Double barrels from Galloway

PV Vivekanand

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

Parallel games

There are two parallel political games unfolding in Washington.

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

The AIPAC angle

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

Why the witchhunt?

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




RE: Double barrels from George Galloway


This is precisely what happened.

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


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

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


Quote ends...

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

Why the Muslim anger...

May 17 2005

Muslim anger

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

Koran report — why?

May 17 2005


Koran desecration report — why?

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

Hamas spanner, Sharon formaldeyde

May 11 2005

Hamas spanner and Sharon's formaldehyde

PV Vivekanand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-election watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mofaz shot it down on Tuesday.

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

Jewish resistance

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

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

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

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

Plan in reserve

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

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

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

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

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

Aoun a man to watch

Aoun - A man to watch


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US-French interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dynamics of change

pv vivekanand


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Others are on their way back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An unlikely page

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

Hamas — political revolution

April 25, 2005
Hamas and elections: A sweeping political revolution in the making

pv vivekanand

Hamas, which boycotted the last elections to the Palestinian legislative council, has announced it will field candidates in the next polls and will stake a claim to power based on the results. The group, which describes itself as a wing of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood -- "a universal organisation which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times" -- is confident of winning between one-third and half of the seats in the council.

Mahmoud Abbas, who heads Fatah, once the strongest and most influential among the Palestinian factions that make up the PLO, won presidential elections in February without serious challenge only because Hamas stayed away from the elections. Fatah could not hope for a repetition on the victory in the council elections.

Apart from being the best organised group in Palestinian politics with a strong foundation of committed activists, Hamas could also count on the votes of Palestinians frustrated over the chaos and in-fighting in Fatah and administrative and financial corruption in the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

Most Palestinians want Abbas to lead the political process, but they also want clean governance, an end to corruption, and personal security, and they see that only Hamas could offer them these.

Recent opinion polls have put popular support for Fatah at 36 per cent, down from 40 per cent in December, and backing for Hamas has increased from 18 per cent to 25 per cent, with 33 per cent in its Gaza stronghold.

Elections to city and local councils in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in recent months have produced impressive success for Hamas and other Islamist groups.

The rising popularity for Hamas is coupled with doubts about the PNA's ability to make good on its promises to improve conditions and produce achievements in the talks with Israel.

One of the key difference between Fatah and Hamas is simple: Fatah represents Palestinian nationalism and is secular, whereas Hamas draws its strength from Islam and wants to set up a state based on Islamic teachings and laws. Fatah is willing to negotiate peace with Israel on the basis of the 1967 lines held by the Jewish state, whereas Hamas wants the 1948 lines -- meaning an end to the existence of Israel -- although that stance is seen more tactical than substantial.

The Palestinians elected their first legislative assembly in 1996; the late Yasser Arafat postponed elections that had been set for 2000.

Hamas boycotted the earlier elections, saying they were part of the process launched by the 1993 Oslo accords, which it vehemently opposed because they recognise Israel.

At present the council has 88 seats. Fatah accounts for 49 of them, with affiliated groups having 15; the others include 20 independents and four Islamist affiliates.

Under Abbas-proposed amendments to the election law, the number of seats will be raised to 132, but it is not clear whether the dominant Fatah members would approve it since many of them see Abbas as easily succumbing to Hamas demands. They are also aware that approval of the law means the starting of the electoral clock for chiming in three months from that date.

They see Abbas' insistence that the polls be held as scheduled on July 17 as playing into the hands of Hamas because of the expectation that the Islamists will emerge as a dominant power in the elections if held in July. The Fatah dissidents want the polls to be postponed until September and they hope to use the intervening period to rally its forces and strengthen their prospects in the polls.

In public statements, Hamas leaders maintain hard-line rhetoric that they would never recognise the state of Israel and are committed to regaining pre-1948 Palestine. Some of them say that all Jews who migrated to Israel should return to where they came from and the Jewish state should cease to exist in historic Palestine.

The group says: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: It, or any part of it, should not be given up.

"Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organisation nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgment Day. This being so, who can presume to speak for all Islamic generations to the Day of Resurrection?"

However, Hamas is a realistic and pragmatic group and its leaders are aware that they would have to make compromises and they would do so if and when they feel the time is right, but they would not give up the struggle for the whole of Palestine. After all that is the group's raison d'être.

Hamas's senior leader in Gaza, Mahmoud Al Zahar, has called Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza as a victory for his group's armed resistance.

"Very simply, nobody can deny that if Israel is going to leave the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, that was because of the intifada, because of the armed struggle, because of the big sacrifices of Hamas for this goal," he said in a recent interview.

"It was not because of negotiations, or the goodwill of Israel, or the Americans or Europeans."

Zahar refused to commit Hamas to peace in Gaza once Israel withdraws its 9,000 settlers.

"It depends on what Israel does," he said. "Now Israel is talking about reorganisation. We do not accept reorganisation. We are looking for withdrawal, real withdrawal, and not to violate our sovereignty."

Indeed, Hamas leaders are also tactical politicians who are projecting the group both as an active armed resistance movement and as a party that seeks to influence the Palestinian political agenda. They remind everyone that Hamas could call off the current unofficial truce if Israel does not keep up its obligations but that they are maintaining the ceasefire anyway because they know that the people want that for now.

Hamas' pragmatism is also evident in Zahar's pronouncement that the group wants to join the PLO in order "to consolidate the resistance option in its capacity as the strategic option towards the liberation of Palestine."

According to the Central Elections Commission, a minimum of three months are needed between the time the election law is approved and elections. The three-month leeway expired on Sunday with no movement and Palestinian MPs are meeting this week on the issue.

Throwing a spanner in the works is an uncertainty whether Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would delay the planned Israeli evacuation of settlements in the Gaza Strip from July 20 to mid-August.

While the officially cited reason is a sensitivity to the date falling during a traditional three-week mourning period for what Israelis consider the destruction of ancient Jewish temples.

However, the actual reason, according to some accounts, is the shortcomings and delays in the logistics of the evacuation of 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank.

On Wednesday, the Israeli army started moving out equipment of Gaza, signalling preparations for the pullout.

The July 20 date for the beginning of the evacuation was cited by Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath for the possible delay in the elections.

"The question really has to do with the Israeli pullout of Gaza during that time, and our fear that the Israelis might make it difficult for people to do real election campaigns and have real freedom of movement," he said early this week.

"This is really the only consideration," he said. "And this consideration will be discussed with Hamas and with everybody."

Caught in the crossfire between Fatah and Hamas is Abbas himself, who is being sarcastically described as a Hamas ally because of his insistence that the polls be held on time.

Abbas has drawn criticism for bowing to Hamas demands on many fronts since he took over as president following the death of Yasser Arafat. His strategy is delicately balanced between the need to keep armed resistance in check while remaining firm on his reform programme in the PNA.

His insistence on the July 17 date for elections and on amending the election law is seen as yet another concession to Hamas. For, it is taken for granted by many that Hamas would emerge as the winners if elections are held next month, and the suggested change to the election law is also deemed as benefiting Hamas.

Abbas is suggesting that the law, which was given preliminary approval on Wednesday by Palestinians legislators, should be amended to the effect that all members of the 132-seat assembly should be from national lists rather than the present arrangement of 88 from constituency lists -- meaning districtwise individuals -- and 44 from national lists.

Hamas, which is stronger in the Gaza Strip than in the West Bank, are more likely to benefit from fielding national list candidates than Fatah, and this only adds to the fears of the Fatah leaders.

If Abbas insists on changes in the election law at this stage, it would go to the parliamentary legal committee for debate and only then to the floor of the parliament for final approval. Election officials have said that any further delays would force them to put off the voting, because they need three months to prepare.

Fatah fears of a major election defeat at Hamas' hands were heightened when student elections last week at Bir Zeit and Bethlehem universities showed the Islamists were gaining strength in both universities. Both institutions are secular and attended by the sons and daughters of rich Palestinians, some of them Christian. Fatah had a majority of votes in both before the latest student elections.

The elections showed that Hamas is a powerful group that is continuing to gather strength at the expense of Fatah.

Abbas is under tremendous pressure from many sides. US President George W. Bush, who argues that a wave of democracy is going to take over the Middle East as a result of his invasion and occupation of Iraq, has ruled out any delay in Palestinian elections.

Bush insisted on the Jan.30 date for elections in Iraq. He is insisting on elections in Lebanon in May. He is insisting on election reforms in Egypt, and he is insisting that the Palestinians should vote on July 17.

Sharon, who obviously discussed the issue with Bush at the White House this month, could not actually care who wins the Palestinian elections. If Abbas's group wins, then he would seek to negotiate and force down his version of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement on the Palestinians. If hard-liners like Hamas win the elections, then Sharon would simply clam up on the negotiations front and impose his unilateral military-based solution to the problem.

In his meeting with Bush at the US president's ranch in Texas this month, Sharon is said to have presented intelligence reports indicating that there is complete breakdown of Abu Mazen's grip on authority and that hard-liners within Fatah plan to start armed attacks against Israelis in June and trigger Israeli retaliation leading to a situation that would not be conducive to elections.

Abbas is also apprehensive that Hamas would make good its threat to call off the de fact truce it has maintained since February if the elections were delayed.

Hamas is unlikely to move from its stand since it knows well that it stands to gain in July elections and it finds no reason to agree to a delay, particularly when it is clear that Fatah will use the intervening period not only to strengthen itself but also to weaken all rivals.

At this week's meeting of Palestinian legislators, Fatah is likely to seek to stall the endorsement of the amended election law.

Abbas's options are limited. His weekend visit to Egypt and Jordan was seen by his critics as a ploy to make himself absent from the Palestinian territories and thus abort a vote by Palestinian legislators on his proposals. The vote was supposed to take place on Sunday, but his absence pre-empted it.

Abbas has won a few more days before the crucial vote, but he cannot run from it. His choice is between postponing the elections and incur Hamas wrath and holding the polls on time and risking the loss of his power base.

Hamas sweeping the Palestinian elections and coming to power in the West Bank and Gaza is indeed a source of concern not only to the Palestinian leadership under Abbas but also to Arab countries wherever Islamists have strong influence among the people.

The very fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned as a political party in Egypt, where Hassan Al Banna set up the organisation in 1928, is the clearest indication of the group's influence among the people.

An example is Jordan, where the strongest and most organised and committed political grouping is the Islamic Action Front, which is the political arm of the Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The kingdom will be the first to be affected if Hamas sweeps the Palestinian elections.

Concerns over developments in Palestine have been heightened by intelligence reports indicating that the Abbas government is getting deeper day by day into disorder and revolt, and Hamas is taking advantage of the situation to strengthen itself at Fatah's expense.

The US and Israel, which hopes it could work out an agreement with Abbas that would protect Israeli interests, are considering means to support the Fatah leader. Two US officials, deputy head of the national security council Elliott Abrams and head of the State Department's Middle East desk David Walsh, will be visiting Ramallah this week to explore whether and how the US and Israel could help shore up Abbas.

However, there are contradictions in the approach.

If the American and Israeli support comes in the form of supporting a postponement of the elections -- from July 17 to Sept.25 as some reports suggest -- then Hamas would challenge it.

Sharon's move to expand Jewish settlements is not helping Abbas either.

An Israeli a government agency is inviting bids for the purchase of 50 plots for the construction of single-family housing units in the settlement of Elkana, some five kilometres inside the West Bank.

Bush says he opposes expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank but has endorsed the existing ones by saying it was unrealistic of the Palestinians to return to the 1949 armistice lines. But Sharon has given little heed to the American position and is continuing with his plans, and the impression that the Middle East gets is that the position adopted in public by Washington is only for public consumption.

In any event, Israel's one-track mind and refusal to recognise and respect the legitimate territorial and political rights of the Palestinians while also professing commitment to peaceful negotiations plays into the hands of Hamas against Fatah.

Again, notwithstanding the status of negotiations with the Palestinians -- or of the efforts to revive negotiations -- Sharon is also planning further "unilateral withdrawals" that clearly aim at setting Israel's "final borders" -- no doubt helped largely by the "separation wall" he is building along the occupied West Bank.

No doubt, Hamas leaders are closely watching Sharon's moves, but they seem to believe that the time for an all-out showdown is not here yet. They want to secure the political leadership of the Palestinian movement, and the elections to the legislative council is the first step towards that goal. Most importantly, they are determined to make the best of it, and the outcome of the elections would be a landmark in Middle Eastern history.

Abbas - between a rock and hard place

Abu Mazen - between a rock and a hard place

pv vivekanand
MAHMOUD Abbas is with Fatah or Hamas? Ironically, this is the question that many Fatah supporters seem to be asking in the ongoing debate over whether the Palestinian legislative elections scheduled for July 17 should be postponed.

Abbas (Abu Mazen), president of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and thus president of Palestine, insists that the elections should be held on July 17. However, Fatah leaders are apprehensive that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) would steal the thunder from them and walk away with a majority of the seats if elections were held in July. They prefer to have some more time to organise themselves and streamline the party, which is ridden with internal divisions and whose leaders are accused of corruption.

Abbas, who is also the leader of Fatah, has drawn criticism for bowing to Hamas demands on many fronts since he took over as president following the death of Yasser Arafat.

His insistence on the July 17 date for elections and on amending the election law is seen as yet another concession to Hamas. For, it is taken for granted by many that Hamas would emerge as the winners if elections are held next month, and the suggested change to the election law is also deemed as benefiting Hamas.

Abbas is suggesting that the law be amended to the effect that all members of the 132-seat assembly should be from national lists rather than the present arrangement of 88 from constituency lists -- meaning districtwise individuals -- and 44 from national lists (parties).

Hamas, which is deemed to be relatively stronger in the Gaza Strip than in the West Bank, is more likely to benefit from fielding national list candidates than Fatah, and this only adds to the fears of the Fatah leaders.

Fatah won a majority in the Palestinian legislative council in last elections, but it is unlikely to do well in next polls. Its fears of a major election defeat at Hamas' hands were heightened when student elections last week at Bir Zeit and Bethlehem universities showed the Islamists were gaining strength in both universities. Both institutions are secular and attended by the sons and daughters of rich Palestinians, some of them Christian. Fatah had a majority of votes in both before the latest student elections.

The elections showed that Hamas is a powerful group that is continuing to gather strength at the expense of Fatah.

Against that reality, Abbas' inclination to go along with the Hamas demands for elections on July 17 pits him against the will of his own party, which has reportedly suggested a 70-day postponement i.e. elections on Sept.25.

Serious setback

Fatah, once the strongest and largest of the factions that make up the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), has suffered a serious setback as a result of internal divisions. The death of Arafat saw Marwan Barghuthi, who is imprisoned in Israel, posing a challenge to Abbas's prospects of being elected president before he quit the race. Today, a large number of young Fatah members see Barghuthi as their leader rather than Abbas. Resentment over financial administration corruption in the PNA is yet another factor that has weakened Fatah.

And the net picture today is that Hamas, whose members are deemed to be more committed to its cause than its rivals, would do much better than Fatah in elections to the Palestinian legislative council. The group has announced it would field candidates and would also assume cabinet positions based on its performance in the elections.

Little choice

No doubt, Abbas is aware of this reality, but he has no choice but to press ahead with present plans.

He is under tremendous pressure from many sides. US President George W Bush, who argues that a wave of democracy is going to take over the Middle East as a result of his invasion and occupation of Iraq, has ruled out any delay in Palestinian elections.

Bush insisted on the Jan.30 date for elections in Iraq. He is insisting on elections in Lebanon in May. He is insisting on election reforms in Egypt, and he is insisting that the Palestinians should vote on July 17.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who obviously discussed the issue with Bush at the White House this month, could not actually care who wins the Palestinian elections. If Abbas's group wins, then he would seek to negotiate and force down his version of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement on the Palestinians. If hardliners like Hamas win the elections, then Sharon would simply clam up on the negotiations front and impose his unilateral military-based solution to the problem.

In his meeting with Bush at the US president's ranch in Texas this month, Sharon is said to have presented intelligence reports indicating that there is complete breakdown of Abu Mazen's grip on authority and that hardliners within Fatah plan to start armed attacks against Israelis in June and trigger Israeli retaliation leading to a situation that would not be conducive to elections.

Abbas is also apprehensive that Hamas would make good its threat to call off the de fact truce it has maintained since February if the elections were delayed.

Hamas is unlikely to move from its stand since it knows well that it stands to gain in July elections and it finds no reason to agree to a delay, particularly when it is clear that Fatah will use the intervening period not only to strengthen itself but also to weaken all rivals.

At this week's meeting of Palestinian legislators, Fatah is likely to seek to stall the endorsement of the amended election law that is crucial if elections were to be held on July 17. Palestinian officials say they need at least three months to prepare for elections.

Several young leaders of Fatah have reportedly warned Abbas that the change he is proposing would be voted down by all Fatah institutions.

Abbas's options are limited. His weekend visit to Egypt and Jordan was seen by his critics as a ploy to make himself absent from the Palestinian territories and thus abort a vote by Palestinian legislators on his proposals. The vote was supposed to take place on Sunday, but his absence pre-empted it.

Abbas has won a few more days before the crucial vote, but he cannot run from it. His choice is between postponing the elections and incur Hamas wrath and holding the polls on time and risking the loss of his power base. Beyond that, however, is the real question: Can he come up with a formula that keeps Fatah ranks intact?

US-Vatican hotline

pv vivekanand

IT is known from developments on the ground that in the 1980s, the US used Christians in Eastern Europe to fight communism and it is widely accepted that the late Pope John Paul II played a major role in encouraging the revolt that eventually led to the near-total collapse of communist countries around the world. But the truth is  that the US and the Vatican had a secret alliance from the time John Paul became pope and Washington and the Vatican worked closely together to plan the strategy that actually led to the collapse of communism by the mid-90s.
According to confidential documents that have been leaked after the death of Pope John Paul this month and appearing on various internet sites, a secret "hot line" of communication was set up between Washington and the Holy See after the Polish-born pope took over the helm of the Roman Catholic Church on Oct. 22, 1978. This channel was established by Polish-born Zbigniew Brzezinski who served as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, who found in John Paul, a fellow Pole, a perfect ally in the battle against communism.
Brzezinski is known for having devised the Cold War strategy to fight the Soviet Union and other communist countries by using Christians in Eastern Europe and Latin America and Muslims in Asia and the Middle East (He was the one who brought in Arab countries to support and finance the mujahedeen war against the Red Army in Afghanistan during the 1980s).
The documents reveal that Brzezinski first met the pope in 1976 when the latter was Polish Archbishop Karol Wojtyla and visited to the US to deliver a series of lectures at Harvard University.
Brzezinski, who was then a professor at Harvard, was very impressed by Wojtyla and invited him for tea. That was the most important event in the US-orchestrated campaign against communism since it was during the meeting over tea that the first step was taken towards establishing an American-Vatican alliance against communism.
Brzezinski and Archbishop Wojtyla remained in continued contact through correspondence, and then in 1977 Brzezinski took over as Carter's national security adviser and Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II in 1978, setting the ground for the secret alliance to take off.
The announcement that Wojtyla was to be the next pope was the moment that Brzezinsky was waiting for. He got Carter excited about how the US could use the Roman Catholic Church and convinced the president that the new pope was the perfect man for the job.
For the first time in history, a 30-member delegation representing the US attended the ceremony where Wojtyla underwent the investiture as Pope John Paul II on Oct.22, 1978; the delegation included the speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neil and Brzezinski himself – both Roman Catholics — Senator Edward Muskie and Representatives Clement Zablocki and Barbara Mikulski, all Carter loyalists and all of Polish origin.
“’It’s the beginning of the end for communism," exulted Ms Mikulski said at a lunch at the US embassy in Rome after the investiture, clearly indicating how the the newfound US-Vatican alliance was to be used.
A glimpse into the alliance and how it worked was offered by James M. Rentschler, a former US ambassador and staff member of Carter's National Security Council under Brzenzski.
The key man from the Roman Catholic Church in the alliance was none other than Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, whose power and influence at the Vatican was second only to the pope himself. Casaroli was Pope John Paul II's first secretary of state (foreign minister).
Brzezinski and Casarole established the private channel between the White House and the Holy See — the so-called Vatican hot line.
That channel was used by Carter and John Paul II for what Rentschler described in 1998 (twenty years later) as "a personal correspondence of extraordinary breadth …an unprecedented exchange between an American Baptist president and a Polish-born Roman Catholic pontiff. “
The Carter-Pope correspondence, some 40 letters, remain classified and confidential under the official secrets act of the US. But, according to Rentschler, the letters covered almost everything on the international scene and highly sensitive issues such as arms control, human rights, famine relief, popular unrest behind in communist countries, Soviet activities in Afghanistan, the fate of Catholic missionaries in China, Cuban links with Africa, the Middle East peace process, hostage-taking and terrorism.
While it is difficult to perceive how John Paul saw himself being used o fight communism, one thing is clear: He wanted to fight communism himself and the alliance with the US was perfect for him too.
What followed was the increased number of visits that the Pope launched into communist countries — those behind the Iron Curtain — and speeches to the faithful Christians there. His speeches prompted the faithful to defy party orders and rise up against their regimes — that was the most signficant and indeed the strongest contribution that the late pope made to the collapse of communism.
Carter left office in January 1980 after losing re-election to Ronald Reagan. However, the "hot line" set up by Brzeniski and Casaroli had already done its job, since the Pope had already made up his mind to work against communism for the rest of his life. And he did so, and we the results today.
According to the documents, the US intelligence agencies worked in parallel to the pope's efforts by engaging secret agitators to rouse the people and encourage them to rise up against their atheistic oppressors and also inflamed Muslims in communist countries.
Brzezinski remained in contact with the late pope throughout. But, it is unlikely that he had to do any "follow -up" work and/or suggest new "ideas" in the anti-communism battle. The Pope was already an effective planner and fighter himself by the time the Carter administration left office, and the collapse of communism was already signalled although it took more than 12 years for the Soviet Union to break up.

Hizbollah factor

March 13 2005

The Hizbollah factor
pv vivekanand


In a show of strength Hizbollah organised a massive demonstration in Beirut on Tuesday. Its leader, Sheikh Hussein Nasrallah, is reportedly planning repeat rallies on Friday in Sidon in the south and in Tripoli in the north and on Monday in the Christian town of Dakhla on March 18. Obviously, the group is putting up a show of strength in a signal that although Syria is withdrawing its military forces from Beirut and its environs to the eastern Bekaa Valley -- and eventually across the border -- there is no scaling down of the Syrian influence in Lebanese politics. And that is worrying the Lebanese and people in the rest of the region.

No doubt, Hizbollah, which has proved itself to be pragmatic, does not want to rekindle the civil war by violently challenging the opposition grouping of a certain segment of the Sunni community led by Hariri's heirs, the Druze led by Walid Junblatt and the Maronite Christians led by Archbishop Nasrallah Sfeir.

Obviously, Hizbollah knows that it would have to take on the combined strength of the US, Israel and the Lebanese opposition if it were to start off a violent confrontation. At the same time, it cannot afford to let the opposition project an image that the Sunni-Druze-Maronite alliance represents the majority of Lebanese population.

No doubt, Iran, a close ally of Syria, played a key role in influencing the Hizbollah leadership to adopt a clear pro-Syrian political position in the crisis triggered by the Hariri assassination, where the opposition, backed by the US and France, is accusing Damascus of orchestrating the killing.

At the same time, Hizbollah cannot but be aware that if it allows the pro-American camp to assume the upper hand in Lebanese affairs, then it is inevitable that it would be one of the first targets for crackdown. Hizbollah would be asked to disarm its fighters and also face immense pressure to dilute its influence in the daily life of the Shiites in the country. That could come through state intervention in the affairs of the schools, hospitals and other organisations it runs for the Shiite community. If Hizbollah allows that to happen, its leaders believe, then it is the end of the group as a strong political force in Lebanon. Therefore, it has to stick with Syria.

Stepping up pressure

For good measure in their effort to keep the pressure mounting, the US and Israel have also accused Syria of harbouring the Palestinian group Islamic Jihad, which has claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

Damascus has rejected the allegations as unfounded, but it could not resist the American and UN pressure on it to withdraw from Lebanon, and hence the redeployment to the Bekaa Valley.

Syrian President Bashar Al Assad is trying to find a face-saving formula by showing that he is not succumbing to pressure. Hence there is only the redeployment and not a clear announcement of withdrawal of the forces to Syrian territory across the border. He is also trying to remove any justification for a possible isolation of his country through UN sanctions that could lead to external military intervention. Such action would not stop at nothing but "regime change" in Damascus -- an avowed objective of the pro-Israeli neo-conservative camp in Washington.

Obviously, Assad knows that his immediate move in Lebanon would be adjudged as "half measure" and would be rejected by the US and the Lebanese opposition. That is the reason for his comment during the announcement in parliament this week that "I know that the minute I finish this speech, they will say it is not enough. So I say it now: It is not enough."

Indeed, these are polemics. The reality on the ground is fraught with dangers.

It is very difficult for the Syrians to accept that they have to end their domination of Lebanon or face serious consequences. At the same time, Damascus has realised that the Bush administration would not let it off the hook. Even a complete Syrian departure from Lebanon would not lead to any easing of the American pressure. Assad is fully aware that Washington would not give him peace unless of course he sacrifices whatever Syria holds dear and near to itself as a staunch Arab nationalist and leader of the Arab struggle against Israel. Once that happens, then Syria would be forced into a corner and asked to sign on the dotted line of a peace accord with Israel where it would have to make major compromises over the Golan Heights.

Assad was hoping for Arab support in his stand-off with the US, but he found that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two Arab giants, urging him to withdraw his forces from Syria as the best option. Syria's neighbour Jordan also joined the call; so did his staunchest ally, Russia.

Dignified withdrawal

The Arab summit, scheduled to be held in Algiers on March 22 and 23, could come up with a formula that allows Syria to withdraw with some semblance of dignity. After all, it was under an Arab League mandate that Syria sent soldiers to Lebanon which was then in the throes of a civil war.

Again, the US might not want to allow Syria to retain any dignity if only because the American-Israeli gameplan is to strip Damascus of whatever "strategic assets" it might think it has. This includes the country's status as the last hold-out against Israel's expansionist ambitions in the region.

Indeed, Syria could, to a large extent, count on Iran as an ally, but the Iranians themselves are under immense US-led international pressure over their alleged plans to develop nuclear weapons.

Israeli intelligence reports -- "leaked" to the public domain -- allege that Syria has created joint units with Iranians and they are deployed in key points of Lebanon. The reports also allege that Iran has set up several radar stations in Lebanese territory in order to give the Syrians advance warning of any external military incursion.

According to a website (debka.com), which claims to carry Israeli "intelligence" findings, Iranian forces were airlifted to Syria on Feb.20, the same day that US President George W. Bush flew to meetings with European leaders.

"They were the tail end of the biggest military airlift Iran has launched in the Middle East to date. Its objective was to set up shared Iranian-Syrian safeguards against attacks on the Islamic Republic's nuclear installations and/or Syrian strategic targets," says the website.

"The fleet of Iranian military transports secretly off loaded complete elite units for operating, maintaining and guarding a sophisticated system of Iranian electronic warning stations, radar networks and anti-aircraft missiles to be deployed in Syria and Lebanon," it says. "More than 1,000 Iranian soldiers and technicians and 600 Revolutionary Guards commandos took up positions on the South Lebanese border with Israel, along the Syrian-Israeli Golan frontier to the south and up Syria's Mediterranean coastline to the west. They also spread out along Syria's northeastern frontier with Iraqi Kurdistan and its southern border with Iraq's Al Qaim and Al Anbar provinces."

Syria is purportedly hoping that the pressure would shift to Tehran and Hizbollah when the US seeks to evict the Iranian forces allegedly present in Lebanon and this would allow Damascus some breathing space.

However, Washington is moving fast ahead with efforts for Syria's total international isolation. Reports say that US National Security Council head Stephen Hadley has notified European Washington-based envoys of moves to cut off Damascus' international banking ties and the flow of international funds to and from Syria through Lebanese banks. The volume of these transfers is such that it could bankrupt Syria, according to the reports.

UN Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen is visiting Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries to finalise the US-Arab-European consensus on international sanctions against Syria, say reports.

Larsen will also visit Damascus next week to give the Syrian government a "last chance" to implement Security Council Resolution 1559 of September 2004 in full, or else face up to UN sanctions. French President Jacques Chirac has already ordered French ties with Damascus severed at all government levels.

Fears among opposition

The Lebanese opposition is also aware of the emerging dangers. All it might need is a carefully executed bomb attack to trigger off violent confrontation between Hizbollah and the opposition and it is not a secret that Israel has often resorted to such actions while arranging pointing fingers at the Lebanese themselves.

Junblatt, the Druze leader, is seeking to strengthen the international pressure on Syria by inviting more involvement by the European Union as well as Moscow.

At the same time, clearly keeping the risk factors in mind, he is also seeking a dialogue with Hizbollah.

"We are a democratic country. They have demonstrated their stand, they are part of the Lebanese. Hizbollah is part of the Lebanon," he said after talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

"I do thank them because they have raised the Lebanese flag. So we have something in common. And this is why we should engage in dialogue."

Junblatt is hoping to get rid of the Syrians before general elections in May where he hopes that the opposition will put up a showing strong enough to form a government.

How far Hizbollah is willing to go in making a compromise in its position will be crucial to determining the course of events in Lebanon. If the Iranians and Syrians are determined to prevent, directly or indirectly, a dilution of their influences in Lebanese affairs, then Hizbollah would reflect that, but then it would become obvious that Damascus is not willing to let go of Lebanon. What happens next is anyone's guess, but the people of Lebanon, perfectly aware of the pitfalls of a violent confrontation, are smarter now than they were during the years of the civil war.

A compromise has to be found among the Lebanese themselves, but will the US and Israel step back from the kill that they have been waiting for long?