[A-List] US imperialism: coalition of the bugged

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war

Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key
Security Council members

Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer

The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN
Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes
in favour of war against Iraq.

Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves
interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN
delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.

The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the
National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications
around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation
and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input.

The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in
secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at...
UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide
up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of
UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened
surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile,
Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the
so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the
pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more
time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia.

The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the
agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how
delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on
Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and
'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US
policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head
off surprises'.

Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's
chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi
compliance with UN resolution 1441.

It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section
of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically
important for United States interests.

Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick
Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations.

Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of
UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that
their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member
UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything
useful related to Security Council deliberations'.

Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate
your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar
more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product
lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal
request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more
along these lines in formal channels.'

Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what
many expect to be his final report to the Security Council.

It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards
undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the
unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US.

Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there
had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to
pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the
serious consequences of discovery.

The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been
requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice,
is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to
win over the undecided delegations.

The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three
former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able
to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his
senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.

The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the
agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's
office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the
surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told
'You have reached the wrong number'.

On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension,
the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up.

While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo
reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US communications
intercepts targeted against the New York-based missions.

The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the countries have been
complaining about the outright 'hostility' of US tactics in recent days to
persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid
packages.

The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organisations in Europe.
'The Americans are being very purposeful about this,' said a source at a
European intelligence agency when asked about the US surveillance efforts.

-----

America the arm-twister

In the conflict over a second resolution that could trigger a war, the
'Middle Six' nations on the UN Security Council face a barrage of bribes,
persuasion and blatant threats

Ed Vulliamy in New York, Peter Beaumont in London, Nick Paton Walsh in
Moscow and Paul Webster in Paris
Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer

Samoud is a word with a special meaning in Arabic. In recent weeks it has
come to international attention as the name of Saddam Hussein's proscribed
missile system, synonymous with the white, finned tubes thick as tree trunks
which Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, has ordered for
destruction.

But in the Arab world it has another resonance; 'to be steadfast'. In truth,
however, it means something more. Particularly in the context of the
Palestinian struggle, samoud is understood as a form of existential
resistance, an absolute refusal to give in even when faced with occupation
by one's enemies, a quality invoked by Saddam in his struggles with the US
and its allies.

This 'steadfastness' of the strong has turned negotiations for a new
resolution to authorise war against Iraq into a colossal contest between
America, Britain and Spain, who believe that war is inevitable, and France,
Russia and Germany, who are seeking to avoid it. The prize is the very
future of the UN and the shape of international relations.

All sides in what is set to be one of the most bruising encounters on the
Security Council in a generation have set out their positions, as America
and its allies try to secure a resolution authorising war for what they say
is Iraq's non-compliance with resolution 1441. Next Friday that battle will
come to a head when the council meets to hear what is likely to be the last
report by Blix. Then the US and Britain will push for a vote on their new
resolution to declare Iraq in material breach and authorise war.

Tony Blair made it clear this weekend that he will not back down and that he
is, perhaps, more hawkish than George Bush. For his part, Bush has
reaffirmed that only the total disarmament of Iraq and the removal of Saddam
will lift the prospect of war, a combination so unlikely that war is
virtually guaranteed.

On the anti-war side, positions appear to be hardening by an equal measure.
Russia has let it be known in private - if not in public - briefings that it
might exercise its veto, following similar warnings from the French.

Torn between the two sides on the Security Council are the so-called Middle
Six - Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan - whose support
or otherwise is likely to characterise how the world, particularly the
Islamic world, reacts to any US-led war.

The fight over the Middle Six has been characterised by threats, cajoling,
US spying on their missions and blatant bribes. Seasoned diplomats have
looked on in awe or felt the heat as America mounted its offensive to
browbeat the nations it needs for a Security Council majority clearing the
path to war.

When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied strong-arm tactics by the US
diplomatic service, correspondents to whom he was talking on Thursday
laughed and he left the briefing room.

Meanwhile, the people for whom Fleischer speaks - Bush and Vice-President
Dick Cheney - have been picking off countries one by one, with a mixture of
courtship and threats, each tailored to match that nation's dependence on
the US and the leverage of American power.

The missions of the Middle Six, on New York's Upper East Side, have been
inundated by emails, phone calls and visitors from the US presence at the
UN, while emissaries have been dispatched from Washington to their capitals,
armed with goodies for those who toe the line - and sanctions against those
who do not.

The feverish efforts flow seemlessly from the American mathematics over the
nine votes required to win the necessary majority, if a veto from one of the
Permanent Five is not deployed. The votes from Britain, Spain and Bulgaria
are assured. Russia and China, both with veto powers, are expected to
abstain or vote against. France - which also has a veto - will almost
certainly vote against, along with Syria.

All six have been reminded what the price for non-compliance may be. The
precedent is that of Yemen, which had the audacity to vote, along with Cuba,
against the last Gulf war. A $70 million US aid package was instantly
cancelled.

It is abundantly clear that this time the threats are heavier. Two senior
officials from the State Department - Kim Holmes and Marc Grossman - were
sent last week to Mexico, where their pleading was described as 'hostile' by
diplomats, who said Mexico would face a 'very heavy price' for doing
anything but supporting the Americans.

Pakistan has also been the target of a lobbying blitz. For its support
during the Afghan war, it was rewarded with the writing off of $1 billion of
bilateral debt and a blind eye to its nuclear bomb programme, in addition to
massive aid from the US and other nations.

The stick with which US diplomats are beating Chile is a free-trading
arrangement desperately needed by the South Americans. The terms have been
drawn up and are waiting to pass through both legislatures, in Washington
and Santiago de Chile.

If America's southern neighbours have been feeling the heat, so have the
three African nations on the Middle Six. The pressure on Angola started by
telephone from the White House, with Bush and Cheney making personal appeals
to President Jose Eduardo dos Santos.

But it has not only been Americans who have been punching the phones. French
officials have been working their own angles, though with fewer threats.

French diplomats claimed - perhaps optimistically - yesterday that the
pro-inspection lobby among the 15 council members weighed in favour of
giving the inspectors more time. Apart from China and Russia, France
believes it has the support of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea in addition to
the declared opponents of US policy, Germany and Syria.

For all the threats and cajoling, the issue which will weigh most heavily on
this week's negotiations in the run-up to Blix's report will be Iraq's
commencement of its destruction of its al-Samoud missiles yesterday. It is
around this issue that the arguments will be most heated. France has already
said that Iraq's decision to comply with a UN order to destroy missiles is
proof that inspections are working, a view shared by the Russians.

In Washington and London, however, Iraq's decision to obey Blix's deadline
to begin destruction - a deadline built up on both sides of the Atlantic as
a 'key test' of cooperation - is discounted as yet 'another trick' by Saddam
that both Bush and Blair had foreseen.

'The truth is that Iraq is still not complying,' said one Whitehall source.
'Resolution 1441 demands full, complete and immediate disclosure and
disarmament, and that has not happened. The missiles are a distraction from
this.'

To this end, Britain's ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, last
week made an oral representation to members of the Security Council in
closed session on Iraqi concealment of chemical and nerve agents, based on
British intelligence. This week he will circulate a letter formally
disclosing the same intelligence.

Washington and London will also make much of Blix's comments last week that
Iraq's belated and patchy cooperation, mandated under resolution 1441, had
'been very limited so far'. It is this that the war party will seize on as
the material breach that - new resolution or not - effectively authorises
war under the existing resolution.

Which leaves the question of a Russian or a French veto. While in Washington
and London officials have pooh-poohed the idea that Russia might really veto
any resolution, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov apparently does not share the
US view. Speaking to reporters in Beijing on Friday, he insisted that
'Russia has the right to veto' and 'will use it if it is necessary in the
interests of international stability'.

In the end, however, even those most hostile to the US and Britain's search
for a new resolution are deeply pessimistic that war can be avoided. What
America wants, America will get, they believe. And there is the United
States' most powerful threat of all: that it will damage not only national
interests, but render the United Nations an irrelevance when confronted by
the reality of US power.