Daily Update

• A television appearance by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein renouncing weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq's permitting 30 key weapons scientists to travel to Cyprus to be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors.
• Destruction "forthwith" of 10,000 liters of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons Iraq is allegedly holding.
• Surrender of and explanation about biological weapons production.
• Commitment to destroy proscribed missiles.
• Accounting for unmanned aerial vehicles.

The UK is trying to convince the six undecided, non-permanent members on the Security Council to support the resolution so that Britain and the US can at least claim a " moral victory" even if France or Russia use their vetoes. But even that may not be enough, as the Guardian reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has apparently been told by government lawyers that without a second United Nations resolution, it would be illegal for Britain to participate in war.

In another development, France signalled its adversaries that it still might be possible to bridge the gap between the two sides. The Financial Times reports that the French government believes Mr. Blair is desperate to secure a resolution to contain the rebellion within his Labor party, and could be open to a compromise.

Meanwhile, Canadian ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker is trying to rework an early proposal that had been strongly supported by Chile, a key swing vote. The CBC reports that Mr. Heinbecker once again called for compromise on setting a deadline and schedule for Iraqi compliance with demands for disarmament.

Heinbecker said Iraq should be given a three-week ultimatum to meet disarmament demands. "We are convinced that Iraq is substantially contained and that if it cooperates, the disarmament of Iraq can be had without a shot being fired," said the ambassador, repeating what Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in an interview on the weekend.

Earlier on Tuesday, the US rejected a planthat the deadline be extended into April. "There's room for a little more diplomacy here but not much room and not much time," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

The relationship between the US and the UK has been thrown into confusion after US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday said that that the US would be prepared to take military action against Iraq without Britain. The comments seemed to catch the British totally by surprise. On Wednesday, British Defense secretary Geoffrey Hoon made it clear that rather than scaling down the UK's involvement in the conflict, the opposite was happening.

The BBC reports that the phones between London and the White House were ringing "red hot" after the comments. Mr. Rumsfeld later tried to clarify his remarks, by saying that the US knew how important it was to the UK to get the second resolution passed. "In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom."

The reason that the US may be willing to let Britain back down if the two countries fail to win a second resolution was suggested in an article by Stephen Pollard in the Daily Telegraph. Pollard says the US wants to make sure that Blair is in position to help them with " the bigger picture" - Iran. If Blair is tossed out by his own party, Washington can be sure that his replacement will be in no hurry to help the US in a big way.

One advantage of having more time is that the US would be able to urge the new Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, to allow US troops to use his country as a stage for an invasion of northern Iraq. But even if Mr. Erdogan can't give the US the support it wants, Reuters reports that the US and Turkey are talking about the US using Turkish airspace to ferry troops into Iraq.

In another development, UN arms inspectors on Tuesday canceled U-2 reconnaissance flights over Iraq for safety reasons after Baghdad complained that two of the aircraft flying simultaneously constituted a hostile action. Reuters reports that in Baghdad, a senior Iraqi official said the UN had admitted that having the second aircraft in the air was a "mistake" and denied Iraq had threatened the planes. But the US said Iraq scrambled MiG-23 fighters to intercept the surveillance planes, prompting the US Central Command to quickly order the U-2s to leave Iraqi airspace.

Recent Updates Saturday, March 22 Friday, March 21 Thursday, March 20 Wednesday, March 19 Tuesday, March 18

E-mail this story Write a letter to the Editor Printer-friendly version del.icio.us [ What is this? ] digg [ What is this? ]

BBC reporter: US threatens to "target down" independent journalists
In an interview with Irish radio, BBC reporter Kate Adie, who was the BBC's chief news correspondent from 1989 until December 2002, said she was told by a senior Pentagon official that the the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq would be "targeted down," or fired on. Ms. Adie said that when questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions for independent journalists, Adie alleges the officer said: "Who cares?...They've been warned."

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) wrote a letter to Rumsfeld on March 6, asking for protection for all journalists working in the Middle East. The Village Voice reports that the CPJ was not encouraged by the Pentagon's response: US officials have made no offers to assist unescorted journalists, but they have said that any "nonembed" who turns up in a potential military theater will be treated "like any other civilian . . . found on the battlefield."

Most reporters in the Gulf are working with the military, "embedded" with various military groups in Kuwait, and eventually Iraq. The question of whether or not this new relationship is good or bad for the media (or even affordable) has been the subject of much debate in media circles. ( NewsMax reports that one reporter has already been sent back home for " breaking the rules" set by the military.)

In the Washington Times, columnist Clarence Page writes that "embedded" absolutely has to not mean "going to bed with." He offers a word of advice to his embedded colleagues: Keep your skepticism, especially when your military handlers say " We're here to help you."

With all due respect to my embedded colleagues (if we journalists don't respect each other, who will?), our public is best served when that insider's view is balanced with some outsider views provided by those renegades get themselves a Jeep of their own (an official no-no for the Embedded Ones) and ride out to find their own stories without waiting to be escorted to them by our military handlers.

But in an article on DefenseLink, Bryan Whitman, US deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said he believes reporters should be allowed extensive access to military operations because they'll cover what he likes to call " the good, the bad and the ugly."

"They'll see the goodness with which our troops carry out their missions. Our troops are human though, too, and they'll make mistakes, and I believe that reporters will cover the bad as it occurs," Whitman said. "And I think reporters will also cover the ugly because war is ugly, and the world should see that war is ugly (and know) we don't make these decisions to go to war lightly."

Good idea or not, the media seem to be taking to the idea with a passion. On Tuesday the military reported that it was opening up 100 new positions for more embedded reporters from smaller organizations. But not everybody is enthusastic about the idea.

"Not a chance, thank you very much," says Toronto Star foreign editor Bill Schiller. "If anyone thinks that the Pentagon is engaging in this embedding project for any other reason than to help improve its image before the US public, they are being incredibly naive. That is not to say that there will not be some good reporting come of it. Undoubtedly there will. But it will be the exception, not the rule."

Also...
• War reporter likes 'being a soldier' ( Christian Science Monitor)
• Au revoir to French food names in Congress restaurant ( MSNBC)
• US media dodging UN surveillance Story ( Media Beat)
• The American Enterprise Institute speech: Bush's victory sermon ( WorkingForChange.com)
• Norman Mailer: Only in American ( New York Review of Books)
• War might be hell, but it's profitable ( Toronto Star)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan at csmbandwidth@aol.com.