Sunday, May 29, 2005

Sumthin is cooking

May 29 2005
Something is cooking
.... and it stinks

by 'Inad Khairallah (pen name)

Is there a pattern in recent events that indicates a drive to provoke Muslims around the world to a point where a massive terror attack in the US or elsewhere could be pinned against them in order to justify another American military adventure in the Middle East, possibly against Syria or Iran?
The events could indeed be unrelated and just coincidence. However, given the emerging evidence that the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington could have had the Bush administration's complicty, direct or indirect, and were part of a build-up for American military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, one has to give these events a careful scrutiny.
The series of events started with the now retracted Newsweek report that the Holy Quran was desecrated by American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. The retraction of the report failed to convince most people, who believe that the magazine acted under official American pressure to do so and the desecration did take place. Interestingly, reports of desecration of the Holy Book had come out as far back as 2002 and there is a grey area there why the Newsweek report triggered such violent protests.
Then came details of how Afghan prisoners were abused by American soldiers and much publicised story of how an Afghan taxi driver — whose apparent innocence was highlighted — ad his legs beaten and was then hung by his wrists until he died.
Then came the photographs of Saddam Hussein in his underwear. Such photographs could not have come but from American officers guarding the detention facility where he is being held. The release of such photos was clearly aimed at enraging Muslims around the world rather than, as claimed by some, as a message to the Iraqi insurgents still loyal to the toppled president.
Later in the same week, an American senator declared publicly that Israel comes first and foremost in American policy considerations in the Middle East and that the security of the Jewish state was the top priority for the US. Creation of a Palestinian state, said Senator Gordon Smith, was being considered only if it was "possible."
Smith did not break any new ground in making the announcement, but the timing of his affirmation of what most people in the Middle East has known for long is suspect.
The final event in the series so far was the visit of US first lady to Laura Bush to occupied Jerusalem. Reports suggest that the visit was added at the last minute. Indeed, she was heckled by Palestinians who were enraged that she found it fit to visit Palestine while it is known that her husband and the entire administration stood firmly behind Israel against Palestinian rights.
Again, Laura Bush's visit to the Haram Al Sharif complex reminded many of the infamous trip made there by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in October 2000 that triggered the second Palestinian uprising.
A commentary appearing on a non-partisan anti-war website says: "Sources continue to report that Bush and his neocon advisors are planning more wars in the Mideast, with Iran leading the list because of Israel's desire to bomb the Iranian reactor complex before the Russians can begin the fueling process. But the people of the United States are weary of war, weary of flag-draped coffins, weary of tax dollars vanishing into thin air by the billions. Half of all Americans know Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Most Americans don't think Iraq has been worth the cost. Adding a new war on top of the existing ones means a draft, as the current forces are stretched thin. The American people are not going to like that either.
"So, the war hawks need a new "event", a new 9-11, which they hope will restore public support for more wars. And, if one is going to stage a new fake terror event and frame Muslims for it, then one has to create the impression that Muslims are angry enough to do something like that. Too much doubt exists about 9-11 in the public mind for half measures; the next staged event has to be a real convincer. Hence, a series of small incidents that slowly increase Muslim anger towards America.
"Somewhere, in the dark rooms ... the next 'terror' attack is being planned....."

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Muslim anger unleashed








May 21 2005

Anger unleashed

pv vivekanand

American-Muslim relations have been under strain for some years, thanks to Israel's concerted campaign since the 1990s to pinpoint Muslims as the enemy after the communist collapse following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It would be a narrow view to judge that the wave of anti-American sentiment that swept through the Muslim World was triggered solely by the Newsweek report.

The Bush administration might want to accept that view in order to keep veiled the realities of the American-Muslim relationship over the years.

For decades, Muslims around the world have been seething with anger over American policies towards Islamic countries, particularly in the Middle East. Then came the firm affirmation in 2000 that the US was dropping all pretences and siding with Israel and seeking to impose an Israeli version of regional peace on the Arabs and Muslims, including acceptance of Israel's claim to Jerusalem, the third holiest shrine in Islam.

Then came the US-led war against Afghanistan. Muslims did not protest much over Afghanistan because the US cited Sept.11 as the reason for that war, and not many Muslims agreed with the way the Taliban were running the country anyway.

(Let no one forget at this juncture that fresh evidence has emerged indicating that there was much more than that met the eye in the Sept.11 attacks and that suspicions have been strengthened that Israeli secret agents played a key role in the assaults that were blamed on Al Qaeda. The Bush administration was a willing victim to be led by the nose into following a course of events that added to the strain in relations with the Muslim World to the benefit of Israel).

The way the Americans treated the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and the scenes from Guantanamo Bay that were beamed around the world showing hooded and handcuffed detainees being paraded around like animals did irreparable damage to the Muslim attitude towards American officialdom.

Add to that the American decision that Geneva Conventions and other international treaties and agreements governing prisoners of war would not be applied to the detainees in Guantanamo; and then the reports that the scenes of humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib were only a re-enactment of what was going on in Guantanamo.

Muslims heard with gritted teeth the declarations by American government leaders that the Muslims were jealous and hated the American way of life because they could not enjoy the same was behind the Sept.11 attacks.

The Muslims watched in silence as the Americans led the invasion of Iraq and went to work to reshape that troubled country to suit American and Israeli interests. But the US failed to bring peace and calm to the people of Iraq, and, whether Washington realises/accepts it or not, the Muslims hold it responsible for the suffering of the Iraqis today.

Overriding factor

Throughout these episodes, the overriding factor is the painful Arab/Muslim awareness that the US-Israeli combine is following a definite script that undermined Arab/Muslim interests and that Arabs/Muslims are unable to do anything about it.

Then came the report that the Holy Quran was desecrated, and the pent-up Muslim anger and frustration exploded.

At least 17 people died and hundreds injured in the protests sparked by the Newsweek report that the Holy Book was desecrated by American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. Then Newsweek retracted the report saying that it could have got the story wrong.

In the original report, Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff quoted an unidentified source in the US Defence Department as saying that he had read the account of desecration of the Holy Book in a document being prepared by the US Southern Command (SouthCom) on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. Newsweek cited the incident as one among numerous already-reported abuses, including similar toilet-flushing incidents in the past.

The Washington Post recalls that James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo, who was investigated and cleared of charges of mishandling classified material, had reported that guards' mishandling and mistreatment of detainees' Qurans led the prisoners to launch a hunger strike in March 2002. The strike ended only when military leaders issued an apology to the detainees over the camp loudspeaker, but mishandling of the Holy Book persisted.

"The (guards) tore the Quran to pieces in front of us, threw it into the toilet," former detainee Aryat Vahitov told Russian television in June 2004.

Dozens of detainees -- including four British Muslims -- have said Guantanamo Bay detention officials and military guards engaged in widespread religious and sexual humiliation of detainees. Detainees said the goal was to make them feel impure, shake their faith and try to gain information.

Against these reports, the Newsweek retraction is seen with scepticism by many who believe that the magazine was pressured into issuing it.

In the minds of many, the Newsweek episode is no longer relevant since they are convinced that the US is capable of doing much more than desecrating the Holy Quran and that the source of their anger.

In its retraction statement, the magazine said the unnamed Pentagon source was no longer sure that he had read an investigation report detailing the alleged desecration.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered (Holy Quran) abuse at Guantanamo Bay," said Newsweek. It left open the possibility that the Pentagon source had indeed read about the incident in another document.

Explove remark

In any event, the damage was already done, as the Defence Department spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, observed in an explosive remark when told what the source had said: "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch (the unidentified Pentagon source) said. How could he be credible now?"

How many people died? 17. And why? Someone made a "mistake" and saw something in a confidential report that was not there.

American commentators have gone to town with DiRita's comment, but their approach is far sharper than DiRita's.

They point out to emerging evidence that the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq shortly after the Sept.11 attacks and began fixing intelligence to suit the purpose and to make the American public believe that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the US and its allies. Recently leaked minutes of a July 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his closest advisers show that the head of the intelligence agency MI6 reported after talks in the US that Bush had decided on war and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

A part of the leaked document -- Secret and Strictly Personnel: UK Eyes only -- says: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Another paragraph says: "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

How many people died in the Iraq war and since then in that country? Between 30,000 and 35,000; and dozens more are dying every day.

And why? Someone somewhere lied in order to serve Israel's interests by going to war against Iraq.

Now, what did the White House have to say about the Newsweek episode?

"The report has had serious consequences," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States has been damaged abroad."

Well, the one question that McClellan would not like to be asked is:

What is the status of the US image around the world, given the old/fresh revelations that the Bush administration doctored intelligence reports in order to justify the war against Iraq, a war which British Member of Parliament George Galloway rightly described as being based on a "pack of lies?"

Newsweek had the decency to admit that it could have got the story wrong and express regret over its consequences.

Can that be said about the Bush administration over its deception?

Thursday, May 19, 2005

US on a rope trick

May 19 2005

US on a rope-trick in Karimov crisis

pv vivekanand

THE US has switched tracks on the crisis in Uzbekistan after having taken a position that while it had concerns over the human rights situation under the reign of President Islam Karimov it was more concerned over the surge of Islamists in the ex-Soviet republic.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday let off a salvo calling for political reforms in Uzbekistan. It was surprising. However, when seen against the backdrop of the anti-American uproar caused by the Newsweek report alleging desecration of the Holy Quran by American soldiers, it becomes clear why the US, as represented by Rice, had a sudden change of mind against the former Soviet republic, which is an important American ally in the US-led war on terror.

The world has been seeing a pattern where US allies are free to violate human rights and engage in brutal crackdown against dissidents without censure from Washington. It is all the more acceptable to the US if the dissidents happen to be "Islamists." That is the message that was clearly sent out when the Uzbek crisis erupted: The US appears to signal that it was more worried about the forced release of some prisoners from an Uzbek prison than the massacre of hundreds of people by Karimov's security forces.

"We have had concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan, but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist organisation that were freed from prison," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday. "And we urge both the government and the demonstrators to exercise restraint at this time. The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence. And that's what our message is."

Rice statement

Obviously, the world sensed from the statement that little could be expected from the US in terms of changes in Uzbekistan despite the crisis.

Then came the Rice statement on Monday that the Uzbek system was "too closed" and the country needed political reforms. It was the Bush administration's first implicit criticism of the Karimov regime, which has ruled the Central Asian republic with an iron grip since it became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

(The State Department issued another statement on Monday saying it was "deeply disturbed" by reports that soldiers in Uzbekistan fired on unarmed civilians).

"We have been encouraging the government to make reforms, to make it possible for people to have a political life," said Rice. "This is a country that needs, in a sense, pressure valves that come from a more open political system," she said.

Was it a sudden realisation that Uzbekistan stood in need of reform?

Wasn't it known to the US that Karimov has ruled Uzbekistan since 1989 and is is one of the last Soviet-era rulers still in power. He has been accused of gross violation of human rights, rigging elections, shaping the constitution to suit self-interests and oppression of whoever challenged him as well as institutionalisation of torture.

But then, the US is a staunch supporter of Karimov's declared stand against "Muslim extremists" and Washington had always opted to look the other way when considering Karimov's track record in power.

Karimov's main challengers are two Islamist groups, Hizb Al Tahrir and a faction which is allegedly linked with Al Qaeda. Both groups are avowedly anti-American, and Washington could not but be a partner in Karimov's fight against these groups. Therefore, it was only natural that the US expressed more concern that 23 people accused of being "Muslim extremists" were released from prison than massacres were committed by Karimov's forces. As of Tuesday, some 800 people were confirmed killed while thousands were displaced from their homes because of the violence.

Some commentators saw the days that passed between the first White House statement on the crisis and Rice's implicit criticism of Karimov as reflecting the dilemma facing the Bush administration. On the one hand is the avowed Amerian drive to encouraging and even imposing democracy around the world and on the other hand is Washington's anxiety not to antagonise a key ally in the anti-terror war which hosts American support bases for the war in Afghanistan and is also said to be one among the dozens of countries where US has detained prisoners taken elsewhere.

However, the days between the two position statements saw Muslim anger exploding against the US over the Holy Quran desecration report.

Pushing reforms

No doubt, Washington strategists realised that maintaining a cool approach to the crisis in Uzbekistan in the name of "Muslim extremism" while Muslim fury is boiling over was not exactly the best approach; and hence the volte-face signalled by Rice.

It remains to be seen whether Washington would follow up Rice's word with practical action to nudge Karimov to settle the crisis and launch a reform process that would bring about meaningful changes in the country.

Indeed, the US has the option of doing nothing after expressing displeasure over whatever is going on in Uzbekistan and hoping that Karimov would be able to suppress the unrest, with business back to normal in a few days.

However, intelligence reports indicate that Karimov is facing an uphill task.

While he blames "Muslim extremists" for the crisis, many others say the unrest is linked to a long-term demand for political reform.

The Andijan area where the unrest broke out is known to be a poor locality but also a hotbed of militancy.

"All we want is freedom from hunger. Uzbeks live like dirt," these were the words of one of the 23 men who were freed from jail on Friday. The 23, most of them businessmen, faced charges of belonging to an Islamic group called Akramia, named after Akram Tahir Yuldashev, leader of the Al Qaeda-linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), who was sentenced in absentia to 17 years in prison in 1999.

Like other Islamist groups elsewhere, Akramia is said to be involved in social welfare work and has set up small businesses that provide employment.

Although the group is said to be linked to the IMU, Uzbek prosecutors say that the fugitives are associated with what Karimov called "a faction of Hizb Al Tahrir."

They are believed to be linked to a wider group of likeminded organisaitons seeking to set up an Islamic state in the broad Ferghana Valley which straddles Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The IMU was founded in 1989 and is said to have about 3,000 members compared with Hizb Al Tahrir's 5,000 members.

IMU members fought alongside the Taliban during the American war against Afghanistan in 2001 and since the Taliban were ousted, the group has declared war on the American air force and special forces presence in the country.

Hizb Al Tahrir, which has been outlawed in most of Central Asia as well as Russia, is a larger group. Some 500 of its members are in detention in Uzbekistan.

Hizb Al Tahrir was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqiuddin al Nabhani, an appeals court judge. It is now present in Western Europe, Central Asia, and China's far west and seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate, ostensibly through peaceful political means.

The group, led by Walid Omran who lives in exile, is said to have bases in the southeastern Ferghana region near the border with Tajikistan. It runs "education centres," but the authorities say these are breeding grounds for militants.

About 2,000 prisoners were freed during Friday's storming of the Andijan jail, and they fled with guns and ammunitions as well as grenades. They are said to be hiding near the Kyrgyz border, and Karimov's forces face a tough task to bring them to heel.

Beyond the borders

Given Karimov's alliance with the US and the Islamists' avowed opposition to Washington's policies, the Uzbek crisis assumes a larger dimension beyond the borders of the country. And that is where Karimov finds his biggest challenge since even if he manages to supress Uzbek members of the militant groups, he would still have to reckon with external elements filtering into the country in a situation almost similar to that in Iraq.

Caught in the middle would be the US facing the option of letting go of its alliance (a highly unlikely prospect) or exposing itself to mounting Muslim anger, further fuelled by the deaths of at least 800 people in the last five days in Uzbekistan.

Treading a middle line is only a short-term option because what has been sparked in Uzbekistan does not hold out any prospect of being put down in a hurry.

Double barrels from Galloway





PV Vivekanand

GEORGE Galloway, former Labour party member of the British parliament and currently leader of Respect Party and MP representing Respect in the Commons, is scheduled to appear before the US Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations to testify on charges that US officials benefited from the UN's oil-for-food programme with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The forum, scheduled for Tuesday, will be titled "Oil For Influence: How Saddam Used Oil to Reward Politicians and Terrorist Entities Under the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme."
Galloway, who had close relations with Saddam and visited Iraq several times and held talks with the then Iraqi president twice — in 1994 and 2002 —  was expelled from Labour for criticising the British government's alliance with the Bush administration in the invasion and occupation of Iraq two years earlier.
He also faced allegations that he had taken money from Saddam. These allegations, aired through a British and an American newspaper, were found to be unfounded -- or at least not proven in a court of law -- when Galloway went to a British court with the issue. It was proved that Saddam oil ministry documents produced as evidence against Galloway were not authentic. He won £150,000 in damages from London's Daily Telegraph, which was also left with a legal bill of about £1.2 million (By the way, The Daily Telegraph is owned by the Hollinger Corporation, which allegedly has ties with Richard Perle, one of the leading pro-Israeli neoconservatives in Washington).
The American politicians behind new charges against Galloway and the "invitation" issued to him to present himself before the Senate committee are trying to portray it as a hostile hearing where the British politician would be asked uncomfortable questions implicating himself in the oil-for-food scam and his alleged receipt of funds from Saddam. However, they might find themselves on the receiving end since Galloway seems to be relishing the offered opportunity to take the grandstand and blast away at the US-led, British-backed invasion and occupation of Iraq.
It is also a foregone conclusion that Galloway would use the opportunity to slam American/British policy in the Middle East and bring out the Israeli aspect of the war against Iraq.

Parallel games

There are two parallel political games unfolding in Washington.

One has to do with the old/new allegations that US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had decided in July 2002 to take military action against Iraq in order to topple Saddam regardless whatever the international community and the United Nations had to say about it.
Observers in the Middle East say that, even without the fresh evidence to this effect contained in British documents leaked to the press recently, it was abundantly clear that by early 2002 the US was determined to wage war on Iraq, and that diplomacy and the UN Charter could not have prevented the Bush administration from going ahead with the plan.
A part of a document -- "Secret and Strictly Personnel: UK Eyes Only" -- which summarises discussions held on July 23, 2002, says: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Another paragraph says: "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
Now, in light of the document, the Bush administration faces tough questioning on the issue. A group of 89 Democrats in the US Congress has asked Bush, a Republican, for an explanation. Bush has not commented on the allegation nor on the effort by the Congress members to hold him accountable for deceiving the American legislature and people.

The AIPAC angle

The other political game is played by neoconservative Republicans who are also seen as seeking to divert attention from the ongoing scandal involving the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the all-too powerful Israeli lobby which yields unchallenged political and economic clout in Washington.
Two senior AIPAC officials are accused of recruiting a Pentagon analyst as a spy for Israel and securing classified information from him and passing it on to Israel.
Some American analysts believe that certain members of the US Senate are trying to highlight the Galloway case and thus divert American public attention from the AIPAC case in which Larry Franklin, the Pentagon and Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) official has been indicted for passing top secret classified information to the two AIPAC officials.
However, there is a strong linkage between the two cases.
The so-called "fresh" evidence some US senators cite against Galloway has apparently come from interviews conducted with Iraq's former vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, and deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz.
Ramadan and Aziz are awaiting war crimes trials in Iraq. They were investigated by Salam Chalabi, a nephew of Ahmad Chalabi, a former Iraqi exile and one-time favourite to be successor to Saddam but who fell out with the administration when it was found that he was feeding false intelligence information and had connections with Iranian intelligence.
Salam Chalabi's law partner in the US is Marc Zell who in turn is a law partner of Douglas Feith, who headed the department where the Aipac-linked spy Larry Franklin worked at the Pentagon. Like Perle, Feith is also among the top neocons in Washington.
Obviously, Salam Chalabi passed on the "fresh" evidence against Galloway to the senators who are behind the effort to discredit political rivals in the US as well as the Brtish politician in the bargain.
The charge against Galloway is led by Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, who alleges that the Brtish MP received up to 20 million barrels of free Iraqi oil between 2000 and 2003 from Saddam's government.

Why the witchhunt?

Wayne Madsen, a contributing editor writing on onjournal.com, offers an explanation why the neocons are targeting Galloway.
He points out that Galloway, in the May 5 British elections, "made easy work of his Labour Party opponent and Tony Blair sycophant, Oona King, an African-Jewish daughter of -- ironically -- an African-American draft evader from the Vietnam War. King was one of Tony Blair's most ardent supporters for his decision to join Bush in a genocidal war against Iraq. For that, she earned the support of the international neoconservative network of influence holders and peddlers that can, according to a senior Bush administration official, create their own reality because of their ownership of much of the international media. However, King also earned the enmity of her large Muslim constituency in East London's Bethnal Green and Bow district. They rejected King and threw their political weight behind Galloway.
"There is little doubt that the neocons in the British Labour Party are working hand-in-glove with people like (Republican Senator Norm) Coleman (of Minnesota) and his neocon friends and political supporters in AIPAC to punish Galloway and make it hard for him to use his reinstated House of Commons platform to launch expected fierce broadsides against Blair and other pro-Iraq War Labourites, most notably Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defence Secretary John Reid, and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon."
Galloway has dismissed the charges against him as unfounded and fabricated with ulterior motives.
He has categorically stated: "I have never traded in a barrel of oil, or any vouchers for it. I have never seen a barrel of oil apart from the one the Sun newspaper (of London) deposited in my front garden.
"And no one has acted on my behalf, trading in oil -- Middle Eastern, olive, patchouli or any other -- or in vouchers, whatever they are.
"Isn't it strange and contrary to natural justice you might think that I have written and e-mailed repeatedly asking for the opportunity to appear before the committee to provide evidence and rebut their assumptions and they have yet to respond, while apparently making a judgement?"
If anything, instead of discrediting Galloway, the US senators are now offering the firebrand British MP with a forum from where he could blast the US and British governments.
Galloway has promised as much: "I'll be there to give them both barrels -- verbal guns, of course, not oil."




RE: Double barrels from George Galloway


This is precisely what happened.

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (UK), delivered this statement on 2005-05-18 to US Senators who have accused him of corruption.


Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one — and neither has anyone on my behalf.

Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are — let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country — a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 — never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government.


Quote ends...

A personal note: I am looking for a CD of this speech./... The neocons were stunned.... obviously... That is Galloway for you. I have had the honour of meeting him several times in Amman, Jordan.. I genuinely like him.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Why the Muslim anger...

May 17 2005

Muslim anger

THE Muslim anger sparked by the Newsweek report that the Holy Quran was desecrated by American soldiers might or might not die down although the magazine has retracted the report. However, the episode has driven yet another deep wedge between the US and the Muslim World and it would make much more than a Newsweek apology or soothing words from Washington to heal the rift; the issue is not about the desecration of the Holy Book as much as it is about the overall American approach to issues that are of deep concern to the Muslims, writes PV Vivekanand
American-Muslim relations have been under strain for some years, thanks to Israel's concerted campaign since the 1990s to pinpoint Muslims as the enemy after the communist collapse with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It would be a narrow view to judge that the wave of anti-American sentiment that swept through the Muslim World was triggered solely by the Newsweek report.
The Bush administration might want to accept that view in order to keep veiled the realities of the American-Muslim relationship over the decades and
For decades, Muslims around the world have been seething with anger over American policies towards Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East. Then came the firm affirmation in 2000 that the US was dropping all pretenses and siding with Israel and seeking to impose an Israeli version of regional peace on the Arabs and Muslims, including acceptance of Israel's claim to Jerusalem, the third holiest shrine in Islam.
Then came the US-led war against Afghanistan. Muslims did not protest much over Afghanistan because the US cited Sept.11 as the reason for that war, and not many Muslims agreed with the way the Taliban were running the country anyway.
(Let no one forget at this juncture that fresh evidence has emerged indicating that there was much more than that met the eye in the Sept.11 attacks and that suspicions have been strengthened that Israeli secret agents played a key role in the assaults that were blamed on Al Qaeda. The Bush administration was a willing victim to be led by the nose into following a course of events that added to the strain in relations with the Muslim World to the benefit of Israel).
The way the Americans treated the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and the scenes from Guantanamo Bay that were beamed around the world showing hooded and handcuffed detainees being paraded around like animals did irreparable damage to the Muslim attitude towards American officialdom.
Add to that the American decision that the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties and agreements governing prisoners of war would not be applied to the detainees in Guantanamo; and then the reports that the scenes of humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib were only a re-enactment of what was going on in Guantanamo.
Muslims heard with gritted teeth the declarations by American government leaders that the Muslims were jealous of and their hatred for the American way of life because they could not enjoy the same was behind the Sept.11 attacks.
The Muslims watched in silence as the Americans led the invasion of Iraq and went to work to reshape that troubled country to suit American and Israeli interests. But the US failed to bring peace and calm to the people of Iraq, and, whether Washington realises/accepts it or not, the Muslims hold it responsible for the suffering of the Iraqis today.
Throughout these episodes, the overriding factor is the painful Arab/Muslim awareness that the US-Israeli combine is following a definite script that undermined Arab/Muslim interests and that Arabs/Muslims are unable to do anything about it.
Then came the report that the Holy Quran was desecrated, and the pent-up Muslim anger and frustration exploded.
At least 17 people died and hundreds injured in the protests sparked by the Newsweek report that the Holy Book was desecrated by American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. Then Newsweek retracted the report saying that it could have got the story wrong.
In the original report, Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff quoted an unidentified source in the US Defence Department as saying that he had read the account of desecration of the Holy Book in a document being prepared by the US Southern Command (SouthCom) on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. Newsweek cited the incident as one among numerous already-reported abuses, including similar toilet-flushing incidents in the past.
The Washington Post recalls that James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was investigated and cleared of charges of mishandling classified material, had reported that guards' mishandling and mistreatment of detainees' Qurans led the prisoners to launch a hunger strike in March 2002. The strike ended only when military leaders issued an apology to the detainees over the camp loudspeaker, but mishandling of the Holy Book persisted.
"The (guards) tore the Quran to pieces in front of us, threw it into the toilet," former detainee Aryat Vahitov told Russian television in June 2004.
Dozens of detainees — including four British Muslims —  have said Guantanamo Bay detention officials and military guards engaged in widespread religious and sexual humiliation of detainees. Detainees said the goal was to make them feel impure, shake their faith and try to gain information.
Against these reports, the Newsweek retraction is seen with scepticism by many who believe that the magazine was pressured into issuing it.
In the minds of many, the Newsweek episode is no longer relevant since they are convinced that the US is capable of doing much more than desecrating the Holy Quran and that the source of their anger.
In its retraction statement, the magazine said the unnamed Pentagon source was no longer sure that he had read an investigation report detailing the alleged desecration.
"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered (Holy Quran) abuse at Guantanamo Bay," said Newsweek. It left open the possibility that the Pentagon source had indeed read about the incident in another document.
In any event, the damage was already done, as the Defence Department spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, observed in an explosive remark when told what the source had said: "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch (the unidentified Pentagon source) said. How could he be credible now?"
How many people died? 17. And why? Someone made a "mistake" and saw something in a confidential report that was not there.
American commentators have gone to town with DiRita's comment, but their approach is far sharper than DiRita's.
They point out to emerging evidence that the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq shortly after the Sept.11 attacks and began fixing intelligence to suit the purpose and to make the American public believe that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the US and its allies. Recently leaked minutes of a July 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his closest advisers show that the head of the intelligence agency MI6 reported after talks in the US that Bush had decided on war and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
A part of the leaked document — "Secret and Strictly Personnel:  UK Eyes only —  says: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Another paragraph says: "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
How many people died in the Iraq war and since then in that country? Between 30,000 and 35,000; and dozens more are dying every day.
And why? Someone somewhere lied in order to serve Israel's interests by going to war against Iraq.
Now, what did the White House have to say about the Newsweek episode?
"The report has had serious consequences," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States has been damaged abroad."
Well, the one question that McClellan would not like to be asked is:
What is the status of the US image around the world, given the old/fresh revelations that the Bush administration doctored intelligence reports in order to justify the war against Iraq, a war which British Member of Parliament George Galloway rightly described as being based on a "pack of lies?"
Newsweek had the decency to admit that it could have got the story wrong and express regret over its consequences.
Can that be said about the Bush administration over its deception?

Koran report — why?

May 17 2005


Koran desecration report — why?

THE Muslim anger sparked by the Newsweek report that the Holy Quran was desecrated by American soldiers might or might not die down although the magazine has retracted the report. However, the episode has driven yet another deep wedge between the US and the Muslim World and it would make much more than a Newsweek apology or soothing words from Washington to heal the rift; the issue is not about the desecration of the Holy Book as much as it is about the overall American approach to issues that are of deep concern to the Muslims, writes PV Vivekanand
American-Muslim relations have been under strain for some years, thanks to Israel's concerted campaign since the 1990s to pinpoint Muslims as the enemy after the communist collapse with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It would be a narrow view to judge that the wave of anti-American sentiment that swept through the Muslim World was triggered solely by the Newsweek report.
The Bush administration might want to accept that view in order to keep veiled the realities of the American-Muslim relationship over the decades and
For decades, Muslims around the world have been seething with anger over American policies towards Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East. Then came the firm affirmation in 2000 that the US was dropping all pretenses and siding with Israel and seeking to impose an Israeli version of regional peace on the Arabs and Muslims, including acceptance of Israel's claim to Jerusalem, the third holiest shrine in Islam.
Then came the US-led war against Afghanistan. Muslims did not protest much over Afghanistan because the US cited Sept.11 as the reason for that war, and not many Muslims agreed with the way the Taliban were running the country anyway.
(Let no one forget at this juncture that fresh evidence has emerged indicating that there was much more than that met the eye in the Sept.11 attacks and that suspicions have been strengthened that Israeli secret agents played a key role in the assaults that were blamed on Al Qaeda. The Bush administration was a willing victim to be led by the nose into following a course of events that added to the strain in relations with the Muslim World to the benefit of Israel).
The way the Americans treated the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and the scenes from Guantanamo Bay that were beamed around the world showing hooded and handcuffed detainees being paraded around like animals did irreparable damage to the Muslim attitude towards American officialdom.
Add to that the American decision that the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties and agreements governing prisoners of war would not be applied to the detainees in Guantanamo; and then the reports that the scenes of humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib were only a re-enactment of what was going on in Guantanamo.
Muslims heard with gritted teeth the declarations by American government leaders that the Muslims were jealous of and their hatred for the American way of life because they could not enjoy the same was behind the Sept.11 attacks.
The Muslims watched in silence as the Americans led the invasion of Iraq and went to work to reshape that troubled country to suit American and Israeli interests. But the US failed to bring peace and calm to the people of Iraq, and, whether Washington realises/accepts it or not, the Muslims hold it responsible for the suffering of the Iraqis today.
Throughout these episodes, the overriding factor is the painful Arab/Muslim awareness that the US-Israeli combine is following a definite script that undermined Arab/Muslim interests and that Arabs/Muslims are unable to do anything about it.
Then came the report that the Holy Quran was desecrated, and the pent-up Muslim anger and frustration exploded.
At least 17 people died and hundreds injured in the protests sparked by the Newsweek report that the Holy Book was desecrated by American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. Then Newsweek retracted the report saying that it could have got the story wrong.
In the original report, Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff quoted an unidentified source in the US Defence Department as saying that he had read the account of desecration of the Holy Book in a document being prepared by the US Southern Command (SouthCom) on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. Newsweek cited the incident as one among numerous already-reported abuses, including similar toilet-flushing incidents in the past.
The Washington Post recalls that James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was investigated and cleared of charges of mishandling classified material, had reported that guards' mishandling and mistreatment of detainees' Qurans led the prisoners to launch a hunger strike in March 2002. The strike ended only when military leaders issued an apology to the detainees over the camp loudspeaker, but mishandling of the Holy Book persisted.
"The (guards) tore the Quran to pieces in front of us, threw it into the toilet," former detainee Aryat Vahitov told Russian television in June 2004.
Dozens of detainees — including four British Muslims —  have said Guantanamo Bay detention officials and military guards engaged in widespread religious and sexual humiliation of detainees. Detainees said the goal was to make them feel impure, shake their faith and try to gain information.
Against these reports, the Newsweek retraction is seen with scepticism by many who believe that the magazine was pressured into issuing it.
In the minds of many, the Newsweek episode is no longer relevant since they are convinced that the US is capable of doing much more than desecrating the Holy Quran and that the source of their anger.
In its retraction statement, the magazine said the unnamed Pentagon source was no longer sure that he had read an investigation report detailing the alleged desecration.
"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered (Holy Quran) abuse at Guantanamo Bay," said Newsweek. It left open the possibility that the Pentagon source had indeed read about the incident in another document.
In any event, the damage was already done, as the Defence Department spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, observed in an explosive remark when told what the source had said: "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch (the unidentified Pentagon source) said. How could he be credible now?"
How many people died? 17. And why? Someone made a "mistake" and saw something in a confidential report that was not there.
American commentators have gone to town with DiRita's comment, but their approach is far sharper than DiRita's.
They point out to emerging evidence that the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq shortly after the Sept.11 attacks and began fixing intelligence to suit the purpose and to make the American public believe that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the US and its allies. Recently leaked minutes of a July 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his closest advisers show that the head of the intelligence agency MI6 reported after talks in the US that Bush had decided on war and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
A part of the leaked document — "Secret and Strictly Personnel:  UK Eyes only —  says: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Another paragraph says: "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
How many people died in the Iraq war and since then in that country? Between 30,000 and 35,000; and dozens more are dying every day.
And why? Someone somewhere lied in order to serve Israel's interests by going to war against Iraq.
Now, what did the White House have to say about the Newsweek episode?
"The report has had serious consequences," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States has been damaged abroad."
Well, the one question that McClellan would not like to be asked is:
What is the status of the US image around the world, given the old/fresh revelations that the Bush administration doctored intelligence reports in order to justify the war against Iraq, a war which British Member of Parliament George Galloway rightly described as being based on a "pack of lies?"
Newsweek had the decency to admit that it could have got the story wrong and express regret over its consequences.
Can that be said about the Bush administration over its deception?

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Hamas spanner, Sharon formaldeyde

May 11 2005

Hamas spanner and Sharon's formaldehyde

PV Vivekanand

ISRAELI Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to put of the planned evacuation of the Gaza Strip by three weeks to mid-August suggests that he is keeping the door open for turning the area as a possible bargaining chip if the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) wins the July 17 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly.

A Hamas victory in the July 17 elections means a severe blow to Israel's plan to impose its own version of a peace agreement on the Palestinians since Hamas would put up stiff resistance to the plan.

The mainstream Fatah group led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is seen as likely to accept some compromise with Israel, and hence the Israeli fear that a Hamas-led Palestinian legislative assembly -- meaning a Hamas-led Palestinian National Authority (PNA) or a Palestinian government with strong Hamas representation -- could wreck the Israeli plan.

Officially, Sharon's reason to put off the Gaza evacuation is that the withdrawal date will coincide with a Jewish period of mourning. But then, that is no surprise development since the Jewish calendar sets the dates for religious events decades in advance.

The evacuation of all 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza and four of 120 settlements in the West Bank had been slated to begin on July 20.

In simple terms, the result of the Palestinian elections on July 17 might not be released by July 20 and hence Sharon wants to retain room for his options by delaying the withdrawal.

Post-election watch

Sharon wants to be in a position to clearly assess the course of the Palestinian post-election developments and determine whether Hamas could prevent the imposition of his terms and conditions for peace on the Palestinians after the Gaza withdrawal.

In the event of a Hamas victory in the polls, Sharon could retain the Gaza Strip and demand that Hamas should agree to disarm itself before he goes ahead with the withdrawal as an opening gambit.

However, Sharon is determined to evacuate Gaza, not the least because the territory, a hotbed of Islamist militancy, has always been ungovernable for his occupation forces.

It is known that all Israeli governments since the 70s wanted to quit the Gaza Strip because they had no advantages in continuing to occupy it. If anything, controlling Gaza had always been a source of headaches for Israel.

Nor does Gaza have any "nationalist" or "religious" importance that prompts Israel not to let it go whereas most Israelis consider the West Bank is part of the "promised land" and would not want to return it to the Palestinians.

Even Benyamin Netanyahu, who is more hawkish than Sharon in real terms, made it clear during his premiership in the late 90s that he wanted to relinquish the Gaza Strip and to let the PNA, then led by the late Yasser Arafat to grapple with the problems there.

A majority of Israelis back Sharon's plan to leave Gaza, where 9,000 settlers live in enclaves that need protection by a large Israeli military unit costing tens of millions of dollars a year.

That Israeli approach was underlined on Tuesday by Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz, who rejected a suggestion by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom that the planned Gaza withdrawal could be derailed if Hamas wins the parliamentary election.

"The 'disengagement' will not be cancelled," declared Mofaz.

Sharon himself affirmed that the Gaza withdrawal would go ahead regardless of Hamas's showing in the elections.

"For Israel, this move, this disengagement, is very important," he said on Monday.

Later in the day, Shalom said Israel would have to rethink the Gaza pullout if Hamas won control of the PNA in the elections.

"Do you think there is a way to negotiate with them (Hamas) while their main aim and their main goal is to destroy the State of Israel?" he said. "Is there any way to make progress with the disengagement plan, and with the process we would like to have with the (PNA), if the Hamas would be in power?"

Shalom said that if Hamas were to win the elections, there would be "no logic" in handing over more territory to the Palestinians, and no logic in facilitating the establishment of what he called "Hamastan."

He said the PNA should do everything possible to prevent Hamas running for election unless it cancels its military wing. "We must all reject the inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinian political system. There is no place, nor can there ever be, in a democratic society for a political party which bears arms."

"It seems to me unreasonable to move forward with the implementation of the disengagement plan as if nothing had happened and hand over the territories only for Hamas to create there a 'Hamastan'," Shalom told a seminar in Tel Aviv.

Mofaz shot it down on Tuesday.

"It's true Hamas has been strengthened. There is the reality of the Palestinian (National) Authority and the reality of the terror groups, but I think we must make enormous efforts to implement the disengagement plan," Mofaz told army radio.

Jewish resistance

On a parallel front, Sharon faces tough resistance from some of the hardline Jewish settlers against the withdrawal and the three-week postponement gives them that much more time to organise themselves. But that is a calculated risk that Sharon is taking. It is highly improbable that Jewish blood would be spilt in confrontations between settlers and army soldiers, and the Palestinian scene remains Sharon's preoccupation.

Hamas has already put up a strong performance in elections to municipal councils. It won 30 of the 84 councils in the West Bank and Gaza while Fatah won 50.

The Fatah victory faded into the background against the Hamas triumph since Hamas won most of the (urban) areas whereas Fateh won in outlying areas. This meant that Hamas would have a better showing in the elections to the legislative elections seats are determined on the basis of nationalist party lists and not individual candidates as was the case in the municipal elections.

Israeli intelligence reports predict a Hamas victory of between one third and half of the seats in the offing.

Plan in reserve

Indeed, Sharon has a plan in reserve to meet the eventuality of having a Hamas-led PNA. Under that plan, revealed by his adviser Dev Weisglas in October, Israel will simply evacuate the Gaza Strip, effectively "annex" the West Bank and close the so-called "peace process" file, with firmed up arrangements in place to fight off Palestinian armed resistance. The "separation" wall Sharon is building along the West Bank is the central pillar of that approach -- meaning a "scorched-earth" policy which stops at nothing in the effort to eliminate any challenge to Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

In the interim, Sharon is willing to give Mahmoud Abbas a shot at working out a peace agreement on Israel's terms, but he does not want Hamas to throw a spanner in the works either.

However, Sharon continues to retain the option of freezing the peace process after quitting Gaza.

AS Weisglas put it, "The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. "It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians."

His reference to "formaldehyde" was deemed as very apt since it is the favourite of funeral parlours to mask death, and death indeed is what Sharon has mind for the quest for peace at any point that he feels it is going against his plans.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Aoun a man to watch



Aoun - A man to watch


FORMER army chief Michel Aoun, 63, a staunch anti-Syrian, is back home in Lebanon nurturing presidential ambitions after 15 years of exile in France and is reputedly the preferred American-French candidate for the job.

How far the US and France would push their influence in Lebanese affairs to have Aoun succeed Emile Lahoud in this month's elections remains to be seen. But the country's majority Shiites, represented by pro-Syrian Hizbollah, would put up a bitter fight to foil the American-French plan. And so would others who see Aoun's calls for changes in the Lebanese political system as a clear threat to their traditional power bases in the country that have been kept intact since the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

Then, Aoun would have to grapple with challenges to the post from his fellow Christian leaders, and the backing of the Maronite Christian patriarch would be decisive.

If Aoun assumes Lebanese presidency, then it would signal a complete revamping of Beirut-Damascus relations. It could very well turn out to be the final chapter of the changes that swept Lebanon in the wake of the Feb.14 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al Hariri.

Aoun seems to represent one of the rare convergences of US and French interests in the Middle East.

Washington and Paris led international pressure against Syria to end its nearly 30-year old domination of Lebanon following the Hariri assassination and now they are determined not to allow the pro-Syrian camp to assume power in the country.

But Syria, which has withdrawn its military and intelligence agents from Lebanon, has not written off Lebanon. Damascus will continue to play an influential, albeit behind-the-scene, role in Lebanese politics through its allies, who include the powerful Hizbollah as well as the Amal movement led by Nabih Berri, a segment of the Sunni community and a few Christian leaders.

(Indeed, the Syrians have many other options to make things tough for the Lebanese but that is a different story altogether).

The May 29 elections will show how far Syria has managed to retain its influence in Lebanon, but it is irrefutable that Lebanese politics have undergone irreversible changes after Hariri's assassination.

Otherwise, Aoun would not have returned to Lebanon as a long-lost hero. Had he landed prior to Hariri's death, then he would have faced charges of treason for having spoken up against the Syrian domination of his country.

Aoun staged a revolt against Syria before being ousted and exiled to France in 1990. Since then, he waged a bitter anti-Syrian campaign.

On Wednesday, a Lebanese court dropped several outstanding charges against him, lifting the last hurdle to his return. The charges included that of treason, for having accused Syria of being behind the murder of two Lebanese ex-presidents and of "occupying Lebanon." He was instrumental in getting the US Congress pass the Syria Accountability Act and the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for Syria's departure from Lebanon.

US-French interest

Even before Hariri's remains were buried, Washington and Paris reached agreement that Aoun should replace the Syrian-backed Lahoud as Lebanon's president as part of their effort to reshape the Syrian-Lebanese political landscape.

French President Jacques Chirac, who was a close friend of Hariri, insisted that Aoun be backed as the next president of Lebanon and the American administration endorsed Chirac's proposal, according to reports.

Washington and Paris sent special envoys to Beirut and secured the support of the main political leaders in Lebanon -- Druze leader Walid Junblatt and the Maronite Christian patriarch, Archbishop Nasrallah Sfeir -- for Aoun's return home but not necessarily for his quest to occupy the Babda presidential palace.

Aoun, who leads the Free Patriotic Movement of Lebanon, is a Christian and therefore qualifies to be president.

Aoun is broadly popular among Lebanon's large Christian minority, and many among them hope he would be their president. Indeed, many Lebanese Christians who had fled the country or migrated during the civil war were present in Beirut on Saturday to welcome back Aoun and voice support for him.

The young generation favours his call for a secular Lebanon -- meaning doing away with the present system which makes it mandatory that the president is a Christian, the prime minister a Sunni and parliament speaker a Shiite. But, the old guards of Lebanon, whether from the pro- or anti-Syrian camp, might not look at his posture so kindly.

For them, his rhetoric -- "minds must be changed and we must get rid of the political feudalism and religious system that dates back to the 19th century" -- means nothing but sharp axes at the roots of their wealth and influence.

Aoun thrust home the point when he declared: "We no longer want old feudal models, religious sectarianism that kills... we want also to fight political money that has corrupted the republic and taken Lebanon to the verge of bankruptcy."

What real chances does Aoun stand in his quest for presidency?

Until the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, he fit the bill for many Lebanese Christians who saw him as the "conscience" of the country. Now that the Syrians have departed, the perceptions are changing.

Aoun could not claim credit for forcing the Syrian departure. That goes to the people of Lebanon and political leaders who consistently roused the crowds into staging massive anti-Syrian demonstrations.

There are many who now see Aoun as divisive rather than a unifying factor, given his pitched calls for fundamental political changes. Many would also be closely looking at how Hizbollah responds to his expected candidacy. At this point in time, Aoun is calling for dialogue leading to Hizbollah being disarmed, but the powerful Shiite group would respond violently to any effort to strip its of its status and strength as an armed movement.

One thing is certain: The US and France will unleash everything they have in order to see Aoun elected as president, for he is key to their plans for a new Lebanon that suits their interests.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Dynamics of change








pv vivekanand


With the last of the Syrian soldiers and intelligence agents crossing the border on Tuesday, the way has been cleared for parliamentary elections in Lebanon on May 29.

It is widely accepted that a fair and free election in Lebanon would produce a political system where Syria or pro-Syrian parties would no longer be calling all the shots.

Obviously, the US is hoping to eventually nudge the to-be elected Lebanese government into signing a peace agreement with Israel without linking it with the Syrian channel of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whether Washington would be successful in scoring that goal depends on many factors, not the least of which will be the stiff resistance put up by the Shiite majority's representative, Hizbollah.

In Damascus, President Bashar Al Assad is not waiting for the next American/Israeli move for a "regime change." He has launched his own moves, which will open the door for political parties.

One of Assad's main objectives is to challenge a US legislation calling for "Assistance to Support a Transition to Democracy in Syria."

The draft legislation authorises the US to finance dissident political groups and thus implicitly nurture opposition to the regime from within the country.

It reads: "The president is authorised to provide assistance and other support for individuals and independent non-governmental organisations to support transition to a freely elected, internationally recognised democratic government in Syria."

No doubt, Assad had the US draft bill in mind when he went on record while meeting Spanish journalists in March -- around the time the bill was sent to the House of Representatives in the US -- that "the coming period will be one of freedom for political parties" in Syria.

Under Bashar's plans, which he has already put into motion, a new law on political parties it is expected to be announced at a June conference of the Baathist party.

The law will eliminate the "socialist-only" approach adopted by the late Hafez Al Assad open up the political system for new players, but with confinements on their options to grab power.

The new law will replace a 1974 bill which created the dominant National Progressive Front (NPF), a coalition headed by the Baath Party and including other socialist parties such as the Arab Unionist Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Unity Socialist Party. But the real power rested with the Baathists.

The expected legislation will recognise parties not affiliated with the NPF with the only condition that they should not be based on religion (an insurance against the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and its arms) or on minority orientations (since the country has ethnic Kurdish, Armenian and Circassian groups).

According to analysts, the first party expected to receive a license is the Syrian Socialist National Party, which they say is expected to secure the widest popularity in Syria.

Assad has also signalled political reconciliation by lifting a ban on issuing or renewing passports of dissident Syrians living in exile and promising not to persecute them for their political beliefs.

Under this gesture, General Jasem Alwan, who believed in the pan-Arab ideologies of Abdul Gamal Nasser of Egypt and a vociferous critic of Baathists, Yusuf Abdelki, a popular artist who professed communist views, have already returned home to Syria.

Others are on their way back.

Obviously, Assad is confident that the Baathists will remain the dominant party and others could not come nowhere near it even if the system was thrown open.

The US and critics of Syria might feel otherwise, but in reality the Baathist Party is very strong in Syria and its supporters would not be easily swayed to switch parties since they have been for long indoctrinated with Baathist views.

Simply put, Bashar has no worry that Baathist power would face no change even if a multi-party system emerges in Syria. Dissidents will welcome it and even try to gain the upper hand, but it would not be possible for them to succeed: Assad in a constitutional amendment provides the Baath Party the sole leadership status in the country.

Therefore, for Assad, the best option is to let other parties exist and thus pre-empt charges of a closed political system, which is being cited by the anti-Syrian strategists in Washington who drew up and presented the "Assistance to Support a Transition to Democracy in Syria" to the House of Representatives in March.

Without doubt, Assad could indeed do with getting rid of part of the legacy of hislate father, who ruled the country withan iron-fist since 1970 until his death in 2000 and tolerated no dissent. Under Hafez Al Assad, hundreds of political prisoners were locked up for decades and gross violations ofhuman rights were reported.

Hafez Al Assad and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were from the same mold and followed the same thinking and practices when it comes to protecting theirregimes and power. Indeed, Bashar Al Assad's crash reform programme is a dangerousgame for himself since the old guard of the Baathist Party are said to be warning him against the proposed reforms. He faces resistance to his moves from such powerful figures as Baathist Party acting Secretary-General Abdullah Al Ahmed and the three vice presidents -- Zuheir Masharqa, Abdul Khalim Haddam and Mohammed Jaber Jabjush.

They have warned Assad that if he goes through with his plan he risks the end of his regime once and for all. But Bashar has no choice but to shore up his regime and political support from the people in a way thatwould get international approval and for that he needsto get rid of the Baathist baggage. "I don't want to see foreign troops in Syria forcing us to accept the sort of reforms imposed on Iraq,"Bashar is said to have told a close adviser. "We can carry out those reforms on our own."Effectively, these reform will mean turning the Baath Party from a Marxist-socialistideological movement to a pragmaticruling party which plays the game by democratic rules but within the confines of a system that does not lead to the collapse of his regime or the party's grip on power. At the June convention, a new name for the party will beannounced along with updated goals and a fresh motto that will replace the current motto of "Arab Unity, Liberty and Socialism" in party literature. The new name proposed is the National Ruling Party of Syria.

Assad wants to be ready with the overhauled political system at the June convention, the second to be held afterthe death of his father.His reform will cut off the strong links between the military and the Baathist party. At present, every army appointment has to be approved bythe party, meaning that if one is not a party memberhe will not be employed by the army (as the case wasin Saddam Hussein's Iraq).He is dismantling the Pan-Arab Commission of the Baath Party, close its Damascus offices and dismissits staff.

This commission has strong relations withBaathist groups in other Arab countries, particularlyJordan and Lebanon. Bashar Al Assad also wants to rewrite the national constitution and introduce an open market economy. The Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon also meant the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for Damascus, and Assad cannot afford to have international economic sanctions imposed on his country as warned by the UN.

Bashar has established an economic committee to restructure the Syrian economy and oversee itstransition to a market economy.

There are many variables and constants that would influence the way ahead for Syria in its quest to squirm out of the American-written script which includes regime change in Damascus.

These include:

-- The outcome of the May 29 elections in Lebanon.

The US is seeking an American-friendly regime in power in Beirut, and the emerging alliance grouping the Maronite Christians, the Druze and the Sunni camp loyal to the assassinated prime minister, Rafiq Al Hariri, fit the bill, but only to an extent. None of the leaders of these groups could overlook or sidestep the links between the peoples of Lebanon and Syria through marriage and other family relationships as well as business tie-ups. Therefore, they are unlikely to allow themselves to be persuaded to cut off Syria and go their own way to sign a separate peace agreement with Israel.

Furthermore, the pro-Syrian political forces in Lebanon are far from being written off, and these include the powerful and committed Hizbollah. They would continue to assert a decisive role in Lebanese affairs, and no government in power in Beirut would be able to defy their wishes, particularly in issues such as ties with Israel.

-- Allegations of a Syrian role in the Hariri assassination.

No one with any insight into the intricacies of the region believes that the Syrians were so naive to have orchestrated the killing. It is difficult to perceive the Syrian strategists to plot and carry out the murder since the first party to be accused of staging the assassination would have been themselves.

There is a sizeable school of thought which believes that the Israelis were behind the killing since they stood to benefit most from its repercussions. However, if indeed Israel had a direct or indirect role in the murder, then it is also a safe bet that all tracks were carefully covered and smoothened over.

Despite a few blunders in recent years, Israel's notorious Mossad is very much capable of carrying out such deceptive operations and leaving red herrings pointing to Israel's adversaries as the culprits.

Therefore, it is widely perceived that any investigation into the killing is unlikely to come up with a definite conclusion as to who was behind that massive bomb blast on Feb.14.

However, an inconclusive investigation would still leave Syria as the prime suspect and this would definitely be used by the US and Israel to tighten the screws of pressure on Damascus on their own.

The deceptive "weapons of mass destruction" justification that the Bush administration used to implement its plans to invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein and occupy the country is the best example of the extent to which Washington would go to achieve its strategic goals.

-- Fears of a new civil war in Lebanon pitting anti-Syrian and pro-Syrian forces.

It is a highly unlikely course of events. The Lebanese have learnt their lessons from the 17-year civil strife they lived through. They are perfectly aware that a renewed civil war would benefit no one. Indeed, a civil war in Lebanon is the last thing that the Syrians want, given the reform plans that Damascus is implementing. Nor does Israel want a civil war in Lebanon. Strife across the border in Lebanon would pose serious threats to Israel, which would be a logical target for disgruntled Lebanese and Palestinian forces in Lebanon. That is to say the least.

Some people suggest that Hizbollah would refuse to take orders from an "American-friendly" government in Beirut and this could lead to an armed conflict. However, Hizbollah's track record proves that it is a pragmatic and realistic organisation and it would never be a party to igniting a civil war where its survival as the dominant group in Lebanon would be threatened.

Again, it is improbable that any government in Beirut would seek to disarm Hizbollah under American pressure based on UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Trying to disarm Hizbollah will be nothing but playing with fire, as its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah recently warned with an open challenge to the US to send in its military to Lebanon to take away the group's weapons.

A Beirut government using own security forces in a bid to disarm Hizbollah could indeed be problematic with untold dangers because of the sectarian divide. The government should and would know it better than most that deploying Lebanese security forces to challenge Hizbollah would lead to in nothing less than the end of the government itself.

Hizbollah knows well that if it is deprived of its armed power then it is not only its own end as an armed force but also the end of the Islamist resurgence that it believes it represents and of any hope to assert Islamist power in the Middle East. Everyone knows it, and even the US would think thrice before even entertaining any thought of using force to disarm Hizbollah.

Today, Hizbollah is looking forward to the May 29 elections. It is confident that it would be able to significantly strengthen its parliamentary presence through the ballot box. An armed conflict is the last thing it wants, but, if challenged with a life-and-death situation, then the group is capable of wreaking havoc throughout the region.

On the Syrian front, the reforms planned by the regime is seen crucial to warding off the American quest for "regime change" in Damascus. Bashar Al Assad would not flinch from it and thus deprive the US of credibility in its calls for action against Syria. However, that would not necessarily dissuade Washington from pursuing its plans, since "regime change" in Syria is crucial not only to American strategies in the region but also to Israel's quest for regional domination without making any territorial compromise with the Syrians over the occupied Golan Heights.

In any event, no matter how the cookie crumbles, the political equations in the Middle East are poised for a massive reshaping. It is only a matter of time before something gives.

Monday, May 02, 2005

An unlikely page




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------