WEF Brokering Iraqi Deals?
Powell, Saddam, and the Future of the Iraqi People and Oil

Amidst rumours that the Davos Forum is introducing Iraqi opposition leaders to corporate executives for some kind of secret oil deal, the US plans for war to go ahead regardless of European resistance, saying it has contingency plans for a possible Iraqui humanitarian crisis.

By Emad Mekay

DAVOS, Switzerland – "We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction," US Secretary of State Colin Powell told businesses executives and government officials gathered here at the World Economic Forum.

Powell is shrugging off accusations that the US lacks evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that Washington has little concern about the potential humanitarian disaster that could ensue after the threatened war.

Meanwhile, the Davos Forum had invited nine "Iraqi leaders" to discuss the "democratic future of Iraq"- an event that was part of the WEF's original programme.

"We want to hear from people who could have tremendous responsibility for their country in the near future," said Frédéric Sicre, WEF managing director.

But Friends of the Earth suggests that "a secret meeting of top oil executives was scheduled," possibly discuss the future of Iraqi oil.

Sources in Davos said oil executives such as Nick Butler, vice-president of British Petroleum (BP), Sir Phillip Watts, CEO of the Dutch-British Shell and Thierry Desmarest CEO of the French oil giant TotalFinalElf, might have met with the Iraqi opposition leaders.

A regular participant in the Forum, who requested anonymity, said the decision to host Iraqi opposition leaders when they are not yet in office was a clear evidence of the influence the United States, whose administration is so bent on a war with Iraq, has on the privately-run WEF.

And indication of the staunch US attitude is that Powell asserts that his country is ready to go to war alone if necessary.

"We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing," he said.

Powell, who is trying to refute concerns among European allies that there is not enough evidence to justify a war against Iraq and that the inspection process needs more time, stressed that, according to the UN resolution, the onus is on Iraq to come clean, not on the US. And he repeated the US accusation that Iraqi authorities are lying.

On Monday Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri responded with his own accusation – that Washington is lying. He said Baghdad hoped the UN weapons inspectors' report, presented Monday to the Security Council, would present the facts, "proving that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. And we hope the Security Council will lift the criminal sanctions on the Iraqi people."

But chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it."

And Powell commented that Iraq does not have much more time, and that Baghdad's "refusal to disarm still threatens international peace and security."

Washington's traditional European allies, like Germany and France, and also Russia, have been reluctant to support the US military plans and said that the weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time to dig out the alleged weapons.

"Saddam should tell the truth now," Powell said even before the report came out. "To those who say, 'why not give the inspections process more time?' I ask: how much more time does Iraq need?"

"Iraq attempted to conceal with volume what it lacked in veracity. It has failed the test."

Powell said there was no evidence that Iraq destroyed the thousands of litres of anthrax and botulinum it had possessed earlier. He told the Davos gathering that Iraq must account for 30,000 munitions capable of carrying chemical agents, as the inspectors can so far only account for only 16 of them.

But an Amnesty International representative at the WEF challenged Powell, asking whether a war with Iraq would justify the possible enormous humanitarian disaster that it would likely cause.

In 1991, millions of Iraqis and foreign workers in the Persian Gulf were forced to seek shelter in neighbouring countries, creating a refugee problem after the US and its allies started bombing Iraqi cities.

The interruption of basic service like electricity, clean water and sewerage systems also led to many deaths in Iraq.

Earlier this month, UN officials warned that a military conflict in Iraq could trigger a major economic and humanitarian crisis in the already troubled region, extending well beyond Iraq's borders.

But Powell countered that the US is drawing up "contingency plans" to meet the expected humanitarian disaster of the war.

Notably, he did not receive loud applause at the Davos meeting, as did many others, like Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, when they criticised the US for "militarising the world".

But some of the participants said Powell's message was balanced, "soft and convincing".

"I thought he made a persuasive case that we are in a war and you have to make tough decisions," said James Rubin, former US State Department spokesman.

Even though Powell did not provide clear evidence of a nuclear or a chemical weapons programme in Iraq, as with North Korea - when a picture of a nuclear site was made available to TV networks - Rubin and other attendees defended the US position on the grounds that the Europeans were asking for too high a standard of evidence.

"The Europeans have higher evidentiary standards and I think he handled that brilliantly," said Rubin, but admitted that the speech was not going to fundamentally change opinions on this side of the Atlantic.

Others said the Powell speech confirmed their view that war was the right course of action.

"If we have to do it, we have to do it," said Bernard Liautaud, CEO of the California-based IT company, Business Objects Americas. "I now think the proof is there."

Another American attending the meetings here said she would now support a war because she trusts US leaders like Powell.

"Honestly, I am very happy that we have people in leadership roles who are willing to act as leaders," said Wendy S. Kopp, head of the New York-based NGO Teach for America.

"Sometimes you have to lead and it's clear to me that they have a lot of rational people in the Bush administration who are looking at the whole thing very pragmatically."