Thursday, June 19, 2003

US counts dud cards in Iran

PV Vivekanand


THE failure of the clerical regime in Tehran to
address the bread-and-butter issues of their people
and overzealous imposition of religious restrictions
that stifled personal freedoms are the best bet the US
has in its bid for regime change in the Islamic
republic.
The American charges that Iran is seeking nuclear
weapons and is harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists are
cosmetic as far as the people of Iran are concerned.
They see those charges as simialr to the American
build-up against Iraq, and, if anything, they would
stand behind the regime against external meddling in
their internal affairs.
But the US-inspired slogans against "oppression,
denial of jusitce, disrespect for human rights" might
work to incite Iranians into demonstrating against the
regime since such is the track record of the
theocratic governance of Iran since the ouster of the
shah in 1979.
Contrary to the Iranian people's expectations of a
liberal democracy, public freedoms and economic
opportunities, the post-shah regime headed by the late
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini tightened the norms of
life in the society and focused on fighting a running
conflict with the US.
Indeed, Khomeini, who died in 1989, was successful of
freeing his country from US domination, but he scored
little else to serve his people's needs of better
living standards, employment and political freedoms.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini, did no
better.
Throughout the period since the 1979 upheaval that
saw the ouster of the shah, the theocrats in Iran
dominated governance as well in line with the Shiite
ideology where the religious leadership also maintains
political leadership. Therefore, the president and his
cabiinet were also tied down to the decisions of the
religious establishment under the Vilayet-e-Faqih
system adopted by the Shiites.
On the economic front, the religious esatablishment
created organisations beyond the control of the
government to supervise the elected branches and in
direct control of the armed forces, the judiciary and
the wealthy charitable foundations that account for
nearly half of all economic activities in the country;
hence the tight-fisted rule of the theocrats also
meant that Iranians were never offered the right
economic opportunities that their oil-rich country
should have offered them.
Khamenei exercises absolute power and his hardline
camp dominates the Council of Guardians, which has the
final say in any government move, and the Expediency
Council, headed by former president Ali Akbar
Rafsanjani, a relative moderate but whose voice is
drowned by the hardliners.
Khamenei serves as the ideologue of the conservative
camp and Rafsanjani, as head of the Experiency
Council, acts as the link between the relgiious
establishment and elected bodies.
Any move towards fundamental reforms made by the
current regime of Mohammed Khatami is vetoed by the
hardliners, and the ineffective resistance of the
government against such domination has even alienated
it from the public.
It was with great hope that the Iranians voted in
Khatami as president in 1997, but it soon became
apparent that the religious leaders had no intention
to let him carry out reform. They fought him every
step of the way, with the net result that the people
of Iran gave up any hope for positive change in their
life.
The voters had hoped that Khatami would reinvigorate
the Islamic revolution and prompote freedom of
thought, speech, dress, and social interaction;
education, housing, healthcare and employment. Between
1997 and 2000, the conservatives who had a majority in
parliament kept Khatami's reforms at arms distance. In
2000, the Khatami camp won majority control of the
Majlis, but the conservatives continued to block him
through the Guardians Council. Dozens of eformists
were jailed, nearly 100 reform newspapers were closed
down and popular protests were put down violently by
harcord supporters of the clerical establishment.
What we see today in Iran is a reflection of the
mounting frustrations of the Iranian people. The daily
protests in the last 10 days in Tehran and other
cities of the country are indeed encouraged and even
incited by the US and its Iranian agents, most of whom
are based outside the country but have connections
inside. Supporting the US campaign to stir internal
trouble that Washington hopes would eventually lead to
a movement strong enough to topple the Khamenei regime
are the successors of the shah as well as leaders of
the Iranian Jewish community in the US.
What are Iran's options today to successfully fight
off the American pressure?
There are no overnight solutions that would make the
people of Iran immune to external incitement to rise
up against the regime. Even if there were, the
religious establishment could not be expected to
embrace them since they involve cornerstones of what
the Khamenei camp believes as the foundations of the
Islamic republic.
However, the survival of the regime depends on how it
goes about handling the ongoing protests on the
internal front and warding off American threats citing
the country's alleged nuclear programmes, meddling in
Iraq's internal affairs, aiding "international
terrorism," and supporting "terorrist organisations"
such as the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups
and Lebanon's Hizbollah.
When university students started protests at night
against what was rumoured to be government plans to
privatise universities, a few non-student activists
took to the streets and expressed backing for the
students by honking their vehicle's horns.
Hardline supporters of the clerical establishment hit
back by storming university dorms and assaulting
students. The government intervened and ordered the
arrest of those who attacked students.
Then it was the turn of the religious establishment to
take the next step. It seemed to have realised that
extending a hand of protection to the hardliners might
be counterproductive; therefore it decided not to
muscle the government to release those arrested. That
could indeed be a starting point for the hardline camp
to let loosen their grip on life in Iran and the
faster they do it the better for themselves and their
people.
That is the status quo in Tehran today. But the
protests are far from over, with the US engaged in a
multi-pronged effort to discredit the Khamenei camp
and oust the Khatami regime. It has not reached the
military point yet. The US seems to be marking time to
the point that the internal protests gather enough
moementum and strength before moving in with military
might to back the protesters. The countdown has
started, as far as American strategists are concerned.
But they might be in for a surprise since the Iranians
have an excellent record of uniting against common
threats.... and that might be America's undoing in
Iran.


 

Friday, June 13, 2003

Rantisi killing changes little

PV Vivekanand

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has unleashed a fresh wave of bloodshed by launching an assassination attempt against Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi, a solid symbol of Palestinian resistance. Seen against the simple logic that Sharon knew well that an attack against Rantisi would spark of massive Hamas retaliation that would wreck the Palestinian leadership's efforts to create an atmosphere conducive to implementing the "roadmap" for peace, all bets are off for the hopes that were stoked by the newfound American interest in Palestine.
HOPES, faint as indeed they were, of a breakthrough for peace in Palestine sparked by the June 4 summit in Aqaba lay shattered in the wreckage of a car that was repeatedly struck by Israeli missiles in the Gaza Strip less than a week later. It was no coincidence that the vehicle was carrying prominent Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi, who miraculously survived the assault. But the momentum for peace that the Aqaba summit offered did not survive the missiles that could not have but been deliberately delivered to quash any moves stemming from the Aqaba promises.
As we saw on Wednesday, Hamas struck back immediately and claimed at least 16 people in a suicide attack in an Israeli bus, and Israel retaliated with more missiles at Gaza and took at least seven more Palestinain lives.
This cycle of attacks and retaliation has become a pattern in Palestine, with no one being able to come up with a solution.
And the latest spurt of bloodshed clearly established that there is little hope of peace as long as Ariel Sharon and like-minded people remain at the helm of power in Israel.
Nothing is enough to convince them that Israel's military might is not the answer to its "security" concerns but acceptance of the inevitability of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people as the basis for a peace agreement.
Sharon's attack on Rantisi exposed his insincerity in living up to the commitments he made at the much-touted Aqaba summit.
With US President George W Bush as witness, Sharon had undertaken to suspend all targeted killings of Palestinian leaders as one of the prime conditions for creating an atmosphere conducive to implementing the "roadmap" for peace.
He violated that pledge with Tuesday's helicopter attack and made things impossible for Bush as well as Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in creating an atmosphere suitable for a negotiated peace process.
Sharon is not naive to have expected Hamas to let the attack on their leader go by without retaliation; that meant he did not really care about the impact of his order to kill Rantisi on the prospects for negotiations with the Palestinian leadership.
Given that Hamas has rejected the process that was launched at the Aqaba summit and vowed to continue armed struggle for liberation of Palestine, its continued actions of armed resistance fall within the context of the right of the occupied to resist the occupier with whatever means at their disposal.
In a looser framework, the group's stance could be equated with the rejection of the "roadmap" process by armed settlers who reign supreme in the West Bank since armed resistance poses the same problem for the Palestinian leadership as the settlers pose for the Israeli regime.
Sharon refraining from military operations against the Palestinians is a basic prerequisite for Abbas in his efforts to convince groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others to give the "roadmap" a chance, if only perhaps to call Sharon's bluff. Indeed, that bluff has already been called with the attack on Rantisi and it was nothing but a sneaky effort that laid bare the truth that Sharon is following his own agenda in Palestine, notwithstanding the commitments and pledges he made that had even raised doubts in his worst-foes that he might after all be ready to meet the requirements of peace.
A flash of hope has come with Bush's criticism of the assault and his comment that he was "deeply troubled" by it since it undermines Abbas' efforts to contain armed resistance.
Like any US president in the last five decades, Bush should have known that he could not trust Sharon to keep good faith and that loftly declarations th hawkish former general made at Aqaba had more to do with placating the US than sincere commitments or genuine understanding that there could be no real peace in the Middle East without respecting and accepting that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
We can only hope that the American president's pointed reference that actions such as Tuesday's assault do not "contribute to the security of Israel" reflects a mood towards adopting practical action to apply pressure on Sharon when pressure is needed. That is the only means of hope to see the Palestinian problem resolved in a just and fair manner.
That Hamas would strike back with intensity was made clear by the group's founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, when he visited Rantisi in hospital.
"Israel said it wanted to send a message to Hamas through this cowardly attempt on the life of my brother Dr Rantisi. I would tell Israel that Hamas has in fact received the message and will send the response soon," he said.
He also declared that Hamas would no longer distinguish between Israeli soldiers and civilians when it stage resistance attacks.
The attack on Rantisiu was seen by many Palestinian officials as a severe blow to the efforts of Abbas to reach a ceasefire and move onward to the implementation of the roadmap.
Ismail Haniyyeh, one of Hamas leaders in Gaza, and other like him are now urging Abbas to cut off all dialogue and talks with Israel. "It is clear that the Israeli commitment to the roadmap is fake," sasid Haniyyey. "We thank God for the failure of the assassination attempt. The Zionist enemy sustained a serious defeat. The resistance, however, won and obtained further support as scores of Palestinians rallied behind Hamas and its leaders," he said.
According to Hanniyeh, the roadmap that Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) said they would implement soon "was obviously based on more assassinations, more house demolitions and more incursions by the Israeli army."
Haniyyeh said that Abu Mazen and his government should abandon talks with Israel and resume resistance to the Israeli occupation. The attempt on Rantisi's life was a clear declaration by Israel that it wanted to liquidate all voices of moderation aired by Abbas in the Aqaba summit, he said.
It is indeed a sentiment shared by a majority of the Palestinains.
Israel maintained that Rantisi was responsible for a series of attacks on Israel. A statement distributed by the Israeli government press office said that Rantisi was "among the most extremist leaders of the criminal Hamas organization in Gaza. He has preached and directed murder, sabotage, terror and incitement for many years."
The statement said that since the Aqaba summit, Rantisi "has stepped up his murderous activities, both openly and covertly and the Israeli government has every reason to assume that Rantisi's criminal activities will increase."
Those explanations would find favour only with those who are anxious to receive such assertions and who want to overlook that it is the right of every Palestinian to use whatever means available to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestiniaan land.
Indeed the Aqaba summit heard Sharon saying he was ready to accept an independent Palestinian entity alongside Israel, but he seemed to have made those pledges and lofty statements a knowing well that he would never be held to account for them.
Sharon's "dismantling" of "illegal" Jewish outposts in the West Bank is nothing but a sham and an insult to international intelligence.
The media are highlighting a dozen or so of "illegal" Israeli outposts in the West Bank. In reality, it costs Sharon nothing to remove them since all these outposts are made up of condemned vehicles and trailers and no one lived them in any case.
Sharon need to remove such outposts because of the "security" problems it poses for him. He has to deploy army soldiers to protect the maverick settlers living in the outposts and requires expensive logistical support.
There are some 102 such outposts accommodating about 1,000 settlers in the West Bank. These are not counted among the 150 settlements that Israel considers as legal and they hold about 220,000 settlers, It is from the 102 that the Israeli army has singled out 14 for removal. That in itself exposes the cosmetic nature of Sharon's moves in this context since the real problem is posed by the proper concrete apartment buildings that are build inside Palestinian towns or in areas adjoining densely populated Palestinian centres.
The "illegal" outposts do not really make any difference to his designs to continue to retain Israel's stranglehold on the Palestinian land through the settlers and settlements. The colonies have "strategic" importance for Sharon in terms of maintaining a Jewish presence in key areas of the West Bank that would deny the territorial "contiguity" that Bush promised the Palestinian entity proposed by the "road map."
The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) has condemned Israel's assassination attempt against Rantisi and cautioned against Sharon's efforts to sabotage Abbas's efforts for peace. The attack came "at a time when international efforts, particularly those of the US and President George W. Bush personally, are focused on establishing calm in the region and resuming Palestinian-Israeli peace talks," said the centre.
It added that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "is a grave violation of international law, and a direct blow to any efforts for peace. It constitutes a great danger for the prospects of the roadmap and threatens to provoke more violence and fuel an already volatile situation."
And that is what we saw on Wednesday and would continue to see for some time to come.

Additional reporting by Elias Zananiri from occupied Jerusalem

Thursday, June 12, 2003

Sharon's folly

PV Vivekanand

PEOPLE LIKE Ariel Sharon would never realise that there is a legitimate cause behind the Palestinian struggle and that without addressing this cause no Israeli would ever be able to sleep in peace. They believe that the Palestinians should never demand anything and should accept what Israel says at face value and simply fall in line with whatever the occupiers of their land have in mind for them. There is no other go, and Sharon is determined to force them into that situation by hook or crook.
He would resort to lies and blatant deception if that is what would serve his purpose of subjugating the Palestinians into swallowing whatever conditions Israel attaches to "allowing" them to live in their ancestral land.
That is the picture that emerged this week after Sharon deliberately touched off a fierce wave of Palestinian resistance attacks by ordering an attempt to assassianate a prominent leader of the Hamas movement, Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi.
Sharon, who, only less than a week earlier, had proclaimed that he was ready to do what it takes to make peace and urged his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas to do the same, showed that his words were hollow by ordering the attack in violation of the pledge he made not to continue "targeted killings" of Palestinian activists.
Surely, Sharon would have known that the attack on Rantisi would seriously set back Abbas's efforts to arrange a suspension of armed resistance attacks by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Sharon was actually sending a message to all Palestinians that he had no intention of making peace through dialogue and negotiations and would only want to choke the Palestinians into swallowing his version of Palestinian-Israeli co-existence in the land of Palestine.
Emotions and fury are running high in Palestine, wiping out all hopes for an early advance for a negotiated peace process. But then that is what Sharon wanted, and it is high time the world, particularly the US, realised the truth and behaved forcefully and with determination to ensure that the Palestinians are not denied justice. This would need unprecedented American pressure on Israel, and if Washington is not ready to apply that pressure then it should let the rest of the world do so.

Monday, June 02, 2003

Afront to the world

by pv vivekanand

BRITISH officials are claiming that there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq possessed a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction although no trace of such armament has been found in post-war Iraq.
It is an affront to the international community to be continued to be fed such contentions without substantiation. Granted that the ouster of Saddam Hussein and American-British occupation of Iraq have become fait accompli and, in real terms, it does not matter whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction since it would not change the reality on the ground in Iraq today.
But the British claims sound hollow and the mounting world feeling today is that Washington and London knew from day one that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction of any size that would have posed a threat to its neighbours or any other country. Iraq's alleged possesion of such weapons was indeed one of the main reasons cited by the American-British alliance to justify the invasion and occupation that country.
Even if we were to accept the theory that the ouster of Saddam was a blessing to the long-suffering people of Iraq, there is nothing that would prompt us to digest the American and British postures and claims in the name the threat that his alleged weapons posed to world security.
If anything, countering the claims are fresh reports that Washington and London had doctored intelligence findings -- and indeed produced academic studies labelled as information gained through spying -- to convince their public that Saddam's alleged weapons posed the most severe terrorist threat the world ever faced after the Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Adding more to the growing belief that the US and UK took the world for a ride with their claims about Iraq's weapons are reports that French intelligence had established in early December that the transatlantic alliance had made up its mind to wage against Iraq no matter what.
That French finding, confirmed by the Paris government, was said to have been behind France's firm and persistent stand against the war on Iraq and block American-British moves to have the UN Security Council adopt a new resolution that would have legitmised the war against Iraq and occupation of that country. Obviously, Paris knew that Washington and London were not acting in good faith to secure UN endorsement of the war but were engaged in first-degree deception to legitimise military action against Iraq.
As such, the impression one gets is simple: The war against Iraq was a dead certainty and Washington and London were only interested in producing what they claimed to be evidence that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. That they would have gone to any extent to produce such "evidence" was established when the so-called intelligence findings they cited were proved to be unfounded and fabricated.
The impression one gets from Washington today is that the Bush administration could not care less if it was true that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld suggests that Iraq could have destroyed the alleged weapons before the war started; but the fundamental flaw in that assertion is that Saddam had known without any doubt that his country would be targeted for war and he needed every weapon he could muster to counter the invaders. There was never any realistic question of Saddam being caught alive and put on trial where the purported weapons of mass destruction seized by the invaders and produced in a international court as evidence against him. So why should Saddam destroy any weapon when he needed all the military power he could muster in order to inflict as much damage as possible to the invaders?
That the course of the war went in a surprisingly different direction as a result of American deals with Saddam's military generals who opted to take the easy way is a different story,
In event, the picture emerging from Washington on the issue is one that says that why should the world worry whether Saddam possessed such weapons or otherwise, and, after all, hasn't the war toppled a dictatorial regime and "liberated" the Iraqis? If anything, the US is suggesting, the international community should be glad and thankful to the US for having led the effort to topple Saddam and never mind what weapons he had.
That attitude fits in with the Bush administration's approach that the world should not question its actions anywhere in the world and take if for granted that whatever it does would be aimed at serving mankind. Indeed, there are questions heard here and there in the US Congress that the administration was not exactly very honest when it pumped home into the American heart that Saddam represented the largest single threat to the security of every American. However, those questions are not really bothering the administration since no mainstream American politician would dare raise touch upon an issue that has a highly pronounced Israeli angle.
But the Labour government of Britain led by Tony Blair does not have that leeway in London. The British democracy works differently and British politicians and media would not simply be silenced by whatever is being said in the name of "nationalism" and "security priorities" that are being touted by the Bush administration to ward off criticism from within.
Blair today faces the key question: He had insisted throughout that he had information that proved Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he could not have revealed that information before or during the war since it would have compromised intelligence sources. Now that the war is over, Saddam is gone and Iraq is occupied, what is preventing Blair from revealing the information he had?
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw cut and others justifying the war and Blair's decision to join the American camp cut a sorry figure when they try to borrow a leaf from the American book and argue now that producing physical evidence was not important then the perception that Saddam posed a threat to the world.
"What we did say was, this is a sufficient threat, that if we continue to sit on our hands, the threat will get worse and there'll come a moment where for sure Saddam will use these weapons against his own people and against
his neighbours, and will not only be a threat to international peace and security, but directly and very sinisterly affect international peace and security." said Straw.
What is even more pathetic than such a summary assertion that overlooks logic and even ridicules basic intelligence is that the British officials are citing a UN weapons inspection report of March 7, 2003 which said a dozen empty shells with traces of chemicals were found in Iraq and again a post-war report which said two vehicles could have been mobile laboratories to develop chemical weapons.
Under no circumstances could such claims be deemed as genuine, given that the American-British alliance had said Iraq had tens of thousands of litres of chemical weapons ready for use, and that Saddam had prepared them to be deployed and used at 45 minutes' notice. That assumption has also been dismissed as having come from a doctored document disguised as an intelligence finding, which has been disowned by Britain's prime spying agencies.
The entire episode not only leaves a sour taste but also a humiliating feeling that the world has been conned and that the powers that be are trying to force down their justifications and reasons down the throat of the international community; and, to make it worse, they are smirking to themselves knowing well that their "revelations" make little sense to themselves.

Sunday, June 01, 2003

Preplanned resistance?

THE resistance that the US is facing in post-war Iraq
was planned even before the war and is many folds
stronger than American military strategists and
officials care to admit in public. The mounting
attacks on the American and British occupiers of Iraq
are orchestrated not by a single group but several
factions, the strongest among them being the
intelligence network of the ousted Saddam Hussein
regime. The dreaded intelligence agency, mukabarat,
had drawn up a strategy to make Iraq "as unfriendly as
possible" for the Americans even before the first shot
was fired in the war, according to Arab intelligence
experts.
The experts also say that American and British
journalists are "as good or as bad" as intelligence
agents in post-war Iraq. "Everyone is nosing around,
desperately trying to get information that rival don't
have and they are fertile ground for intelligence
agencies to manipulate through different tactics to
flush out more information," said an expert. "That
accounts for the differing and often startling reports
whose authenticity is often put under question marks."
The experts confirmed the authenticity of an Iraqi
mukabarat document unearthed by the occupying forces
in Iraq. The document, drawn up in January, was based
on a potential fall of the regime leading to American
occupation of the country and detailed a series of
actions against the occupiers.
These included attacks of American military personnel
and installations causing optimum casualties, sabotage
oil and pipelines and infrastructure like power
generators and distribution and incite Iraqis to take
up arms against the occupying forces.
The document was discovered shortly after the US
forces overran Baghdad in early April, but the Arab
sources who spoke to Malayalamanorama affirmed that
they had known about the Iraqi intelligence agency's
plans much earlier through their contacts in Iraq.
While Arab intelligence agencies were wondering how
far the Iraqi Mukabarat would be effective in carrying
out its plans, their American and British counterparts
were sceptical about the authenticity of the document.
"There is no longer any scepticism since what is
happening on the ground is an almost exact match of
what the document called for," said one Arab source.
"It is not a Galloway document," commented a source,
referring to papers that British papers cited as
establishing that MP George Galloway took millions of
dollars from Saddam Hussein. When put to chemical
tests, it was found that these papers, purportedly
dating back to the 90s, were written in the last few
months.
Arab intelligence has found "several concentrations"
of Iraqi groups waging resistance against the
occupiers. "Some of them are well funded, probably
from the coffers of the former regime, while others
have taken up arms because of their nationalist and
patriotic spirits," said the source. "There are also
groups whose leaders believe they would be better off
ensuring the safety and security of their families
without the Americans, who have shown little interest
in even stabilising basic services in the country."
The sources also said US military and intelligence
agencies are following a strategy of maintaining a
tight lid on information provided by members of the
ousted Saddam Hussein regime while planting selected
"leaks" in the media that are often misleading.
The experts say that such "leaks," carried mostly by
American and British media, aim at offering
justifications for failures and shortcomings of the
US-led occupying forces in Iraq and strengthening the
"evil" image of the toppled regime.
The experts do not dispute that the Saddam regime as
one of the worst oppressive in the world. If anything,
they have in their possession evidence that would put
the American intelligence findings to shame in
exposing the excesses of Saddam, his family members
and his regime.
Arab intelligence agencies have moved in with ease
into post-Saddam Iraq to strengthen their presence and
networks in the country. Some of them do share their
findings with American and Western counterparts in a
reciprocal arrangement. But in the case of Iraq, no
such co-operation has been forthcoming from the
Americans, they say.
They are convinced that the US has not gained any clue
to establishing that Saddam had a large cache of
weapons of mass destruction.
The US forces have captured 35 of 55 "most wanted"
figures of the ousted regime, but none of them has
yielded any information that would strengthen the
American and British justification for the war --
Saddam's alleged arsenal of unconventional weapons.