.
British officials said the list of companies appeared to be accurate.
Eighty German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied
Iraq with equipment and know-how for its weapons programmes from 1975
onwards and in some cases support for Baghdad's conventional arms
programme had continued until last year.
It is not known who leaked the report, but it could have come from Iraq.
Baghdad is keen to embarrass the US and its allies by showing the close
involvement of US, German, British and French firms in helping Iraq
develop its weapons of mass destruction when the country was a bulwark
against the much feared spread of Iranian revolutionary fervour to the
Arab world.
The list contained the names of long-established German firms such as
Siemens as well as US multi-nationals. With government approval, Siemens
exported machines used to eliminate kidney stones which have a "dual
use" high precision switch used to detonate nuclear bombs. Ten French
companies were also named along with a number of Swiss and Chinese
firms. The newspaper said a number of British companies were cited, but
did not name them.
"From about 1975 onwards, these companies are shown to have supplied
entire complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical
know-how for Saddam Hussein's programme to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons of mass destruction," the newspaper said. "They also
supplied rockets and complete conventional weapons systems," it added.
The five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States,
Britain, Russia, France and China -- have repeatedly opposed revealing
the extent of foreign companies' involvement, although a mass of
relevant information was collected by UN weapons inspectors who visited
the country between 1991 and 1998. The UN claims that publishing the
extent of the companies' involvement in Iraq would jeopardise necessary
co-operation with such firms.
German involvement outstripped that of all the other countries put
together, the paper said. During the period to 1991, the German
authoritiespermitted weapons co-operation with Iraq and in some cases
"actively encouraged" it, according to the newspaper which cited German
assistance allegedly given to Iraq for the development of poison gas
used in the 1988 massacre of Kurds in northern Iraq. It said that after
the massacre America reduced its military co-operation with Iraq but
German firms continued their activities until the Gulf War.
Die Tageszeitung quoted sources close to the US Vice President, Dick
Cheney, as saying the Bush administration was hoping to prove a German
company was continuing to co-operate with the Iraqi regime over the
supply of equipment allegedly useful in the construction of weapons of
mass destruction.
American weapons experts have recently voiced concern that the German
Government has permitted Siemens to sell Baghdad at least eight
sophisticated medical machines which contain devices that are vital for
nuclear weapons. The machines, known as "lithotripters", use ultrasound
to destroy kidney stones in patients. However, each machine contains an
electronic switch that can be used as a detonator in an atomic bomb,
according to US experts. Iraq was reported to have requested an extra
120 switches as "spare parts" during the initial transaction.
The delivery of the machines was approved by the European Commission and
the UN because sanctions against Iraq do not apply to medical equipment.
Siemens and the German Government have insisted that the machines, which
are being used in northern Iraq under a World Health Organisation
programme, cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.
 

**********************
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies
Director of Research at CEIMSA
Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements
Université Stendhal
Grenoble