Axis of evil ruse

by pv vivekanand
By declaring Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil," US President George W Bush appears to have taken in more that Washington could chew by espousing unilateralism that has alienated his European allies.
Since his state of the union address on Jan.29, Bush has faced a barrage of criticism from Europeans, many of whom outrightly rejected his clear pointer that the next targets in the US-led war against terrorism were Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang. They have warned that Washington should not expect them to remain partners in the coalition that backed the US campaign in Afghanistan.
It was indeed clear for some time now that Bush would be targeting Iraq and others in the US-led drive against terrorism, particularly after he clarified that he defined all countries which develop weapons of mass destruction as supporters of terrorism. And his Jan. 29 speech has come to be known was the Bush doctrine, which is now challenged by his European allies. And they have good reasons too.
In the case of Iraq, US intelligence agencies tried hard but in vain to establish a link between Baghdad and the Sept. 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington. Reports that the man said to have been the leader of the attacks had met with an Iraqi diplomat in Eastern Europe in early 2001 have come to naught in helping Washington establish a case against Baghdad.
That the US was paving the way for expanding the war against terrorism was made clear in October when Washington formally notified the United Nations that it might target other countries in the war against terrorism and senior Bush administration officials mentioned Iraq as a potential target.
Since then, Arab leaders and the Arab League itself have issued repeated warnings to the US against launching military operations against Iraq or any other Arab country in the name of the war against terrorism.
Joining them were European leaders who had then used diplomatic language to dissuade Washington from pursuing a military assault against Iraq.
But last week, they were unambiguous, saying they want nothing to do with such a course of action.
European Commission pokesman Gunnar Weigand said the European Union leaders "do not agree with that kind of policy."
While the EU shared American concerns over global issues such as human rights, terrorism and proliferation of weapons, the bloc does not "share is the policy desired to achieve these objectives. We believe that engagement and rapprochement...should be used to achieve these aims."
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, called on Washington to act multilaterally and not as a "global unilateralist."
Surprisingly Germany had been in the forefront of opposing military action against Iraq, and it left nothing unsaid.
"We Europeans warn against it," said German Deputy Foreign Minister Ludger Vollmer. "There is no indication, no proof that Iraq is involved in the terrorism we have been talking about for the last few months... this terror argument cannot be used to legitimise old enmities."
Vollmer could not have been more clear in referring to the growing belief that the "axis of evil" charge is the forerunner of a US drive to settle political scores by destablising Iraq and indirectly topple the regime of Saddam Hussein — an objective the US failed to achieve in the 1991 Gulf war.
There is also a strong vein of thought in Europe, and indeed in the Arab World, that the US focus on Iran as a potential target in the war against terrorism has more to do with Israeli interests than US policy and the campagin against terror.
There is little doubt that Bush would find it difficult to enlist European partners in military action against Iraq or Iran.
Most EU member countries agree that the best approach to solving the problem, if any at all, is through dialogue in line with the European bloc's policy of engaging with countries rather than seeking to isolate them.
Even in Britain, the staunchest US ally in Europe, the "axis of evil" comment has drawn dismay. Home Secretary Jack Straw said the Bush assertion was aimed at the American elecotrate ahead of the forthcoming congressional elections and could not be part of a military strategy.
Washington's frustration over the British stand was spelt out by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. "This is not about American politics, and I assume that when the British government speaks about foreign policy, it's not about British politics," she retorted to Straw.
But it should be dawning on Washington that it would not be an easy go to secure international endorsement of military action against Iraq or Iran.
Many countries, mindful of the oil reserves and trade potential of the two countries, have set up strong relations with them; in Iraq's case, business worth tens of billions is waiting for an end to the 11-year-old UN sanctions against Baghdad. The sanctions are already fraying, and it is only a matter of time before few governments would think twice about doing business with Iraq even if in violation of the sanctions.
Indeed, there is strong European suspicion that it is not simply "old enmities" at play in the US strategy towards Iraq.
The Europeans are aware that Washington is unhappy that they have made inroads and set up ground to do post-sanctions trade with Iraq while American businesses were restrained by the law of their country from pursuing the same goal.
"By launching military action against Iraq, the US would precipitate a major crisis that would upset the European apple cart and bring new rules into play for doing business with Iraq," commented an Asian diplomat. "That would be the end of years of European efforts to gain a firm foothold in that country."
If any consolation, there is consensus across the Atlantic: Military action against Iraq would not be limited to a few missile strikes or bombings against strategic installations in that country –– it would aim at replacing the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad, and this would not be an easy task at all without European support.
The European case against the US targeting Iran is even stronger.
Europe has been closely observing the political tug-of-war between the (relatively) moderate regime of President Mohmmed Khatami and the conservative theocratic establishment in Iran since 1997. They have seen a slow shift to moderation in Tehran under Khatami's leadership, and they would like to encourage it.
Europeans are indeed aware of the clout that the Iranian religious establishment wields, and they have recognised that they should not expect miracles from Khatami.
Many European diplomats believe that even if the Israeli charge was true that Iran was behind a recently intercepted arms shipment in the Red Sea, the real "culprit" was not the Khatami government but hardline elements in the clerical establishment in Tehran.
In any event, the Europeans remain convinced that the key to dealing with Iran is encouragement for the "moderate" camp in Tehran rather than confrontation over the US charge that Iran had links with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.
Europe recognises that Al Qaeda fighters fleeing US forces in the Afghan war could have sneaked across the border to Iran, but they believe Tehran should not be seen as an Al Qaeda supporter.
They see the Iranian refusal to co-operate with the US in countering Al Qaeda as stemming from Tehran's conviction that such moves would allow Washignton to exploit the situation and make intelligence inroads in Iran.
"Tehran prefers to deal with the Al Qaeda problem, if there is one, on its own," said a European diplomat. "It wants no US role in the affair and is determined to keep the US out. Sharing intelligence information with the US is the last thing it wants to do."
Some speculate that the US frustration over its failure to mend fences with Iran despite repeated overtures to Tehran is also behind the hostility.
Washington has also charged that Iran was "meddling" in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, an allegation that both Tehran and Kabul have denied.
There is a strong Israeli angle to the US-Iran equation, and Bush's "tough" posture might also have to do with his desire to do away with a constant source of "concern" for the US protege in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon underlined it when he said last week that "Iran calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and elimination of the Jewish people. That's why it was so important for President Bush to name them as sponsors of terror."
It is no secret that Israel has seen in Iran a potential threat in the event of a regional conflagration. Israel has for long watched with apprehension Iran aquiring and developing long-range missiles and Tehran's nuclear programme.
Suggestions have remained alive for several years that Israel might even launch "pre-emptive" strikes against Iran's nuclear installations, which Tehran says are intended for peaceful purposes, and other military facilities.
Iran is a staunch supporter of the Lebanese resistance movement Hizbollah, which managed to force Israel to withdraw from parts of Lebanese territory in mid-2000 after many years of fighting the Israeli army and its proxy forces in southern Lebanon.
Sharon has already picked up the fight against Iraq and Iran. One of the items on the agenda for talks between Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Washington on Thursday was expected to be Israel's "fears" of the "threats" posed by Iraq and Iran to the Jewish state.
Aides have said that Sharon would be lobbying Bush for unspecified American action against Iran and iraq.
Russia has come out fighting from Iran's corner against the US charge against Tehran.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Sunday that there was no evidence that Iran had connections with terrorist organisations. He accused the US of following double standards.
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine warned that the interests of the rest of the world were under threat from a "simplistic" US foreign policy that emerged after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Today we are threatened by a simplism that reduces all the problems of the world to the struggle against terrorism, and is not properly thought through," said Vedrine.
Vedrine expressed criticism of the Bush doctrine, a decision by Washington to subordinate all foreign policy decisions to the needs of the "war against terrorism," and of unilateralism in general.
He accused the US of acting "unilaterally, without consulting others, taking decisions based on its own view of the world and its own interests ... refusing any multilateral negotiation that could limit their decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of action."
According to Vedrine, said Europe also had a duty to stand up to the US "hyper-power" over the globalisation of the free market
French Defence Minister Alain Richard said France would not follow Bush's example in vastly increasing defence spending to cope with the new threats of the post-Sept. 11 world.
"We do not share the analysis expressed by President Bush on the threats to international peace and security," he told the French parliament.
Against such opposition from the powerful European bloc, will Bush go it alone?
There are some who suggest he might.
The technology that the US used in the Afghan war established that the sole superpower
doesn't need its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) partners "to fight a distant war, as it demonstrated in Afghanistan, where it basically won alone, except for small but important contributions from Britain, Canada and Australia," Thomas Friedman wrote in the Guardian.
Friedman hammered home an emerging scenario where the US might simply decide its interests were good enough to launch military action wherever it found fit to do so so -- with or without is Nato partners.
"We are increasingly heading for a military apartheid within Nato: America will be the chef who decides the menu and cooks all the great meals, and the Nato allies will be the bus boys who stay around and clean up the mess and keep the peace - indefinitely," according to Fried

US defines "terrorism"

PV Vivekanand
THE US-declared war against terrorism has given a new life to the decades-old debate about a clear and unambiguous definition of who could be called "terrorist" — an Arab demand that has for long been sidestepped by the United States.
Today, when we hear the words "terrorism," "terror" and "terrorist" repeated the world over by officials, commentators and media, we cannot but ask: What constitutes "terrorim"? What is "terror"? Who is a "terrorist"?
At the height of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Washington used to describe the Afghans fighting the Russians as "freedom fighters" and "resistance groups." While we had no quarrel with the concept, it was a slap in our face that the US stood steadfast against the Arab call to apply the same yardstick in Palestine.
Today, we feel all the more humiliated, insulted and frustrated when we hear the US using the term "terrorist" to describe the Palestinians waging a legitimate resistance struggle. They are exercising the rights granted to the occupied to resist the occupier under international laws, particularly the 1948 Geneva conventions.
Beyond that sense of humiliation, insult and frustration is our agony that Israel is given a carte blanche to step up its terrorist actions that have killed and maimed thousands of Palestinians and wrecked the life of millions more.
Can the US honesty deny that it is the blind American backing that appears to transcend all considerations that emboldens Israel to persist in its effort to terrorise the Palestinians into submission?
Against that backdrop, could anyone blame us for asserting that the American rejection of Arab calls for an international debate to define "terrorism" and "terrorists" was based on its concern that its protege and "strategic partner" in the Middle East would be the first to be indicted?
We do not imply that the Sept. 11 attacks in the US were anything but terrorism. We have been exposed to terror and terrorism and believe that we, as part of the international community, have the moral responsibility to ensure that actions similar to the Sept. 11 attacks are never repeated anywhere in the world. We have to and we will do our share to render what it takes to ensure that the world is safe from such heinous, unjustiable, undefendable, unpardonable and dastardly attacks.
However, amid the shocking thoughts provoked by the attacks, the Arab and Islamic worlds cannot but feel angry and frustrated over the selective approach that applies different parameters to terrorism.
No matter whatever arguments some might put up, it is clear to us that the Israeli actions against Palestinians are state-sponsored terrorism. The marked difference, if you will, is that Israel has a mighty army backed by some of the most advanced hi-tech weapons at its disposal to terrorise the Palestinians under its control and is assured of immunity by its superpower friend from international punishment.
The literal definition of a "terrorist" is simple and straight: "A person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community."
The immediate question is: Is Israel not using "violent and intimidating methods" to coerce the Palestinian community? Doesn't it mean that Israel is a terrorist entity?
We wish if the reality was as simple as that to allow the acceptance of that definition in the context of Israel and the Palestinian community it oppresses through nothing but sheer terror: Summary killings and maimings, detentions, torture, and free use of fighter planes, helicopter gunships, rockets, missiles and tanks against unarmed civilians whose only fault is their refusal to accept Israel's occupation their homeland and domination of their life.
Does the fact that Israel is a country and has a recognised government exclude it from being classified as terrorist? Well, it does not and should not, but its status as an ally and "strategic partner" of the US does indeed offer the country the unpredecented and unparalled luxury of the freedom to continue to practise terrorism without fear of censure or punishment.
That is the source for all the Arab and Muslim criticism, warnings, cautions and demands levelled at the US as Washington plots its next moves in its international war against terrorism.
Obviously, the US has no intention whatsover even to "dignify" the Arab demand that the same parameters be used in the case of Israel. That is perhaps we have not heard any public comment whatsover from the US on the demand.
Although the US would never admit it, we all know that there would not have been anything called the Arab-Israeli peace process had it not been for the Gulf war of 1991 that eliminated Iraq as a strong military challenge to Israel, divided the Arabs, weakened the Palestinians and brought some of the Arab states more into the US fold and sphere of influence.
That is not to say that it was the whole objective of the military assault against Iraq, but it was one of the strongest offshoots of the war and the resulting fragmentation of the Arab World.
Washington tends to describe the peace process launched in 1991 as the fruit of its "relentless" diplomacy. But we know differently - that the elements of the regional equation suited the Israeli objective of being in a position to dictate the terms for peace, as it happened after nine years of dilly dallying, and that was why the peace process could be launched at all.
At this critical juncture in time, the Arab World would like to know whether and how the US would deny its endorsement of Israel's state-sponsored terrorism and maintain that it is neutral in the Middle East.
We would also like to know at what it would take for the US to admit in public that Israel should figure high in the list of "international terrorists" and Washington, as the leader of the free world, should have adopted actions to contain the Israeli terrorism decades ago.
We would also like to know what exactly that admission will lead to and whether the rekindled unofficial debate on terrorism would ever lead to a light at the end of the tunnel for the Palestinians.

American unilateralism

By declaring Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of
evil," US President George W Bush appears to have
taken in more that Washington could chew by espousing
unilateralism that has alienated his European allies.
Since his state of the union address on Jan.29, Bush
has faced a barrage of criticism from Europeans, many
of whom outrightly rejected his clear pointer that the
next targets in the US-led war against terrorism were
Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang. They have warned that
Washington should not expect them to remain partners
in the coalition that backed the US campaign in
Afghanistan.
It was indeed clear for some time now that Bush would
be targeting Iraq and others in the US-led drive
against terrorism, particularly after he clarified
that he defined all countries which develop weapons of
mass destruction as supporters of terrorism. And his
Jan. 29 speech has come to be known was the Bush
doctrine, which is now challenged by his European
allies. And they have good reasons too.
In the case of Iraq, US intelligence agencies tried
hard but in vain to establish a link between Baghdad
and the Sept. 11 terror attacks in New York and
Washington. Reports that the man said to have been the
leader of the attacks had met with an Iraqi diplomat
in Eastern Europe in early 2001 have come to naught in
helping Washington establish a case against Baghdad.
That the US was paving the way for expanding the war
against terrorism was made clear in October when
Washington formally notified the United Nations that
it might target other countries in the war against
terrorism and senior Bush administration officials
mentioned Iraq as a potential target.
Since then, Arab leaders and the Arab League itself
have issued repeated warnings to the US against
launching military operations against Iraq or any
other Arab country in the name of the war against
terrorism.
Joining them were European leaders who had then used
diplomatic language to dissuade Washington from
pursuing a military assault against Iraq.
But last week, they were unambiguous, saying they want
nothing to do with such a course of action.
European Commission pokesman Gunnar Weigand said the
European Union leaders "do not agree with that kind of
policy."
While the EU shared American concerns over global
issues such as human rights, terrorism and
proliferation of weapons, the bloc does not "share is
the policy desired to achieve these objectives. We
believe that engagement and rapprochement...should be
used to achieve these aims."
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, called
on Washington to act multilaterally and not as a
"global unilateralist."
Surprisingly Germany had been in the forefront of
opposing military action against Iraq, and it left
nothing unsaid.
"We Europeans warn against it," said German Deputy
Foreign Minister Ludger Vollmer. "There is no
indication, no proof that Iraq is involved in the
terrorism we have been talking about for the last few
months... this terror argument cannot be used to
legitimise old enmities."
Vollmer could not have been more clear in referring to
the growing belief that the "axis of evil" charge is
the forerunner of a US drive to settle political
scores by destablising Iraq and indirectly topple the
regime of Saddam Hussein — an objective the US failed
to achieve in the 1991 Gulf war.
There is also a strong vein of thought in Europe, and
indeed in the Arab World, that the US focus on Iran as
a potential target in the war against terrorism has
more to do with Israeli interests than US policy and
the campagin against terror.
There is little doubt that Bush would find it
difficult to enlist European partners in military
action against Iraq or Iran.
Most EU member countries agree that the best approach
to solving the problem, if any at all, is through
dialogue in line with the European bloc's policy of
engaging with countries rather than seeking to isolate
them.
Even in Britain, the staunchest US ally in Europe, the
"axis of evil" comment has drawn dismay. Home
Secretary Jack Straw said the Bush assertion was aimed
at the American elecotrate ahead of the forthcoming
congressional elections and could not be part of a
military strategy.
Washington's frustration over the British stand was
spelt out by National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice. "This is not about American politics, and I
assume that when the British government speaks about
foreign policy, it's not about British politics," she
retorted to Straw.
But it should be dawning on Washington that it would
not be an easy go to secure international endorsement
of military action against Iraq or Iran.
Many countries, mindful of the oil reserves and trade
potential of the two countries, have set up strong
relations with them; in Iraq's case, business worth
tens of billions is waiting for an end to the
11-year-old UN sanctions against Baghdad. The
sanctions are already fraying, and it is only a matter
of time before few governments would think twice about
doing business with Iraq even if in violation of the
sanctions.
Indeed, there is strong European suspicion that it is
not simply "old enmities" at play in the US strategy
towards Iraq.
The Europeans are aware that Washington is unhappy
that they have made inroads and set up ground to do
post-sanctions trade with Iraq while American
businesses were restrained by the law of their country
from pursuing the same goal.
"By launching military action against Iraq, the US
would precipitate a major crisis that would upset the
European apple cart and bring new rules into play for
doing business with Iraq," commented an Asian
diplomat. "That would be the end of years of European
efforts to gain a firm foothold in that country."
If any consolation, there is consensus across the
Atlantic: Military action against Iraq would not be
limited to a few missile strikes or bombings against
strategic installations in that country –– it would
aim at replacing the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad,
and this would not be an easy task at all without
European support.
The European case against the US targeting Iran is
even stronger.
Europe has been closely observing the political
tug-of-war between the (relatively) moderate regime of
President Mohmmed Khatami and the conservative
theocratic establishment in Iran since 1997. They have
seen a slow shift to moderation in Tehran under
Khatami's leadership, and they would like to encourage
it.
Europeans are indeed aware of the clout that the
Iranian religious establishment wields, and they have
recognised that they should not expect miracles from
Khatami.
Many European diplomats believe that even if the
Israeli charge was true that Iran was behind a
recently intercepted arms shipment in the Red Sea, the
real "culprit" was not the Khatami government but
hardline elements in the clerical establishment in
Tehran.
In any event, the Europeans remain convinced that the
key to dealing with Iran is encouragement for the
"moderate" camp in Tehran rather than confrontation
over the US charge that Iran had links with Osama Bin
Laden's Al Qaeda group.
Europe recognises that Al Qaeda fighters fleeing US
forces in the Afghan war could have sneaked across the
border to Iran, but they believe Tehran should not be
seen as an Al Qaeda supporter.
They see the Iranian refusal to co-operate with the US
in countering Al Qaeda as stemming from Tehran's
conviction that such moves would allow Washignton to
exploit the situation and make intelligence inroads in
Iran.
"Tehran prefers to deal with the Al Qaeda problem, if
there is one, on its own," said a European diplomat.
"It wants no US role in the affair and is determined
to keep the US out. Sharing intelligence information
with the US is the last thing it wants to do."
Some speculate that the US frustration over its
failure to mend fences with Iran despite repeated
overtures to Tehran is also behind the hostility.
Washington has also charged that Iran was "meddling"
in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, an allegation
that both Tehran and Kabul have denied.
There is a strong Israeli angle to the US-Iran
equation, and Bush's "tough" posture might also have
to do with his desire to do away with a constant
source of "concern" for the US protege in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon underlined it when
he said last week that "Iran calls for the destruction
of the state of Israel and elimination of the Jewish
people. That's why it was so important for President
Bush to name them as sponsors of terror."
It is no secret that Israel has seen in Iran a
potential threat in the event of a regional
conflagration. Israel has for long watched with
apprehension Iran aquiring and developing long-range
missiles and Tehran's nuclear programme.
Suggestions have remained alive for several years that
Israel might even launch "pre-emptive" strikes against
Iran's nuclear installations, which Tehran says are
intended for peaceful purposes, and other military
facilities.
Iran is a staunch supporter of the Lebanese resistance
movement Hizbollah, which managed to force Israel to
withdraw from parts of Lebanese territory in mid-2000
after many years of fighting the Israeli army and its
proxy forces in southern Lebanon.
Sharon has already picked up the fight against Iraq
and Iran. One of the items on the agenda for talks
between Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
in Washington on Thursday was expected to be Israel's
"fears" of the "threats" posed by Iraq and Iran to the
Jewish state.
Aides have said that Sharon would be lobbying Bush for
unspecified American action against Iran and iraq.
Russia has come out fighting from Iran's corner
against the US charge against Tehran.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Sunday
that there was no evidence that Iran had connections
with terrorist organisations. He accused the US of
following double standards.
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine warned that the
interests of the rest of the world were under threat
from a "simplistic" US foreign policy that emerged
after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Today we are threatened
by a simplism that reduces all the problems of the
world to the struggle against terrorism, and is not
properly thought through," said Vedrine.
Vedrine expressed criticism of the Bush doctrine, a
decision by Washington to subordinate all foreign
policy decisions to the needs of the "war against
terrorism," and of unilateralism in general.
He accused the US of acting "unilaterally, without
consulting others, taking decisions based on its own
view of the world and its own interests ... refusing
any multilateral negotiation that could limit their
decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of action."

According to Vedrine, said Europe also had a duty to
stand up to the US "hyper-power" over the
globalisation of the free market
French Defence Minister Alain Richard said France
would not follow Bush's example in vastly increasing
defence spending to cope with the new threats of the
post-Sept. 11 world.
"We do not share the analysis expressed by President
Bush on the threats to international peace and
security," he told the French parliament.
Against such opposition from the powerful European
bloc, will Bush go it alone?
There are some who suggest he might.
The technology that the US used in the Afghan war
established that the sole superpower
doesn't need its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(Nato) partners "to fight a distant war, as it
demonstrated in Afghanistan, where it basically won
alone, except for small but important contributions
from Britain, Canada and Australia," Thomas Friedman
wrote in the Guardian.
Friedman hammered home an emerging scenario where the
US might simply decide its interests were good enough
to launch military action wherever it found fit to do
so so -- with or without is Nato partners.
"We are increasingly heading for a military apartheid
within Nato: America will be the chef who decides the
menu and cooks all the great meals, and the Nato
allies will be the bus boys who stay around and clean
up the mess and keep the peace - indefinitely,"
according to Friedman.



_______________

Europe faces Israeli wrath

February 17 2002
PV Vivekanand


THE EUROPEANS should be feeling like being hit by a sledgehammer. That is the intensity of the Israeli media attacks on them, apparently triggered by two reasons: First they dared to come up with an initiative to break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock and then they voiced opposition to the US plan to target Iraq and Iran in the war against terrorism.
Choice words and phrases in the Israeli media include "European foreign policy.... has begun to resemble a schoolyard squabble," "a childish desire to show independence from the United States," "impotence in Bosnia and Kosovo" and "a bizarre coalition of sanctimonious politicians, smarmy intellectuals, graying holdovers from 1968."
The Israeli comments do of course exclude Britain from the summary rejection of the European Union approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem since Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have aligned themselves behind US President George W. Bush. If anything, Israel seems to consider the British approach as a counterweight to the EU's quest to involve itself as a key player in the politics of peace-making in the Middle East.
The tone of the comments indicates that the Israelis are worried that the Europeans have finally decided to do way with the constraints imposed on them against assuming an influential political role in the Middle East. The prospect should indeed be worrying for Israel since Europe represents the trade and economic lifeline for the Jewish state, and it is a leverage that the Europeans could use against it if there exists the political will among European leaders and politician.
Apart from that, it is as if Israel has appointed itself as the defender of the US, whose transatlantic relations are being tested as a result of European opposition to Washington's declared plans to expand the war against terrorism.
For that matter, the Europeans do not need any defenders either; but the case in point is a classic example of how they could come under pressure from the only "civilised" country in the region that, however, depends on Europe for the bulk of its economic activities.
It is equally interesting that Israel seems to be telling Europe what it could do and what it could not by pointedly referring to the European Parliament's invitation to Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to address the assembly.
It doesn't need an in-depth analysis of the European Union initiative to break the deadlock in the (defunct) peace process or the precise points that Israel has found fit to use to shoot down the initiative. Suffice it is to say that as far as Israel is concerned nothing good could come out of Europe in the political context since the Europeans are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
For decades now, Israel, through using its US card, has prevented the Europeans from having any say in Middle East peacemaking. It is all the more important for Israel to push them back now, given the worsening crisis in Palestine speeded along by Israel's military brutality and one-track mind that is bent upon subduing Palestinian resistance. As such, it is has rejected out of hand the European plan for the declaration of a Palestinian state and Palestinian elections to wipe away the Israeli-created "delegitimisation" of the Palestinian National Authority. The Israeli media have also described the position of France — which formulated the initiative — as "total capitulation to terrorism."
Equally strong is the attack on European opposition to the US plans to target Iraq and Iran.
"European leaders, despite their pretense at unity, have no power or policy of their own but are terminally jealous of America, which has both," says an Israeli commentator with an advise that European statesmen, "rather than preaching to America in order to be different, would do better to cultivate a sense of modesty befitting their own real role in world affairs."
We don't know how European government leaders and politicians are reacting to such attacks, but we do know one thing: Israel is trying to scare the Europeans away from approaching the Middle East with an objective proposal. It also wants to help the US, its "strategic partner," to counter European criticism of what Europe sees as Washington's unilateral approach emerging from the "axis of evil" statement by President Bush.
Beyond that, however, is Israel's desire to eliminate what it considers as a lingering threat from Iraq and the potential of Iran joining a regional conflagration sparked by the growing Arab and Muslim fury and frustration over Israel's immunity against taking whatever action it finds fit to take against the Palestinians.
Of course, it is not the first time that the Europeans have incurred Israel's wrath. At every point wherever Europe has come out with any word or action that casts the slightest question over Israeli deeds and ambitions in the region, it received a kick in the teeth.
But this time around, the situation is different in that the crisis in the Middle East is worsening and courageous initiatives are required to pre-empt the realisation of Israel's objective of eliminating Palestinian resistance. By right and definition, we should have expected the US, the sole superpower, to take the lead and guide all parties involved to a fair and just solution to the problem. Since the US itself appears to have been restrained from doing so by the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, the next best bet is Europe.
However, our source of concern is whether Europe would indeed be scared into abandoning its moves and withdraw to the sidelines to its previous status as a silent observer and bankroller, ready to step in with cash whenever it is asked to do so.

Bush's words of mass deception

by pv vivekanand

AFTER failing to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- and by extension proving an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks in the US -- President George W. Bush is citing charges that Baghdad is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction as his reason to launch military action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein.
But how authentic is the charge?
On the face of it, the international community is being told to accept that Iraq has eluded the most advanced satellite surveillance -- with equipment that could arguably trace the contours of a grain of wheat on the ground -- and the strictest-ever air-sea-land-blockade backed by intense interceptions and inspection of anything and everything crossing its border -- and managed to resume its clandestine weapons programme.
The assertion is based on an argument that the departure of UN inspectors -- often wrongly described as their expulsion by Iraq -- in late 1998 allowed Baghdad to pick where it had left off following the destruction of most of its weapons of mass destruction under the UN verification and destruction programme.
A review of the UN programme would raise serious questions about the US charge against Baghdad.
It was known that Baghdad and the UN mission never got on well and there were always skirmishes, both diplomatic and otherwise.
Iraq and the UN inspection teams have had many standoffs, some of them resulting from the personal postures adopted by inspectors and others because the Iraqis tried to prevent vital papers on their country's weapons programme as well as intelligence documents unrelated to arms inspections being removed by the UN officials.
"We hated each other's guts," as a former member of the UN team put it.
It had become clear that Iraq had a much larger weapon programme than was known to the international community when the UN inspectors launched their mission in 1991 as the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).
It took several years before UNSCOM managed to unravel the programme, with the Iraqis revealing information in bits and pieces and only when they were cornered with solid evidence, and it became a cat-and-mouse game.
It was not until late 1995 that the UN managed to get a clear picture of Iraq's military programmes and that came from Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who "defected" to Jordan in August of that year.
Kamel, who served as Iraq's defence minister and head of the country's military industry commission, was believed to have been debriefed not only by the then UNSCOM chairman, Sweden's Rolf Ekeus, but also by American and European intelligence agencies.
At that time Kamel's "defection" and revelations about his country's weapons programmes were seen as Baghdad's opportunity to come clean with its secrets to UNSCOM. In fact, Baghdad blamed Kamel for having kept the secrets for himself and handed over several cupboards full of files that it said were stashed away by the defector at his farmhouse outside Baghdad.
The information gained from those files represented a key pillar of UNSCOM strategy, and it was believed that the UN mission had managed to unearth more than 90 per cent of Iraq's weapon programmes.
Shortly before the inspections came to a premature end prompted by Iraq's insistence that a clear blueprint be given for what was expected of it before the sweeping UN sanctions imposed on it in 1990 are lifted and Washington's refusal to meet the demand, UNSCOM officials had asserted that the bulk of their work was over although they were seeking answers to some vital questions, and those questions are now being dusted off and presented as the reasons for the charges against Iraq.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which followed an independent verification programme, said that it had located Iraq's nuclear programme and had eliminated the country's nuclear material and equipment as well as the ability to renew them. But when the IAEA tried to close the "nuclear file," the US intervened it and aborted the move.
On the "missiles" file, Richard Butler, who succeeded Ekeus as UNSCOM chairman, said in July/August 1997 that the UN team had accounted for all but less than 12 long-range Scud missiles that Iraq was known to have bought from the then Soviet Union and modified.
He also said that the bulk of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were destroyed but that the UN team had not received all answers.
"UNSCOM did a fantastic job," he said. "You have to understand that when the Gulf war was ended there was revealed an awesome array of weapons of mass destruction: almost a nuclear bomb, long-range missiles, chemical, biological, all of the weapons of mass destruction. And we, with Iraq, got hold of most of it, got an account of it or got rid of it."
Such comments had also come from several other key members of the UN mission as well as American and international military experts who had access to classified information collected by UNSCOM.
Seen against the backdrop of such assertions, a look at the claims and assertions that Iraq continues to build weapons of mass destruction -- the reason that Bush cites for his plans to launch military action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein -- unveils a contradiction.
The key question is: With all entry points into Iraq under close surveillance and a ban on all commercial and military planes in and out of the country, how is it possible that Baghdad continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in the absence of the UN inspectors since late 1998?
In an appearance before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Butler asserted that Iraq had extensive chemical and biological weapons programmes and that there is evidence it has stepped up it alleged nuclear programmes in recent years.
Is the world then to believe that Iraq managed to get equipment and material past the American armada patrolling the seas and checking anything and everything heading for Iraq, and indeed "suspect" material headed for Iraq's neighbours that could be sent to Iraq, and renewed its weapons programme?
It has been 12 years since the sweeping trade embargo was imposed on Iraq.
Isn't it not fair to anyone to expect that the enforcers of the sanctions would have perfected their art?
Almost every vessel, small or big, is inspected before it docks in Iraq or anywhere with access to Iraq. American intelligence agents are present in all neighbours of Iraq -- although to a lesser extent in Iran -- to ensure that no "contraband" material enters the country; nothing beyond food and medicine and related items approved under the UN's oil-for-food programme is allowed into the country. Any item which could have slightest "military use" is blocked from entering Iraq.
An example is caustic soda, a key element in cleaning and washing of dairy equipment. It could also be used in production of chemical weapons, according to experts.
Since the day the sanction and verification regime was put into place, no consignment of caustic soda has been allowed into Iraq, and efforts by Jordan-based exporters to send the material to Iraq across the border -- presumably for legitimate purposes -- have been repeatedly thwarted.
That is only an indication of the effectiveness of the blockade, and it is difficult to see how the Iraqis managed to lay their hands of components of chemical weapons.
However, that is not to say that Iraq could not have done it. Then again, reports from Washington and London indicate that military generals on both sides of the Atlantic are not really convinced that Iraq had developed weapons as alleged or that poses a real threat to the region. Such scepticism has been voiced by officers who should be in a position to have access to classified and top secret information on Iraq's military capabilities as a key pillar of any strategy to launch a war on that country.
Some of the allegations are also based on accounts by Iraqi defectors, both identified and unidentified. However, the credibility and authenticity of such accounts are brought under question when considering that almost all the "defectors" are produced and paraded by Iraqi dissident groups which have a vested interest in convincing the world that Baghdad is evil.
In some cases, it has also been found that the defectors had left Iraq around the same time the UN inspections were halted and they were making claims linked to the period after their departure from the country.
However, regardless of all reasonings and logic based on available facts that expose the hollowness of the American argument for striking at Iraq, the Bush administration is dead bent upon carrying out their designs in the region and Saddam Hussein has no room in their strategy.

'Spying' charges

AS was expected sooner or later, the Swedish diplomat who headed the UN arms inspection programme in Iraq until 1997 has turned around and extended implicit endorsement of Baghdad's assertion that the inspections were mostly a smokescreen for American intelligence activities in the country.
Sweden's Rolf Ekeus, who chaired UNSCOM since its creation in 1991 until he quit in 1997, affirmed in public comments this week that some of his team members were obviously engaged in work unrelated to weapon inspections.
In comments carried by Swedish radio, Ekeus said the US and other powers had exploited UN teams in Iraq for their own political ends, including monitoring President Saddam Hussein's movements and that, at times, crises were created that could possibly form the basis for military action.
"There is no doubt that the Americans wanted to influence the inspections to further certain fundamental US interests," Ekeus said in his first affirmation that he was aware of what was going on.
That partly vindicates Baghdad's accusations, particularly that Ekeus was one of the harshest critics of Iraq while he headed UNSCOM and thereafter until this week's comments.
Indeed, one of the key arguments Iraq is putting up against the US demand for renewed inspections of Baghdad's alleged programmes of producing weapons of mass destruction is the record that previous inspectors had spied on the country.
It is not a new position and some of those who served in the UN mission for verification of arms in Iraq until it was stopped in late 1998 had admitted in public that some of their colleagues were intelligence agents rather than arms experts.
In a statement that went largely unnoticed or played down deliberately or otherwise, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said in mid-1998 -that many of the UN inspectors appeared unaware of what they were supposed do in the realm of arms inspections and Iraqi officers assigned to working with them found a marked ignorance among them of technical issues related to weapons of mass destruction.
Ironically, it had also been reported that some of the inspectors were reporting directly to Israel with or without US knowledge.
In fact, it was Aziz's statement that enraged Australian diplomat Butler, who assumed charge of the UN inspections as successor to Ekeus in mid-1997, and led to a course of events that culminated in the UN decision to withdraw the inspectors ahead of US-British military strikes against Iraq in December 1998.
Obviously Butler was counting on American military strikes against Iraq everytime he reported to the UN Security Council that Baghdad was not extending the level of co-operation he demanded. He was frustrated that his mission was not making any real headway and knew within a few months' time and several visits to Iraq that he would not get anywhere in his mission. The real reason for the failure was his high-handed approach and effort to dictate terms from his self-assumed position of strength stemming from American military powers to "punish" Iraq if it did not fall in line with his commands.
It was clear that Aziz's pointed comments angered Butler if only because he had hand-picked some of members of the inspection team and the Iraqi minister's accusation was seen as questioning his abilities.
He was visibly upset when he appeared before the press in Bahrain after his last visit to Baghdad during which Aziz had made the statement to the press.
When asked about a report that a British minister had said that Iraq was loading missiles with chemical warheads at the rate of one a day Butler said he was not aware of the report. In a report he presented to the UN Security Council two days after the Bahrain appearance he made no reference to any such Iraqi activity.
However, a few hours after he presented the report, he appeared before a pro-Israeli gathering in New York and accused Iraq of arming missiles with chemical weapons aimed at "destroying" Israel. He repeated that allegation in a New York Times interview shortly thereafter, leaving one wondering why he failed to include it in his official report to the Security Council, the very body which had assigned him the mission and to which he was supposed to report.
The impression one got was that Butler took his failure in Iraq too personal and waged a pointed campaign during which he spared no effort to build the case against Baghdad. And that culminated in the December 1998 military "punishment" for Iraq.
Scott Ritter, an American who served under Ekeus as well as Butler, has affirmed in public comments that some of his team members were obviously engaged in work unrelated to weapon inspections.
Against such a backdrop, it is only natural that Baghdad continues to see any renewed inspection as aimed at gathering more intelligence on the country in preparation for eventual action to eliminate the Saddam regime.
The Iraqi reaction to Ekeus's comments was also predictable.
An official spokesman called the Swedish diplomat's comments as "another important confirmation of many statements by Iraq, international parties and foreign personalities on the exploitation by the United States of UN arms inspectors to perform tasks that contradict their mandate as defined by Security Council resolutions on Iraq."
"The remarks come at a time when extremists in the US administration are trying to distract attention from Iraq's legitimate rights according to Security Council resolutions, in the forefront of them lifting of the unjust sanctions and respecting Iraq's sovereignty," he said.
"The new comments by Ekeus confirm Iraq's legitimate concerns expressed in the questions submitted to the UN secretary-general in talks on May 7," the spokesman added. Those questions sought answers whether US threats against Saddam were a breach of international law to whether US "spies" would serve on inspection teams.
Iraq is now demanding that the Security Council answer Iraq's queries as "a first move to stop the United States' exploitation of the apparatus of the United Nations for ends contradicting those stipulated in the council's resolutions and the UN Charter," said the spokesman.

Lockerbie - the real story?

This was written on Feb. 1, 2002 as Libyan Abdel Baset Megrahi's appeal was being heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

IT SEEMS unlikely that the world would ever know the real story behind the 1988 mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie..
Several theories have been floating around about who was behind the blast, all of them with their own merits. These included suggestions that the bombing was Iranian revenge for the downing of an Iranian passenger airline in the Gulf by an American warship at the height of the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-80s; that it was the work of fearful Central Intelligence Agents (CIA) involved in illegal activities: that the blast was masterminded by anti-American elements who penetrated a CIA-endorsed
drug running operation; and that the target of the bombing was two Eastern European politicians.
A special court of Scottish judges is hearing the appeal of an alleged agent of Libyan intelligence sentenced to 20 years last year after he as convicted of planting the bomb that exploded in mid-air, killing all the 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground.
The general expectation was that the Libyan government would unveil "shocking" revelations of the mid-air blast during the appeal.
Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi had said that Libya had in its possession evidence that pointed the figure at the "real culprit" behind the bombing, which the US says was Libya's revenge for a 1985 US bombing of Libyan cities.
He asserted that when he produced the purported evidence, it would leave the trial judges with the choice of quitting their profession or committing suicide.
Two Libyans were indicted by the special court, which functions out of a former US military base, Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, and the court acquitted one of them, Al Amin Khalia Fhima, but convicted and sentenced Abdel Baset Megrahi on circumstantial evidence.
The evidence was based on shreds of clothing that was used to wrap the radio cassette player which was rigged with the explosives that went off and brought down the Pan Am flight on its way from London to New York.
US and British forensic experts traced the clothing to a shop in the Mediterranean island of Malta and the shop's owner testified that Megrahi "could have been" the man who bought the clothes. Apart from that, there was no direct evidence linking Megrahi to the bombing.
Megrahi's appeal is based on an argument that the shopkeeper's testimony was not enough to convict him, and that the trial judges made several errors in arriving in their judgment found him guilty as charged.
During the trial, the defense had argued that the shopkeeper could not positively identify the purchaser as Megrahi and the description he provided fitted another man, Mohammed Abu Talb, a member of a Palestinian group which was mysteriously dropped as a suspect after investigations.
The defense is also seeking to introduce as evidence the testimony of a security guard at London's Heathrow airport that a high-security cargo bay was broken in shortly before the ill-fated plane took in cargo and flew off headed for New York. The guard's evidence emerged after the trial was over in January 2001. The implication is that whoever had carried out the break-in could have planted the bomb-rigged suitcase among other pieces of baggage to be loaded onto Flight 103.
If the appeals court accepts the guard's testimony as evidence, then it rips open the prosecution contention that Megrahi had planted the bomb-laden suitcase with a New York tag in the baggage ramp at Malta's Liqua airport. From Liqua, the suitcase went to Frankfurt and onto London and aboard the Pan Am plane without security checks, the prosecution contented.
No clear explanation has been given why it was not subject to security inspections, particularly that European and American intelligence circles had gotten wind that a bomb attack was being planned against an American airliner.
The trial was held in Camp Zeist after a decade of a tug-of-war between Libya and the US that ended in a compromise worked out in 2000 under which Qadhafi agreed to allow the two Libyans to be tried in "neutral" territory by Scottish judges under Scottish law. In return, the UN lifted sanctions against Libya.
Many assertions and unanswered questions were raised in the wake of the mid-air explosion.
The US has maintained that the bombing was in retaliation for a 1985 April US air attack on the Libyan cities of Benghazi and Tripoli, which killed up to five people, including the adopted daughter of Qadhafi.
That air raid, which fitted into a pattern of US-Libyan confrontations, was ordered by the then president Ronald Reagan to punish Libya for its alleged role in the bombing of a disco in Berlin frequented by US Marines.
But the alleged Libyan connection to the Pan Am bombing is only one of the many theories that were raised at the very outset of investigations into the crash. These theories varyingly pointed the accusing fingers at Iran, Syria, Libya, the Lebanese drug underworld, and even the CIA.
Every theory appeared to be as strong as any, and a widely-held argument in the Middle East was Libya is the scapegoat in the case and the notorious Israeli secret service, Mossad, helped fabricate the case against Tripoli.
Iran was conveniently removed as a potential suspect because taking on Tehran would have been too heavy for the US at that point. Washington was also seeking to pacify the Iranians after having extended support to Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
Syria, which supported the US in the 1991 war that ended Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, was off the hook since Washington needed Damascus to enter the Middle East peace process launched in late 1991.
All other theories about the bombing would have dented what the US saw as an opportunity to have a stranglehold on Qadhafi's Libya, one of the most vociferous critics of US policy in Africa and the Middle East.
The Pan Am trial at Camp Zeist was attended by relatives of passengers, and some of them have stated that they were not at all convinced by the evidence presented against Megrahi.
Marina de Larracoechea, whose stewardess sister died in the crash, had formally demanded to know why the plane was only two-third full although it was peak Christmas time, and why some people apparently were warned not to travel on Flight 103.
The court found the submission "incompetent" and rejected it.
The defense strategy during the trial was based on laying out a well-built case where the accusing fingers pointed in several directions. The defense sought to prove that several other parties had as good motives and opportunity (supported by circumstantial evidence) as Libya to carry out the bombing.
But none of those arguments worked in favor of Megrahi.
The key piece of evidence was a tiny piece of a timer that allegedly helped detonate explosives in the suitcase aboard Pan Am Flight 103. The timer was rigged into a Toshiba cassette player and the fragment was found in part of the wreckage of the airliner in Lockerbie.
That timer, according to the prosecutor, was manufactured and supplied to Libya by a small electronics company called MEBO based in Zurich, Switzerland.
But a company official said that similar timers were supplied to several parties, including the Stasi secret service of former East Germany.
Major Owen Lewis, a former British army explosive expert and now an independent security consultant, said he could not fathom how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reached the conclusion that the fragment came from the MEBO timers supplied to Libya because of some fundamental differences in the construction of the devices bought by Libya and those sold by MEBO to others.
Also challenged in court was the record of misguided conclusions and lack of scientific qualifications of an FBI operative who "established" the alleged link between the timer and Libya.
Edwin Bollier, head of MEBO, said that the fragment could have come from one of two timers he had sold to Stasi. He also reported the theft of blueprints for the timer from his office and affirms that whoever had those blueprints could have manufactured a similar timer.
The Stasi connection opened up another avenue.
A Syrian-based group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), which was among the first suspects named by US authorities in the case but dropped eventually despite other circumstantial evidence, did have close links with the Stasi and could have obtained the MEBO timer from the East Germans.
Also challenged was the testimony of a former Libyan intelligence that he had seen Megrahi and Fhima at Malta airport on the day of the explosion.
The testimony was challenged on grounds that he has a vested interest in lying because he was living under a witness protection program in the US and stood to be rewarded by up to $4 million from the US government.
Air Malta has categorically rejected the possibility of an unaccompanied baggage being aboard the concerned flight to Frankfurt and affirmed that all procedures were strictly followed and the suitcase was not aboard that flight.
Air Malta also said that if anyone had substituted the suitcase for one belonging to a passenger on the flight, the airline would have had a claim for a lost bag when the passengers reached Frankfurt. But no such claim was made and every one of the 39 passengers aboard the flight were individually interviewed and they confirmed that there was nothing amiss.
In essence, even in the hypothesis that there was an unaccounted piece of baggage at Frankfurt that was could have eventually found its way to the Pan Am flight, there was no concrete evidence that the baggage came from Air Malta - another major dent in the prosecution case.
During the trial the defense highlighted suspicions that the PFLP was behind the bombing and cited the repeated instances where the Syrian-based group's name cropped up during the investigations.
Initial reports citing US intelligence sources said the PFLP-GC could have carried out the bombing on behalf of Iran, which was seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian plane with 290 passengers aboard by an American warship, USS Vinceness, in the Gulf at the height of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
PFLP-GC leader Ahmed Jibril, a Syrian colonel, was named as having personally undertaken the alleged "contract" to bomb an American passenger plane in Europe several months before the Pan Am attack.
Reports spoke of warnings emanating from Finland and several other European countries, months before the Pan Am explosion, of an impending attack of similar nature.
Figuring high in the reports was a German police raid of a Frankfurt apartment where several men said to have been PFLP-GC members were staying. The raid yielded several weapons, and, most significantly, a Toshiba radio cassette player rigged with a bomb similar to the one that blasted Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
The Palestinians detained during the raid were freed shortly thereafter.
The presence in Malta of the PFLP—GC'S Abu Talb, who is now serving term in Sweden on unrelated charges, at the time of the purchase of the clothes used to wrap the Pan Am bomb and the shopkeeper's description of the buyer was seen as another strong nail in the prosecution's case.
If there was enough ground to warrant an investigation whether PFLP-GC — and by implication Syria and Iran — were involved in the blast, why did the US move away from that direction?
Explanations a theory that the US wanted to "neutralize" Iran in the crisis triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and "secure Syrian support" for the US-led coalition against Iraq. It meant excluding the two countries from the investigations.
Other theories raised in connection with the bombing involved a covert CIA operation involving drug lords in Lebanon whose help the US wanted in order to secure the release of American hostages in that country. This involved allowing drugs to allowed aboard US-bound airplanes without inspection — something the CIA could do with its connections in Europe, said one theory, which was partially supported by the findings of an investigation carried by a private agency hired by Pan Am.
According to the theory, the CIA believed the suspect suitcase contained drugs and allowed its passage through Frankfurt onto the Pan Am flight. Somewhere along the line, someone switched the suitcase with one containing the bomb. It could have been the PFLP-GC or another group with links to the drug lords and this group might have been seeking to eliminate the CIA station chief in Beirut, Charles McKee, who was aboard the same flight.
Closely linked to this theory is another which says that CIA agents knew that the suitcase contained explosives and that McKee was the target but they allowed the blast to take place since the CIA station chief was headed for home with a complaint against them that could have led not only to their dismissal from service but prosecution in the US.
"The inference was obvious - Pan Am 103 was sacrificed by the intelligence community to get rid of Major McKee," according to a detailed report carried by the British Guardian newspaper after extensive investigations.
A local farmer from Lockerbie had reported finding a suitcase containing cellophane packets containing white powder among the debris in his fields, but the suitcase was taken away and no explanation was given. It was also discovered that the name the farmer saw on the suitcase did not correspond with any of the names on the passenger list of the crashed plane.
It was expected that the "evidence" that Qadhafi claimed to possess would be unveiled during the appeal process and throw out the verdict.
But, if reports in the US press are accurate that the US and Libya are involved in secret negotiations on a deal that would see Tripoli owning up "complicity" of its agents in the bombing in return for an end to the US sanctions against Libya, then no such revelations could be expected in Camp Zeist.
According to the reports, the "deal "being negotiated by American and Libyan officials will lead to the lifting of US sanctions against Libya. Although the UN lifted its sanctions, the US is maintaining its own trade curbs on Libya.
If the "deal" is made, then at least four US oil companies could return to Libya and resume their operations and Libya would also be removed from a US list of countries supporting "terrorism."
That is too strategic a prize for Qadhafi to let go.

Analytical report based on hard news on March 15, 2002.


Legal experts are skeptical over the rejection of the appeal filed by the Libyan convicted of the 1988 bombing of an American airliner when seen in light of Scottish criminal procedures and framework of prosecution and defense.
On Thursday, a panel of five Scottish judges announced that they were upholding the conviction of Libyan Abdel Baset Megrahi at a special court set up in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
The panel ruled that the defense failed to establish grounds to question the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial court, which was also held at Camp Zeist under a compromise reached with Libya after a 10-year stand-off.
But legal experts are skeptical.
"Scottish law says that the defense has only to show that the crime could have been committed by another party, and this appears to have been done in this trial," said Albert Hickinson, a prominent Scottish criminal lawyer.
"The defense presented reasonable grounds to believe that someone who broke into the cargo bay at Heathrow could have planted the bomb-laded suitcase among the baggage to be loaded on Flight 102. This is enough reasonable ground to indicate that someone had the opportunity and circumstances to carry out the crime."
Under Scottish law, said Hickinson, it is enough for the defense to show grounds to believe that someone other than their client could have committed the crime.
"The defense does not have to prove the case," said Hickinson. "That is a prosecution responsibility."
The lawyer hastened to add that he was not "questioning" the competency of the panel of judges at Camp Zeist, but that "some questions remain unanswered and answers provided by the prosecution to some other questions were unsatisfactory."
Megrahi, 49, was convicted of causing the explosion aboard Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish town of Lockerbie by planting a suitcase rigged with explosives in a cargo bay at Malta that found it way to the ill-fated aircraft.
This suitcase, according to the prosecution, bore a forged Pan Am New York tag and was sent to Frankfurt and then to Heathrow where it was loaded onto Flight 103 in the evening of Dec. 22, 1988.
"There have been many ambiguities in the case from the very beginning, and they have not been cleared by the trial or at the appeal," said James Weatherby, another British lawyer.
Weatherby cited the "many suggestions and reports indicating other groups or government(s) had the motive to carry out the attack and could have been behind those who planted the bomb" as one of the reasons for skepticism.
"The prosecution swept off all that under the carpet and zeroed in on Libya," he said.
The "key" Libyan witness, a defected intelligence agent, was discredited in court because of questions over his motivation, noted Weatherby. "The questions are too many in the case and none has been answered satisfactorily."
"The witness who identified Megrahi as the person 'who could have bought' an umbrella and clothing from his shop (in Malta) has been found to have enjoyed Scottish police hospitality," which is against the law, noted Weatherby.
Megrahi, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in January 2001, filed an appeal, and Thursday's ruling rejected that appeal.
The appeal was based on the argument that the rigged suitcase could have been planted by those who broke into a Heathrow cargo bay.
The defense lawyers produced two witnesses, a security guard and his supervisor who were on duty at that time, who testified in court that there was a break-in at the cargo bay some 16 hours before the flight took off, that those who broken in had access to genuine Pan Am baggage tags and could have stashed the suitcase among the baggage lined up to be placed aboard Pan Am 103. The plane exploded en route from London to New York .
Megrahi's alleged accomplice, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, also a Libyan, was cleared of all charges by the trial court in January 2001.
However, that ruling had the "clear inference" that Libya was behind the "conception, planning and execution" of the bombing.
The Libyan government and the Arab Lawyers Association have rejected Thursday' verdict as politically motivated.
Megrahi "was convicted for political reasons and ... will be considered a political captive according to international law and codes," said the Libyan government.
The verdict will mount pressure on Libya to pay compensation for the victims of the crash. Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's son has said that his country was willing to pay compensation if only for the sake of lifting completely the UN sanctions imposed on the country and ending its isolation.
A UN resolution demands not only that Libya pay compensation but also that it own up responsibility for the bombing, renounce terrorism and disclose all it knows of the crime, a demand that Libya is unlikely to accept.
The rejection of the appeal said The five-judge court ruled unanimously that the prosecution's circumstantial case against Megrahi was convincing, and the defense had failed to produce evidence to undermine the conviction.
"None of the grounds of appeal is well founded," it said.
Shortly after the verdict was announced, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw welcomed the ruling and called on Libya to take steps to pay compensation.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the decision should prompt Libya to comply with the Security Council requirements.
Speculation has been rife that Washington and Tripoli had been in secret contacts aimed at facilitating the compensation payment in return for the US lifting the ban on American oil companies dealing with Libya and ending the diplomatic isolation of Libya.
US officials have acknowledged that Washington envoys had met with Libyan representatives in London in the presence of British officials, but rejected that this indicated a "rapprochement" between the West and Libya. They said the talks aimed at sorting out the procedures of compensation.
However, Libya has rejected demands for up to $4 billion in compensation presented by lawyers for the victims of the crash.
Qadhafi, who had described Megrahi a "hostage," has said any compensation deal would be conditional on payment of damages "to all victims of the United States." That would mean, among others, victims of an April 1985 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in which five people, including Qadhafi's adopted daughter, was killed.
Notwithstanding the diplomatic imperatives, the intensity to ward off questions related to the Lockerbie, including suggestions that someone or country or group other than Libya, "has left a sour taste....," said Hickinson, the Scottish lawyer.
"It is as if a process intended for public consumption was played out frontstage while thick curtains sealed off real drama for no one to see," he said.

World braced for terror

PV Vivekanand

WITH the military campaign in Afghanistan all but over, thousands of people around the world are living in terror anxiously awaiting the hammer to strike on them for no reason other than simply knowing some of the prisoners of war taken by the US in Afghanistan. Indeed many others might not even know of the sword swinging towards them.
The US has so far maintained a tight lid on the findings of its investigations with the thousands of Taliban and non-Afghan fighters of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.
Apart from gathering evidence about the Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington, the US is seeking information on what it describes as "sleepers" of the Al Qaeda network who, according to Washington, are lying low in at least 50 countries from the Philippines to Canada awaiting word from each other to plan new attacks.
Intelligence sources say that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is building a "data base" of names and details of the "sleepers" drawing from information gained through interrogating the detainees held in Afghanistan and those moved to the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
True that there here might be remnants of Al Qaeda in some countries, but it seems to be out of place for the US to assert that the group had built up such a large network of operatives. They say that the US assertion is providing ammunition for many governments to launch crackdowns that would otherwise be seen as violation of human rights. But that is a different issue altogether.
Information the "sleepers" is the prime objective of the US while dealing with the thousands of prisoners of war taken in Afghanistan. More often than not, simply knowing them could be dangerous for others, however innocent they might be. Many might even recollect knowing them but that is not going to be an issue for the CIA.
It is quite simple. Anyone who was an acquaintance of an Al Qaeda member is a suspect and risks detention and questioning wherever they are. That is what is happening today in some countries (Britain, Spain, Italy and Jordan are examples).
The CIA has not shared all the information it has with the partners of the US in the war against terrorism, and experts believe it would be selective in offering information and only when it is ready to do so.
The US cannot get to the alleged layers of "sleepers" without help from the local government, and information will be provided to them on a case-by-case, need-to-know basis, experts say.
Washington might also use the leeway of a law it adopted in the late 80s that allows it to try people accused of plotting or carrying out attacks against American citizens. An extension of that law permits US security and law enforcement agencies to even kidnap suspects for trial in the US.
There have been several instances since then where US agents lured suspected hijackers and kidnappers of American citizens into situations where they were kidnapped and ferried to the US to stand trial. They included a Lebanese national who was involved in the 1987 hijack of a Royal Jordanian airliner in which an American navy diver was killed. The suspect was lured to a luxury yacht in the Mediterranean by a woman agent and arrested as he boarded the vessel. He was flown to the US and given a life sentence after being found guilty by a US court.
Innocents could face ordeals if it was found that they have had the slightest brush with Al Qaeda members even if it was before the group was formed. That is the extent to which the CIA is willing to go in its campaign.
US intelligence documents drawn up since Sept. 11 identify dozens of cities and groups around the world as: "financing and banking centre," "militant training centre," "Islamist group with links to Al Qaeda," "Al Qaeda cell," and "Al Qaeda strategic planning centre." These include Mindano in the Philippines, Pakistani cities and towns including Peshawar, Khost, Islamabad and Karachi, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sanaa and Aden in Yemen, Amman in Jordan, Nairobi in Kenya, Dar es Salam in Tanzania, Mogadishu in Somalia, Khartoum in Sudan, Algeria, Tripoli in Libya, Nicosia in Cyprus, Sofia in Bulgaria, Sarajevo in Bosnia, Milan in Italy, Hamburg n Germany, Madrid in Spain, Paris and London.
Interestingly, the list excludes India despite New Delhi's assertions that Al Qaeda operatives are living in hiding in the country. Iraq and Iran are also excluded from the list.
Included in the list are US cities like Portland, Boston, New York, Miami, Arlington (Texas), and Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal in Canada.
Some of the governments have already been given some information on the presence on their soil of suspects, and some arrests have been made.
But the "big wave" of crackdown, either by the host government or by US agents has yet to come. And when it comes, it would be sweeping and all-embracing.

Waiting for the hammer

WITH the military campaign in Afghanistan all but
over, thousands of people around the world are living
in terror anxiously awaiting the hammer to strike on
them for no reason other than simply knowing some of
the prisoners of war taken by the US in Afghanistan.
Indeed many others might not even know of the sword
swinging towards them.
The US has so far maintained a tight lid on the
findings of its investigations with the thousands of
Taliban and non-Afghan fighters of Osama Bin Laden's
Al Qaeda network.
Apart from gathering evidence about the Sept.11
attacks in New York and Washington, the US is seeking
information on what it describes as "sleepers" of the
Al Qaeda network who, according to Washington, are
lying low in at least 50 countries from the
Philippines to Canada awaiting word from each other to
plan new attacks.
Intelligence sources say that the US Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) is building a "data base" of
names and details of the "sleepers" drawing from
information gained through interrogating the detainees
held in Afghanistan and those moved to the US naval
base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
True that there here might be remnants of Al Qaeda in
some countries, but it seems to be out of place for
the US to assert that the group had built up such a
large network of operatives. They say that the US
assertion is providing ammunition for many governments
to launch crackdowns that would otherwise be seen as
violation of human rights. But that is a different
issue altogether.
Information the "sleepers" is the prime objective of
the US while dealing with the thousands of prisoners
of war taken in Afghanistan. More often than not,
simply knowing them could be dangerous for others,
however innocent they might be. Many might even
recollect knowing them but that is not going to be an
issue for the CIA.
It is quite simple. Anyone who was an acquaintance of
an Al Qaeda member is a suspect and risks detention
and questioning wherever they are. That is what is
happening today in some countries (Britain, Spain,
Italy and Jordan are examples).
The CIA has not shared all the information it has with
the partners of the US in the war against terrorism,
and experts believe it would be selective in offering
information and only when it is ready to do so.
The US cannot get to the alleged layers of "sleepers"
without help from the local government, and
information will be provided to them on a
case-by-case, need-to-know basis, experts say.
Washington might also use the leeway of a law it
adopted in the late 80s that allows it to try people
accused of plotting or carrying out attacks against
American citizens. An extension of that law permits US
security and law enforcement agencies to even kidnap
suspects for trial in the US.
There have been several instances since then where US
agents lured suspected hijackers and kidnappers of
American citizens into situations where they were
kidnapped and ferried to the US to stand trial. They
included a Lebanese national who was involved in the
1987 hijack of a Royal Jordanian airliner in which an
American navy diver was killed. The suspect was lured
to a luxury yacht in the Mediterranean by a woman
agent and arrested as he boarded the vessel. He was
flown to the US and given a life sentence after being
found guilty by a US court.
Innocents could face ordeals if it was found that they
have had the slightest brush with Al Qaeda members
even if it was before the group was formed. That is
the extent to which the CIA is willing to go in its
campaign.
US intelligence documents drawn up since Sept. 11
identify dozens of cities and groups around the world
as: "financing and banking centre," "militant training
centre," "Islamist group with links to Al Qaeda," "Al
Qaeda cell," and "Al Qaeda strategic planning centre."
These include Mindanao in the Philippines, Pakistani
cities and towns including Peshawar, Khost, Islamabad
and Karachi, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sanaa and
Aden in Yemen, Amman in Jordan, Nairobi in Kenya, Dar
es Salam in Tanzania, Mogadishu in Somalia, Khartoum
in Sudan, Algeria, Tripoli in Libya, Nicosia in
Cyprus, Sofia in Bulgaria, Sarajevo in Bosnia, Milan
in Italy, Hamburg n Germany, Madrid in Spain, Paris
and London.
Interestingly, the list excludes India despite New
Delhi's assertions that Al Qaeda operatives are living
in hiding in the country. Iraq and Iran are also
excluded from the list.
Included in the list are US cities like Portland,
Boston, New York, Miami, Arlington (Texas), and
Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal in Canada.
Some of the governments have already been given some
information on the presence on their soil of suspects,
and some arrests have been made.
But the "big wave" of crackdown, either by the host
government or by US agents, has yet to come. And when
it comes, it would be sweeping and all-embracing.

Blood through Baghdad streets

PV Vivekanand

AS expected, the focus has shifted to Iraq in the US-led war against terrorism. US officials are visiting friendly countries trying to figure out how far Washington could go in military terms against Iraq. What seems to be overlooked or sidelined is that the US has little evidence to prove that Baghdad is involved in international terrorism or had any links with the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. If anything, in the view of the Arabs at large, the Iraqi leadership is more preoccupied with coping with the effects of 11 years of crippling trade sanctions on its people than indulging in the kind of activities that Washington deems as international terrorism.
Of course, Baghdad's support for the Palestinian uprising (Intifada) is irking the US since that might pose a challenge for Israel in its efforts to beat the Palestinians into submission in the peace process. By extension, the US might even deem it fit to classify Iraq's support for the Palestinian struggle as terrorism since some of the Palestinian resistance groups are branded as terrorist organisations.
The international context to military action against Iraq is equally important.
Many European countries, mindful of the vast oil and gas wealth of Iraq, maintain a steady relationship with the Saddam regime and have too much at stake to allow their best-laid, post-sanctions plans to go awry or be silent witnesses against the possibility that the country goes under the US tutelage. Prominent among them are France, Germany and Russia, whose leaders have cautioned the US against taking the war against terrorism to Iraq.
It is obvious that the US approach to Iraq is now based on the "old/new" definition given by President George W Bush to "international terrorism," when he said a few weeks ago that as far as he was concerned any country which develops unconventional weapons of mass destruction.
Allegations that Iraq had been secretly developing weapons of mass destruction since late 1999 when UN inspectors were forced to leave the country are the best arguments put up by the US, but the world has seen no solid evidence to support those assertions either.
In any event, there is little doubt that the prime objective of any American-led military action in Iraq, if and when launched, would be elimination of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Or at least that is what is understood. But by launching military action against Iraq, the US would be unleashing something it might not be able to control, and Washington knows it better than anyone.
A close look at the situation on the ground in Iraq could be as accurate as it could be deceptive. Saddam's foes argue that the people of Iraq are fed up of the suffering over the past decade caused by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that brought in the sweeping sanctions and that they would be the US's natural ally in any American action undertaken through dissident Iraqi factions in exile to topple Saddam.
At the same time, let us not overlook that over the past years Iraqis have also come to see the US as their natural enemy and the cause of all their suffering. They know that it would take a Herculean effort backed by unwavering commitment and determination to dislodge the Saddam regime from power. It would not be walkover like Afghanistan for the US, and there would be heavy American losses when the going gets to the ground inside Iraq, and Iraqis aware how fast US enthusiasm could wane in the event of American lives being lost in conflict.
Iraqis have witnessed the US encouraging them to revolt against Saddam after the 1991 war but stopping short of extending support at the most crucial moment for the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south. That US posture left the rebel movements not only high and dry but also allowed the Iraqi government to launch a massive crackdown and bloodshed against the dissidents
(Perhaps it was the sense of guilt that prompted the US to declare the so-called "no-zones" in the north to "protect" the Kurds and in the south to "defend" the Shiites).
Against that backdrop, it would be naive for the US to take for granted that a military action against Iraq would have the support of Iraqis from within the country. Such support, at best, will be limited.
In the hypothesis that the US did manage to secure the support of the people of Iraq in its drive to eliminate the Iraqi regime, what happens thereafter is anyone's guess. But one thing is clear: the US would not be able to get a grip on things in Iraq.
The reasons are clear.
In the event that the Saddam regime is toppled, it means the total elimination of a multi-layered system that has no existence without Saddam. The first layer is Saddam's family, then his cousins and relatives, then people from Tikhrit (Tikhritis), Saddam's hometown, and then "co-opted" Shiite and Kurds, most of whom are not necessarily backed by their communities. The final layer is the leadership of the Baathist Party.
The entire system, which has for long acquired the hatred of Iraqis who have suffered at its hands, will collapse like a house of cards the moment Saddam goes. Blood will flow through the streets of Baghdad.

US misadventure in the making

expected, the focus has shifted to Iraq in the
US-led war against terrorism. US officials are
visiting friendly countries trying to figure out how
far Washington could go in military terms against
Iraq. What seems to be overlooked or sidelined is that
the US has little evidence to prove that Baghdad is
involved in international terrorism or had any links
with the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
If anything, in the view of the Arabs at large, the
Iraqi leadership is more preoccupied with coping with
the effects of 11 years of crippling trade sanctions
on its people than indulging in the kind of activities
that Washington deems as international terrorism.
Of course, Baghdad's support for the Palestinian
uprising (Intifada) is irking the US since that might
pose a challenge for Israel in its efforts to beat the
Palestinians into submission in the peace process. By
extension, the US might even deem it fit to classify
Iraq's support for the Palestinian struggle as
terrorism since some of the Palestinian resistance
groups are branded as terrorist organisations.
The international context to military action against
Iraq is equally important.
Many European countries, mindful of the vast oil and
gas wealth of Iraq, maintain a steady relationship
with the Saddam regime and have too much at stake to
allow their best-laid, post-sanctions plans to go awry
or be silent witnesses against the possibility that
the country goes under the US tutelage. Prominent
among them are France, Germany and Russia, whose
leaders have cautioned the US against taking the war
against terrorism to Iraq.
It is obvious that the US approach to Iraq is now
based on the "old/new" definition given by President
George W Bush to "international terrorism," when he
said a few weeks ago that as far as he was concerned
any country which develops unconventional weapons of
mass destruction.
Allegations that Iraq had been secretly developing
weapons of mass destruction since late 1999 when UN
inspectors were forced to leave the country are the
best arguments put up by the US, but the world has
seen no solid evidence to support those assertions
either.
In any event, there is little doubt that the prime
objective of any American-led military action in Iraq,
if and when launched, would be elimination of Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein. Or at least that is what is
understood. But by launching military action against
Iraq, the US would be unleashing something it might
not be able to control, and Washington knows it better
than anyone.
A close look at the situation on the ground in Iraq
could be as accurate as it could be deceptive.
Saddam's foes argue that the people of Iraq are fed up
of the suffering over the past decade caused by Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait that brought in the sweeping
sanctions and that they would be the US's natural ally
in any American action undertaken through dissident
Iraqi factions in exile to topple Saddam.
At the same time, let us not overlook that over the
past years Iraqis have also come to see the US as
their natural enemy and the cause of all their
suffering. They know that it would take a Herculean
effort backed by unwavering commitment and
determination to dislodge the Saddam regime from
power. It would not be walkover like Afghanistan for
the US, and there would be heavy American losses when
the going gets to the ground inside Iraq, and Iraqis
aware how fast US enthusiasm could wane in the event
of American lives being lost in conflict.
Iraqis have witnessed the US encouraging them to
revolt against Saddam after the 1991 war but stopping
short of extending support at the most crucial moment
for the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the
south. That US posture left the rebel movements not
only high and dry but also allowed the Iraqi
government to launch a massive crackdown and bloodshed
against the dissidents
(Perhaps it was the sense of guilt that prompted the
US to declare the so-called "no-zones" in the north to
"protect" the Kurds and in the south to "defend" the
Shiites).
Against that backdrop, it would be naive for the US to
take for granted that a military action against Iraq
would have the support of Iraqis from within the
country. Such support, at best, will be limited.
In the hypothesis that the US did manage to secure the
support of the people of Iraq in its drive to
eliminate the Iraqi regime, what happens thereafter is
anyone's guess. But one thing is clear: the US would
not be able to get a grip on things in Iraq.
The reasons are clear.
In the event that the Saddam regime is toppled, it
means the total elimination of a multi-layered system
that has no existence without Saddam. The first layer
is Saddam's family, then his cousins and relatives,
then people from Tikhrit (Tikhritis), Saddam's
hometown, and then "co-opted" Shiite and Kurds, most
of whom are not necessarily backed by their
communities. The final layer is the leadership of the
Baathist Party.
The entire system, which has for long acquired the
hatred of Iraqis who have suffered at its hands, will
collapse like a house of cards the moment Saddam goes.
Blood will flow through the streets of Baghdad.
As that happens in the central part of the country,
the Kurds in the north, who have for long yearned for
statehood, would be busy setting up an independent
Kurdistan to represent the nearly 20 million Kurds who
live in the region. That prospect is anathema for
Turkey (as it is for Iran and Syria which have
sizeable Kurdish communities). But once the momentum
of destablisation of Baghdad picks up speed, there
would little political or military means at the US'
disposal to contain the Kurds.
In the south, Iran, which has for long sought control
of the holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala, would slice
across Iraq, effectively cutting off the
Shiite-dominated part of Iraq from the rest of the
country as the Kurds in the north and take over the
two holy sites. Given their history of oppression and
suffering under the Sunni-dominated Saddam regime, the
Iraqi Shiites in the south would be more than glad to
welcome their co-religionists.
That leaves the central region, including Baghdad,
where Shiites and Sunnis, friends of foes of the
regime, and the dozens of Iraqi opposition groups
would be fighting for each other's blood and for
spoils of war.
In the northwest, it is anyone's guess how Syria would
react to such a course of events unfolding in Iraq,
which, for many Syrians, is a strategic prize, in
view of the centuries-old ties across the border
despite the strain in political relations under
Saddam.
The Arab leaders of the region are fully aware of the
scenario and that is the main reason for their
argument against any US-led assault against Iraq under
the present conditions. They are apprehensive of the
spill-overs of what would be nothing short of a
full-fledged civil war among Iraqis and the prospect
of the country with the second largest proven reserves
of oil being divided.
An overwhelming majority of the 22 members of the Arab
League have warned the US against any military assault
against Iraq, before, during or after Washington's
Afghanistan campaign.
It is quite clear that it would require a long-term
collective effort launched by a majority of the dozens
of Iraqi opposition groups in exile (like the Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan) to maintain the unity and
territorial integrity of Iraq to prepare the people of
Iraq, whether Shiite or Sunni, and keep the situation
"contained" and suited for a smooth transition of
power while Saddam is "eliminated."
Then again, a "smooth transition" of power is simply
impossible in Iraq, given the violent history of that
country and deep-running conflicts among the country's
communities, tribes and clans.
It is Saddam's total and complete grip on power that
is keeping the country united, and no foreign
influence is going to be a substitute for his "iron
fist" and "scorched-earth" policy to keep his people
in check.
That is where the US faces its biggest challenge.
Since 1991, Washington has been trying in vain to
bring most of the prominent Iraqi opposition groups
under one umbrella. The result? Well, in December
2001, Washington suspended all financial aid to the
London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC), which has,
since 1989, claimed to be represent all Iraqi exiles.
The reason for the suspension was misuse of tens of
millions of dollars that the US had provided to the
group.
In real terms, the break between Washington and INC
represented the failure of a decade of intense US
efforts to produce a credible Iraqi opposition group
which could lead an anti-Saddam revolt.
At this juncture in time, it seems clear that the US
is unsure how to go about subduing Iraq. Quite simply,
the stakes are too high to be lost with a bungled
operation in Iraq not only for the US but also Europe
as well as the Arab World.

Year-ender 2001

IT WILL BE an understatement to assert that the world changed during the year 2001. If anything, the winds of change that swept the globe were unprecedented and brought about a new set of rules to life on the planet.
No one was spared the effects, direct and indirect, of the attacks on Sept. 11 when suicide hijackers took over four American airliners, slammed two of them into New York's landmark twin World Trade Center towers and one into the Pentagon in Washington; the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers resisted the hijackers and fought with them in the cockpit.
The Sept. 11 events were the most devastating terrorist attack in history; more than 3,000 people died New York alone. Equally stunning was the fact that the United States, which had been spared terrorism — spare the Oklahoma boming of 1995.
How did the assaults change the world?
It would be a gross overstatement that a clash between religions is taking place now. But it is true that the orchestrated campaign by the Western media to smear Islam has been intensified in the wake of Sept. 11. The campaign has been going on for decades. It could be easily seen that the Western media were largely successful if only because of ineffective, misguided, misrepresented or half-hearted approaches to correct the image and portray the realities of the Islamic faith.
It would take many years before the true image of Islam takes hold in the West, again because of the negativism that has been bred by the media there. It needs a broad and well-planned strategy that takes in the realities on the ground to tackle the issue. Any campaign that sidesteps the Western public mindset would fall short of the mark.
That is the challenge that the Sept. 11 events pose to the Islamic World.
For sure, Arab-Muslim relations with the US would never be the same again.
Within the US, the attacks in New York and Washington have brought in a completely new dimension to the way the United States looked at the rest of the world. They prompted the administration of President George W. Bush to declare and wage a war on global terrorism, starting with Afghanistan's hardline Taliban regime, which refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda network was accused of carrying out the attacks.
With the large-scale military phase of the war against the Taliban over, the US is shifting focus to other countries it accuses of sponsoring terrorism.
In political terms, Sept. 11 was a wake-up for all governments regardless of whatever definition and outlook they had for terrorism. They had no choice but to adopt measures to counter any action that could be construed as terrorism under the parameters set by the US and fight whatever means were being used to finance terrorism.
There is no ambiguity over Bush's stand: He is determined to see this through and he has the kind of people around him to accomplish it, be it Defence Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell or National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice.
The equation is simple: Any country which does not fall in line with the US-led war on terrorism will have to pay the price. Bush made it so clear when he said, "either you are with us or against us."
The impact the US approach has on international relations is one of the most important changes heralded by Sept. 11. The US-led military campaign against Afghanistan (regardless of whether Osama Bin Laden was caught dead or alive) clearly sent a strong message to the world that the US position is uncompromising. There could no longer be any wavering on any country's stand on terrorism. Indeed a highly welcome development.
But the catch remains with Israel. As long as the US refuses to accept that Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians is not state terrorism, US credibility in leading the war against terrorism will remain weak.
Adding insult to injury to the Arab and Muslim worlds is the US labelling of Palestinian resistance organisations as terrorist.
For the moment and indeed for the foreseeable future, it is difficult to make any dent on the US stand. It is as simple as that. Any country trying to apply any pressure on Washington over this particular issue will incur US wrath and risk being labelled along the same lines as terrorism-sponsoring states.
The US is taking aim at Iraq as well as Somalia in its drive; at this point it is not known whether it intends to re-enact a military campaign similar to the one in Afghanistan in any other country.
Brought into focus by the US drive against international terrorism are the problems in the Indian sub-continent over Kashmir and the crisis in the Philippines.
But the Kashmir and Philippines problems do not have a direct bearing on American life, and as such the US approach could not be expected to be as strong as the case was with Afghanistan.
Another major fallout of the Sept. 11 events is the shift in the US approach to immigrants, legal or illegal.
Arabs and Muslims have come under hate attacks and they continue to live in fear. Life has undergone a major change for them in the US. In due course of time, neighbourhoods might tend to forget the negative aura that the Sept. 11 events created for Arabs and Muslims in the US, but the administration and powers that be would not.
Arabs and Muslims living in the US for decades now say that they feel like aliens or being treated like aliens with little regard for their blemishless record as law-abiding citizens of that country.
Many of those detained as "suspects" since Sept. 11 are Arabs or Muslims, and they face an uphill task to convince the authorities of their innocence. The approach of the authorities contradict the age-old system of justice -- innocent until proven guilty -- since it is now based on guity by association or thought until proven innocent.
Hundreds of Arab students have opted to leave the US and try to pursue their studies elsewhere, preferably in Europe.
Hundreds of thousands of aspiring immigrants are living in the US at various stages of legalising themselves as residents of the country. The rule of the thumb, if you will, until Sept. 11 was an assumption that even if you are an illegal resident of the US, you did not risk being caught until you commit a capital crime or be deliberately pinpointed as an illegal. There are "illegals" in the US trying to rectify their status for decades while making a living there and, for all practical purposes, having "Americanised themselves."
Today, that situation has changed. They are no longer safe with the belief that if they stay away from entangling with the law in the US.
There is a well-orchestrated campaign under way in the US to identify illegal residents and take appropriate action against them. For many, the administration's offer to help them legalise themselves if they provide information on "terrorism" might be an attractive proposition, but then that opens a Pandora's box.
For the nationals of the oil-producing Arab countries, obtaining a visa for the US was relatively easy. Today, they face a screening process.
The US is no longer a preferred destination for Arabs and Muslims. Even Europe is being shunned now.