pv vivekanand
ISRAEL has gone silent on its investigations into the November attacks against Israeli targets in Mombassa, Kenya, and the silence is alarming and could herald stunning revelations of the nefarious operations of its super-secret spying agency, Mossad.
It was no empty pledge that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made when he vowed that the notorious Mossad would launch its own investigations and exact revenge for the attacks.
Mossad is ruthless and employs whatever means available to it to accomplish its mission. These could include murder, intimidation, blackmail and other "incentives" to enlist help from whatever source, and the agency leaves no trace behind. "The dead can't talk," that is the philosophy followed by Mossad, as Israeli commentators have affirmed.
For all we know, Mossad could have already traced those behind the attacks and spirited them away to Israel for questioning. An Israeli announcement could be made when Mossad feels it is safe to do so.
Mossad would have no consideration whatsoever except its secrecy and confidentiality even if those could delay a triumphant announcement by the Israeli government of "success in hunting down the enemies of the Jewish people."
Who knows, it could be Sharon's master stroke to make up for the loss of popularity and decline in prospects for an election victory resulting from corruption allegations.
Regardless of the politics involved, it is a fair conclusion that Mossad would have devoted itself to the assigned task of bringing the Mombassa attackers to Israeli-style "justice."
Mossad has an added incentive. It has to "redeem" itself after it suffered a series of setbacks in recent years leading what many see as a crisis of confidence in an agency once seen as a ruthless and highly efficient secret service.
Reports from Africa indicate that Mossad agents are targeting Somalia as the prime area for investigations, probably because of suspicions that Al Ittihad Al Islamiya of that country was alleged to have ties with Al Qaeda.
However, fair-skinned Israelis would stick out like a sore thump in Somalia. As such, the agency is said to be using Ethiopian immigrants to Israel -- the so-called Falasha Jews of Ethiopia -- and other Africans as its operatives in Somalia and elsewhere in the continent.
That is only a flash of the techniques employed by Mossad, which has been responsible for assassinating dozens of Palestinians, Arabs and others who were seen as potential sources of threat for Israel in whatever manner and form.
The "reputation" stemming from those "successes" suffered a series of setbacks in recent years as a result of blotched operations.
These included:
In February 1999, two agents were arrested in Cyprus near prohibited military areas. They were carrying cameras and investigations showed that they were taking photographs for possible delivery to Turkey.
In March 1999, a retired Mossad agent was convicted of fabricating intelligence reports suggesting Syria was about to attack. It was his Mossad background that had lent credibility to the claims.
In February 1998, Mossad agents were caught installing bugging equipment at an apartment in Berne, Switzerland. In a trial that ended in July 2000, One of them was given a one-year suspended prison term and barred from entering Switzerland for five years.
The wire-tapping operation targeted a Swiss citizen of Lebanese origin who Mossad suspected of having links with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The man testified during the trial that he had no links whatsoever with the group.
Israel had furnished a $2 million bail for its operative to secure his release and kept a promise of sending him back for trial. That infuriated Mossad agents to threatening an unprecedented strike and refusal to take up missions in protest against what they saw as a lack of backing from their superiors.
The worst of Mossad operations came in September 1997 where two agents were caught in Amman after they poured a slow-acting poison into the ear of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. Israel had to provide an antidote to the poison and also release Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as well as dozens of Jordanian and Palestinian leaders in return for the two detained agents in Amman who were travelling on false Canadian passports.
Danny Yaton survived as chief of Mossad at the time of the Amman operation until February 1998 but was forced to resign after the agency carried out an in-house investigation.
The Kenyan capital of Nairobi is one of Mossad's main operating bases in Africa. Reports have suggested that it was Mossad which informed the US that Felicien Kabuga, one of the leading figures wanted for crimes in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, was being sheltered in Kenya. Subsequently, the US started applying pressure on Nairobi to hand him over for trial at the Rwandan War Crimes Tribunal.
The timing of the revelation is suspect since it followed the November attacks in Mombassa and a change of guard in the Kenyan government after late December elections.
As such, some observers believe, Mossad used its US connections to apply pressure on the new Kenyan government to ensure it co-operated with the Israeli investigations into the Mombassa bombing.
It would seem to be a far-fetched theory even though it could not be ruled out in view of Mossad's chequered record of exploiting situations to its advantage.
Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed when an Israeli-owned hotel near Mombassa is blown up by a car bomb. A simultaneous rocket attack on an Israeli airliner failed and a statement - purportedly from the Al Qaeda network -- claimed responsibility for the two attacks. It also threatened more attacks on Israeli and US targets.
In mid-December, Kenyan police cleared six Pakistanis and three Somalis who were detained after the attacks. They were only charged with entering Kenya illegally and faced fines and deportation.
Kenyan police are still questioning three people who they say witnessed the sale of the car they allege was used in the attack on the hotel.
Police have released computer-generated images of two men they suspect carried out the failed missile attack,
If, as claimed, Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, then we would be witnessing a scenario that involves Mossad tactics matched against the labyrinth of Osama Bin Laden's followers.
And indeed, the war could already be in action behind the scenes and it would have wider implications than simple Mossad-style assassinations.
Sunday, January 12, 2003
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
Israel paid to stay out of war
by pv vivekanand
When United Airlines appealed for $1.8 billion loan guarantees to bail itself out of financial troubles, the Bush administration turned down the plea and the airline went bust. Today, Israel is seeking $8 billion in loan guarantees and the administration appears to be more than willing to extend it, but Israel is not going to go bust if it does not receive it.
In fact, the $8 billion sought by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is in addition to another $4 billion, which would eventually be converted to aid, and that is the price Washington is paying Sharon to stay out of a possible US-led war against Iraq. That is the way leading American commentators see it, and they include columnist and former presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan.
Indeed, it is an issue to debated among American taxpayers. They are footing the bill for what their administration calls as "strategic partnership" with Israel and they should be the ones to demand an explanation to the lopsided policies of their government in the Middle East.
If they need any pointers -- from the look of things it would seem that they do indeed need a nudge since the mainstream media that reach them do not tell them the full truth -- let us remind the Americans that their country is officially paying $3.1 billion in annual aid to Israel, not to mention an equal amount that reaches Israel as contributions from powerful Jewish organisations. In addition are the periodic doses of hundreds of millions of dollars disguised as "emergency assistance," "special project aid" and various other forms. These allocations need not be cleared through the US Congress since the funding comes from the budgets of the various departments of the administration.
The American taxpayers should be looking at the per capita "tax" that they are paying to maintain their administration's "strategic" ties with Israel. Has it been useful to defending the security and safety of Americans, whether in the US or outside? Well, if anything, the US has only reaped the hostility of the Arabs and Muslims around the world. This makes it a simple equation: American tax dollars are sent to Israel and spent on increasing hostility towards the US. It has made life difficult for Americans, and, today the number of countries where American lives are perceived to be under threat and hostility is more than where they are deemed safe and secure.
As Buchanan highlighted it, "journalists and diplomats alike, returning from the Mideast, attest that our almost-blind support of Israel is a major cause of the anti-Americanism that is sweeping the Islamic world."
"Why should we do this?" he asked. "What does America get out of this? What has all the $100 billion in aid we have shovelled out to Israel bought us, other than ingratitude and the enmity of the Arab World?"
Buchanan's sharp references to the unhealthy relationship between the US and Israel represent a segment of the conservatives in the American society, but it is a minority.
However, the silver lining in the horizon, if you will, is the gradual increase in the number of people who realise that there is something wrong in the US approach to the Middle East.
Among them is Victor Marshall, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a public policy group,.
In Jan.5 issue of the Los Angeles Times, Marshal wrote a courageous article "The lies we are told about Iraq."
He asserts that during the Gulf war of 1991, the then administration of George Bush Senior of misrepresenting the "cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Gulf war."
He says that the administration demonised Iraq, exaggerated Iraq's military capabilities, and used
"the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era."
Isn't it ironic? But the irony seems to lost on the American public at large.
On the political front, US President George W.Bush, who is reportedly "very understanding" of the Israeli request for $12 billion, seems to have a short memory.
When, in mid-2001, when Bush articulated his "vision" of Israel and a Palestinian state existing side by side, it was none other than Sharon who warned him off and had the audacity to assert that Israel had more clout in the US Congress than the president himself. Wasn't such an assertion the deepest of the depths of humiliation and insult to an American president?
Wasn't it Sharon who scoffed at Bush, who seemed to have put the prestige of the White House on the firing line and publicly asked him to withdraw the Israeli army from the West Bank?
In simpler terms, Sharon -- and indeed his predecessors -- have always acted as if it was the God-assigned responsibility and duty of the US to back Israel to the hilt wherever, whenever and however asked to do so even it meant losing American prestige and credibility. Whenever the administration showed any reluctance, Israeli leaders have always whipped out their ace card and threatened to "go to the American Congress and people."
Well, Washington has not behaved any different from the Israeli expectations either. That could perhaps also explain why the US spent more than half of the $2.5 billion funding for the much-touted "Arrow" missile defence system for Israel and seems to be willing to shell out another $1 billion for a third battery of the missile system that offers a protective umbrella against missiles that might come Israel's way.
However, the Arabs and Palestinians could not maintain silence and leave it to American debate. The US "aid" to Israel has a direct bearing on life in the Middle East. The $8 billion "loan guarantees" sought by Israel are to be spent on building more settlements in the occupied West Bank to further the Israeli grip on the Palestinian territories. It would only compound the already complex problems that need to be sorted out when the time comes up for realistic peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Again it is only a small patch in the overall picture of the Arab-Israeli equation. Had it not been for the almost unlimited political, military, diplomatic and financial support that the US extended to Israel over the decades, Israel would not have been encouraged to ridicule international laws and conventions and the situation in the Middle East today would have been different.
Amid the mounting US-condoned Israeli brutality against the Palestinians and rising clouds of war against Arab Muslim Iraq, one could only hope for a miracle that Washington wakes up to the realities of its policies and comprehend that its blind support for Israel and obvious hostility towards the Arabs are leading the Middle East to a disaster.
When United Airlines appealed for $1.8 billion loan guarantees to bail itself out of financial troubles, the Bush administration turned down the plea and the airline went bust. Today, Israel is seeking $8 billion in loan guarantees and the administration appears to be more than willing to extend it, but Israel is not going to go bust if it does not receive it.
In fact, the $8 billion sought by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is in addition to another $4 billion, which would eventually be converted to aid, and that is the price Washington is paying Sharon to stay out of a possible US-led war against Iraq. That is the way leading American commentators see it, and they include columnist and former presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan.
Indeed, it is an issue to debated among American taxpayers. They are footing the bill for what their administration calls as "strategic partnership" with Israel and they should be the ones to demand an explanation to the lopsided policies of their government in the Middle East.
If they need any pointers -- from the look of things it would seem that they do indeed need a nudge since the mainstream media that reach them do not tell them the full truth -- let us remind the Americans that their country is officially paying $3.1 billion in annual aid to Israel, not to mention an equal amount that reaches Israel as contributions from powerful Jewish organisations. In addition are the periodic doses of hundreds of millions of dollars disguised as "emergency assistance," "special project aid" and various other forms. These allocations need not be cleared through the US Congress since the funding comes from the budgets of the various departments of the administration.
The American taxpayers should be looking at the per capita "tax" that they are paying to maintain their administration's "strategic" ties with Israel. Has it been useful to defending the security and safety of Americans, whether in the US or outside? Well, if anything, the US has only reaped the hostility of the Arabs and Muslims around the world. This makes it a simple equation: American tax dollars are sent to Israel and spent on increasing hostility towards the US. It has made life difficult for Americans, and, today the number of countries where American lives are perceived to be under threat and hostility is more than where they are deemed safe and secure.
As Buchanan highlighted it, "journalists and diplomats alike, returning from the Mideast, attest that our almost-blind support of Israel is a major cause of the anti-Americanism that is sweeping the Islamic world."
"Why should we do this?" he asked. "What does America get out of this? What has all the $100 billion in aid we have shovelled out to Israel bought us, other than ingratitude and the enmity of the Arab World?"
Buchanan's sharp references to the unhealthy relationship between the US and Israel represent a segment of the conservatives in the American society, but it is a minority.
However, the silver lining in the horizon, if you will, is the gradual increase in the number of people who realise that there is something wrong in the US approach to the Middle East.
Among them is Victor Marshall, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a public policy group,.
In Jan.5 issue of the Los Angeles Times, Marshal wrote a courageous article "The lies we are told about Iraq."
He asserts that during the Gulf war of 1991, the then administration of George Bush Senior of misrepresenting the "cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Gulf war."
He says that the administration demonised Iraq, exaggerated Iraq's military capabilities, and used
"the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era."
Isn't it ironic? But the irony seems to lost on the American public at large.
On the political front, US President George W.Bush, who is reportedly "very understanding" of the Israeli request for $12 billion, seems to have a short memory.
When, in mid-2001, when Bush articulated his "vision" of Israel and a Palestinian state existing side by side, it was none other than Sharon who warned him off and had the audacity to assert that Israel had more clout in the US Congress than the president himself. Wasn't such an assertion the deepest of the depths of humiliation and insult to an American president?
Wasn't it Sharon who scoffed at Bush, who seemed to have put the prestige of the White House on the firing line and publicly asked him to withdraw the Israeli army from the West Bank?
In simpler terms, Sharon -- and indeed his predecessors -- have always acted as if it was the God-assigned responsibility and duty of the US to back Israel to the hilt wherever, whenever and however asked to do so even it meant losing American prestige and credibility. Whenever the administration showed any reluctance, Israeli leaders have always whipped out their ace card and threatened to "go to the American Congress and people."
Well, Washington has not behaved any different from the Israeli expectations either. That could perhaps also explain why the US spent more than half of the $2.5 billion funding for the much-touted "Arrow" missile defence system for Israel and seems to be willing to shell out another $1 billion for a third battery of the missile system that offers a protective umbrella against missiles that might come Israel's way.
However, the Arabs and Palestinians could not maintain silence and leave it to American debate. The US "aid" to Israel has a direct bearing on life in the Middle East. The $8 billion "loan guarantees" sought by Israel are to be spent on building more settlements in the occupied West Bank to further the Israeli grip on the Palestinian territories. It would only compound the already complex problems that need to be sorted out when the time comes up for realistic peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Again it is only a small patch in the overall picture of the Arab-Israeli equation. Had it not been for the almost unlimited political, military, diplomatic and financial support that the US extended to Israel over the decades, Israel would not have been encouraged to ridicule international laws and conventions and the situation in the Middle East today would have been different.
Amid the mounting US-condoned Israeli brutality against the Palestinians and rising clouds of war against Arab Muslim Iraq, one could only hope for a miracle that Washington wakes up to the realities of its policies and comprehend that its blind support for Israel and obvious hostility towards the Arabs are leading the Middle East to a disaster.
Sunday, January 05, 2003
Who will wink first
PV Vivekanand
I was asked the other day what I thought was the reason for the contrasting American approach to Iraq and North Korea. The US insists on a military confrontation with Iraq which says it has no weapons of mass destruction and poses no threat to its neighbourhood. On the other hand, the US is softpedalling around North Korea which has openly declared it is capable of producing nuclear weapons and poses a threat to US allies South Korea and Japan, and, if need be, the US itself.
Well, I had thought, until the question was put to me, that the situation was fairly clear and did not really need an explanation since the whole affair was and is superficial. There was never the possibility of the Korean "dispute" getting out of hand and North Korea firing a nuclear weapon (not that it is known it has one; even if it had, it knows well that it would definitely lead to the obliteration of North Korea as we know it today. There is no reason to believe that the reclusive North Korean leadership is turning suicidal either).
On the surface, North Korea has done everything to attract international punitive measures of a higher intensity than Iraq warrants. It has been established that it has a nuclear weapons programme and it is not willing to co-operate with the world community, whereas it has yet to be proven that Iraq has such a programme and Baghdad is indeed co-operating with UN weapons inspectors .
Why still the US says diplomacy is the way to resolve the Korean "crisis" while it maintains that military means is the way to deal with Iraq?
In direct comparison, it was the US which pushed the Iraq situation into a real crisis and created the possibility of war for purposes that suit American interets, while North Korea was the culprit on the Asian front but with non-war objectives in mind.
The contradiction between the two "problems" is also clear: the US intends to follow up its anti-Iraq campaign with a war in the Middle East whereas North Korea seems to be the last country interested in war and the US would not be drawn into one either.
Pyongyang's implied and implicit suggestions that poses a nuclear threat in its neighbourhood are the roar of a paper tiger aimed at realising its objective of solving critical internal crises. It is hoping to kill two birds with one stone -- securing external help without compromising its isolationist ideology or exposing its leadership to political risks. And it seeks a position to strength to drive a hard bargain.
Deeply mired in economic problems that have led to starvation and mounting unrest among its people and political isolation that has denied timely external help, the North Korean leadership wants a way out. Pyongyang believes that the US is its best bet for securing foreign aid, including food and fuel. But the Stalinist leadership also knows that they would have to "lose face" if they were to seek direct help and that such help would be at the expense of opening up the country which they are not yet ready to do.
North Korea has also accepted the reality that it could no longer count on its traditional friend China to pull it out of the quagmire. Beijing has its own preoccupation with its newfound economic strength without compromising communism and it is highly unlikely that it would risk a halt to its international windfall by throwing its weight behind a "loser" like North Korea.
As such, it appears to me, Pyongyang found the best means to solve its internal problems through external engagement, and the process was launched from a confrontational approach to the US.
It announced that it had violated a 1994 nuclear agreement with the US, was determined to pursue its nuclear plans, kicked out nuclear inspectors, and broke open the seals of a mothballed nuclear plant deemed capable of producing a nuclear bomb. The world has no idea at this point in time whether such a bomb has already been produced, is being produced or whether the country already had a nuclear arsenal at the outset of the "dispute."
In retaliation, the US and others suspended aid to North Korea and turned off the fuel taps, but Washington has consistently maintained that the way out of the crisis was through diplomacy and dialogue. It has ruled out a pre-emptive strike to eliminate North Korea's nuclear facilities and it has not assembled military force to do so either.
As such, it emerges that Washington is fully aware of North Korea's ulterior objective of sitting down to discuss and resolve the "dispute" and there is little chance of a military conflict erupting in the Korean peninsula despite the mix of threatening rhetoric and calls for diplomatic talks oozing out of Pyongyang.
Armed with that knowledge that North Korea is seeking to assume a high ground -- a positions of strength from its point of view -- in eventual negotiations to settle the crisis, the US is letting Pyongyang have its way for the time being until Washington is ready to sit down for talks. Under normal circumstances, the anti-US language coming out of North Korea is not the kind of talk that Washington would tolerate, but then it knows it is not a war cry but an invitation to dialogue.
Indeed, in public statements, the US has ruled out any negotiations with North Korea saying it would be tantamount to nuclear blackmail. It demands that Pyongyang freezes its nuclear weapons programmes first. But North Korea believes agreeing to the US demand would show that it is vulnerable to pressure and therefore rules it out.
South Korea and Japan are caught in the middle. They are not fully convinced and pacified that the North would not use nuclear weapons against them, but then such successful pacification would not serve the US strategic objective of maintaining control in the region since the bogeyman in the equation would cease to exist.
In the US-North Korean dispute it is only a matter of who will wink first and what could follow is a tug-of-war to determine how much Washington -- and its allies -- are willing to foot the bill and take care of Pyongyang's chronic internal problems.
I was asked the other day what I thought was the reason for the contrasting American approach to Iraq and North Korea. The US insists on a military confrontation with Iraq which says it has no weapons of mass destruction and poses no threat to its neighbourhood. On the other hand, the US is softpedalling around North Korea which has openly declared it is capable of producing nuclear weapons and poses a threat to US allies South Korea and Japan, and, if need be, the US itself.
Well, I had thought, until the question was put to me, that the situation was fairly clear and did not really need an explanation since the whole affair was and is superficial. There was never the possibility of the Korean "dispute" getting out of hand and North Korea firing a nuclear weapon (not that it is known it has one; even if it had, it knows well that it would definitely lead to the obliteration of North Korea as we know it today. There is no reason to believe that the reclusive North Korean leadership is turning suicidal either).
On the surface, North Korea has done everything to attract international punitive measures of a higher intensity than Iraq warrants. It has been established that it has a nuclear weapons programme and it is not willing to co-operate with the world community, whereas it has yet to be proven that Iraq has such a programme and Baghdad is indeed co-operating with UN weapons inspectors .
Why still the US says diplomacy is the way to resolve the Korean "crisis" while it maintains that military means is the way to deal with Iraq?
In direct comparison, it was the US which pushed the Iraq situation into a real crisis and created the possibility of war for purposes that suit American interets, while North Korea was the culprit on the Asian front but with non-war objectives in mind.
The contradiction between the two "problems" is also clear: the US intends to follow up its anti-Iraq campaign with a war in the Middle East whereas North Korea seems to be the last country interested in war and the US would not be drawn into one either.
Pyongyang's implied and implicit suggestions that poses a nuclear threat in its neighbourhood are the roar of a paper tiger aimed at realising its objective of solving critical internal crises. It is hoping to kill two birds with one stone -- securing external help without compromising its isolationist ideology or exposing its leadership to political risks. And it seeks a position to strength to drive a hard bargain.
Deeply mired in economic problems that have led to starvation and mounting unrest among its people and political isolation that has denied timely external help, the North Korean leadership wants a way out. Pyongyang believes that the US is its best bet for securing foreign aid, including food and fuel. But the Stalinist leadership also knows that they would have to "lose face" if they were to seek direct help and that such help would be at the expense of opening up the country which they are not yet ready to do.
North Korea has also accepted the reality that it could no longer count on its traditional friend China to pull it out of the quagmire. Beijing has its own preoccupation with its newfound economic strength without compromising communism and it is highly unlikely that it would risk a halt to its international windfall by throwing its weight behind a "loser" like North Korea.
As such, it appears to me, Pyongyang found the best means to solve its internal problems through external engagement, and the process was launched from a confrontational approach to the US.
It announced that it had violated a 1994 nuclear agreement with the US, was determined to pursue its nuclear plans, kicked out nuclear inspectors, and broke open the seals of a mothballed nuclear plant deemed capable of producing a nuclear bomb. The world has no idea at this point in time whether such a bomb has already been produced, is being produced or whether the country already had a nuclear arsenal at the outset of the "dispute."
In retaliation, the US and others suspended aid to North Korea and turned off the fuel taps, but Washington has consistently maintained that the way out of the crisis was through diplomacy and dialogue. It has ruled out a pre-emptive strike to eliminate North Korea's nuclear facilities and it has not assembled military force to do so either.
As such, it emerges that Washington is fully aware of North Korea's ulterior objective of sitting down to discuss and resolve the "dispute" and there is little chance of a military conflict erupting in the Korean peninsula despite the mix of threatening rhetoric and calls for diplomatic talks oozing out of Pyongyang.
Armed with that knowledge that North Korea is seeking to assume a high ground -- a positions of strength from its point of view -- in eventual negotiations to settle the crisis, the US is letting Pyongyang have its way for the time being until Washington is ready to sit down for talks. Under normal circumstances, the anti-US language coming out of North Korea is not the kind of talk that Washington would tolerate, but then it knows it is not a war cry but an invitation to dialogue.
Indeed, in public statements, the US has ruled out any negotiations with North Korea saying it would be tantamount to nuclear blackmail. It demands that Pyongyang freezes its nuclear weapons programmes first. But North Korea believes agreeing to the US demand would show that it is vulnerable to pressure and therefore rules it out.
South Korea and Japan are caught in the middle. They are not fully convinced and pacified that the North would not use nuclear weapons against them, but then such successful pacification would not serve the US strategic objective of maintaining control in the region since the bogeyman in the equation would cease to exist.
In the US-North Korean dispute it is only a matter of who will wink first and what could follow is a tug-of-war to determine how much Washington -- and its allies -- are willing to foot the bill and take care of Pyongyang's chronic internal problems.
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
US hoodwinking the world
PV VIVEKANAND
ALONG WITH the growing certainty of a US-led war against Iraq, it is becoming abundantly clear that Washington would be a fighting the war partly for Israel as much as for driving a deep stake of military control in the Gulf region that would suit its strategic interests, primarily in the international oil market.
US officials doing the rounds through the Middle East ahead of the possible war against Iraq have been known to have promised Arab leaders that Washington needs to take care of the Iraq crisis -- that is of American making in the first place in any case -- before turning the wagon to Palestine.
There is as much substance in the American pronouncements that the US is seeking a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as in there is life in the Dead Sea. The Bush administration's promises that it would get around to serious efforts to just, fair, comprehensive and durable peace in Palestine after it takes care of the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad ring hollow since its track record speaks otherwise.
Indeed, the US wants to see peace in Palestine but only at Israel's terms, and that would little semblance of justice, fairness, comprehensiveness or durability.
The shape of peace that the US favours is designed by Israel, and the clearest indication of that came is in the added emphasis in the "revised road map" of the Quartet on the conditions it imposes on the Palestinians by insisting that they end their resistance against occupation while demanding little from Israel.
No doubt, US President George W Bush will definitely seek to settle the crisis in Palestine after the war on Iraq, but the outcome of the American effort would be a peace agreement being forced down the Palestinian throat, with the Arab World and the international community unable to step in and help rectify the lopsidedness.
It is a different story whether the Palestinians would accept any Israeli-designed peace, and Washington should know it better than anyone. But then it has not diluted Washington's hoodwinking assertions.
In the meantime, the sole Middle Eastern beneficiary from sought-for removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, coupled with the installation of a US-friendly (read US-controlled) regime in Baghdad, would be Israel.
For the US, a successful war would open the door for gaining absolute control of Iraq, with all that it entails -- including a base for its military in the region without being held answerable to anyone and the strategic prize of Iraq's oil wealth at its disposal.
That is not to underplay the immense dangers facing the US military in Iraq and prospects of a protracted conflict there that would put off any prospects of peace in Palestine and would only worsen the continuing cycle of violence there.
For Israel, Iraq would cease to be a source of military threat as Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon and others go around executing their sinister designs in Palestine and elsewhere in the region, including Syria and Lebanon.
As such, there is indeed deceptive substance in American claims that "the road to Arab-Israeli peace will go through Baghdad," with the only difference being the conflicting interpretation of what fair, just and durable peace means.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who recently visited the Middle East and met Sharon, told a Chicago audience upon his return home: "Military force alone will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East."
According to Hagel, Sharon admitted as much in a private conversation with Hagel and other members of the US Congress that the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Why would Sharon hold Saddam as his arch enemy?
There are many reasons indeed. It was under Saddam that Iraq had tried to develop its nuclear programmes before Israel bombed out the country's nuclear research plant in Baghdad in 1981; Iraq has a track record of taking part in every Arab-Israeli war; its army has acquired better combat skills than any other Arab country from the 1980-88 war with Iran; Saddam refuses to recognise Israel and openly supports and even funds Palestinian resistance in the occupied territories.
Many Arab political observers entertain the notion that the machinations towards a war against Iraq would be frozen if Saddam declares in public today that he recognises the state of Israel and is ready to deal with it. That might indeed be stretching the issue too far at this point in time, but that the idea exists in the Arab mind highlights the perception that the US would be removing a major thorn on Israel's side by ousting Saddam.
Concrete signs of the US moves in the Middle East are largely Israel-centric have also been given by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has been going around Capitol Hill meetings maintaining that Lebanon's Hizbollah and not Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is the most dangerous "terrorist" organisation and needs to be taken care of. It was as if Sharon had moved in and was speaking up.
Rice has no explanation to offer when confronted with the question that Hizbollah has no recent record of taking part in any action outside the region or mounting attacks against any government except that of Israel.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, pointed out in a recent interview that "outside this fight [against Israel], we have done nothing." Indeed, the group's anti-US rhetoric is fierce and bitter but that comes in the context of Washington's unreserved support for Israel.
Against the reality that Israel lives in perpetual fear of Hizbollah, which forced an end to the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, Rice's unfounded claim is nothing but a reflection that the US is being manipulated by Israel and American gunsights could turn to Hizbollah after Iraq - meaning that Bush's war against terrorism is also being redesigned to fit Israel.
ALONG WITH the growing certainty of a US-led war against Iraq, it is becoming abundantly clear that Washington would be a fighting the war partly for Israel as much as for driving a deep stake of military control in the Gulf region that would suit its strategic interests, primarily in the international oil market.
US officials doing the rounds through the Middle East ahead of the possible war against Iraq have been known to have promised Arab leaders that Washington needs to take care of the Iraq crisis -- that is of American making in the first place in any case -- before turning the wagon to Palestine.
There is as much substance in the American pronouncements that the US is seeking a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as in there is life in the Dead Sea. The Bush administration's promises that it would get around to serious efforts to just, fair, comprehensive and durable peace in Palestine after it takes care of the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad ring hollow since its track record speaks otherwise.
Indeed, the US wants to see peace in Palestine but only at Israel's terms, and that would little semblance of justice, fairness, comprehensiveness or durability.
The shape of peace that the US favours is designed by Israel, and the clearest indication of that came is in the added emphasis in the "revised road map" of the Quartet on the conditions it imposes on the Palestinians by insisting that they end their resistance against occupation while demanding little from Israel.
No doubt, US President George W Bush will definitely seek to settle the crisis in Palestine after the war on Iraq, but the outcome of the American effort would be a peace agreement being forced down the Palestinian throat, with the Arab World and the international community unable to step in and help rectify the lopsidedness.
It is a different story whether the Palestinians would accept any Israeli-designed peace, and Washington should know it better than anyone. But then it has not diluted Washington's hoodwinking assertions.
In the meantime, the sole Middle Eastern beneficiary from sought-for removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, coupled with the installation of a US-friendly (read US-controlled) regime in Baghdad, would be Israel.
For the US, a successful war would open the door for gaining absolute control of Iraq, with all that it entails -- including a base for its military in the region without being held answerable to anyone and the strategic prize of Iraq's oil wealth at its disposal.
That is not to underplay the immense dangers facing the US military in Iraq and prospects of a protracted conflict there that would put off any prospects of peace in Palestine and would only worsen the continuing cycle of violence there.
For Israel, Iraq would cease to be a source of military threat as Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon and others go around executing their sinister designs in Palestine and elsewhere in the region, including Syria and Lebanon.
As such, there is indeed deceptive substance in American claims that "the road to Arab-Israeli peace will go through Baghdad," with the only difference being the conflicting interpretation of what fair, just and durable peace means.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who recently visited the Middle East and met Sharon, told a Chicago audience upon his return home: "Military force alone will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East."
According to Hagel, Sharon admitted as much in a private conversation with Hagel and other members of the US Congress that the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Why would Sharon hold Saddam as his arch enemy?
There are many reasons indeed. It was under Saddam that Iraq had tried to develop its nuclear programmes before Israel bombed out the country's nuclear research plant in Baghdad in 1981; Iraq has a track record of taking part in every Arab-Israeli war; its army has acquired better combat skills than any other Arab country from the 1980-88 war with Iran; Saddam refuses to recognise Israel and openly supports and even funds Palestinian resistance in the occupied territories.
Many Arab political observers entertain the notion that the machinations towards a war against Iraq would be frozen if Saddam declares in public today that he recognises the state of Israel and is ready to deal with it. That might indeed be stretching the issue too far at this point in time, but that the idea exists in the Arab mind highlights the perception that the US would be removing a major thorn on Israel's side by ousting Saddam.
Concrete signs of the US moves in the Middle East are largely Israel-centric have also been given by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has been going around Capitol Hill meetings maintaining that Lebanon's Hizbollah and not Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is the most dangerous "terrorist" organisation and needs to be taken care of. It was as if Sharon had moved in and was speaking up.
Rice has no explanation to offer when confronted with the question that Hizbollah has no recent record of taking part in any action outside the region or mounting attacks against any government except that of Israel.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, pointed out in a recent interview that "outside this fight [against Israel], we have done nothing." Indeed, the group's anti-US rhetoric is fierce and bitter but that comes in the context of Washington's unreserved support for Israel.
Against the reality that Israel lives in perpetual fear of Hizbollah, which forced an end to the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, Rice's unfounded claim is nothing but a reflection that the US is being manipulated by Israel and American gunsights could turn to Hizbollah after Iraq - meaning that Bush's war against terrorism is also being redesigned to fit Israel.
Friday, December 06, 2002
Israel and world domination
PV Vivekanand
IT IS irony at its peak that Israel is seeking to add to its hi-tech arsenal deployed in its ruthless campaign to wipe out Palestinian resistance, skilfully forcing others into a position of being taken for granted that its annihilation of the Palestinian people has become business as usual.
A classic case has come up with Israel applying pressure on Germany to provide advanced armoured personnel carriers.
The relationship between Germany and Israel has always been characterised by Israel's blatant exploitation of the Germans' feeling of "guilt" over its Nazi past. Indeed, Israel has never wasted an opportunity to capitalise on what it has established as "European collective guilt for the Holocaust," but Germany had been singled out for "special treatment." Never mind that Israelis are engaged in Nazi-like practices against the Palestinians.
That is only one piece of a larger picture where Israel has consistently been successful in manipulating the elements available to it through a powerful propaganda machinery that functions round the clock, exploiting every opportunity to advance Israeli interests with no niceties and compromises.
It was no wonder that Germany was one of the main benefactors of Israel for several decades. Germany was also the first country to send its foreign minister to Israel with a cheque for $150 million and an offer of anti-missle missiles when the first Iraqi Scud landed in Tel Aviv after the US launched the Gulf war in 1991. It was a reflection of Germany's Israeli-nurtured sentiment that the long-persecuted Jews were in mortal danger of annihilation in their newfound home.
This time around also, Germany has agreed to provide US-built Patriot missiles to Israel if Iraq launches Scud missiles against it as during the 1991 war, and indeed Israel is bidding for the best of what it could get from the Germans since it knows well the German generocity might not linger for much longer.
The Berlin government cut off direct financial aid to Israel in the mid-90s when such assistance became incompatible with the base parameters adopted by the Germans: the per capita income in Israel broke the $15,000 ceiling set by Germany for recipients of direct financial assistance.
In all probability, the German sense of "guilt" would not last beyond this generation, and Israel is out to make hay. But we are faced with an immediate situation where the international community is growing accustomed to accepting Israel's use of massive military power against the Palestinians as a way of life in Palestine.
The Israeli request for German-made Fuchs armoured vehicles is a classic case of such exploitation, but it is an open challenge to German laws which ban supply of military equipment to countries involved in armed conflict. Israel has stepped up pressure on the German government to ensure that the request is granted.
Moshe Katsav, the Israeli president, has the audacity to tell the Germans that he could not assure them that the APCs would not be used in Israel's brutal military oppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Indeed, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might find it immediately difficult t meet the Israeli demand for Fuchs APCs, particularly that the pacifist-oriented Greens, junior partners in the coalition, oppose the move.
However, Katsav's comments were very telling and seemed based on confidence that Israel would be able to circumvent the Greens' objections.
He said Israel would be "very disappointed" if the German answer was no. "As we usually have very good relations, I hope we will find an agreement in this matter," he said.
While the statement could mean sincerity if it was made in good faith, we know that no Israeli leader is known for good faith promises, and, as such, it is a clear affirmation that the APCs would indeed be deployed against the Palestinians.
It is not a good faith situation either; Israel has not baulked at using US-made F-15 fighter/bombers and British-made heavy tanks as well as almost every weapon in its arsenal -- save massive nuclear, chemical and biological arms -- against the Palestinians. It has made no apology to the US or the UK although "end-usage" stipulations related to the supply of military hardware bans such use. But then neither the US nor the UK has exactly been very concerned about the issue as if they could not care less if Israeli blew up the entire West Bank and Gaza -- along with the Palestinians there -- into smithereens. Britain has even started supplying hi-tech electronic gear to be fitted in F-16 fighter/bombers to be supplied by the US to Israel with little regard to any consideration that F-16s are regularly used in Israel's war to annihilate the Palestinian peole; most notable of such use was when Israel dropped a one-tonne bomb in a Gaza neighbourhood that killed 16 people, most of them children, two months ago.
There is a common theme to the Israeli and Palestinian situations with Germany and Britain in that order: If anyone accepts that the Germans has a "historical" responsibility to rally behind Israel, then it should also be noted in equally strong terms that the colonial British government was directly responsible for the plight facing the Palestinians today. The Palestinian problem is a direct result of a British conspiracy with the world Zionist movement that dates back to the turn of the century that led to the creation of the Jewish state in the land of Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people who lived there in their ancestral land.
Indeed, it is the inability of the Palestinians that they could not implant in Britain the same sense of guilt as Israel has done with Germany. Then again, few in the Arab World have ever managed to do a successful public relations exercise in the West by skilfully using realities and the various elements and extensions of arguments to benefit them. It could be argued that the Israeli propaganda and public relations machinery is so effective that the Arab exercises simply bounce off the West; simply put, it has been a high-stake political battle of wits that the Arabs have lost.
The growing dispute between the United Nations and Israel after the death of at three UN employees, including a Britain who was deliberately shot and killed last month, is just another example of the high state of alert that the Israeli machinery maintains. At any given point in time, Israel has the answers -- never mind their justifiability -- and it has learnt to use them effectively.
The UN, which has censured Israel for the killings, now finds itself at the receiving end of allegations that UN vehicles were being used to transport Palestinians heading for bombing operations within the occupied territories and beyond the 1967 green line.
Israel has jacked up the allegations, which it says are based on intelligence findings, by imposing restrictions on the movement of UN vehicles in the occupied West Bank, and now the world body finds itself cornered into defending itself against the charges rather than being in a position to demand that UN personnel be spared from Israeli assaults and gunfire.
That the level of degeneration that the UN has been forced into by Israel, and, sure enough, without a concerted long-term Arab movement backed by friends of the Arab World, Israel would soon clear the last laps in its race to be in a position to call the shots anywhere in any situation -- the ultimate realisation of the Zionist dream for world domination.
IT IS irony at its peak that Israel is seeking to add to its hi-tech arsenal deployed in its ruthless campaign to wipe out Palestinian resistance, skilfully forcing others into a position of being taken for granted that its annihilation of the Palestinian people has become business as usual.
A classic case has come up with Israel applying pressure on Germany to provide advanced armoured personnel carriers.
The relationship between Germany and Israel has always been characterised by Israel's blatant exploitation of the Germans' feeling of "guilt" over its Nazi past. Indeed, Israel has never wasted an opportunity to capitalise on what it has established as "European collective guilt for the Holocaust," but Germany had been singled out for "special treatment." Never mind that Israelis are engaged in Nazi-like practices against the Palestinians.
That is only one piece of a larger picture where Israel has consistently been successful in manipulating the elements available to it through a powerful propaganda machinery that functions round the clock, exploiting every opportunity to advance Israeli interests with no niceties and compromises.
It was no wonder that Germany was one of the main benefactors of Israel for several decades. Germany was also the first country to send its foreign minister to Israel with a cheque for $150 million and an offer of anti-missle missiles when the first Iraqi Scud landed in Tel Aviv after the US launched the Gulf war in 1991. It was a reflection of Germany's Israeli-nurtured sentiment that the long-persecuted Jews were in mortal danger of annihilation in their newfound home.
This time around also, Germany has agreed to provide US-built Patriot missiles to Israel if Iraq launches Scud missiles against it as during the 1991 war, and indeed Israel is bidding for the best of what it could get from the Germans since it knows well the German generocity might not linger for much longer.
The Berlin government cut off direct financial aid to Israel in the mid-90s when such assistance became incompatible with the base parameters adopted by the Germans: the per capita income in Israel broke the $15,000 ceiling set by Germany for recipients of direct financial assistance.
In all probability, the German sense of "guilt" would not last beyond this generation, and Israel is out to make hay. But we are faced with an immediate situation where the international community is growing accustomed to accepting Israel's use of massive military power against the Palestinians as a way of life in Palestine.
The Israeli request for German-made Fuchs armoured vehicles is a classic case of such exploitation, but it is an open challenge to German laws which ban supply of military equipment to countries involved in armed conflict. Israel has stepped up pressure on the German government to ensure that the request is granted.
Moshe Katsav, the Israeli president, has the audacity to tell the Germans that he could not assure them that the APCs would not be used in Israel's brutal military oppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Indeed, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might find it immediately difficult t meet the Israeli demand for Fuchs APCs, particularly that the pacifist-oriented Greens, junior partners in the coalition, oppose the move.
However, Katsav's comments were very telling and seemed based on confidence that Israel would be able to circumvent the Greens' objections.
He said Israel would be "very disappointed" if the German answer was no. "As we usually have very good relations, I hope we will find an agreement in this matter," he said.
While the statement could mean sincerity if it was made in good faith, we know that no Israeli leader is known for good faith promises, and, as such, it is a clear affirmation that the APCs would indeed be deployed against the Palestinians.
It is not a good faith situation either; Israel has not baulked at using US-made F-15 fighter/bombers and British-made heavy tanks as well as almost every weapon in its arsenal -- save massive nuclear, chemical and biological arms -- against the Palestinians. It has made no apology to the US or the UK although "end-usage" stipulations related to the supply of military hardware bans such use. But then neither the US nor the UK has exactly been very concerned about the issue as if they could not care less if Israeli blew up the entire West Bank and Gaza -- along with the Palestinians there -- into smithereens. Britain has even started supplying hi-tech electronic gear to be fitted in F-16 fighter/bombers to be supplied by the US to Israel with little regard to any consideration that F-16s are regularly used in Israel's war to annihilate the Palestinian peole; most notable of such use was when Israel dropped a one-tonne bomb in a Gaza neighbourhood that killed 16 people, most of them children, two months ago.
There is a common theme to the Israeli and Palestinian situations with Germany and Britain in that order: If anyone accepts that the Germans has a "historical" responsibility to rally behind Israel, then it should also be noted in equally strong terms that the colonial British government was directly responsible for the plight facing the Palestinians today. The Palestinian problem is a direct result of a British conspiracy with the world Zionist movement that dates back to the turn of the century that led to the creation of the Jewish state in the land of Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people who lived there in their ancestral land.
Indeed, it is the inability of the Palestinians that they could not implant in Britain the same sense of guilt as Israel has done with Germany. Then again, few in the Arab World have ever managed to do a successful public relations exercise in the West by skilfully using realities and the various elements and extensions of arguments to benefit them. It could be argued that the Israeli propaganda and public relations machinery is so effective that the Arab exercises simply bounce off the West; simply put, it has been a high-stake political battle of wits that the Arabs have lost.
The growing dispute between the United Nations and Israel after the death of at three UN employees, including a Britain who was deliberately shot and killed last month, is just another example of the high state of alert that the Israeli machinery maintains. At any given point in time, Israel has the answers -- never mind their justifiability -- and it has learnt to use them effectively.
The UN, which has censured Israel for the killings, now finds itself at the receiving end of allegations that UN vehicles were being used to transport Palestinians heading for bombing operations within the occupied territories and beyond the 1967 green line.
Israel has jacked up the allegations, which it says are based on intelligence findings, by imposing restrictions on the movement of UN vehicles in the occupied West Bank, and now the world body finds itself cornered into defending itself against the charges rather than being in a position to demand that UN personnel be spared from Israeli assaults and gunfire.
That the level of degeneration that the UN has been forced into by Israel, and, sure enough, without a concerted long-term Arab movement backed by friends of the Arab World, Israel would soon clear the last laps in its race to be in a position to call the shots anywhere in any situation -- the ultimate realisation of the Zionist dream for world domination.
Saturday, November 30, 2002
Blair means war on Iraq
By PV Vivekanand
ONE COULD not but sympathise with British Fire Brigades Union leader Andy Gilchrist when he says that Prime Minister Tony Blair is ready to spend money on waging war against Iraq but not to offer a payrise for firefighters. For that matter, Blair should indeed be looking at other pressing issues at home in addition to the demands of the striking firefighters, and, for sure, he would not find equally important problems lacking.
Indeed, the issue is British and it is up to Britons to demand their money should not be spent on waging an American war several thousand kilometres away that would also undermine the country's ties with the Arab World.
In all probability, an overwhelming majority of British voters would not approve their money being squandered on military action which does not make much sense among Britons in terms of what they stand to gain from it (except given a role to play as lieutenants in a self-styled American-captained international police force that few are willing to accept anyway).
But then, a war on Iraq would affect the lives of everyone around in the Middle East, and, as such, we could not but take an interest and try to figure out why Blair is perched high behind US President George W.Bush's war wagon on the way to Baghdad.
It is not known yet how much the British treasury would be forking out to pay for the British military involvement in a US-spearheaded war against Iraq with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a US-friendly (US-controlled) puppet in power in Baghdad.
It is generally known that the British contribution to the US war effort could be between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers and massive back-up equipment.
Unlike the 1991 war, there would not be many -- even the Japanese are squirming -- to foot the bill this time around.
Definitely, the British share of the cost for the war could run into a few billion pounds, and the question being raised is why should the British prime minister be spending that money on action that would not only alienate British friends in the region but also help lead to chaos and destabilisation in the Arab region and what he could be expecting in return.
We are unable to buy the theory that Blair (or Bush for that matter) is genuinely concerned that Saddam poses a military threat to Iraq's Arab neighbours and that is why they are hell-bent upon toppling him in order to uphold world peace and stability.
Both Bush and Blair tried and failed to link Iraq to international terrorism and project it as a natural target in the US-led war on terror before they switched to the "threat" Iraq poses to the world.
"Secret" documents released by Blair failed to convince anyone -- except perhaps those who drew them up for his benefit -- that Saddam's hands are hovering over switches that would activate and launch a massive pile of weapons of mass destruction at his neighbours.
Blair's defence of his posture, in an article in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Jung on Saturday, fails to offer a justifiable explanation. His case that Saddam needed to be disarmed broke no new ground. Blair only tried to rehash and recycle the argument that Saddam's ouster was sought by the international community. He sidestepped the reality that a majority of world governments have welcomed Baghdad's co-operation with UN inspections with the hope that a war could be avoided and even at that they are insisting that the UN has the final say in deciding whether military action was warranted against Iraq.
Obviously aiming to convince Pakistani Muslims, Blair wrote on Saturday that a war on Iraq was not motivated by religious considerations. But then, not many Muslims have said the potential military action against Iraq had anything to do with religion. They are aware that much deeper political and economic considerations are at the core of the US and British motivations to launch war on Iraq.
"I am also waiting for the time when Iraq in the truest sense will have peace and will start living with its neighbours in a peaceful manner and the aspirations and hopes of the people of Iraq will be realised in an appropriate manner," Blair said in the article.
It is ironic that such arguments are put forward when the world knows only too well that these expressions of concern for Iraqis were never really reflected in past British actions.
We know that Bush primarily aims at serving the American oil lobby, which includes his own commercial interests as well as those of some people around him (Vice-President Dick Cheney included), by invading and taking absolute control of Iraq which would then be ruled by a US military occupation force. That situation could last for at least two years, according to reports in the US media; that should be enough for Bush to establish US oil firms' supremacy in Iraq's oil sector (whether Bush survives the presidential race in 2004 is another issue).
Bush is hoping to recoup the $100 billion to $150 billion the US is expected to spend on a war and military occupation of Iraq through benefits to American oil companies which are raring to go into lucrative Iraqi oil fields after having been denied entry since 1990.
Obviously, one of the first priorities of Bush in a hypothetical Saddamless Iraq will be to freeze or nullify altogether all oil agreements that the present Baghdad government has signed with international (non-US) companies since the end of the 1991 war over Kuwait.
However, he appears to have had to make some compromises.
French, Russian, Chinese and Indian companies are among those who have signed such agreements, and US oil giants are frustrated of not being given a share of the Iraqi oil pie, given assumptions that Iraq could hold oil reserves more than even Saudi Arabia.
As such, apart from removing from power a ruler who has steadfastly refused to toe the American line and challenged American strategic interests in the region, Bush has a vested oil interest in Iraq that he hopes would be served with a US military occupation -- meaning absolute control of Iraq and its resources and restored American domination of the international oil market.
Equally important is resumed American exports to Iraq. US companies were deprived of up to $4 billion to $5 billion of annual exports to Iraq when the UN imposed sweeping trade sanctions against Iraq in August 1990. An indication of the loss is clear when we take note that Iraq used to spend about $500 million in imports of American vehicles and spare parts alone every year.
Figuring high in the horse-trading and persuasion that went on among the big powers at the UN Security Council before Resolution 1441 was adopted was haggling over who would get what share of a post-Saddam Iraq's oil resources. As yet unknown is the nature of the assurances that the US offered to its big power colleagues in the council in order to persuade them to raise their hands when the vote was taken on Resolution 1441.
Bush has offered a public assurance to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the US would not undermine Russian interests in Iraq as and when Saddam is removed from power. It was taken to mean that the US would perhaps make sure Russia recovers the $7 billion or so Baghdad reportedly owes Moscow from the days of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. But then, why should Putin be persuaded to accept the pledge and settle for less when Moscow stood to make much more in a potential $40 billion five-year deal that it was reportedly poised to sign with Baghdad?
So we know why Bush is going to Iraq. What then is the deal between Bush and Blair?
Of course, being kept mouthwatering but at arms length from the Iraqi pie are also British firms. Obivously there is a Bush assurance to Blair that British companies would have their share of Iraq when it falls under US military control.
Otherwise, it beats logic to figure out why Blair has already secured his seat on the Bush wagon to Iraq since it is simply difficult to assume that transatlantic political loyalty runs so deep that a British prime minister would be so adventurous into undertaking a mission that would alienate his country's traditional friends in the Arab World.
ONE COULD not but sympathise with British Fire Brigades Union leader Andy Gilchrist when he says that Prime Minister Tony Blair is ready to spend money on waging war against Iraq but not to offer a payrise for firefighters. For that matter, Blair should indeed be looking at other pressing issues at home in addition to the demands of the striking firefighters, and, for sure, he would not find equally important problems lacking.
Indeed, the issue is British and it is up to Britons to demand their money should not be spent on waging an American war several thousand kilometres away that would also undermine the country's ties with the Arab World.
In all probability, an overwhelming majority of British voters would not approve their money being squandered on military action which does not make much sense among Britons in terms of what they stand to gain from it (except given a role to play as lieutenants in a self-styled American-captained international police force that few are willing to accept anyway).
But then, a war on Iraq would affect the lives of everyone around in the Middle East, and, as such, we could not but take an interest and try to figure out why Blair is perched high behind US President George W.Bush's war wagon on the way to Baghdad.
It is not known yet how much the British treasury would be forking out to pay for the British military involvement in a US-spearheaded war against Iraq with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a US-friendly (US-controlled) puppet in power in Baghdad.
It is generally known that the British contribution to the US war effort could be between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers and massive back-up equipment.
Unlike the 1991 war, there would not be many -- even the Japanese are squirming -- to foot the bill this time around.
Definitely, the British share of the cost for the war could run into a few billion pounds, and the question being raised is why should the British prime minister be spending that money on action that would not only alienate British friends in the region but also help lead to chaos and destabilisation in the Arab region and what he could be expecting in return.
We are unable to buy the theory that Blair (or Bush for that matter) is genuinely concerned that Saddam poses a military threat to Iraq's Arab neighbours and that is why they are hell-bent upon toppling him in order to uphold world peace and stability.
Both Bush and Blair tried and failed to link Iraq to international terrorism and project it as a natural target in the US-led war on terror before they switched to the "threat" Iraq poses to the world.
"Secret" documents released by Blair failed to convince anyone -- except perhaps those who drew them up for his benefit -- that Saddam's hands are hovering over switches that would activate and launch a massive pile of weapons of mass destruction at his neighbours.
Blair's defence of his posture, in an article in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Jung on Saturday, fails to offer a justifiable explanation. His case that Saddam needed to be disarmed broke no new ground. Blair only tried to rehash and recycle the argument that Saddam's ouster was sought by the international community. He sidestepped the reality that a majority of world governments have welcomed Baghdad's co-operation with UN inspections with the hope that a war could be avoided and even at that they are insisting that the UN has the final say in deciding whether military action was warranted against Iraq.
Obviously aiming to convince Pakistani Muslims, Blair wrote on Saturday that a war on Iraq was not motivated by religious considerations. But then, not many Muslims have said the potential military action against Iraq had anything to do with religion. They are aware that much deeper political and economic considerations are at the core of the US and British motivations to launch war on Iraq.
"I am also waiting for the time when Iraq in the truest sense will have peace and will start living with its neighbours in a peaceful manner and the aspirations and hopes of the people of Iraq will be realised in an appropriate manner," Blair said in the article.
It is ironic that such arguments are put forward when the world knows only too well that these expressions of concern for Iraqis were never really reflected in past British actions.
We know that Bush primarily aims at serving the American oil lobby, which includes his own commercial interests as well as those of some people around him (Vice-President Dick Cheney included), by invading and taking absolute control of Iraq which would then be ruled by a US military occupation force. That situation could last for at least two years, according to reports in the US media; that should be enough for Bush to establish US oil firms' supremacy in Iraq's oil sector (whether Bush survives the presidential race in 2004 is another issue).
Bush is hoping to recoup the $100 billion to $150 billion the US is expected to spend on a war and military occupation of Iraq through benefits to American oil companies which are raring to go into lucrative Iraqi oil fields after having been denied entry since 1990.
Obviously, one of the first priorities of Bush in a hypothetical Saddamless Iraq will be to freeze or nullify altogether all oil agreements that the present Baghdad government has signed with international (non-US) companies since the end of the 1991 war over Kuwait.
However, he appears to have had to make some compromises.
French, Russian, Chinese and Indian companies are among those who have signed such agreements, and US oil giants are frustrated of not being given a share of the Iraqi oil pie, given assumptions that Iraq could hold oil reserves more than even Saudi Arabia.
As such, apart from removing from power a ruler who has steadfastly refused to toe the American line and challenged American strategic interests in the region, Bush has a vested oil interest in Iraq that he hopes would be served with a US military occupation -- meaning absolute control of Iraq and its resources and restored American domination of the international oil market.
Equally important is resumed American exports to Iraq. US companies were deprived of up to $4 billion to $5 billion of annual exports to Iraq when the UN imposed sweeping trade sanctions against Iraq in August 1990. An indication of the loss is clear when we take note that Iraq used to spend about $500 million in imports of American vehicles and spare parts alone every year.
Figuring high in the horse-trading and persuasion that went on among the big powers at the UN Security Council before Resolution 1441 was adopted was haggling over who would get what share of a post-Saddam Iraq's oil resources. As yet unknown is the nature of the assurances that the US offered to its big power colleagues in the council in order to persuade them to raise their hands when the vote was taken on Resolution 1441.
Bush has offered a public assurance to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the US would not undermine Russian interests in Iraq as and when Saddam is removed from power. It was taken to mean that the US would perhaps make sure Russia recovers the $7 billion or so Baghdad reportedly owes Moscow from the days of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. But then, why should Putin be persuaded to accept the pledge and settle for less when Moscow stood to make much more in a potential $40 billion five-year deal that it was reportedly poised to sign with Baghdad?
So we know why Bush is going to Iraq. What then is the deal between Bush and Blair?
Of course, being kept mouthwatering but at arms length from the Iraqi pie are also British firms. Obivously there is a Bush assurance to Blair that British companies would have their share of Iraq when it falls under US military control.
Otherwise, it beats logic to figure out why Blair has already secured his seat on the Bush wagon to Iraq since it is simply difficult to assume that transatlantic political loyalty runs so deep that a British prime minister would be so adventurous into undertaking a mission that would alienate his country's traditional friends in the Arab World.
Monday, November 11, 2002
Iraq UN inspections
by pv vivekanand
AN advance team of UN weapons inspectors heads for Iraq tomorrow on what is definitely the most important mission undertaken by the UN this millennium but weighed down by the realisation that the world's sole superpower wants them to fail in their mission - and their failure means a devastating war that could reshape the Middle East.
The advance team will include 30 experts and they will be followed by 20 others on Nov.27. Others will join them in the run-up to the Dec.8 deadline for Iraq to make a voluntary disclosure of all its weapons programmes.
The Iraqi disclosure will be matched against data provided by US intelligence agencies and by other UN member states, but what would really matter would be the US furnished details and, indeed, the findings of the UN team between now and Dec.8 from surprise inspections and interviews with Iraqi scientists, engineers and army officers involved in the country's military industry.
It might be easier for the experts to approve the Iraqi data as accurate than disproving the US-provided details as inaccurate because the latter carries with it a threat that Washington would undertake unilateral military action against Iraq if it felt the UN inspectors were not doing their job properly.
It is no secret that parallel to pushing through the UN Security Council the key resolution that dictated a "last-chance" opportunity for Iraq to come clean with its weapons programme, the US has also been setting in place a mechanism that pre-empts any possibility that Baghdad could successfully manoeuvre through the elaborate but hidden traps in the resolution.
There is no question of what if Baghdad meets every condition and requirement laid down by the UN weapons inspectors since Washington has reserved for itself the role of the final and absolute judge; even if the UN team issues a super-clean certificate to Iraq, it would only be torn apart by the US, whose scenario does not provide for Saddam Hussein continuing in power in Baghdad. Any success of the UN inspectors succeed in disarming Iraq is bad news for the administration of US President George W. Bush since it would make it difficult justify its aim of removing Saddam Hussein.
It would be a political disaster for Bush to go to re-election in the 2004 with Saddam still in power in Baghdad.
The hardliners surrounding Bush were actually disappointed that Saddam not only accepted Resolution 1441 but also told his people to co-operate with the UN inspectors.
His foreign minister, Sabri Naji, told the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, a former Swedish foreign minister, and Mohammed Al Bardei, head of the he International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), during their two-day visit to Baghdad last week that the Iraqi government would extend to them complete co-operation. Naji also removed a final thorn when he conveyed to Blix his government's acceptance of "no-notice" UN inspections of "presidential sites" in the country.
Such Iraqi gestures are downplayed by the US hardliners, who argue that Saddam Hussein has no intention of coming clean and meeting the UN demands and would only continue a cat-and-mouse game with the UN inspectors, trying to outguess them and outsmart them. That is the very framework for the run-up to the Dec.8 deadline.
There is no argument either that Saddam is prompted by a guitly conscience and is all eager to make up by pleasing the UN. Accepting the UN demands, which Saddam and others around him see as the depth of humiliation for the Iraqi leadership and people, in good faith does not fit into Saddam's track record, but the Iraqi leader seems to have clearly understood that he had no choice but to comply with Resolution 1441 or face war that would be his end. Otherwise, Baghdad would have never agreed that UN inspectors could visit Saddam's palaces at will without prior notice and go through every knook and corner of the structure; for the Iraqis, and most people for that matter, it is the ultimate humiliation.
Bush and other US officials are trying to twist the knife in the Iraqi wound by repeatedly warning Saddam not to conceal any weapon-related information and threatening that his "final days" could be near hoping it would produce a knee-jerk Iraqi reaction that would suit Washington's interests of seeing the UN inspection fail.
The American bait of a new life in the US for some 500 Iraqi scientists who worked with their country's military programmes is part of the American gameplan.
As such, the UN inspectors bear the heavy burden of having to carry out their mission knowing well that their success might not amount to much in terms of averting a war against Iraq.
The technicalities of their work are complex. Indeed, they are armed with wide UN authorisation to make demands at will on the Iraqi government, but finding concrete evidence of Baghdad's alleged weapons of mass destruction and contradict Iraq's expected disclosures could be a difficult if not impossible task.
On the nuclear front, the IAEA said in 1998 that it had bust an Iraqi programme to build an atomic weapon after IAEA experts combed the country. It informed the UN Security Council that all material which could go into producing a nuclear weapon was removed from Baghdad and that the country no longer possessed the ability to renew its nuclear project even in the medium term. However, the US vetoed an IAEA certification that would have closed Iraq's nuclear file.
A hypothesis says that Iraq could have focused on developing a "dirty bomb" -- nuclear material detonated by conventional explosives causing limited but deadly damage to human life and nature in the immediate environment. But to locate such "dirty bombs" would not be easy since they leave little traces of tell-tale radiation.
On the missile front, previous UN inspections have accounted for all but less than half a dozen long-range missiles that Iraq had known to have acquired from the then Soviet Union and developed on its own. This was conceded by Australian Richard Butler, who headed the UN Special Commission which became defunct four years ago, after he paid several visits to Baghdad in mid-1997.
On the two other fronts -- chemical and biological weapons -- the scene is murky. Without actually discovering allegedly hidden caches of such weapons and components, some which have civilian as well as military use, the UN inspectors would only have conjectures and no physical evidence to support any charge. Again, it would be the US intelligence findings, including satellite information and details of Iraqi imports of "dual-purpose" materials -- that would have the final say in the matter; again a deadly trap for Baghdad.
The US has further armed itself by describing Iraqi defiance of Western patrolling of "no-fly" zones in Iraq -- Iraqi fixed wing aircraft are not supposed to fly beyond the 36th parallel in the north and 32nd parallel in the south -- as "material breach" of Resolution 1441. However, Russia, China and France as well as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan have rejected the assertion since there is no UN Security Council authorisation for American and British warplanes to carry out reconnaissance flights in Iraqi airspace.
At the same time, American insistence on its argument is defintely going to be part of Washington's case for war against Iraq.
Seen from the UN inspectors' perspective -- barring perhaps that of the 27 Americans among them -- they are the foot soliders in an immediate war of wits, pitting their boss Blix against US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is in the forefront of the hardliners in Washington who include Vice-President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condaleesa Rice and several top officials at the Pentagon.
The UN inspectors, who have no little means of gathering information except their field work and interviews, need more than prayers for success in their mission; and indeed the Washington hardliners' prayers for their failure is backed by the economic, political and military might of the world's superpower, which also boasts of the best intelligence-gathering capability.
AN advance team of UN weapons inspectors heads for Iraq tomorrow on what is definitely the most important mission undertaken by the UN this millennium but weighed down by the realisation that the world's sole superpower wants them to fail in their mission - and their failure means a devastating war that could reshape the Middle East.
The advance team will include 30 experts and they will be followed by 20 others on Nov.27. Others will join them in the run-up to the Dec.8 deadline for Iraq to make a voluntary disclosure of all its weapons programmes.
The Iraqi disclosure will be matched against data provided by US intelligence agencies and by other UN member states, but what would really matter would be the US furnished details and, indeed, the findings of the UN team between now and Dec.8 from surprise inspections and interviews with Iraqi scientists, engineers and army officers involved in the country's military industry.
It might be easier for the experts to approve the Iraqi data as accurate than disproving the US-provided details as inaccurate because the latter carries with it a threat that Washington would undertake unilateral military action against Iraq if it felt the UN inspectors were not doing their job properly.
It is no secret that parallel to pushing through the UN Security Council the key resolution that dictated a "last-chance" opportunity for Iraq to come clean with its weapons programme, the US has also been setting in place a mechanism that pre-empts any possibility that Baghdad could successfully manoeuvre through the elaborate but hidden traps in the resolution.
There is no question of what if Baghdad meets every condition and requirement laid down by the UN weapons inspectors since Washington has reserved for itself the role of the final and absolute judge; even if the UN team issues a super-clean certificate to Iraq, it would only be torn apart by the US, whose scenario does not provide for Saddam Hussein continuing in power in Baghdad. Any success of the UN inspectors succeed in disarming Iraq is bad news for the administration of US President George W. Bush since it would make it difficult justify its aim of removing Saddam Hussein.
It would be a political disaster for Bush to go to re-election in the 2004 with Saddam still in power in Baghdad.
The hardliners surrounding Bush were actually disappointed that Saddam not only accepted Resolution 1441 but also told his people to co-operate with the UN inspectors.
His foreign minister, Sabri Naji, told the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, a former Swedish foreign minister, and Mohammed Al Bardei, head of the he International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), during their two-day visit to Baghdad last week that the Iraqi government would extend to them complete co-operation. Naji also removed a final thorn when he conveyed to Blix his government's acceptance of "no-notice" UN inspections of "presidential sites" in the country.
Such Iraqi gestures are downplayed by the US hardliners, who argue that Saddam Hussein has no intention of coming clean and meeting the UN demands and would only continue a cat-and-mouse game with the UN inspectors, trying to outguess them and outsmart them. That is the very framework for the run-up to the Dec.8 deadline.
There is no argument either that Saddam is prompted by a guitly conscience and is all eager to make up by pleasing the UN. Accepting the UN demands, which Saddam and others around him see as the depth of humiliation for the Iraqi leadership and people, in good faith does not fit into Saddam's track record, but the Iraqi leader seems to have clearly understood that he had no choice but to comply with Resolution 1441 or face war that would be his end. Otherwise, Baghdad would have never agreed that UN inspectors could visit Saddam's palaces at will without prior notice and go through every knook and corner of the structure; for the Iraqis, and most people for that matter, it is the ultimate humiliation.
Bush and other US officials are trying to twist the knife in the Iraqi wound by repeatedly warning Saddam not to conceal any weapon-related information and threatening that his "final days" could be near hoping it would produce a knee-jerk Iraqi reaction that would suit Washington's interests of seeing the UN inspection fail.
The American bait of a new life in the US for some 500 Iraqi scientists who worked with their country's military programmes is part of the American gameplan.
As such, the UN inspectors bear the heavy burden of having to carry out their mission knowing well that their success might not amount to much in terms of averting a war against Iraq.
The technicalities of their work are complex. Indeed, they are armed with wide UN authorisation to make demands at will on the Iraqi government, but finding concrete evidence of Baghdad's alleged weapons of mass destruction and contradict Iraq's expected disclosures could be a difficult if not impossible task.
On the nuclear front, the IAEA said in 1998 that it had bust an Iraqi programme to build an atomic weapon after IAEA experts combed the country. It informed the UN Security Council that all material which could go into producing a nuclear weapon was removed from Baghdad and that the country no longer possessed the ability to renew its nuclear project even in the medium term. However, the US vetoed an IAEA certification that would have closed Iraq's nuclear file.
A hypothesis says that Iraq could have focused on developing a "dirty bomb" -- nuclear material detonated by conventional explosives causing limited but deadly damage to human life and nature in the immediate environment. But to locate such "dirty bombs" would not be easy since they leave little traces of tell-tale radiation.
On the missile front, previous UN inspections have accounted for all but less than half a dozen long-range missiles that Iraq had known to have acquired from the then Soviet Union and developed on its own. This was conceded by Australian Richard Butler, who headed the UN Special Commission which became defunct four years ago, after he paid several visits to Baghdad in mid-1997.
On the two other fronts -- chemical and biological weapons -- the scene is murky. Without actually discovering allegedly hidden caches of such weapons and components, some which have civilian as well as military use, the UN inspectors would only have conjectures and no physical evidence to support any charge. Again, it would be the US intelligence findings, including satellite information and details of Iraqi imports of "dual-purpose" materials -- that would have the final say in the matter; again a deadly trap for Baghdad.
The US has further armed itself by describing Iraqi defiance of Western patrolling of "no-fly" zones in Iraq -- Iraqi fixed wing aircraft are not supposed to fly beyond the 36th parallel in the north and 32nd parallel in the south -- as "material breach" of Resolution 1441. However, Russia, China and France as well as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan have rejected the assertion since there is no UN Security Council authorisation for American and British warplanes to carry out reconnaissance flights in Iraqi airspace.
At the same time, American insistence on its argument is defintely going to be part of Washington's case for war against Iraq.
Seen from the UN inspectors' perspective -- barring perhaps that of the 27 Americans among them -- they are the foot soliders in an immediate war of wits, pitting their boss Blix against US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is in the forefront of the hardliners in Washington who include Vice-President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condaleesa Rice and several top officials at the Pentagon.
The UN inspectors, who have no little means of gathering information except their field work and interviews, need more than prayers for success in their mission; and indeed the Washington hardliners' prayers for their failure is backed by the economic, political and military might of the world's superpower, which also boasts of the best intelligence-gathering capability.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Bush Doctrine at work
2002
THE "Bush doctrine" is at play. It is the latest and
the most dangerous yet of any American declaration of
its supremacy of the world. Officially labelled as a
national security strategy document, the declaration,
made by US President George W. Bush on Sept. 20, is,
in its bare form, is a notice to the world that it
reserves all options, notably the military one, to
strike at any country or group that it feels threatens
the US. As the overriding element, the notice says
that the US would not allow its military supremacy to
be challenged; what it does not say but what the world
has heard is also clear: the US is free to take
whatever action it finds fit against any country or
group which does not fall in line with American
interests, and the United Nations would have no
relevance in American considerations of who is at
fault, how and why. Indeed, if anyone does not like
it, please feel free to challenge the US.
The doctrine's foundation and objective are one: The
US reserves the right to to take "pre-emptive action"
against any country it deems as hostile and any group
it sees as terrorist and developing weapons of mass
destruction.
We have seen many American doctrines, starting with
the "Manroe doctrine" -- a warning issued by the firth
president of the US, James Monroe, in 1823. It
warned that the European colonial powers that “the
American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are
henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future
colonisation...." and declared the US as protector
of independent nations in the Americas.
In the 180 years since then, as Peter Beaumont,
foreign affairs editor of London's Sunday Observer
acutely observes, America "has moved from local to
regional and then to global superpower."
"At the end of the American Century, the United States
stands alone as the only superpower," writes Beaumont.
"The country that once challenged those renewing their
imperial ambitions in its orbit is now declaring in
this document the 'manifest destiny' of Americans to
exercise good across the world."
The 35-page doctrine, a document every US president
has to submit every year to Congress, states:
"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the
United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive
posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our
enemies strike first... as a matter of common sense
and self-defense, America will act against such
emerging threats before they are fully formed.
The key element of the doctrine is an unequivocal
statement of America's right to act on its own:
"While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international community, we
will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting
pre-emptively against such terrorists to prevent them
from doing harm against our people and our country."
It also rules out American tolerance of any challenge
to the US military superiority. "Our forces will be
strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from
pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or
equaling the power of the United States," it says.
THE "Bush doctrine" is at play. It is the latest and
the most dangerous yet of any American declaration of
its supremacy of the world. Officially labelled as a
national security strategy document, the declaration,
made by US President George W. Bush on Sept. 20, is,
in its bare form, is a notice to the world that it
reserves all options, notably the military one, to
strike at any country or group that it feels threatens
the US. As the overriding element, the notice says
that the US would not allow its military supremacy to
be challenged; what it does not say but what the world
has heard is also clear: the US is free to take
whatever action it finds fit against any country or
group which does not fall in line with American
interests, and the United Nations would have no
relevance in American considerations of who is at
fault, how and why. Indeed, if anyone does not like
it, please feel free to challenge the US.
The doctrine's foundation and objective are one: The
US reserves the right to to take "pre-emptive action"
against any country it deems as hostile and any group
it sees as terrorist and developing weapons of mass
destruction.
We have seen many American doctrines, starting with
the "Manroe doctrine" -- a warning issued by the firth
president of the US, James Monroe, in 1823. It
warned that the European colonial powers that “the
American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are
henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future
colonisation...." and declared the US as protector
of independent nations in the Americas.
In the 180 years since then, as Peter Beaumont,
foreign affairs editor of London's Sunday Observer
acutely observes, America "has moved from local to
regional and then to global superpower."
"At the end of the American Century, the United States
stands alone as the only superpower," writes Beaumont.
"The country that once challenged those renewing their
imperial ambitions in its orbit is now declaring in
this document the 'manifest destiny' of Americans to
exercise good across the world."
The 35-page doctrine, a document every US president
has to submit every year to Congress, states:
"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the
United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive
posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our
enemies strike first... as a matter of common sense
and self-defense, America will act against such
emerging threats before they are fully formed.
The key element of the doctrine is an unequivocal
statement of America's right to act on its own:
"While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international community, we
will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting
pre-emptively against such terrorists to prevent them
from doing harm against our people and our country."
It also rules out American tolerance of any challenge
to the US military superiority. "Our forces will be
strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from
pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or
equaling the power of the United States," it says.
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
My say on 9/11 - one year on
THE world was horrified on Sept. 11, 2001. It watched
in disbelief the most damaging and well-orchestrated
terror attack at the most prestigious symbols of the
United States of America. One could have never
expected an assault of that nature and magnitude, and,
sure enough, it changed the shape of the world and
turned international relations into an unprecedented
course where nothing conventional remained
conventional.
The final count of the dead in New York is put at
around 3,000 -- the highest ever deaths in a single
terror attack.
It was an act whose impact, direct and indirect,
spared no one even in the remotest corner of the
earth. No other incident in history had brought out
that kind of effect on human life. But have we learned
anything from it?
Our hearts and minds went out to the victims of the
assaults in New York and Washington and of the crash
of a fourth hijacked plane in Pennsylvania and their
families. No one could help feeling a sense of grief
and helplessness over the loss of human life. It was
never without a choking feeling that we could listen
to the tragic stories of fathers, mothers, sons,
daughters, brothers and sisters who lost their lives
in the rubble of the World Trade Center towers in New
York and the Pentagon in Washington not to mention the
fiery crash in Pennsylvania.
And then came the recriminations as the US declared a
war on terrorism. Today, after Afghanistan, the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US is still on a
confrontational course with the Arabs as if the entire
Arab World was behind Sept. 11.
As Americans, and indeed the rest of the world,
remember the direct and indirect victims of the
Sept.11 attacks, the sole focus should not be grief
and sorrow over what happened and a growing sense of
revenge. They should ask themselves why 9/11 happened
and why it has led to a growing divide between the US
and the Arab World, with the strong relationship the
two sides enjoyed until one year ago fading into
oblivion.
It is indeed surprising to observe that few in the US
leadership seem to have given any serious thought to
the fundamentals of what had led to Sept. 11.
While there could be no justification for the Sept. 11
slaughter, it is obvious the US could not come to
terms with the possibility that something was wrong
somewhere in its policy that might have built up into
the aerial assaults.
What we witness today is a worsening situation of
anger, aggressiveness and sense of revenge prevailing
in Washington. Perhaps justifiably so when seen from
within a strictly American vantage point with little
regard to others in the world who suffer from the
fallout of misguided American policies.
But the soul-searching should start with trying to
answer the key question: Why was the US, the country
that is being looked up at by the rest of the world
for its lofty principles of freedom, justice and
dignity for mankind, the target of the biggest terror
attack?
We have even heard absurd assertions that those behind
the attacks were motivated by frustration over their
failure to reach the American level of life and
economic prosperity. Such narrow-minded concepts are
not even worthy of being dignified by any further
comment.
The real reason is in the background but will not
manifest itself in all that it entails unless the US
suspends its knee-jerk military reaction stemming from
an overwhelming sense of being wronged and of
self-indignation backed by a conviction of being
superior to everyone in the international scene.
The real reason for the growing confrontational mood
that threatens to destablise international life is
America's policy of riding roughshod over all
international norms and seeking to target those who
do not fall in line with American interests.
The continuing military ride based on the cowboy-style
"you’re either with us or against us” insistence
would only worsen the situation because the global
situation could not be narrowed down to such
simplification.
Americans should learn to make a distinction between
vengeful emotions and the cold, hard facts of modern
political history and come to grips with political,
cultural, and historical dimensions of the
relationship between the Arab World and the US.
Instead of framing the Arabs into the mold of an
eternal enemy, they should try to understand that the
Arabs were the worst sufferers from the one-track
American approach in the Middle East; and, they stand
to suffer even worse if the US presses ahead with its
designs to reshape the Middle East, starting with its
goal of "regime change" in Iraq.
Have the American public ever been given an
opportunity to reflect on the fact that an
overwhelming majority of the Arabs respect what the US
stands for in terms of principles but hold in contempt
their official policy of being blind to the state
terrorism practised by their "most important strategic
ally" -- Israel?
Have the American public ever been given an
opportunity to absorb that the Arab World is opposed
to terrorism in all its manifestations and has been
and is a partner in the US-led war on terror in all
parts of the world, but that they make a distinction
when it comes to imposition of solutions that seek to
serve strictly American and indeed Israeli interests
in the Middle East?
The first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks not be
an occasion for the Americans to work themselves into
building a rage but should be an opportunity for them
to scrutinise themselves and their place in the world
and realise that answers to these troubling questions
are within themselves.
And once they realise the true answers to those
questions, then that would be the beginning of a new
world order that would ensure justice, freedom and
dignity for all.
in disbelief the most damaging and well-orchestrated
terror attack at the most prestigious symbols of the
United States of America. One could have never
expected an assault of that nature and magnitude, and,
sure enough, it changed the shape of the world and
turned international relations into an unprecedented
course where nothing conventional remained
conventional.
The final count of the dead in New York is put at
around 3,000 -- the highest ever deaths in a single
terror attack.
It was an act whose impact, direct and indirect,
spared no one even in the remotest corner of the
earth. No other incident in history had brought out
that kind of effect on human life. But have we learned
anything from it?
Our hearts and minds went out to the victims of the
assaults in New York and Washington and of the crash
of a fourth hijacked plane in Pennsylvania and their
families. No one could help feeling a sense of grief
and helplessness over the loss of human life. It was
never without a choking feeling that we could listen
to the tragic stories of fathers, mothers, sons,
daughters, brothers and sisters who lost their lives
in the rubble of the World Trade Center towers in New
York and the Pentagon in Washington not to mention the
fiery crash in Pennsylvania.
And then came the recriminations as the US declared a
war on terrorism. Today, after Afghanistan, the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US is still on a
confrontational course with the Arabs as if the entire
Arab World was behind Sept. 11.
As Americans, and indeed the rest of the world,
remember the direct and indirect victims of the
Sept.11 attacks, the sole focus should not be grief
and sorrow over what happened and a growing sense of
revenge. They should ask themselves why 9/11 happened
and why it has led to a growing divide between the US
and the Arab World, with the strong relationship the
two sides enjoyed until one year ago fading into
oblivion.
It is indeed surprising to observe that few in the US
leadership seem to have given any serious thought to
the fundamentals of what had led to Sept. 11.
While there could be no justification for the Sept. 11
slaughter, it is obvious the US could not come to
terms with the possibility that something was wrong
somewhere in its policy that might have built up into
the aerial assaults.
What we witness today is a worsening situation of
anger, aggressiveness and sense of revenge prevailing
in Washington. Perhaps justifiably so when seen from
within a strictly American vantage point with little
regard to others in the world who suffer from the
fallout of misguided American policies.
But the soul-searching should start with trying to
answer the key question: Why was the US, the country
that is being looked up at by the rest of the world
for its lofty principles of freedom, justice and
dignity for mankind, the target of the biggest terror
attack?
We have even heard absurd assertions that those behind
the attacks were motivated by frustration over their
failure to reach the American level of life and
economic prosperity. Such narrow-minded concepts are
not even worthy of being dignified by any further
comment.
The real reason is in the background but will not
manifest itself in all that it entails unless the US
suspends its knee-jerk military reaction stemming from
an overwhelming sense of being wronged and of
self-indignation backed by a conviction of being
superior to everyone in the international scene.
The real reason for the growing confrontational mood
that threatens to destablise international life is
America's policy of riding roughshod over all
international norms and seeking to target those who
do not fall in line with American interests.
The continuing military ride based on the cowboy-style
"you’re either with us or against us” insistence
would only worsen the situation because the global
situation could not be narrowed down to such
simplification.
Americans should learn to make a distinction between
vengeful emotions and the cold, hard facts of modern
political history and come to grips with political,
cultural, and historical dimensions of the
relationship between the Arab World and the US.
Instead of framing the Arabs into the mold of an
eternal enemy, they should try to understand that the
Arabs were the worst sufferers from the one-track
American approach in the Middle East; and, they stand
to suffer even worse if the US presses ahead with its
designs to reshape the Middle East, starting with its
goal of "regime change" in Iraq.
Have the American public ever been given an
opportunity to reflect on the fact that an
overwhelming majority of the Arabs respect what the US
stands for in terms of principles but hold in contempt
their official policy of being blind to the state
terrorism practised by their "most important strategic
ally" -- Israel?
Have the American public ever been given an
opportunity to absorb that the Arab World is opposed
to terrorism in all its manifestations and has been
and is a partner in the US-led war on terror in all
parts of the world, but that they make a distinction
when it comes to imposition of solutions that seek to
serve strictly American and indeed Israeli interests
in the Middle East?
The first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks not be
an occasion for the Americans to work themselves into
building a rage but should be an opportunity for them
to scrutinise themselves and their place in the world
and realise that answers to these troubling questions
are within themselves.
And once they realise the true answers to those
questions, then that would be the beginning of a new
world order that would ensure justice, freedom and
dignity for all.
Sunday, September 08, 2002
Turkey eager for spoils
pv vivekanand
TURKEY seems to be preparing to claim its spoils of war even before the first shot is fired in the possible US military strike against Iraq. Its deputy speaker of parliament has suggested that the government should declare autonomy for the Turkmen community living in northern Iraq, inlcuding the oil-rich Kirkuk area.
Murat Sokmenoglu's demand was described as a response to Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani's comment that his people would "never allow Turks to take over even a millimetre" of their soil if Turkey move in to destroy a possible Kurdish state in northern Iraq, but the assertions are ominous and are signalling the shape of events to come.
Seen coupled with Turkish Defense Minister Sabahattin Cakmakoglu's recent assertions that Turkey had "historic rights" to parts of northern Iraq -- including Kirkuk and Mosul -- and his demand that the US deal with the supposedly 2.5 million strong Turkmen community in northern Iraq, it would seem a certainty that Ankara would move in to make good its claims as and when the US launches military action against Iraq.
There is more to the Turkish posture. Many nationalist Turks maintain that parts of northen Iraq, including Kirkuk and Mosul, were taken away form their country (along with other areas controlled by the Ottoman empire) when Britain and France redrew the map of the region after the collapse of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War I.
The 1924 Lausanne Treaty signed by Britan, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and when subsequently became Yugoslavia on the one hand and Turkey on the other laid out the new borders of the remnants of the Ottoman empire. While the provisions of the treaty laid out the new borders and territories of Turkey without major dispute -- except in the case of Greece -- the Turkish-Iraqi frontiers posed a problem.
The treaty put off the issue and said that the frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months from the signing of the treaty on July 23, 1924.
In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations, it said.
Under the treaty, the Turkish and British governments reciprocally undertook that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
The issue was subsequently resolved with Turkey getting little of northern Iraq and the Kirkuk-Mosul becoming part of Iraq. Turkey had no option but to accept the deal.
However, as the latest comments indicate, Turks see the potential conflict in Iraq expected to be triggered by US military strikes as an opportunity to go back in history and reclaim what they believe as theirs.
Turkey is a vehement opponent of the Kurdish dream of creating an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq bordering Turkey, Syria and Iran. Ankara fears that the entity would be the forerunner of an expanded Kurdistan that could dig deep into what is Turkish soil today and destablise Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish minority.
Northern Iraqi Kurds led by the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan had already set up a de facto state in the region which has been outside Baghdad's control since the 1991 Gulf war.
Against the common Turkish threats, KDP leader Masoud Barzani and PUK leader Jalal Talabani were reported to have met on Saturday in the Kurdish-held region for the first time in almost two years.
The two were believed to have discussed the growing tension with Turkey and agreed to send an Iraqi Kurdish delegation to Ankara to discuss the issue and receive a similar Turkish team.
Indeed, urgency was added to the moves by the comments made by Sokmenoglu, the deputy speaker of Turkey, who lambasted Barzani as an "imprudent clan leader."
Noting that the Iraqi Kurdish groups have already a de facto state, Sokmenoglu said that "the time has come for Ankara to announce an autonomous Turkmen region" which also includes the Kirkuk area.
The war of words between Turkey and the Kurdish groups were sparked when it became clear that the US was determined to bring about a "regime change" in Baghdad, opening up the way for unpredictable consequences in the region.
Obviously, Ankara wants to pull the rug from under the feet of the Kurdish plans to set up an independent state by taking over Kirkuk, the most important oil-producing centre in northern Iraq.
Confidential reports say that Turkey has told Washington that it would not oppose an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq if it excluded Kirkuk, which would brought under Ankara's control.
The message, say the reports, was conveyed by Hussein Qifriq Aughlu, a hig -ranking officer in Turkish army, to US Assistant Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Aughlu, who was reportedly armed with maps from the turn of the century, stated clearly that Turkey would interfere directly if a Kurdish state was established including Kirkuk, "If a condition not acceptable to us developed in north Iraq, especially in Kirkuk, as the consequences of your military operations that would be very sensitive to us and I would like to inform you that we shall interfere directly in the region in case a Kurdish state with Kirkuk is established,” he was reported to have told Wolfowitz.
Washington has not made any public comment on the Turkish posture, but is is known that the US opposes most of Turkey's demands in return for support for the possible US military action in Iraq, and hence the uncertainty and latent tension between Ankara and Washington over President George W Bush's avowed goal of a "regime change" in Baghdad.
Kirkuk is the largest city in northern Iraq and the Turkmen community (also called Turcoman) calls it an "Azeri city" since a good number of the residents in the area speak the Azeri language, but they use the Arabic script and many have Arabic or Kurdish as a second language.
Turkmen are found in Erbil, Mosul/Ninawa and Deyalah provinces as well as villages southeast of Kirkuk.
The Turkmen are represented by the Turkmen Front, established in 1995 with the merger of several Turkmen political and social organisations.
The Turkmen are third largest ethnic group in Iraq after the Arabs and Kurds and have historically formed a cultural buffer zone between the Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north.
The Iraqi constitution of 1925 granted both Turkmen and Kurds the right to use their own languages in schools, government offices and press. However, in 1972 the Iraqi government prohibited the both the study of the Turkmen language and the Turkmen media and in 1973 any reference to the Turkmen was omitted from the provisional constitution. The revamped Iraqi Constitution of 1990 states that the "people of Iraq consists of Arabs and Kurds." Kirkuk is one of the key oil centres of Iraq. The first commercial oil field in Iraq was developed in Kirkuk in 1927. Today pipelines connect Turkey to the Mediterranean ports of Tripoli in Lebanon and Yumurtalik in Turkey.
There is little doubt that Iraqi Kurds would fight tooth and nail if Turkey were to make good its threat; indeed a Turkish-Kurdish confrontation parallel to a US-led invasion of Baghad with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein is only one of the many possible developments that would destablise the entire Middle East.
"If Iraqi Kurds seeking separation and accepted the existing crumbs without Kirkuk, most probably Saddam Hussein would have been the first one in history who recognised an independent Kurdish state," according to RM Ahmad, a Kurdish writer
TURKEY seems to be preparing to claim its spoils of war even before the first shot is fired in the possible US military strike against Iraq. Its deputy speaker of parliament has suggested that the government should declare autonomy for the Turkmen community living in northern Iraq, inlcuding the oil-rich Kirkuk area.
Murat Sokmenoglu's demand was described as a response to Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani's comment that his people would "never allow Turks to take over even a millimetre" of their soil if Turkey move in to destroy a possible Kurdish state in northern Iraq, but the assertions are ominous and are signalling the shape of events to come.
Seen coupled with Turkish Defense Minister Sabahattin Cakmakoglu's recent assertions that Turkey had "historic rights" to parts of northern Iraq -- including Kirkuk and Mosul -- and his demand that the US deal with the supposedly 2.5 million strong Turkmen community in northern Iraq, it would seem a certainty that Ankara would move in to make good its claims as and when the US launches military action against Iraq.
There is more to the Turkish posture. Many nationalist Turks maintain that parts of northen Iraq, including Kirkuk and Mosul, were taken away form their country (along with other areas controlled by the Ottoman empire) when Britain and France redrew the map of the region after the collapse of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War I.
The 1924 Lausanne Treaty signed by Britan, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and when subsequently became Yugoslavia on the one hand and Turkey on the other laid out the new borders of the remnants of the Ottoman empire. While the provisions of the treaty laid out the new borders and territories of Turkey without major dispute -- except in the case of Greece -- the Turkish-Iraqi frontiers posed a problem.
The treaty put off the issue and said that the frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months from the signing of the treaty on July 23, 1924.
In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations, it said.
Under the treaty, the Turkish and British governments reciprocally undertook that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
The issue was subsequently resolved with Turkey getting little of northern Iraq and the Kirkuk-Mosul becoming part of Iraq. Turkey had no option but to accept the deal.
However, as the latest comments indicate, Turks see the potential conflict in Iraq expected to be triggered by US military strikes as an opportunity to go back in history and reclaim what they believe as theirs.
Turkey is a vehement opponent of the Kurdish dream of creating an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq bordering Turkey, Syria and Iran. Ankara fears that the entity would be the forerunner of an expanded Kurdistan that could dig deep into what is Turkish soil today and destablise Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish minority.
Northern Iraqi Kurds led by the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan had already set up a de facto state in the region which has been outside Baghdad's control since the 1991 Gulf war.
Against the common Turkish threats, KDP leader Masoud Barzani and PUK leader Jalal Talabani were reported to have met on Saturday in the Kurdish-held region for the first time in almost two years.
The two were believed to have discussed the growing tension with Turkey and agreed to send an Iraqi Kurdish delegation to Ankara to discuss the issue and receive a similar Turkish team.
Indeed, urgency was added to the moves by the comments made by Sokmenoglu, the deputy speaker of Turkey, who lambasted Barzani as an "imprudent clan leader."
Noting that the Iraqi Kurdish groups have already a de facto state, Sokmenoglu said that "the time has come for Ankara to announce an autonomous Turkmen region" which also includes the Kirkuk area.
The war of words between Turkey and the Kurdish groups were sparked when it became clear that the US was determined to bring about a "regime change" in Baghdad, opening up the way for unpredictable consequences in the region.
Obviously, Ankara wants to pull the rug from under the feet of the Kurdish plans to set up an independent state by taking over Kirkuk, the most important oil-producing centre in northern Iraq.
Confidential reports say that Turkey has told Washington that it would not oppose an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq if it excluded Kirkuk, which would brought under Ankara's control.
The message, say the reports, was conveyed by Hussein Qifriq Aughlu, a hig -ranking officer in Turkish army, to US Assistant Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Aughlu, who was reportedly armed with maps from the turn of the century, stated clearly that Turkey would interfere directly if a Kurdish state was established including Kirkuk, "If a condition not acceptable to us developed in north Iraq, especially in Kirkuk, as the consequences of your military operations that would be very sensitive to us and I would like to inform you that we shall interfere directly in the region in case a Kurdish state with Kirkuk is established,” he was reported to have told Wolfowitz.
Washington has not made any public comment on the Turkish posture, but is is known that the US opposes most of Turkey's demands in return for support for the possible US military action in Iraq, and hence the uncertainty and latent tension between Ankara and Washington over President George W Bush's avowed goal of a "regime change" in Baghdad.
Kirkuk is the largest city in northern Iraq and the Turkmen community (also called Turcoman) calls it an "Azeri city" since a good number of the residents in the area speak the Azeri language, but they use the Arabic script and many have Arabic or Kurdish as a second language.
Turkmen are found in Erbil, Mosul/Ninawa and Deyalah provinces as well as villages southeast of Kirkuk.
The Turkmen are represented by the Turkmen Front, established in 1995 with the merger of several Turkmen political and social organisations.
The Turkmen are third largest ethnic group in Iraq after the Arabs and Kurds and have historically formed a cultural buffer zone between the Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north.
The Iraqi constitution of 1925 granted both Turkmen and Kurds the right to use their own languages in schools, government offices and press. However, in 1972 the Iraqi government prohibited the both the study of the Turkmen language and the Turkmen media and in 1973 any reference to the Turkmen was omitted from the provisional constitution. The revamped Iraqi Constitution of 1990 states that the "people of Iraq consists of Arabs and Kurds." Kirkuk is one of the key oil centres of Iraq. The first commercial oil field in Iraq was developed in Kirkuk in 1927. Today pipelines connect Turkey to the Mediterranean ports of Tripoli in Lebanon and Yumurtalik in Turkey.
There is little doubt that Iraqi Kurds would fight tooth and nail if Turkey were to make good its threat; indeed a Turkish-Kurdish confrontation parallel to a US-led invasion of Baghad with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein is only one of the many possible developments that would destablise the entire Middle East.
"If Iraqi Kurds seeking separation and accepted the existing crumbs without Kirkuk, most probably Saddam Hussein would have been the first one in history who recognised an independent Kurdish state," according to RM Ahmad, a Kurdish writer
Thursday, September 05, 2002
Bush-Bin Laden links
PV Vivekanand
The Sept.11 saga has been given a dramatically new twist by a report that four airplanes carrying Saudi nationals, including several members of the mainstream Bin Laden family, were allowed to fly out of the United States two days after the aerial attacks in New York and Washington when US airspace was closed for passenger traffic and flights required special permission from the authorities.
The report, carried by the American magazine Vanity Fair, raises questions about the Bush family's close relationship with the Saudis, and Saudi investments in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm where former Secretary of State James Baker is a senior counsellor and former president George HW Bush is senior adviser.
The implication in the article is that the Bush administration, influenced by personal connections as well as the diplomatic clout that the Saudi ambassador to Washington enjoyed, allowed members of the Saudi ruling family and others close to them as well as members of the mainstream Bin Laden family -- which had disowned Osama Bin Laden -- to leave the US. They appeared to be in a hurry to the US following the Sept.11 attacks when it was slowly emerging that at least some of the 19 suicide hijackers were Saudi nationals.
The question is raised in the article itself:
"How was it possible that, just as President Bush declared a no-holds-barred global war on terror that would send hundreds of thousands of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama Bin Laden became public enemy number one and the target of a worldwide manhunt, the White House would expedite the departure of so many potential witnesses, incluidng two dozen relatives of the man behind the attack itself?"
However, there is no suggestion that any of those who left had anything to do with the Sept.11 attacks, but that they might had had an inkling that they could face questioning by American authorities in view of their association, even by acquaintance, with any of the hijackers.
At the same time, two cousins of Osama Bin Laden had a record of affiliation with a Muslim organisation in the US; again, there is no suggestion or evidence that this group had any links with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, which is blamed for the Sept.11 attack.
The article appearing in this week's Vanity Fair quotes former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke as saying that the Bush administration allowed the flights carrying up to 140 Saudis to leave the US without being interviewed or interrogated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Every passenger plane leaving the US after Sept.11 had to have special permission to take off, but in the case of the four planes were given special clearance by top officials, and the FBI was not involved at all, says the article.
Vanity Fair said the White House had declined comment on the report, but it quoted a a source insidethe White House as saying that there no evidence to suggest that the White House ever authorised such flights.
According to Vanity Fair write Craig Unger, private detective and former Florida police officer Dan Grossi had received a call on Sept.13 asking him to escort Saudi students on a flight from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky, even though private planes were still grounded in the aftermath of the attacks.
"I was told it would take White House approval," Unger quotes Grossi as saying. However, t when the plane's pilot showed up, they took off.
In the report, Clarke says he chaired a crisis group — the Counterterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council — at the White House andits meering were attended by Vice President Dick Cheney and National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA director George Tenet and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "came and went."
"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, leave the country," Clarke is quoted as saying.
"My role was to say that it can't happen until the FBI approves it. And so the FBI. was asked — we had a live connection to the FBI — and we asked the FBI to make sure that they were satisfied that everybody getting on that plane was someone . . okay.. to leave. And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said, 'Fine, let it happen. . . . I asked them if they had any objection to the entire event-to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying."
Clarke, who is now working for the private sector, could not recall who had asked him for approval but said it was probably the FBI or the State Department.
Both the FBI and the State Department denied that the request came from them.
Vanity Fair quoted a State Department source as implying that Saudi Arabian Ambasasdor to the US Prince Bandar Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, one of the most influential foreign diplomats in Washington, could have obtained permission for the flights from authorities higher than the State Department, meaning the White House.
"The likes of Prince Bandar does not need the State Department to get this done," the source told the magazine. According to Saudi Arabia's director of information, Nail Al Jubeir, the flights had been requested by the Saudis and were authorised "at the highest level of the US government."
Following is a part of a a verbatim summary of the report provided by Vanity Fair.
Quote:
After the September 11 attacks, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, was in Washington orchestrating the exodus of about 140 Saudis scattered throughout the country who were members of, or close to, the House of Saud, which rules Saudi Arabia, and the Bin Laden family.
By coincidence, even before the attacks, Bandar had been scheduled to meet President Bush in the White House on Sept.13, 2001, to discuss the Middle East peace process.
The meeting took place as planned.
Nail Al Jubeir tells Unger that he does not know if Bandar and the president discussed getting the bin Ladens and other Saudis back to Saudi Arabia.
Some Saudis tried to get their planes to leave before the F.B.I. had even identified who was on them, Unger reports. "I recall getting into a big flap with Bandar's office about whether they would leave without us knowing who was on the plane," an FBI agent says.
"Bandar wanted the plane to take off, and we were stressing that the plane was not leaving until we knew exactly who was on it."
Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counterterrorism, tells Unger that while the Saudis were identified, "they were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations."
The bureau has declined to release the Saudis' identities.
The wealthy Bin Laden family long ago broke with their terrorist brother, Osama, but Unger reports that some members of the family have had links to militant Islam.
Abdullah and Omar Bin Laden had been under FBI investigation for their involvement with the American branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which has published writings by one of Osama bin Laden's principal intellectual influences.
According to documents obtained by the Public Education Center in Washington, the file on Abdullah and Omar was reopened on Sept.19, 2001, while the Saudi repatriation was under way. A security official who served under George W. Bush tells Unger,
"WAMY was involved in terrorist-support activity. There's no doubt about it."
The Saudis' planes took off from or landed in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Houston, Cleveland, Orlando, Tampa, Lexington, Kentucky-and Newark and Boston, both of which had been points of origin for the Sept.11 attacks.
"We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history," Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Boston's Logan airport, tells Unger, "and here we were seeing an evacuation of the Bin Ladens! . . .
"I wanted to go to the highest authorities in Washington. This was a call for them. But this was not just some mystery flight dropping into Logan. It had been to three major airports already, and we were the last stop. It was known. The federal authorities knew what it was doing. And we were told to let it come."
"I asked [the FBI] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving," Clarke tells Unger.
Clarke assumed the FBI had vetted the bin Ladens prior to Sept. 11. "I have no idea if they did a good job. I'm not in any position to second-guess the FBI."
Prince Bandar has had a 20-year friendship with former president George HW Bush.
Unger questions whether the long-standing Bush-Saudi relationship could have influenced the administration. The latest in a line of business links between the Bush family and the Saudis involves the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm for which George HW Bush is a senior advisor and former secretary of state James Baker III is a senior counsellor.
The Carlyle Group has received $80 million in Saudi investment, Unger reports, including $2 million from the Bin Ladens which was returned to them after Sept.11.
In 1995, Abdulrahman and Sultan Bin Mahfouz invested "in the neighbourhood of $30 million" in the Carlyle Group, according to family attorney Cherif Sedky.
Abdulrahman Bin Mafouz was a director of the Muwafaq Foundation, which has been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as "an Al Qaeda front." (Carlyle categorically denies that the Bin Mahfouzes are now or have ever been investors.) Clarke believes the decision to let the Saudis go was made because "there's a realisation that we have to work with the government we've got in Saudi Arabia. The alternatives could be far worse. The most likely replacement to the House of Saud is likely to be more hostile-in fact, extremely hostile-to the US."
Unquote...
The Sept.11 saga has been given a dramatically new twist by a report that four airplanes carrying Saudi nationals, including several members of the mainstream Bin Laden family, were allowed to fly out of the United States two days after the aerial attacks in New York and Washington when US airspace was closed for passenger traffic and flights required special permission from the authorities.
The report, carried by the American magazine Vanity Fair, raises questions about the Bush family's close relationship with the Saudis, and Saudi investments in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm where former Secretary of State James Baker is a senior counsellor and former president George HW Bush is senior adviser.
The implication in the article is that the Bush administration, influenced by personal connections as well as the diplomatic clout that the Saudi ambassador to Washington enjoyed, allowed members of the Saudi ruling family and others close to them as well as members of the mainstream Bin Laden family -- which had disowned Osama Bin Laden -- to leave the US. They appeared to be in a hurry to the US following the Sept.11 attacks when it was slowly emerging that at least some of the 19 suicide hijackers were Saudi nationals.
The question is raised in the article itself:
"How was it possible that, just as President Bush declared a no-holds-barred global war on terror that would send hundreds of thousands of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama Bin Laden became public enemy number one and the target of a worldwide manhunt, the White House would expedite the departure of so many potential witnesses, incluidng two dozen relatives of the man behind the attack itself?"
However, there is no suggestion that any of those who left had anything to do with the Sept.11 attacks, but that they might had had an inkling that they could face questioning by American authorities in view of their association, even by acquaintance, with any of the hijackers.
At the same time, two cousins of Osama Bin Laden had a record of affiliation with a Muslim organisation in the US; again, there is no suggestion or evidence that this group had any links with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, which is blamed for the Sept.11 attack.
The article appearing in this week's Vanity Fair quotes former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke as saying that the Bush administration allowed the flights carrying up to 140 Saudis to leave the US without being interviewed or interrogated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Every passenger plane leaving the US after Sept.11 had to have special permission to take off, but in the case of the four planes were given special clearance by top officials, and the FBI was not involved at all, says the article.
Vanity Fair said the White House had declined comment on the report, but it quoted a a source insidethe White House as saying that there no evidence to suggest that the White House ever authorised such flights.
According to Vanity Fair write Craig Unger, private detective and former Florida police officer Dan Grossi had received a call on Sept.13 asking him to escort Saudi students on a flight from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky, even though private planes were still grounded in the aftermath of the attacks.
"I was told it would take White House approval," Unger quotes Grossi as saying. However, t when the plane's pilot showed up, they took off.
In the report, Clarke says he chaired a crisis group — the Counterterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council — at the White House andits meering were attended by Vice President Dick Cheney and National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA director George Tenet and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "came and went."
"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, leave the country," Clarke is quoted as saying.
"My role was to say that it can't happen until the FBI approves it. And so the FBI. was asked — we had a live connection to the FBI — and we asked the FBI to make sure that they were satisfied that everybody getting on that plane was someone . . okay.. to leave. And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said, 'Fine, let it happen. . . . I asked them if they had any objection to the entire event-to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying."
Clarke, who is now working for the private sector, could not recall who had asked him for approval but said it was probably the FBI or the State Department.
Both the FBI and the State Department denied that the request came from them.
Vanity Fair quoted a State Department source as implying that Saudi Arabian Ambasasdor to the US Prince Bandar Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, one of the most influential foreign diplomats in Washington, could have obtained permission for the flights from authorities higher than the State Department, meaning the White House.
"The likes of Prince Bandar does not need the State Department to get this done," the source told the magazine. According to Saudi Arabia's director of information, Nail Al Jubeir, the flights had been requested by the Saudis and were authorised "at the highest level of the US government."
Following is a part of a a verbatim summary of the report provided by Vanity Fair.
Quote:
After the September 11 attacks, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, was in Washington orchestrating the exodus of about 140 Saudis scattered throughout the country who were members of, or close to, the House of Saud, which rules Saudi Arabia, and the Bin Laden family.
By coincidence, even before the attacks, Bandar had been scheduled to meet President Bush in the White House on Sept.13, 2001, to discuss the Middle East peace process.
The meeting took place as planned.
Nail Al Jubeir tells Unger that he does not know if Bandar and the president discussed getting the bin Ladens and other Saudis back to Saudi Arabia.
Some Saudis tried to get their planes to leave before the F.B.I. had even identified who was on them, Unger reports. "I recall getting into a big flap with Bandar's office about whether they would leave without us knowing who was on the plane," an FBI agent says.
"Bandar wanted the plane to take off, and we were stressing that the plane was not leaving until we knew exactly who was on it."
Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counterterrorism, tells Unger that while the Saudis were identified, "they were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations."
The bureau has declined to release the Saudis' identities.
The wealthy Bin Laden family long ago broke with their terrorist brother, Osama, but Unger reports that some members of the family have had links to militant Islam.
Abdullah and Omar Bin Laden had been under FBI investigation for their involvement with the American branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which has published writings by one of Osama bin Laden's principal intellectual influences.
According to documents obtained by the Public Education Center in Washington, the file on Abdullah and Omar was reopened on Sept.19, 2001, while the Saudi repatriation was under way. A security official who served under George W. Bush tells Unger,
"WAMY was involved in terrorist-support activity. There's no doubt about it."
The Saudis' planes took off from or landed in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Houston, Cleveland, Orlando, Tampa, Lexington, Kentucky-and Newark and Boston, both of which had been points of origin for the Sept.11 attacks.
"We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history," Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Boston's Logan airport, tells Unger, "and here we were seeing an evacuation of the Bin Ladens! . . .
"I wanted to go to the highest authorities in Washington. This was a call for them. But this was not just some mystery flight dropping into Logan. It had been to three major airports already, and we were the last stop. It was known. The federal authorities knew what it was doing. And we were told to let it come."
"I asked [the FBI] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving," Clarke tells Unger.
Clarke assumed the FBI had vetted the bin Ladens prior to Sept. 11. "I have no idea if they did a good job. I'm not in any position to second-guess the FBI."
Prince Bandar has had a 20-year friendship with former president George HW Bush.
Unger questions whether the long-standing Bush-Saudi relationship could have influenced the administration. The latest in a line of business links between the Bush family and the Saudis involves the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm for which George HW Bush is a senior advisor and former secretary of state James Baker III is a senior counsellor.
The Carlyle Group has received $80 million in Saudi investment, Unger reports, including $2 million from the Bin Ladens which was returned to them after Sept.11.
In 1995, Abdulrahman and Sultan Bin Mahfouz invested "in the neighbourhood of $30 million" in the Carlyle Group, according to family attorney Cherif Sedky.
Abdulrahman Bin Mafouz was a director of the Muwafaq Foundation, which has been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as "an Al Qaeda front." (Carlyle categorically denies that the Bin Mahfouzes are now or have ever been investors.) Clarke believes the decision to let the Saudis go was made because "there's a realisation that we have to work with the government we've got in Saudi Arabia. The alternatives could be far worse. The most likely replacement to the House of Saud is likely to be more hostile-in fact, extremely hostile-to the US."
Unquote...
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Lockerbie mystery added or unveiled
by pv vivekanand
CONTENTIONS that Sabri Al Banna, or Abu Nidal, was behind the 1998 mid-air bombing of an American airliner that killed 270 people and for which a Libyan is serving a life sentence in Scotland have thrown a new element to the never-say-die speculation about who was actually responsible for the blast.
The special trial of two Libyans held in the Netherlands under Scottish laws as a compromise to end the crisis between Libya, which was accused of masterminding the attack, and the UN and the conviction of an alleged Libyan intelligence agent have never really convinced many since many questions were never answered during the trial.
Similarly, the claim by Atef Abu Bakr, a one-time Abu Nidal associate, that the leader of the Fateh Revolutionary Group had told his followers that his group was behind the blast has not been substantiated by any physical evidence. If anything, it raises more questions, and, if true, pulls the rug from under the feet of the very elaborate process of the trial, conviction, appeal and reaffirmation of the verdict in the case.
At this stage, Abu Bakr's revelation is simple hearsay and, if we accept it as true, it could even be construed as Abu Nidal's way of impressing upon his people he could pull such meticulous operation as organising the bombing of an aircraft of a high-security-minded American airline and getting away with it.
However, it does not preclude the possibility that the Abu Nidal group had indeed planted the explosives that ripped PanAm flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in the night of Dec.22, 1988. The blast killed 259 people aboard the flight and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie.
What we have now is only Abu Bakr's "revelation" that his former boss, who was reportedly either shot dead or committed suicide in Baghdad two weeks ago, had claimed that he was behind the attack.
"Abu Nidal told a ... meeting of the Revolutionary Council leadership: I have very important and serious things to say. The reports that attribute Lockerbie (bombing) to others are lies. We are behind it," Abu Bakr was quoted as saying in an interview with the London-based Al Hayat daily.
He said Abu Nidal threatened those present against speaking of the group's responsibility for the bombing.
"If any one of you lets this (word) out, I will kill him even if he was in his wife's arms," Abu Bakr quoted Abu Nidal as saying.
The apparent contradiction in Abu Bakr's account is clear: Abu Nidal was never known to have dealt directly with any of his henchmen and always used his close lieutenants to direct operations and convey his "instructions." As such, it seems doubtful that the four people that Abu Bakr says were present when Abu Nidal made the claim were being told of such a major operation for the first time and that too after it took place -- unless of course Abu Bakr was speaking part truth with a view to disassociating himself and the others, whoever they are, from the blast.
In any case, it clearly indicates that there is much more to the episode than Abu Bakr's version carried by Al Hayat.
Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi is serving a life sentence in Glasgow's Barlinnie prison after being convicted of having planted the explosives aboard Flight 103.
Megrahi was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2000. The court acquitted another Libyan. In March this year, a Scottish appeals court upheld the conviction of Megrahi.
Why the revelation of the alleged Abu Nidal link with the bombing at this juncture in time?
An argument that it was made following Abu Nidal's death that removed the risk of his threat appeared to have been quashed when Ghassan Sharbal, Al Hayat's assistant editor who conducted the interview, said he spoke to Abu Bakr before Abu Nidal's death was "reported."
There were two other instances when Abu Nidal's group was linked to the Pan Am blast, but both times the assertions never sparked a serious independent inquiry.
Shortly after the Dec.21/22 bombing, the US State Department said that the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland, had received a call 16 days before the blast from a man who claimed to be an Abu Nidal agent and warned that there would be a bombing attempt within two weeks against a Pan Am aircraft flying from Frankfurt to the United States.
The finding of the inevitable US investigation that would have followed was never revealed, and the claimed Abu Nidal connection appeared to have died a natural death as far as public State Department comments on the issue were concerned.
In 1996, a self-confessed Abu Nidal agent standing trial for the 1994 murder of senior Jordanian diplomat Naeb Imran Maaytah in Beirut told the court that the Abu Nidal group was behind the blast and he was part of the operation.
That claim was rejected as a ruse to get Libya off the hook, with the media speculating that the man stood to lose nothing by making the claim. If anything, went the speculation, he was already headed for prison after confessing to the Jordanian diplomat's killing and he had made the claim in return for a large amount paid to his family by Libya.
What is no clear at this point is what motive Abu Nidal had to blow up the plane except the conventional argument that the avowed anti-West hard-liner simply wanted to make another attack against Westerners and that it was his way of registering his opposition to US efforts to involve the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in indirect peace negotiations with Israel.
The revelation of the Abu Nidal connection to the blast comes amid reports that Libya is considering making an announcement that it accepts "general responsibility" for the bombing of Flight 103, and is now ready "in principle" to take steps to compensate the relatives of the 270 victims.
These two steps would pave the way for the formal lifting of United Nations sanctions against Libya.
Tripoli has made no comment on Abu Bakr's assertions.
Libya reportedly hosted Abu Nidal around the time of the bombing after he was expelled from Iraq in 1993 and from Syria in 1987.
Libya, which was under intense international pressure over Lockerbie, asked him to leave the country in 1999 after he reportedly went on a spree of "eliminating" dozens of followers whom he did not trust.
At one point, Atef Abu Bakr himself was quoted as saying that Abu Nidal buried the bodies under and around the villa where he was staying in Libya. It was also alleged that he had employed some of his people to "spy" on Libya and this had infuriated Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi into expelling him.
If media accounts were true, he was in Egypt for some time after leaving Libya and then slipped out of the country to Iran and entered Iraq across the border.
If indeed Abu Nidal was behind the PanAm bombing, it is then highly unlikely that Libya was not aware of it. And if Libya was aware it, why did Tripoli use that information at least to lay a red herring in the trial that was held in the Netherlands in 2000, after Abu Nidal had left Libya?
Lawyers for the two Libyans who were tried at the specially set up Scottish court in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands suggested that the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) could have been behind the bombing. What stopped them from pointing the finger at Abu Nidal if they could have done so at the PFLP-GC?
In London, senior Labour Member of parliament Dalyell, who had consistently insisted that Abu Nidal was responsible for the blast, has renewed his demand for a investigation into the affair. Dalyell has long argued that the Libyans were not behind the attack and now he says the Foreign Office must now investigate Abu Bakr's claims "as a matter of the utmost urgency."
"If these allegations are true they blow everything relating to Lockerbie out of the water, including the trial in Holland," he said last week.
The Scottish prosecutors' office has dismissed Abu Bakr's claim. But then that was only expected since acknowledging that anyone other than the convicted Libyan -- and by extension Libya -- could be responsible for the blast would demolish their credibility.
"We deal, and have dealt with, evidence not rumour or speculation, especially about allegedly dead terrorists," an unidentified Scottish Crown Office spokeswoman was quoted as saying in response to Abu Bakr's comments.
Not many have accepted as true the prosecution version of the case, and Western and Arab legal experts have asserted that the court overlooked several strong indicators that someone other than the convicted Libyan was behind the blast.
What could establish or at least throw some light into the mystery of the blast could be an independent investigation authorised and backed by the British government in co-ordination with other European and Arab governments and agencies.
But London has consistently rejected MPs' calls for such an investigation, and there is little sign that the Blair government would change it mind after Abu Bakr made the claim.,
Even Members of the UK Families Flight 103 say many important questions remain unanswered. They are demanding to know the motive behind the bombing, why it was not prevented and why it had taken 13 years to investigate the case and to conclude legal proceedings.
The demand was warded off by the government until Megrahi's appeal, with the argument that a wide-ranging inquiry had not been possible because it could have jeopardised a criminal trial, and families of the blast victims say that now that the trial and appeal have been concluded, the reasons for postponing any further inquiries have been removed.
Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie explosion, has said the trial in the Netherlands only considered the guilt or innocence of the defendants, and the court's conclusion that Megrahi was involved did not mean Abu Nidal might not also have participated.
"In my view, in those days most of the groups knew what the other groups were doing," said Swire, a spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103 Group. "Abu Nidal in those days was in Tripoli. ... I think it's likely he would have known what was going on but I have no way of knowing" whether he was behind the bombing.
And it is unlikely that anyone would know either unless Abu Bakr or someone else speaks up and tears down the veil of mystery over the blast.
CONTENTIONS that Sabri Al Banna, or Abu Nidal, was behind the 1998 mid-air bombing of an American airliner that killed 270 people and for which a Libyan is serving a life sentence in Scotland have thrown a new element to the never-say-die speculation about who was actually responsible for the blast.
The special trial of two Libyans held in the Netherlands under Scottish laws as a compromise to end the crisis between Libya, which was accused of masterminding the attack, and the UN and the conviction of an alleged Libyan intelligence agent have never really convinced many since many questions were never answered during the trial.
Similarly, the claim by Atef Abu Bakr, a one-time Abu Nidal associate, that the leader of the Fateh Revolutionary Group had told his followers that his group was behind the blast has not been substantiated by any physical evidence. If anything, it raises more questions, and, if true, pulls the rug from under the feet of the very elaborate process of the trial, conviction, appeal and reaffirmation of the verdict in the case.
At this stage, Abu Bakr's revelation is simple hearsay and, if we accept it as true, it could even be construed as Abu Nidal's way of impressing upon his people he could pull such meticulous operation as organising the bombing of an aircraft of a high-security-minded American airline and getting away with it.
However, it does not preclude the possibility that the Abu Nidal group had indeed planted the explosives that ripped PanAm flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in the night of Dec.22, 1988. The blast killed 259 people aboard the flight and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie.
What we have now is only Abu Bakr's "revelation" that his former boss, who was reportedly either shot dead or committed suicide in Baghdad two weeks ago, had claimed that he was behind the attack.
"Abu Nidal told a ... meeting of the Revolutionary Council leadership: I have very important and serious things to say. The reports that attribute Lockerbie (bombing) to others are lies. We are behind it," Abu Bakr was quoted as saying in an interview with the London-based Al Hayat daily.
He said Abu Nidal threatened those present against speaking of the group's responsibility for the bombing.
"If any one of you lets this (word) out, I will kill him even if he was in his wife's arms," Abu Bakr quoted Abu Nidal as saying.
The apparent contradiction in Abu Bakr's account is clear: Abu Nidal was never known to have dealt directly with any of his henchmen and always used his close lieutenants to direct operations and convey his "instructions." As such, it seems doubtful that the four people that Abu Bakr says were present when Abu Nidal made the claim were being told of such a major operation for the first time and that too after it took place -- unless of course Abu Bakr was speaking part truth with a view to disassociating himself and the others, whoever they are, from the blast.
In any case, it clearly indicates that there is much more to the episode than Abu Bakr's version carried by Al Hayat.
Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi is serving a life sentence in Glasgow's Barlinnie prison after being convicted of having planted the explosives aboard Flight 103.
Megrahi was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2000. The court acquitted another Libyan. In March this year, a Scottish appeals court upheld the conviction of Megrahi.
Why the revelation of the alleged Abu Nidal link with the bombing at this juncture in time?
An argument that it was made following Abu Nidal's death that removed the risk of his threat appeared to have been quashed when Ghassan Sharbal, Al Hayat's assistant editor who conducted the interview, said he spoke to Abu Bakr before Abu Nidal's death was "reported."
There were two other instances when Abu Nidal's group was linked to the Pan Am blast, but both times the assertions never sparked a serious independent inquiry.
Shortly after the Dec.21/22 bombing, the US State Department said that the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland, had received a call 16 days before the blast from a man who claimed to be an Abu Nidal agent and warned that there would be a bombing attempt within two weeks against a Pan Am aircraft flying from Frankfurt to the United States.
The finding of the inevitable US investigation that would have followed was never revealed, and the claimed Abu Nidal connection appeared to have died a natural death as far as public State Department comments on the issue were concerned.
In 1996, a self-confessed Abu Nidal agent standing trial for the 1994 murder of senior Jordanian diplomat Naeb Imran Maaytah in Beirut told the court that the Abu Nidal group was behind the blast and he was part of the operation.
That claim was rejected as a ruse to get Libya off the hook, with the media speculating that the man stood to lose nothing by making the claim. If anything, went the speculation, he was already headed for prison after confessing to the Jordanian diplomat's killing and he had made the claim in return for a large amount paid to his family by Libya.
What is no clear at this point is what motive Abu Nidal had to blow up the plane except the conventional argument that the avowed anti-West hard-liner simply wanted to make another attack against Westerners and that it was his way of registering his opposition to US efforts to involve the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in indirect peace negotiations with Israel.
The revelation of the Abu Nidal connection to the blast comes amid reports that Libya is considering making an announcement that it accepts "general responsibility" for the bombing of Flight 103, and is now ready "in principle" to take steps to compensate the relatives of the 270 victims.
These two steps would pave the way for the formal lifting of United Nations sanctions against Libya.
Tripoli has made no comment on Abu Bakr's assertions.
Libya reportedly hosted Abu Nidal around the time of the bombing after he was expelled from Iraq in 1993 and from Syria in 1987.
Libya, which was under intense international pressure over Lockerbie, asked him to leave the country in 1999 after he reportedly went on a spree of "eliminating" dozens of followers whom he did not trust.
At one point, Atef Abu Bakr himself was quoted as saying that Abu Nidal buried the bodies under and around the villa where he was staying in Libya. It was also alleged that he had employed some of his people to "spy" on Libya and this had infuriated Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi into expelling him.
If media accounts were true, he was in Egypt for some time after leaving Libya and then slipped out of the country to Iran and entered Iraq across the border.
If indeed Abu Nidal was behind the PanAm bombing, it is then highly unlikely that Libya was not aware of it. And if Libya was aware it, why did Tripoli use that information at least to lay a red herring in the trial that was held in the Netherlands in 2000, after Abu Nidal had left Libya?
Lawyers for the two Libyans who were tried at the specially set up Scottish court in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands suggested that the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) could have been behind the bombing. What stopped them from pointing the finger at Abu Nidal if they could have done so at the PFLP-GC?
In London, senior Labour Member of parliament Dalyell, who had consistently insisted that Abu Nidal was responsible for the blast, has renewed his demand for a investigation into the affair. Dalyell has long argued that the Libyans were not behind the attack and now he says the Foreign Office must now investigate Abu Bakr's claims "as a matter of the utmost urgency."
"If these allegations are true they blow everything relating to Lockerbie out of the water, including the trial in Holland," he said last week.
The Scottish prosecutors' office has dismissed Abu Bakr's claim. But then that was only expected since acknowledging that anyone other than the convicted Libyan -- and by extension Libya -- could be responsible for the blast would demolish their credibility.
"We deal, and have dealt with, evidence not rumour or speculation, especially about allegedly dead terrorists," an unidentified Scottish Crown Office spokeswoman was quoted as saying in response to Abu Bakr's comments.
Not many have accepted as true the prosecution version of the case, and Western and Arab legal experts have asserted that the court overlooked several strong indicators that someone other than the convicted Libyan was behind the blast.
What could establish or at least throw some light into the mystery of the blast could be an independent investigation authorised and backed by the British government in co-ordination with other European and Arab governments and agencies.
But London has consistently rejected MPs' calls for such an investigation, and there is little sign that the Blair government would change it mind after Abu Bakr made the claim.,
Even Members of the UK Families Flight 103 say many important questions remain unanswered. They are demanding to know the motive behind the bombing, why it was not prevented and why it had taken 13 years to investigate the case and to conclude legal proceedings.
The demand was warded off by the government until Megrahi's appeal, with the argument that a wide-ranging inquiry had not been possible because it could have jeopardised a criminal trial, and families of the blast victims say that now that the trial and appeal have been concluded, the reasons for postponing any further inquiries have been removed.
Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie explosion, has said the trial in the Netherlands only considered the guilt or innocence of the defendants, and the court's conclusion that Megrahi was involved did not mean Abu Nidal might not also have participated.
"In my view, in those days most of the groups knew what the other groups were doing," said Swire, a spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103 Group. "Abu Nidal in those days was in Tripoli. ... I think it's likely he would have known what was going on but I have no way of knowing" whether he was behind the bombing.
And it is unlikely that anyone would know either unless Abu Bakr or someone else speaks up and tears down the veil of mystery over the blast.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Ansar Al Islam - Part II
PV Vivekanand
This the second and final part of a report on the militant Ansar Al Islam group, which the US says was linked with Al Qaeda and is present in northern Iraq in what appears to an effort to establish a connection between the Baghdad government and Al Qaeda.
What is known about Ansar Al Islam?
The existence of the group and its alleged links with Al Qaeda were highlighted in a Christian Science Monitor report in March.
It is a tight-knit group of less than 800 followers -- Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians and Afghans -- based in Halabja, a Kurdish village on the Iraqi-Iranian border and enforces a Taliban-style Islamic code in a cluster of villages in the area.
Halabja is the site of what the US has described as a massive Iraqi chemical attack towards the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war to quell Iranian Kurdish presence there -- all the more reason for the group to maintain hostility towards the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.
Ansar Al Islam's leader Mulla Kreekar has refugee status in Norway after landing there from Iran under a UN refugee programme in 1993. He has been out of Norway for the last two years.
The Norwegian government has launched an investigation into his activities in the wake of the US allegation that the group had ties with Al Qaeda.
The group, an offshoot of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan which was reportedly backed by Tehran.
Iran upports everal Iranian Kurdish groups in the area with a view to countering the influence of Iraqi Kurdish factions that are dominant in northern Iraq, regional experts say.
Mullah Kreekar was a former member of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan who joined Ansar Al Islam after its formation in September 2001. He supposedly replaced Abu Abdullah Shafae - an Iraqi Kurd who allegedly trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 10 years - and changed his name from Warya Holery. Shafae is now believed to be Ansar Al Islam's deputy leader.
Traditionally, Tehran has supported the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of Jalal Talabani, and its support for other groups is seen as aimed at using them if, as and when Kurdish activities threaten Iranian interests.
Tehran is eager to ensure that the Kurds living in its north, Iraqi Kurds and Turkish Kurds do not gang up to set up an independent Kurdistan in the border area.
Baghad might have tried to use Ansar Al Islam if only to create confusion among the dozens of Kurdish groups that challenge its control of northern Iraq, analysts say. However, they doubt whether Saddam had much success with the group, which is said to be staunchly fundamentalist bordering on an obsession with their fight against "the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural" society in northern Iraqi villages.
According to reports, Ansar Al Islam activists have ransacked and razed beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the veil in the areas under their control.
"Ansar Al Islam is a kind of Taliban," according to PUK leader Jalal Talabani. "They are terrorists who have declared war against all Kurdish political parties. We gave them a chance to change their ways ... and end their terrorist acts. But if we can't do it through dialogue, we are obliged to use force."
The PUK, which is engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Islam for domination of the villages on the border, does not believe the group is backed by Iran.
"The Iranians are emphatic that this group is a threat to their own security," according to Barham Salih, a senior PUK official.
The other dominant Kurdish group, the Kurdish Democratic Party led by Masoud Barzani, has not commented on the allegations, but it is united with the PUK against Ansar Al Islam.
Another PUK official, Mustapha Saed Qada, claimed in comments carried by the Christian Science Monitor in March that his group had overrun two Ansar camps after Sept. 11 and found "the walls covered with poems and graffiti praising Bin Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks on the US."
Predictably, Qada claimed that Ansar Al Islam might even have ties with Iraqi government agents operating in northern Iraq. "We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqis and Ansar Al Islam. I believe that Iraq is also funding Ansar Al Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that under the table they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds."
Given that the PUK is bitterly opposed to the Iraqi regime, Qada's comments need a lot more than simple assertions, observers point out.
US officials have voiced similar doubts since the PUK has a vested interested in implicating Baghdad with Al Qaeda.
Reports in the US said the White House had rejected a proposal to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Al Ansar positions in northern Iraq.
Saddam's eldest son Udai has accused Iran of backing the group but rejected its purported links with Al Qaeda.
The ambiguity in Udai's comment was that he referred to a group called "Jund Al Islam," which US officials varying describe as either a mother group from which Ansar Al Islam broke away or an offshoot of Ansar Al Islam itself.
"They (Jund Al Islam) do not have any link whatsoever with Al Qaeda, and this is purely an Iranian game aimed at gaining influence in the area," said Udai Hussein.
Tehran rejected the accusation and said it disapproved of the group's activities.
Since mid-August, more than 1,000 Peshamargas of the PUK are figthing Ansar Al Islam around the Ansar stronghold of Halabja after pushing the group back from from villages further into north Iraq.
It was reported in early August that 19-year-old youth belonging to Ansar Al Islam surrendered to PUK authorities after he had a last-minute change of heart on his way to blow himself among PUK officials.
The youth had strapped himself with explosives and was indoctrinated by his Ansar mentors that he would be serving his people by killing PUK officials in a suicide attack.
However, the youth opted not to carry out the attack and surrendered to the same officials whom he was supposed to have killed, the reports said. He is detained at a PUK jail in Sulaimaniya in north Iraq.
Had the attack taken place, it would have been the first known suicide bombing by an Iraqi Kurd against opponents, and would have introduced a new element in the ongoing battle between Ansar Al Islam and the PUK.
Mullah Kreekar, the Ansar Al Islam leader, has given an interview to Norwegian television that is expected to be broadcast on Tuesday. Possibly, he might throw more light into the group's activities and its connections.
Regardless of all other factors, is abundantly clear that the group espouses militancy and is present in northern Iraq. However, is it not enough to prove that Baghdad is linked with the group, and, inter alia, Al Qaeda, particularly given that the group is active in an area generally under American protection?
This the second and final part of a report on the militant Ansar Al Islam group, which the US says was linked with Al Qaeda and is present in northern Iraq in what appears to an effort to establish a connection between the Baghdad government and Al Qaeda.
What is known about Ansar Al Islam?
The existence of the group and its alleged links with Al Qaeda were highlighted in a Christian Science Monitor report in March.
It is a tight-knit group of less than 800 followers -- Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians and Afghans -- based in Halabja, a Kurdish village on the Iraqi-Iranian border and enforces a Taliban-style Islamic code in a cluster of villages in the area.
Halabja is the site of what the US has described as a massive Iraqi chemical attack towards the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war to quell Iranian Kurdish presence there -- all the more reason for the group to maintain hostility towards the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.
Ansar Al Islam's leader Mulla Kreekar has refugee status in Norway after landing there from Iran under a UN refugee programme in 1993. He has been out of Norway for the last two years.
The Norwegian government has launched an investigation into his activities in the wake of the US allegation that the group had ties with Al Qaeda.
The group, an offshoot of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan which was reportedly backed by Tehran.
Iran upports everal Iranian Kurdish groups in the area with a view to countering the influence of Iraqi Kurdish factions that are dominant in northern Iraq, regional experts say.
Mullah Kreekar was a former member of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan who joined Ansar Al Islam after its formation in September 2001. He supposedly replaced Abu Abdullah Shafae - an Iraqi Kurd who allegedly trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 10 years - and changed his name from Warya Holery. Shafae is now believed to be Ansar Al Islam's deputy leader.
Traditionally, Tehran has supported the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of Jalal Talabani, and its support for other groups is seen as aimed at using them if, as and when Kurdish activities threaten Iranian interests.
Tehran is eager to ensure that the Kurds living in its north, Iraqi Kurds and Turkish Kurds do not gang up to set up an independent Kurdistan in the border area.
Baghad might have tried to use Ansar Al Islam if only to create confusion among the dozens of Kurdish groups that challenge its control of northern Iraq, analysts say. However, they doubt whether Saddam had much success with the group, which is said to be staunchly fundamentalist bordering on an obsession with their fight against "the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural" society in northern Iraqi villages.
According to reports, Ansar Al Islam activists have ransacked and razed beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the veil in the areas under their control.
"Ansar Al Islam is a kind of Taliban," according to PUK leader Jalal Talabani. "They are terrorists who have declared war against all Kurdish political parties. We gave them a chance to change their ways ... and end their terrorist acts. But if we can't do it through dialogue, we are obliged to use force."
The PUK, which is engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Islam for domination of the villages on the border, does not believe the group is backed by Iran.
"The Iranians are emphatic that this group is a threat to their own security," according to Barham Salih, a senior PUK official.
The other dominant Kurdish group, the Kurdish Democratic Party led by Masoud Barzani, has not commented on the allegations, but it is united with the PUK against Ansar Al Islam.
Another PUK official, Mustapha Saed Qada, claimed in comments carried by the Christian Science Monitor in March that his group had overrun two Ansar camps after Sept. 11 and found "the walls covered with poems and graffiti praising Bin Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks on the US."
Predictably, Qada claimed that Ansar Al Islam might even have ties with Iraqi government agents operating in northern Iraq. "We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqis and Ansar Al Islam. I believe that Iraq is also funding Ansar Al Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that under the table they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds."
Given that the PUK is bitterly opposed to the Iraqi regime, Qada's comments need a lot more than simple assertions, observers point out.
US officials have voiced similar doubts since the PUK has a vested interested in implicating Baghdad with Al Qaeda.
Reports in the US said the White House had rejected a proposal to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Al Ansar positions in northern Iraq.
Saddam's eldest son Udai has accused Iran of backing the group but rejected its purported links with Al Qaeda.
The ambiguity in Udai's comment was that he referred to a group called "Jund Al Islam," which US officials varying describe as either a mother group from which Ansar Al Islam broke away or an offshoot of Ansar Al Islam itself.
"They (Jund Al Islam) do not have any link whatsoever with Al Qaeda, and this is purely an Iranian game aimed at gaining influence in the area," said Udai Hussein.
Tehran rejected the accusation and said it disapproved of the group's activities.
Since mid-August, more than 1,000 Peshamargas of the PUK are figthing Ansar Al Islam around the Ansar stronghold of Halabja after pushing the group back from from villages further into north Iraq.
It was reported in early August that 19-year-old youth belonging to Ansar Al Islam surrendered to PUK authorities after he had a last-minute change of heart on his way to blow himself among PUK officials.
The youth had strapped himself with explosives and was indoctrinated by his Ansar mentors that he would be serving his people by killing PUK officials in a suicide attack.
However, the youth opted not to carry out the attack and surrendered to the same officials whom he was supposed to have killed, the reports said. He is detained at a PUK jail in Sulaimaniya in north Iraq.
Had the attack taken place, it would have been the first known suicide bombing by an Iraqi Kurd against opponents, and would have introduced a new element in the ongoing battle between Ansar Al Islam and the PUK.
Mullah Kreekar, the Ansar Al Islam leader, has given an interview to Norwegian television that is expected to be broadcast on Tuesday. Possibly, he might throw more light into the group's activities and its connections.
Regardless of all other factors, is abundantly clear that the group espouses militancy and is present in northern Iraq. However, is it not enough to prove that Baghdad is linked with the group, and, inter alia, Al Qaeda, particularly given that the group is active in an area generally under American protection?
Sunday, August 25, 2002
Ansar Al Islam Part I
by pv vivekanand
ANSAR AL ISLAM, the group whose name rose to prominence last week with the CNN screening of alleged testing of chemical weapons in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda members, has been active in northern Iraq since late 2001 but the connection that the US is trying to make between Baghdad and the faction -- and Al Qaeda by extension -- is weak at best, according to regional experts,
Washington has failed to establish that Baghdad had links with Al Qaeda although several attempts were made: first with a report that an Iraqi diplomat had met with Mohammed Atta, the suspected leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, in Europe in early 2001. It could not be confirmed that such a meeting took place, let alone that the two discussed Al Qaeda plans to stage anti-US attacks.
The second attempt was a matter of convenience and it came with the rash of anthrax scares in the US. The finger was immediately pointed at Iraq, since UN inspectors had found anthrax strains in Baghdad's weapons programme. However, the accusation fell apart when it was found that the particular strain in anthrax that caused the massive scare in the US was different from what the UN inspectors had discovered in Iraq.
The third attempt to link Iraq with Al Qaeda came in May with reports that a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent had seen Osama Bin Laden in Baghdad in early 2000. The US media played up the report, but then it became apparent that the defecting agent could not have been telling the truth since he had left Iraq in early 1999 and never went back.
The third attempt seeks to establish that Al Qaeda fighters are present in northern Iraq, but it appears to be a self-defeating exercise since the area where they are said to be present is outside the control of the Baghdad government. If anything, the US is offering protection to the area's residents against attacks by the Iraqi army.
Against that backdrop, the alleged Al Qaeda presence in northern Iraq could not be a strong argument for the US to target Saddam in its war against terrorism.
Regional experts are emphatic that Saddam and Bin Laden, while sharing common enmity towards the US, are ideologically too far apart to strike an alliance and work together.
Bin Laden holds Saddam responsible for having set the ground for US military presence in the region by invading Kuwait in 1990 and has often been bitterly critical of the Iraqi president.
According to Arabs who knew Bin Laden well while they were in Afghanistan and maintained contacts with his supporters after leaving the country in the mid-90s, the Al Qaeda leader had turned down Iraqi offers of asylum after he came under American focus following the 1998 bomb attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.
US intelligence reports say Ansar Al Islam fighters trained with Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000 and the group is harbouring Al Qaeda activists in northern Iraq. They are presumed to have fled overland from Afghanistan in the wake of the American military strikes against that country launched in October 2001. The implication is that they reached northern Iraq through Iranian territory.
Immediately after the CNN screening of the purported tapes of Qaeda testing of chemical weapons last week, US "experts" said it resembled a method followed by Ansar Al Islam.
The New York Times reported that US intelligence had monitored an Ansar Al Islam site in northern Iraq where chemical or biological weapons experiments were conducted with farm animals. It was initially feared this might constitute a significant chemical-biological threat, but US officials decided it was not serious enough to justify a military strike, said the paper.
Even if it is established that Ansar Al Islam, which is led by a Kurd, Najmuddin Faraj Ahmad, who goes by the name of Mullah Kreekar, had links with Al Qaeda, it is far from establishing that Baghdad had connections with Ansar Al Islam.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there are Al Qaeda members in Iraq, but he has not said where they are.
"I have said for some time that there are Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there are," he said last week. "They have left Afghanistan," he said. "They have left other locations. And they've landed in a variety of countries, one of which is Iraq."
US officials initially said Arab members of Ansar Al Islam were involved in the experimentation, but later they said it was unclear whether they were Arabs or Kurds.
Ansar Al Islam is based in northern Iraq near the border with Iran -- territory not controlled by the government of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
As such, says Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz, the US, which offers "protection" to Kurds in north Iraq by enforcing a "no-fly" zone, should ask itself how it allowed the group to base itself there.
Aziz, in recent US television interviews, pointed out the irony in the US contention that the Iraqi government was harbouring a group in a territory beyond its control and "protected" by the US.
Aziz questioned why American officials have not publicly raised the Al Qaeda matter with the Kurdish groups Washington supports in northern Iraq.
What is known about Ansar Al Islam?
The existence of the group and its alleged links with Al Qaeda were highlighted in a Christian Science Monitor report in March.
It is a tight-knit group of less than 800 followers -- Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians and Afghans -- based in Halabja, a Kurdish village on the Iraqi-Iranian border and enforces a Taliban-style Islamic code in a cluster of villages in the area.
Halabja is the site of what the US has described as a massive Iraqi chemical attack towards the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and to quell Iranian Kurdish presence there -- all the more reason for the group to maintain hostility towards the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.
Ansar Al Islam's leader Mulla Kreekar has refugee status in Norway after landing there from Iran under a UN refugee programme in 1993. He has been out of Norway for the last two years.
The Norwegian government has launched an investigation into his activities in the wake of the US allegation that the group had ties with Al Qaeda.
The group, an offshoot of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan, is reportedly backed by Tehran, which supports for several Iranian Kurdish groups in the area with a view to countering the influence of Iraqi Kurdish factions that are dominant in northern Iraq.
Mullah Kreekar was a former member of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan who joined Ansar Al Islam after its formation in September 2001. He supposedly replaced Abu Abdullah Shafae - an Iraqi Kurd who allegedly trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 10 years - and changed his name from Warya Holery. Shafae is now believed to be Ansar Al Islam's deputy leader.
Traditionally, Tehran has supported the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of Jalal Talabani, and its support for other groups is seen as aimed at using them if, as and when Kurdish activities threaten Iranian interests.
Tehran is eager to ensure that the Kurds living in its north, Iraqi Kurds and Turkish Kurds do not gang up to set up an independent Kurdistan in the border area.
Saddam might have tried to use Ansar Al Islam if only to create confusion among the dozens of Kurdish groups that challenge his control of northern Iraq, analysts say. However, they doubt whether Saddam had much success with the group, which is said to be staunchly fundamentalist bordering on fanatic obsession with their fight against "the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural" society in northern Iraqi villages.
According to reports, Ansar Al Islam activists have ransacked and razed beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the veil in the areas under their control.
"Ansar Al Islam is a kind of Taliban," PUK leader Jalal Talabani has said. "They are terrorists who have declared war against all Kurdish political parties. We gave them a chance to change their ways ... and end their terrorist acts. But if we can't do it through dialogue, we are obliged to use force."
The PUK, which is engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Islam for domination of the villages on the border, does not believe the group is backed by Iran.
"The Iranians are emphatic that this group is a threat to their own security," according to Barham Salih, a senior PUK official.
The other dominant Kurdish group, the Kurdish Democratic Party led by Masoud Barzani, has not commented on the allegations, but it is united with the PUK against Ansar Al Islam.
Another PUK official, Mustapha Saed Qada, claimed in comments carried by the Christian Science Monitor in March that his group had overrun two Ansar camps after Sept. 11 and found "the walls covered with poems and graffiti praising Bin Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks on the US."
"In one, there is a picture of the twin towers with a drawing of Bin Laden standing on the top holding a Kalashnikov rifle in one hand and a knife in the other." he said.
He added that the group has received $600,000 from Al Qaeda and a delivery of weapons and Toyota landcruisers.
According to Qada, Ansar Al Islam might even have ties with Iraqi government agents operating in northern Iraq. "We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqis and Ansar Al Islam. I believe that Iraq is also funding Ansar Al Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that under the table they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds."
Given that the PUK is bitterly opposed to the Iraqi regime, Qada's comments need a lot more than simple assertions, observers point out.
Saddam's eldest son Udai has accused Iran of backing the group but rejected its purported links with Al Qaeda. The ambiguity in Udai's comment was that he referred to a group called "Jund Al Islam," which US officials varying describe as either a mother group from which Ansar Al Islam broke away or an offshoot of Ansar Al Islam itself.
"They (Jund Al Islam) do not have any link whatsoever with Al Qaeda, and this is purely an Iranian game aimed at gaining influence in the area," said Udai Hussein.
As of Sunday, Tehran has not commented on Udai's s statement.
ANSAR AL ISLAM, the group whose name rose to prominence last week with the CNN screening of alleged testing of chemical weapons in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda members, has been active in northern Iraq since late 2001 but the connection that the US is trying to make between Baghdad and the faction -- and Al Qaeda by extension -- is weak at best, according to regional experts,
Washington has failed to establish that Baghdad had links with Al Qaeda although several attempts were made: first with a report that an Iraqi diplomat had met with Mohammed Atta, the suspected leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, in Europe in early 2001. It could not be confirmed that such a meeting took place, let alone that the two discussed Al Qaeda plans to stage anti-US attacks.
The second attempt was a matter of convenience and it came with the rash of anthrax scares in the US. The finger was immediately pointed at Iraq, since UN inspectors had found anthrax strains in Baghdad's weapons programme. However, the accusation fell apart when it was found that the particular strain in anthrax that caused the massive scare in the US was different from what the UN inspectors had discovered in Iraq.
The third attempt to link Iraq with Al Qaeda came in May with reports that a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent had seen Osama Bin Laden in Baghdad in early 2000. The US media played up the report, but then it became apparent that the defecting agent could not have been telling the truth since he had left Iraq in early 1999 and never went back.
The third attempt seeks to establish that Al Qaeda fighters are present in northern Iraq, but it appears to be a self-defeating exercise since the area where they are said to be present is outside the control of the Baghdad government. If anything, the US is offering protection to the area's residents against attacks by the Iraqi army.
Against that backdrop, the alleged Al Qaeda presence in northern Iraq could not be a strong argument for the US to target Saddam in its war against terrorism.
Regional experts are emphatic that Saddam and Bin Laden, while sharing common enmity towards the US, are ideologically too far apart to strike an alliance and work together.
Bin Laden holds Saddam responsible for having set the ground for US military presence in the region by invading Kuwait in 1990 and has often been bitterly critical of the Iraqi president.
According to Arabs who knew Bin Laden well while they were in Afghanistan and maintained contacts with his supporters after leaving the country in the mid-90s, the Al Qaeda leader had turned down Iraqi offers of asylum after he came under American focus following the 1998 bomb attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.
US intelligence reports say Ansar Al Islam fighters trained with Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000 and the group is harbouring Al Qaeda activists in northern Iraq. They are presumed to have fled overland from Afghanistan in the wake of the American military strikes against that country launched in October 2001. The implication is that they reached northern Iraq through Iranian territory.
Immediately after the CNN screening of the purported tapes of Qaeda testing of chemical weapons last week, US "experts" said it resembled a method followed by Ansar Al Islam.
The New York Times reported that US intelligence had monitored an Ansar Al Islam site in northern Iraq where chemical or biological weapons experiments were conducted with farm animals. It was initially feared this might constitute a significant chemical-biological threat, but US officials decided it was not serious enough to justify a military strike, said the paper.
Even if it is established that Ansar Al Islam, which is led by a Kurd, Najmuddin Faraj Ahmad, who goes by the name of Mullah Kreekar, had links with Al Qaeda, it is far from establishing that Baghdad had connections with Ansar Al Islam.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there are Al Qaeda members in Iraq, but he has not said where they are.
"I have said for some time that there are Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there are," he said last week. "They have left Afghanistan," he said. "They have left other locations. And they've landed in a variety of countries, one of which is Iraq."
US officials initially said Arab members of Ansar Al Islam were involved in the experimentation, but later they said it was unclear whether they were Arabs or Kurds.
Ansar Al Islam is based in northern Iraq near the border with Iran -- territory not controlled by the government of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
As such, says Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz, the US, which offers "protection" to Kurds in north Iraq by enforcing a "no-fly" zone, should ask itself how it allowed the group to base itself there.
Aziz, in recent US television interviews, pointed out the irony in the US contention that the Iraqi government was harbouring a group in a territory beyond its control and "protected" by the US.
Aziz questioned why American officials have not publicly raised the Al Qaeda matter with the Kurdish groups Washington supports in northern Iraq.
What is known about Ansar Al Islam?
The existence of the group and its alleged links with Al Qaeda were highlighted in a Christian Science Monitor report in March.
It is a tight-knit group of less than 800 followers -- Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians and Afghans -- based in Halabja, a Kurdish village on the Iraqi-Iranian border and enforces a Taliban-style Islamic code in a cluster of villages in the area.
Halabja is the site of what the US has described as a massive Iraqi chemical attack towards the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and to quell Iranian Kurdish presence there -- all the more reason for the group to maintain hostility towards the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.
Ansar Al Islam's leader Mulla Kreekar has refugee status in Norway after landing there from Iran under a UN refugee programme in 1993. He has been out of Norway for the last two years.
The Norwegian government has launched an investigation into his activities in the wake of the US allegation that the group had ties with Al Qaeda.
The group, an offshoot of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan, is reportedly backed by Tehran, which supports for several Iranian Kurdish groups in the area with a view to countering the influence of Iraqi Kurdish factions that are dominant in northern Iraq.
Mullah Kreekar was a former member of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan who joined Ansar Al Islam after its formation in September 2001. He supposedly replaced Abu Abdullah Shafae - an Iraqi Kurd who allegedly trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 10 years - and changed his name from Warya Holery. Shafae is now believed to be Ansar Al Islam's deputy leader.
Traditionally, Tehran has supported the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of Jalal Talabani, and its support for other groups is seen as aimed at using them if, as and when Kurdish activities threaten Iranian interests.
Tehran is eager to ensure that the Kurds living in its north, Iraqi Kurds and Turkish Kurds do not gang up to set up an independent Kurdistan in the border area.
Saddam might have tried to use Ansar Al Islam if only to create confusion among the dozens of Kurdish groups that challenge his control of northern Iraq, analysts say. However, they doubt whether Saddam had much success with the group, which is said to be staunchly fundamentalist bordering on fanatic obsession with their fight against "the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural" society in northern Iraqi villages.
According to reports, Ansar Al Islam activists have ransacked and razed beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the veil in the areas under their control.
"Ansar Al Islam is a kind of Taliban," PUK leader Jalal Talabani has said. "They are terrorists who have declared war against all Kurdish political parties. We gave them a chance to change their ways ... and end their terrorist acts. But if we can't do it through dialogue, we are obliged to use force."
The PUK, which is engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Islam for domination of the villages on the border, does not believe the group is backed by Iran.
"The Iranians are emphatic that this group is a threat to their own security," according to Barham Salih, a senior PUK official.
The other dominant Kurdish group, the Kurdish Democratic Party led by Masoud Barzani, has not commented on the allegations, but it is united with the PUK against Ansar Al Islam.
Another PUK official, Mustapha Saed Qada, claimed in comments carried by the Christian Science Monitor in March that his group had overrun two Ansar camps after Sept. 11 and found "the walls covered with poems and graffiti praising Bin Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks on the US."
"In one, there is a picture of the twin towers with a drawing of Bin Laden standing on the top holding a Kalashnikov rifle in one hand and a knife in the other." he said.
He added that the group has received $600,000 from Al Qaeda and a delivery of weapons and Toyota landcruisers.
According to Qada, Ansar Al Islam might even have ties with Iraqi government agents operating in northern Iraq. "We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqis and Ansar Al Islam. I believe that Iraq is also funding Ansar Al Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that under the table they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds."
Given that the PUK is bitterly opposed to the Iraqi regime, Qada's comments need a lot more than simple assertions, observers point out.
Saddam's eldest son Udai has accused Iran of backing the group but rejected its purported links with Al Qaeda. The ambiguity in Udai's comment was that he referred to a group called "Jund Al Islam," which US officials varying describe as either a mother group from which Ansar Al Islam broke away or an offshoot of Ansar Al Islam itself.
"They (Jund Al Islam) do not have any link whatsoever with Al Qaeda, and this is purely an Iranian game aimed at gaining influence in the area," said Udai Hussein.
As of Sunday, Tehran has not commented on Udai's s statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}