• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

Cato Daily Dispatch for September 12, 2003

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

Pre-war Warning: Iraqi Collapse Could Give Terrorists WMDs

According to The Financial Times, "Tony Blair's determination to take Britain to war with Iraq has again left the prime minister politically exposed after it emerged he had been warned a month before the start of the campaign that it could heighten the international terrorist threat.

"[A parliamentary intelligence committee assessed in February ] that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaeda."

In "Why Didn't Iraq Use Chemical and Biological Weapons Against U.S. Troops?", Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president of defense and foreign policy studies, writes that "the principal rationale for the Bush administration's campaign to overthrow Saddam was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and might pass them along to terrorists. But as CIA Director George Tenet admitted in September 2002, Iraq would have little incentive under normal circumstances to take such a reckless step. Tenet further admitted, though, that if the United States attacked Iraq, all bets were off. Did U.S. leaders create a self-fulfilling prophecy by moving to overthrow Saddam's regime? With nothing to lose, did Saddam set in motion developments that would wreak a terrible revenge on those who triumphed over him in conventional war? We may not know the answer for months or years to come, but that explanation possesses a horrifying logic."

UN Votes to Lift Sanctions on Libya

Reuters reports that "the U.N. Security Council voted 13-0 on Friday to adopt a resolution lifting sanctions imposed on Libya over the December 1988 mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

"Libya, in an Aug. 15 letter to the Security Council, formally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, renounced terrorism and agreed to pay compensation to the victims' families and to cooperate in future investigations."

Stuart Anderson, former Cato director of trade and immigration studies, writes in "Time to Stop Sanctioning the World" that "[economic] sanctions are ineffective, eschew normal diplomatic channels and undermine our international relations. U.S. companies are often hurt not only directly but also indirectly by gaining a reputation as "unreliable suppliers." Congress should at a minimum adopt reforms that make clear to the public the costs of such sanctions to individual companies and the U.S. economy as a whole. We should abandon the practice of attempting to improve the conduct of other nations by restricting the freedom of our own citizens."

The Cato Institute has published several other studies on international economic sanctions, including:

"Economic Sanctions: Foreign Policy Levers Or Signals?", by Joseph G. Gavin III; and "What's Wrong With Trade Sanctions, by Bruce Bartlett.

Senate Debates F.C.C. Media-ownership Rules

"The Senate opened debate [Friday] afternoon on a resolution that would repeal all of the new media ownership rules adopted three months ago by the Federal Communications Commission," reports The New York Times. "The sponsors of the resolution say it will be approved next week."

Adam Thierer, Cato's director of telecommunications studies, called the FCC rule "a modest tweaking of existing regulations and standards." He said: "Talk of mythical media monopolies and an end to 'diversity' and 'localism' in broadcasting represent scare tactics with no basis in reality. Information and entertainment cannot be monopolized, especially in an age of breakneck technological change."

In "The Big Media Boogyman", Thierer writes: "Even as the underlying business structures and relationships in this industry continue to change, the one undeniable reality of our modern media marketplace is that information and entertainment are commodities that cannot be monopolized."

Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org