PV Vivekanand
FEARS are high that despite Israeli utterances to the contrary, plans should definitely be afoot to physically eliminate Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. It is only a question of how and when the plans would be implemented.
No Israeli might be directly involved in a possible operation and the accusing finger might be pointed at a Palestinian or Arab. Israel's notorious spy and security agencies, including Mossad and Shin Bet, have a record of having "arranged" such killings, prominent among them the murder of Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) in Tunis in January 1991.
It was a Palestinian bodyguard who shot and killed Abu Iyad and it was then alleged that he was acting upon the orders of the Abu Nidal group. However, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) could not get to the bottom of the affair or did not choose to release to the public what it had learnt. That left a deep impression among the people of the Middle East that it was indeed an Israeli mind that went to planning and executing the attack on Abu Iyad.
There could be many scenarios in Ramallah to serve Israel's goal of eliminating Arafat from the political equation.
With Tuesday's American veto of a UN Security Council resolution that called on Israel to refrain from expelling Arafat from Palestine or harming him otherwise, it is clear that no international pressure will force Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to abandon his plans to remove Arafat from the political scene.
Removing Arafat from theequation is one the central pillars in Sharon's strategy to eliminate all sources of Palestinian resistance.
Despite all the shortcomings attributed to him, Arafat symbolises the Palestinian struggle for independence and represents a rallying point for Palestinians. Sharon knows this well and hence his campaign to expel Arafat.
Sharon also hopes that the disappearance of Arafat from Palestine will destroy all traces of the Olso agreements and do away with any commitment to retain whatever has been achieved under the 1993 accords.
Notwithstanding its veto of the draft resolution, Washington is opposing Sharon's plan to deprive Arafat of a physical presence among his people not because it has any sympathy for the Palestinian cause or finds any use for the Palestinian leader as far as American interests are concerned; if anything, the US has
been the first to push the idea of easing Arafat out of
the equation.
Howeve,r Washington realises that exiling Arafat would give him the international scene to press his cause for Palestine and this would only bring about more headaches and pressure on the US administration.
It will be a folly to expect any revival of the "roadmap" for peace notwithstanding the reality that it is the only proposal on the table for the parties to pursue.
We could issue repeated calls for its revival, but, in effect, it remains only on paper and will remain so as
along as there is no change in the Israeli mindset.
Obviously, Sharon does not believe that he should be making any compromises with the Palestinians. He is convinced that it is only a matter of time before the Palestinians succumb to military assaults, ruthless killings and targeted assassinations and agree to accept his version of a peace agreement.
Against the backdrop of that mindset, Sharon might only put off his plans against Arafat and wait for the opportune time to strike at the Palestinian leader.
It will clear the ground for Sharon to make his rejection of the Oslo accord complete and set his own terms for peace with no reference to the 1993 Oslo agreements.
Obviously, the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas as prime
minister citing lack of Israeli co-operation and "internal problems" -- meaning fueds with Arafat -- has offered Sharon the opportunity he has been waiting for.
he could cite the Abbas resignation as the most vivid example of Arafat's machinations against peace and smoother, to an extent, European opposition against removing him from Palestine.
The Europeans and rest of the international community
will find their backing for Arafat somewhat undefensible in view of what Sharon could cite as the Palestinian leader's stands against the implementation of the "roadmap."
Had it not been for fears of unprecedented and perhaps uncontrollable Palestinian retaliation, Sharon would not wait for one second to order a death strike against Arafat if he thought he could get away with it.
Sharon is not worried about world pressure or condemnation of his actions since he knows he could defend himself saying he was
only acting in the interest of peace against a man
who, according to his argument, has done everything
to block the effort for peace.
The real and immediate danger is Sharon and his spychiefs and notorious agencies staging a repeat of the Abu Iyad killing in 1991.
Sharon has already crossed the point of no return with his public declaration that every Hamas leader is marked for death.
His posture indicates that he could not care less for the backlash that would come from the fiercely loyal supporters of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other leaders of the group.
Had Sharon been successful in killing Yassin and others through the missile and bombings of their homes in Gaza in September, then it would have meant waves of suicide attacks; for such would have been the height of Palestinian rage, fury, sorrow, grief, despair and frustration at Israel's arrogance that it could get away with anything in Palestine.
The danger is very much alive today. We could only hope against hope that sense will prevail and Sharon would realise, sooner or later, that violence begets violence and he would never be closer to his "dream" of acquiring Palestine without the Palestinians even if he manages to eliminate Arafat and Yassin and other leaders of the Palestinian struggle.
Friday, September 19, 2003
Saturday, September 13, 2003
Unravelling lies and growing crisis
PV Vivekanand
Has the US found its second Vietnam in Iraq?
Although some experts already see a Vietnam-like scenario emerging in Iraq, others think the situation has not reached that point but that it is definitely a possibility. General consensus is that it would take a few more attacks claiming casualties in double digits to drive home the reality that the US has failed to "pacify" Iraqis, and this would intensify the war of attrition.
Is it possible for the US to shift strategy and hope to win over the people of Iraq to its side as a benevolent occupier?
It seems difficult, given that the US military is in a vengeful mode and treats Iraqis will brutality, contempt and hostility.
The US military does not accept that it has a responsibility to bring about normal life for Iraqis in an atmosphere of safety and security.
American soldiers storm houses without discrimination, haul away people without justification and subject even women to humiliating bodysearches, reports from Baghdad say.
The growing hostility towards Americans among Iraq was perhaps summarised in the words of Abdullah Oman, 18, carried by the Associated Press this week.
"They are watching us die and laughing. They humiliate us. They handcuffed me and arrested me in front of my parents late one night because I stood on my house porch after curfew."
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) underlined the dilemma the US faces in a recent report that warns of growing popular support for the forces challenging the US occupation of Iraq and says efforts to rebuild the country could collapse without immediate corrective action.
The CIA analysis reportedly suggests that the escalation of the US military campaign against guerrillas could cause new civilian casualties and drive more Iraqis to the side of the insurgents. It also says that the inability of US forces to crush the guerrillas is convincing growing numbers of Iraqis that the occupation can be defeated. The report is said to warn that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders has shown an ability to govern the country or even make progress on drafting a constitution or holding an election.
The American strategists and decision makers might need a CIA report like that to understand, if they wish to, the realities on the ground in Iraq. But people in the region do not have to read such reports to draw up a clear picture of the situation in Iraq and realise what is going wrong where for the Americans, starting with the very decision that seems to have been made years ago to invade and occupy Iraq citing whatever reasons and justifications they could cite.
It is essential to note here that none of the reasons that the US cited as having left Washington with no choice but to wage war on Iraq has been proved true.
It is surprising that US President George W Bush and his senior aides continue to insist that the reasons they cited for the war were very valid. There are a few questions that many are desparate to ask them without any trimmings and demand clear-cut, non-evasive and truthful answers. They include:
-- You had said Iraq possessed and was continuing to produce massive stocks of weapons of mass destruction which was a threat to American security and indeed the world. Now, six months after securing absolute military control of the country, where are those weapons of mass destruction?
-- You had said Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda and was somehow involved in the Sept.11 attacks and the invasion of that country was part of the US-led war against terrorism. Where is the proof?
-- Your argument today is that the ouster of Saddam Hussein meant liberation for the people of Iraq. Aren't today the people of Iraq subjected to brutal occupation that seems like a leaf taken from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians?
— You argue that the Iraqi Governing Council is in charge of things in Iraq. But, as members of the council have affirmed, they are taking orders from the US overseer in Iraq, Paul Bremer, who retains absolute authority over anything and everything concerning the council's purported mission. How could you blame the council for the slow pace in work towards a constitution and general elections?
In the meantime, the ground reality in Iraq is a vicious circle. As American soldiers seeth with fury and hit back at suspected Iraqis with a vengeance after every resistance attack, they are making it all the more difficult for moves to convince the Iraqis that the US means "well" for them. If anything, the US military is making more enemies in Iraq every day.
Who is behind the mounting attacks against US and other coalition forces in Iraq?
It is difficult to say. No doubt, Saddam loyalists have a role in the operations but it would be a gross exaggeration to conclude that the ousted president is running the war of resistance. He might want to do that and might even think he is doing it, but his circle of influence is relatively limited but is indeed effective in inflicting casualties among the American forces.
It is certain that non-Iraqi Arabs play a prominent role the attacks, but it is unclear whether Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is the leading force among them.
US officials and members of the Washington-backed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) have said foreign volunteers, including some from Al Qaeda, have slipped across the borders into Iraq to take part in a "holy war" against the US-led occupation.
"We're seeing Yemenis, we're seeing Sudanese, we're seeing Syrians and Egyptians, to name a few," according to a senior US commander.
Sources in Ammans said Jordanians and Palestinians were also among those fighting the Americans in Iraq.
What the Americans fail to realise and accept is that it does not need Bin Laden or Al Qaeda to fuel anti-US sentiments or orchestrate attacks. There are millions who see the American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Muslims in general as totally biased and thus consider Washington as part of the problem at par with Israel.
If anything, the US, by maintaining the presence of over 15,000 soldiers in Iraq, has offered a perfect target for attacks. It might not be an exaggeration to say that some of the guerrillas in Iraq are more concerned with inflicting as much damage to the US military than worrying about the US occupation of the country. For many of them, dying while staging an attack against the US is only performing their duty in defence of the Arab and Muslim causes.
The Iranian role, if any at all, in anti-occupation attacks in Iraq is at best murky. It is deemed highly unlikely that the Iranian government would involve itself in such actions, particularly given that Tehran is acutely aware that it is being targeted for "regime change" and anything and everything it does could be used in the US-led campaign against it.
At the same time, Tehran would not sit idle if Iranian interests among the 15 million and plus Shiites of Iraq are undermined. It would like to use its influence through the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and ensure that its interests are protected. So far, there is no evidence that SCIRI has undertaken any anti-US attack in Iraq and it is clear the group wants a major share of power in post-war Iraq.
There are indeed hardline groups within Iran with enough influence and financial clout to support anti-US attacks across the border in Iraq. Again, no evidence has emerged of such activities yet.
Tehran would also like to eliminate the main Iranian opposition group, Mujahedeen e-Khalq, which had upto 30,000 members in camps in Iraq with the blessing of the Saddam regime. The group has been disarmed by the US, but Washington is not ready to accept the Iranian demand that its members be handed over to Tehran. It remains a serious sore point in the tense relationship between Washington and Tehran.
Syria has rejected American charges that it is allowing anti-US guerrillas to enter Iraq along its borders; so has Saudi Arabia. It is highly unlikely that either of them would allow such infiltration, but it is a possibility that the porous desert frontier is being used by guerrillas to enter Iraq. The same applies to Jordan, which has always found it difficult to patrol its border with Iraq against drug and weapon smugglers.
Turkey has its own interests to protect in northern Iraq and the Ankara government could be expected to check infiltration across the border to Iraq. However, there are militant anti-US groups in Turkey and it cannot be ruled out that some of them are active in Iraq.
Kuwait recently imposed controls over access to areas near its border with Iraq, apparently after intelligence reports indicated guerrilla infiltration.
What are the prospects for an American decision to quit Iraq?
Very little at this point in time.
Reports in the mainstream American media have exposed that hardliners in the Bush administration had planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of an American strategy to control the international oil market, maintain a strong American military presence in the Arabian Gulf as a deterrent, and remove Saddam Hussein as a potential threat to Israel, Washington's "strategic ally" in the Middle East.
Having accomplished the three objectives through the war against Iraq, Washington has just set out to implement other actions that would entrench the US in the region. Against that reality, there is no room whatsoever for entertaining any thought of withdrawal from Iraq no matter what cost Washington has to pay in American soldiers' lives.
That is definitely the impression one gets from reading between the lines of the affirmations of President Bush and his aides that the US would not be forced into "prematurely" leaving Iraq. While, for all technical purposes, the "maturity" will be accomplished when "democracy" is established in Iraq and Iraqis assume control of their country. For practical purposes, in the view of many Arabs, the "maturity" that the US seeks would be a stage where whoever is in power in Iraq would take orders from Washington without raising any question whatsoever.
As such, for those Arabs and a majority of Iraqis, and indeed many others in the world, there is little sincerity in American promises. They view any American move in the Middle East as aimed solely at serving American and Israeli interests.
Given the documentary evidence that have appeared even in the American press showing that grabbing control of Middle Eastern oil wells as a strategic weapon was being planned as far back as 1975, it would take much more than words from Washington to convince the Arabs that Bush and his aides mean it when they affirm their resolve to "rebuild" Iraq. For the sceptics, their words only mean that they are using "rebuilding" Iraq as a pretext to maintain and expand the American presence in the region and achieve absolute US domination of the world.
For the world at large, it is a matter of the sole superpower of the world challenging anyone and everyone. "We are the United States of America and we intend to accomplish whatever we wish. Dare us at your peril" -- this is message they are seeing in American actions around the globe.
Has the US found its second Vietnam in Iraq?
Although some experts already see a Vietnam-like scenario emerging in Iraq, others think the situation has not reached that point but that it is definitely a possibility. General consensus is that it would take a few more attacks claiming casualties in double digits to drive home the reality that the US has failed to "pacify" Iraqis, and this would intensify the war of attrition.
Is it possible for the US to shift strategy and hope to win over the people of Iraq to its side as a benevolent occupier?
It seems difficult, given that the US military is in a vengeful mode and treats Iraqis will brutality, contempt and hostility.
The US military does not accept that it has a responsibility to bring about normal life for Iraqis in an atmosphere of safety and security.
American soldiers storm houses without discrimination, haul away people without justification and subject even women to humiliating bodysearches, reports from Baghdad say.
The growing hostility towards Americans among Iraq was perhaps summarised in the words of Abdullah Oman, 18, carried by the Associated Press this week.
"They are watching us die and laughing. They humiliate us. They handcuffed me and arrested me in front of my parents late one night because I stood on my house porch after curfew."
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) underlined the dilemma the US faces in a recent report that warns of growing popular support for the forces challenging the US occupation of Iraq and says efforts to rebuild the country could collapse without immediate corrective action.
The CIA analysis reportedly suggests that the escalation of the US military campaign against guerrillas could cause new civilian casualties and drive more Iraqis to the side of the insurgents. It also says that the inability of US forces to crush the guerrillas is convincing growing numbers of Iraqis that the occupation can be defeated. The report is said to warn that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders has shown an ability to govern the country or even make progress on drafting a constitution or holding an election.
The American strategists and decision makers might need a CIA report like that to understand, if they wish to, the realities on the ground in Iraq. But people in the region do not have to read such reports to draw up a clear picture of the situation in Iraq and realise what is going wrong where for the Americans, starting with the very decision that seems to have been made years ago to invade and occupy Iraq citing whatever reasons and justifications they could cite.
It is essential to note here that none of the reasons that the US cited as having left Washington with no choice but to wage war on Iraq has been proved true.
It is surprising that US President George W Bush and his senior aides continue to insist that the reasons they cited for the war were very valid. There are a few questions that many are desparate to ask them without any trimmings and demand clear-cut, non-evasive and truthful answers. They include:
-- You had said Iraq possessed and was continuing to produce massive stocks of weapons of mass destruction which was a threat to American security and indeed the world. Now, six months after securing absolute military control of the country, where are those weapons of mass destruction?
-- You had said Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda and was somehow involved in the Sept.11 attacks and the invasion of that country was part of the US-led war against terrorism. Where is the proof?
-- Your argument today is that the ouster of Saddam Hussein meant liberation for the people of Iraq. Aren't today the people of Iraq subjected to brutal occupation that seems like a leaf taken from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians?
— You argue that the Iraqi Governing Council is in charge of things in Iraq. But, as members of the council have affirmed, they are taking orders from the US overseer in Iraq, Paul Bremer, who retains absolute authority over anything and everything concerning the council's purported mission. How could you blame the council for the slow pace in work towards a constitution and general elections?
In the meantime, the ground reality in Iraq is a vicious circle. As American soldiers seeth with fury and hit back at suspected Iraqis with a vengeance after every resistance attack, they are making it all the more difficult for moves to convince the Iraqis that the US means "well" for them. If anything, the US military is making more enemies in Iraq every day.
Who is behind the mounting attacks against US and other coalition forces in Iraq?
It is difficult to say. No doubt, Saddam loyalists have a role in the operations but it would be a gross exaggeration to conclude that the ousted president is running the war of resistance. He might want to do that and might even think he is doing it, but his circle of influence is relatively limited but is indeed effective in inflicting casualties among the American forces.
It is certain that non-Iraqi Arabs play a prominent role the attacks, but it is unclear whether Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is the leading force among them.
US officials and members of the Washington-backed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) have said foreign volunteers, including some from Al Qaeda, have slipped across the borders into Iraq to take part in a "holy war" against the US-led occupation.
"We're seeing Yemenis, we're seeing Sudanese, we're seeing Syrians and Egyptians, to name a few," according to a senior US commander.
Sources in Ammans said Jordanians and Palestinians were also among those fighting the Americans in Iraq.
What the Americans fail to realise and accept is that it does not need Bin Laden or Al Qaeda to fuel anti-US sentiments or orchestrate attacks. There are millions who see the American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Muslims in general as totally biased and thus consider Washington as part of the problem at par with Israel.
If anything, the US, by maintaining the presence of over 15,000 soldiers in Iraq, has offered a perfect target for attacks. It might not be an exaggeration to say that some of the guerrillas in Iraq are more concerned with inflicting as much damage to the US military than worrying about the US occupation of the country. For many of them, dying while staging an attack against the US is only performing their duty in defence of the Arab and Muslim causes.
The Iranian role, if any at all, in anti-occupation attacks in Iraq is at best murky. It is deemed highly unlikely that the Iranian government would involve itself in such actions, particularly given that Tehran is acutely aware that it is being targeted for "regime change" and anything and everything it does could be used in the US-led campaign against it.
At the same time, Tehran would not sit idle if Iranian interests among the 15 million and plus Shiites of Iraq are undermined. It would like to use its influence through the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and ensure that its interests are protected. So far, there is no evidence that SCIRI has undertaken any anti-US attack in Iraq and it is clear the group wants a major share of power in post-war Iraq.
There are indeed hardline groups within Iran with enough influence and financial clout to support anti-US attacks across the border in Iraq. Again, no evidence has emerged of such activities yet.
Tehran would also like to eliminate the main Iranian opposition group, Mujahedeen e-Khalq, which had upto 30,000 members in camps in Iraq with the blessing of the Saddam regime. The group has been disarmed by the US, but Washington is not ready to accept the Iranian demand that its members be handed over to Tehran. It remains a serious sore point in the tense relationship between Washington and Tehran.
Syria has rejected American charges that it is allowing anti-US guerrillas to enter Iraq along its borders; so has Saudi Arabia. It is highly unlikely that either of them would allow such infiltration, but it is a possibility that the porous desert frontier is being used by guerrillas to enter Iraq. The same applies to Jordan, which has always found it difficult to patrol its border with Iraq against drug and weapon smugglers.
Turkey has its own interests to protect in northern Iraq and the Ankara government could be expected to check infiltration across the border to Iraq. However, there are militant anti-US groups in Turkey and it cannot be ruled out that some of them are active in Iraq.
Kuwait recently imposed controls over access to areas near its border with Iraq, apparently after intelligence reports indicated guerrilla infiltration.
What are the prospects for an American decision to quit Iraq?
Very little at this point in time.
Reports in the mainstream American media have exposed that hardliners in the Bush administration had planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of an American strategy to control the international oil market, maintain a strong American military presence in the Arabian Gulf as a deterrent, and remove Saddam Hussein as a potential threat to Israel, Washington's "strategic ally" in the Middle East.
Having accomplished the three objectives through the war against Iraq, Washington has just set out to implement other actions that would entrench the US in the region. Against that reality, there is no room whatsoever for entertaining any thought of withdrawal from Iraq no matter what cost Washington has to pay in American soldiers' lives.
That is definitely the impression one gets from reading between the lines of the affirmations of President Bush and his aides that the US would not be forced into "prematurely" leaving Iraq. While, for all technical purposes, the "maturity" will be accomplished when "democracy" is established in Iraq and Iraqis assume control of their country. For practical purposes, in the view of many Arabs, the "maturity" that the US seeks would be a stage where whoever is in power in Iraq would take orders from Washington without raising any question whatsoever.
As such, for those Arabs and a majority of Iraqis, and indeed many others in the world, there is little sincerity in American promises. They view any American move in the Middle East as aimed solely at serving American and Israeli interests.
Given the documentary evidence that have appeared even in the American press showing that grabbing control of Middle Eastern oil wells as a strategic weapon was being planned as far back as 1975, it would take much more than words from Washington to convince the Arabs that Bush and his aides mean it when they affirm their resolve to "rebuild" Iraq. For the sceptics, their words only mean that they are using "rebuilding" Iraq as a pretext to maintain and expand the American presence in the region and achieve absolute US domination of the world.
For the world at large, it is a matter of the sole superpower of the world challenging anyone and everyone. "We are the United States of America and we intend to accomplish whatever we wish. Dare us at your peril" -- this is message they are seeing in American actions around the globe.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Wolfowitz knows the game
by pv vivekanand
OF THE many American officials and members of Congress who passed through the Middle East — including Iraq — in recent weeks, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stood out as the most man who zeroed in on Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for broadcasting statements and videotapes of Iraqi groups waging attacks on the US forces occupying Iraq.
Why should Wolfowitz be the one too perturbed by Al Jazeera and Al Araibya?
The reason is clear: Wolfowitz stands out among the so-called neoconservatives, or, to be more accurate, pro-Israelis, who orchestrated the war against Iraq, and he would definitely like the link to be kept away from public debate. Therefore, it is not as much the anti-US "incitement" broadcast by the two television channels that is distressing him as the pointed debates on the two channels on the short, medium-term and long-term implications of the US-led war against Iraq and how Israeli interests are served more than American interests by the US occupation and "containment" of Iraq.
There might or might not be truth in Wolfowitz's contention that the statements and videotapes attributed to Iraqi groups encourage further attacks on US forces occupying Iraq. But then, to warn the channels against broadcasting them goes against the grain of the very freedom of the media that is held high in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, would Wolfowitz dare to accuse American television and radio stations or newspapers of anything? Of course, he might find no compelling reason to do so since it is unlikely that the same material transmitted by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya will be carried by any US media in the same context and analysis.
An easy (hypothetical) example is: An American channel might carry a video-tape or statement issued by an Iraqi group vowing more attacks against the US forces in Iraq with an American commentary explaining that the group was obscure, unheard of before and suggesting that it could be nothing but terrorist and paid for by Saddam Hussein from his hideout, wherever that might be.
In contrast, the Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya commentary that would go with the same message or tape would say that it is an example of the growing Iraqi resistance against the US occupation and the group might or might not be linked with Saddam. Such portrayals are invariably picked up international news agencies and newspapers -- including American publications -- and reach American readers although with the typical twists and narrow interpretations.
The above summation is rather simplified. The key factor that complicates the American viewpoint here is the fact that it fails to take into account that the situation in Iraq today is very much an Arab concern and the Arab media are projecting the Arab viewpoint through lengthy debates that expose what many commentators describe as the hidden American/Israeli agenda in the invasion and occupation of the country.
To a large extent, American officials and even some of the media outlets see Arab newspapers, television and their enemy and embedded in the same camp with those resisting the American occupation of Iraq not because of Iraq alone but also because of Arab resentment over Washington's biased approach to Middle Eastern and Arab issues in general and Palestine in particular.
People like Wolfowitz are not willing to take in that Western media also portray the US presence in Iraq as occupation (that is the way even the UN describes it) and the attacks against US forces in Iraq as armed resistance.
They are overlooking that debates carried on American channels describe Palestinians fighting the Israeli occupation of their land as terrorists and such descriptions are an insult to the Arab cause in Palestine.
They do not want to acknowledge that Arab media do carry comments by American officials without censoring them.
They would never affirm -- perhaps they are incapable of doing so -- that the Arab media representation of events in Iraq are more accurate than that presented by their American counterparts.
As well-known Middle Eastern commentator Rami Khouri notes:
"At the technical level, the Arab media do exactly what the mainstream American media have done since March: They mirror and pander to the dominant emotional and political sentiments of their own public opinion, because they seek to maximise their market share of audience and advertising.
"In choosing, framing and scripting their stories, Arab and American television stations alike unabashedly and unapologetically cater to their respective audiences' sentiments: The flag-adorned US media emotionally support the US troops, and the Arab media are equally fervent in opposing America's occupation of Iraq."
Parallel to that analysis is indeed the American neoconservatives' anxiety to hide their pro-Israeli stand and activities away from the public eye and ear. It might even be argued that their concerns in this context are more intense than their alarm that Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is "inciting" attacks against US soldiers in Iraq. They know that reports and debates focusing on how far Israel's interests were and are being served in the war against and occupation of Iraq are doing them damage by exposing their pro-Israeli priorities and, at some point, they could be held accountable.
OF THE many American officials and members of Congress who passed through the Middle East — including Iraq — in recent weeks, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stood out as the most man who zeroed in on Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for broadcasting statements and videotapes of Iraqi groups waging attacks on the US forces occupying Iraq.
Why should Wolfowitz be the one too perturbed by Al Jazeera and Al Araibya?
The reason is clear: Wolfowitz stands out among the so-called neoconservatives, or, to be more accurate, pro-Israelis, who orchestrated the war against Iraq, and he would definitely like the link to be kept away from public debate. Therefore, it is not as much the anti-US "incitement" broadcast by the two television channels that is distressing him as the pointed debates on the two channels on the short, medium-term and long-term implications of the US-led war against Iraq and how Israeli interests are served more than American interests by the US occupation and "containment" of Iraq.
There might or might not be truth in Wolfowitz's contention that the statements and videotapes attributed to Iraqi groups encourage further attacks on US forces occupying Iraq. But then, to warn the channels against broadcasting them goes against the grain of the very freedom of the media that is held high in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, would Wolfowitz dare to accuse American television and radio stations or newspapers of anything? Of course, he might find no compelling reason to do so since it is unlikely that the same material transmitted by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya will be carried by any US media in the same context and analysis.
An easy (hypothetical) example is: An American channel might carry a video-tape or statement issued by an Iraqi group vowing more attacks against the US forces in Iraq with an American commentary explaining that the group was obscure, unheard of before and suggesting that it could be nothing but terrorist and paid for by Saddam Hussein from his hideout, wherever that might be.
In contrast, the Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya commentary that would go with the same message or tape would say that it is an example of the growing Iraqi resistance against the US occupation and the group might or might not be linked with Saddam. Such portrayals are invariably picked up international news agencies and newspapers -- including American publications -- and reach American readers although with the typical twists and narrow interpretations.
The above summation is rather simplified. The key factor that complicates the American viewpoint here is the fact that it fails to take into account that the situation in Iraq today is very much an Arab concern and the Arab media are projecting the Arab viewpoint through lengthy debates that expose what many commentators describe as the hidden American/Israeli agenda in the invasion and occupation of the country.
To a large extent, American officials and even some of the media outlets see Arab newspapers, television and their enemy and embedded in the same camp with those resisting the American occupation of Iraq not because of Iraq alone but also because of Arab resentment over Washington's biased approach to Middle Eastern and Arab issues in general and Palestine in particular.
People like Wolfowitz are not willing to take in that Western media also portray the US presence in Iraq as occupation (that is the way even the UN describes it) and the attacks against US forces in Iraq as armed resistance.
They are overlooking that debates carried on American channels describe Palestinians fighting the Israeli occupation of their land as terrorists and such descriptions are an insult to the Arab cause in Palestine.
They do not want to acknowledge that Arab media do carry comments by American officials without censoring them.
They would never affirm -- perhaps they are incapable of doing so -- that the Arab media representation of events in Iraq are more accurate than that presented by their American counterparts.
As well-known Middle Eastern commentator Rami Khouri notes:
"At the technical level, the Arab media do exactly what the mainstream American media have done since March: They mirror and pander to the dominant emotional and political sentiments of their own public opinion, because they seek to maximise their market share of audience and advertising.
"In choosing, framing and scripting their stories, Arab and American television stations alike unabashedly and unapologetically cater to their respective audiences' sentiments: The flag-adorned US media emotionally support the US troops, and the Arab media are equally fervent in opposing America's occupation of Iraq."
Parallel to that analysis is indeed the American neoconservatives' anxiety to hide their pro-Israeli stand and activities away from the public eye and ear. It might even be argued that their concerns in this context are more intense than their alarm that Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is "inciting" attacks against US soldiers in Iraq. They know that reports and debates focusing on how far Israel's interests were and are being served in the war against and occupation of Iraq are doing them damage by exposing their pro-Israeli priorities and, at some point, they could be held accountable.
Wolfofitz knows the game
by pv vivekanand
OF THE many American officials and members of Congress who passed through the Middle East — including Iraq — in recent weeks, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stood out as the most man who zeroed in on Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for broadcasting statements and videotapes of Iraqi groups waging attacks on the US forces occupying Iraq.
Why should Wolfowitz be the one too perturbed by Al Jazeera and Al Araibya?
The reason is clear: Wolfowitz stands out among the so-called neoconservatives, or, to be more accurate, pro-Israelis, who orchestrated the war against Iraq, and he would definitely like the link to be kept away from public debate. Therefore, it is not as much the anti-US "incitement" broadcast by the two television channels that is distressing him as the pointed debates on the two channels on the short, medium-term and long-term implications of the US-led war against Iraq and how Israeli interests are served more than American interests by the US occupation and "containment" of Iraq.
There might or might not be truth in Wolfowitz's contention that the statements and videotapes attributed to Iraqi groups encourage further attacks on US forces occupying Iraq. But then, to warn the channels against broadcasting them goes against the grain of the very freedom of the media that is held high in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, would Wolfowitz dare to accuse American television and radio stations or newspapers of anything? Of course, he might find no compelling reason to do so since it is unlikely that the same material transmitted by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya will be carried by any US media in the same context and analysis.
An easy (hypothetical) example is: An American channel might carry a video-tape or statement issued by an Iraqi group vowing more attacks against the US forces in Iraq with an American commentary explaining that the group was obscure, unheard of before and suggesting that it could be nothing but terrorist and paid for by Saddam Hussein from his hideout, wherever that might be.
In contrast, the Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya commentary that would go with the same message or tape would say that it is an example of the growing Iraqi resistance against the US occupation and the group might or might not be linked with Saddam. Such portrayals are invariably picked up international news agencies and newspapers -- including American publications -- and reach American readers although with the typical twists and narrow interpretations.
The above summation is rather simplified. The key factor that complicates the American viewpoint here is the fact that it fails to take into account that the situation in Iraq today is very much an Arab concern and the Arab media are projecting the Arab viewpoint through lengthy debates that expose what many commentators describe as the hidden American/Israeli agenda in the invasion and occupation of the country.
To a large extent, American officials and even some of the media outlets see Arab newspapers, television and their enemy and embedded in the same camp with those resisting the American occupation of Iraq not because of Iraq alone but also because of Arab resentment over Washington's biased approach to Middle Eastern and Arab issues in general and Palestine in particular.
People like Wolfowitz are not willing to take in that Western media also portray the US presence in Iraq as occupation (that is the way even the UN describes it) and the attacks against US forces in Iraq as armed resistance.
They are overlooking that debates carried on American channels describe Palestinians fighting the Israeli occupation of their land as terrorists and such descriptions are an insult to the Arab cause in Palestine.
They do not want to acknowledge that Arab media do carry comments by American officials without censoring them.
They would never affirm -- perhaps they are incapable of doing so -- that the Arab media representation of events in Iraq are more accurate than that presented by their American counterparts.
As well-known Middle Eastern commentator Rami Khouri notes:
"At the technical level, the Arab media do exactly what the mainstream American media have done since March: They mirror and pander to the dominant emotional and political sentiments of their own public opinion, because they seek to maximise their market share of audience and advertising.
"In choosing, framing and scripting their stories, Arab and American television stations alike unabashedly and unapologetically cater to their respective audiences' sentiments: The flag-adorned US media emotionally support the US troops, and the Arab media are equally fervent in opposing America's occupation of Iraq."
Parallel to that analysis is indeed the American neoconservatives' anxiety to hide their pro-Israeli stand and activities away from the public eye and ear. It might even be argued that their concerns in this context are more intense than their alarm that Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is "inciting" attacks against US soldiers in Iraq. They know that reports and debates focusing on how far Israel's interests were and are being served in the war against and occupation of Iraq are doing them damage by exposing their pro-Israeli priorities and, at some point, they could be held accountable.
OF THE many American officials and members of Congress who passed through the Middle East — including Iraq — in recent weeks, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stood out as the most man who zeroed in on Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for broadcasting statements and videotapes of Iraqi groups waging attacks on the US forces occupying Iraq.
Why should Wolfowitz be the one too perturbed by Al Jazeera and Al Araibya?
The reason is clear: Wolfowitz stands out among the so-called neoconservatives, or, to be more accurate, pro-Israelis, who orchestrated the war against Iraq, and he would definitely like the link to be kept away from public debate. Therefore, it is not as much the anti-US "incitement" broadcast by the two television channels that is distressing him as the pointed debates on the two channels on the short, medium-term and long-term implications of the US-led war against Iraq and how Israeli interests are served more than American interests by the US occupation and "containment" of Iraq.
There might or might not be truth in Wolfowitz's contention that the statements and videotapes attributed to Iraqi groups encourage further attacks on US forces occupying Iraq. But then, to warn the channels against broadcasting them goes against the grain of the very freedom of the media that is held high in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, would Wolfowitz dare to accuse American television and radio stations or newspapers of anything? Of course, he might find no compelling reason to do so since it is unlikely that the same material transmitted by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya will be carried by any US media in the same context and analysis.
An easy (hypothetical) example is: An American channel might carry a video-tape or statement issued by an Iraqi group vowing more attacks against the US forces in Iraq with an American commentary explaining that the group was obscure, unheard of before and suggesting that it could be nothing but terrorist and paid for by Saddam Hussein from his hideout, wherever that might be.
In contrast, the Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya commentary that would go with the same message or tape would say that it is an example of the growing Iraqi resistance against the US occupation and the group might or might not be linked with Saddam. Such portrayals are invariably picked up international news agencies and newspapers -- including American publications -- and reach American readers although with the typical twists and narrow interpretations.
The above summation is rather simplified. The key factor that complicates the American viewpoint here is the fact that it fails to take into account that the situation in Iraq today is very much an Arab concern and the Arab media are projecting the Arab viewpoint through lengthy debates that expose what many commentators describe as the hidden American/Israeli agenda in the invasion and occupation of the country.
To a large extent, American officials and even some of the media outlets see Arab newspapers, television and their enemy and embedded in the same camp with those resisting the American occupation of Iraq not because of Iraq alone but also because of Arab resentment over Washington's biased approach to Middle Eastern and Arab issues in general and Palestine in particular.
People like Wolfowitz are not willing to take in that Western media also portray the US presence in Iraq as occupation (that is the way even the UN describes it) and the attacks against US forces in Iraq as armed resistance.
They are overlooking that debates carried on American channels describe Palestinians fighting the Israeli occupation of their land as terrorists and such descriptions are an insult to the Arab cause in Palestine.
They do not want to acknowledge that Arab media do carry comments by American officials without censoring them.
They would never affirm -- perhaps they are incapable of doing so -- that the Arab media representation of events in Iraq are more accurate than that presented by their American counterparts.
As well-known Middle Eastern commentator Rami Khouri notes:
"At the technical level, the Arab media do exactly what the mainstream American media have done since March: They mirror and pander to the dominant emotional and political sentiments of their own public opinion, because they seek to maximise their market share of audience and advertising.
"In choosing, framing and scripting their stories, Arab and American television stations alike unabashedly and unapologetically cater to their respective audiences' sentiments: The flag-adorned US media emotionally support the US troops, and the Arab media are equally fervent in opposing America's occupation of Iraq."
Parallel to that analysis is indeed the American neoconservatives' anxiety to hide their pro-Israeli stand and activities away from the public eye and ear. It might even be argued that their concerns in this context are more intense than their alarm that Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is "inciting" attacks against US soldiers in Iraq. They know that reports and debates focusing on how far Israel's interests were and are being served in the war against and occupation of Iraq are doing them damage by exposing their pro-Israeli priorities and, at some point, they could be held accountable.
Friday, September 05, 2003
US rider on UN
BY PV VIVEKANAND
PV Vivekanand
IT IS NOT surprising that US President George W Bush has agreed to accept an increased United Nations role in post-war Iraq although he has attached a condition that a UN-authorised military force in the counrty should be placed under American command.
The Bush administration's initial projections went wrong in Iraq, and now, nearly five months after a US-led military force toppled Saddam Hussein in war, Washington has come to realise that it is indeed slipping into a deeper abyss as every day passes with increased attacks on American soldiers and growing unrest among Iraqis that bode ill for the occupation authorities.
There would be backlashes in Washington and some heads might roll, particularly of those pro-Israeli hawks who orchestrated the war with predictions that Iraqis would be eternally grateful to the US for having ousted the Saddam regime.
That is indeed a problem for Bush and his people and we would be seeing its manifestations sooner than later
From the vantage point in the Middle East, Bush's change of mind was expected although he had all but ruled out any effort or a new Security Council resolution that could give a UN umbrella for hesitant countries prompted to contribute troops to keep peace in post-war Iraq. His advisers have come to appreciate the reality that it is impossible to keep Iraq under the US feet for long without facing the risk of the toes being blown away.
The conservative Financial Times of London commented this week: “Facing resistance by forces they have yet to identify with any conviction, the US-led occupation authorities are unable to control the roads or the borders, the water or the electricity supply. It is now increasingly clear they are also unable to defend the allies and institutions they need to rebuild Iraq.”
Few people in the Middle East and Asia needed to be told of the analysis that it was only a matter of time that the US strategists would realise the enormity of the task in Iraq and would want a face-saving formula, and that is what the Bush administration is trying to do by securing a UN resolution that would alleviate the risks that the US and allied forces are currently facing in Iraq.
According to the New York Times, the administration has already drawn up a draft resolution that has only been shown to the British government. Details of the draft are not available yet, but it is believed to contain language that clearly grants the US the overall command and authority to take important decisions on its own.
However, France and Russia, among others, might not want to grant that kind of authority to the US for several reasons, the first being of course allowing the US to have a largely free hand in Iraqi affairs under a UN umbrella. They are also aware that a UN-mandated force with majority American participation and under American command would not be accepted by many Iraqis who would find little difference between the Blue Berets and the American-led now occupying Iraq.
According to Ellie Goldsworthy, a military expert at London's Royal United Services Institute, Washington wanted to appear willing to compromise, while keeping military control.
"There is no solution that anyone will leap at," she told Reuters, but argued that even opponents of the US-led war recognised that Iraq could not be allowed to spin out of control.
"It's in everyone's interest to see internationalisation," she said. "It spreads the emotional as well as the military burden and would alleviate the political pressure on Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair."
India, Pakistan and Turkey are three countries which have adopted a position that their contribution to a military force would come only under a UN umbrella; all the three governments face bitter opposition to sending troops to Iraq even under a UN resolution.
The International Crisis Group, a body of experts in various aspects of governance, military affairs and international politics, has recommended a division of labour between the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the United Nations and the interim Iraqi Governing Council.
Under the proposal, the CPA should keep control of military security, law and order, and restoring basic infrastructure; the UN would oversee the Governing Council and the constitutional process, organise elections and coordinate humanitarian aid, among other responsibilities.
The council would take on day-to-day governance of Iraq, including a role in reconstituting the police and armed forces.
According to the group, only such a balanced approach could help resolve the problem of who governs Iraq during the occupation.
Regional experts say that an enhanced UN role with full authority in shaping post-Saddam Iraq is an absolute necessity in order to change the perception that Iraq has become an American colony.
Some analysts argue that Iraqis have lost faith in the UN: They believe that although the Security Council did not explicitly authorise the US to go to war, it is seen to have led the US into it.
The UN is seen by many Iraqis as being responsible for the sanctions imposed in 1990, which is said to have cost the lives of half a million Iraqi children. The Iraqis see the UN as responsible for the humiliating weapons inspections, which disarmed the country and delivered it up defenceless to the American attack. By setting up deadlines on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the UN helped provide the excuses that the Bush government desperately needed in order to sell the war to the American public.
And now the world boy has legitimised the US occupation of Iraq. That is how some commentators see the Iraqi mindset.
This week, a contingent led by Poles and including brigades that are commanded by Ukrainians and Spaniards replaced a US Marines unit in southwestern Iraq.
Other countries which have sent troops or have agreed send troops to post-war Iraq include Japan, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Thailand.
At present there are 150,000 American, 11,000 British and 10,000 other soldiers in Iraq.
Apart from the human cost of occupying Iraq -- at least 67 American soldiers have been killed since Bush announced a formal end to combat in Iraq in May -- Washington is burdened with spending $125 million a day in the country, according to some accounts.
Bush's decision to go for a UN resolution came after several rounds of intense meetings with his advisers and key cabinet official.
"While not unexpected, it was a tacit admission that the current American-dominated force is stretched too thin," said the New York Times. "It also amounts to one of the most significant changes in strategy since the end of major combat in Iraq."
A Congressional study has showed that the US Army lacked the active-duty troops to keep the current occupation force in Iraq past March, without getting extra help from either other services and reserves or from other nations, or without spending tens of billions to vastly expand its size, according to the Times.
The New York Times also quoted a senior official as saying that Bush's national security team hopes to start withdrawing the majority of American forces now in Iraq within 18 months to two years, and "making this peacekeeping operation look like the kind that are familiar to us," in Kosovo, Bosnia and other places where the United Nations has taken the major role.
Another senior administration official told the paper that Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell had discussed "ways to persuade the Security Council members to create such a force, and added that Mr. Powell "is going to be working with our colleagues and allies to talk about language that can bring maximum, effective resources to bear" in Iraq.
According to a US Congressional study, if the Defence Department pushed ahead with its plan of rotating active-duty army troops out of Iraq after a year, it would be able to sustain a force of only 67,000 to 106,000 active duty and reserve forces. A larger force would put at risk the military's operations elsewhere around the globe, according to the study.
It said the Pentagon did not have enough personnel to keep the troops fresh and still conduct operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Korea.
The study was requested by Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd, a critic of the Iraq war, after the Bush administration refused to discuss the long-term cost of a sustaining the occupation force in Iraq.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., also a Democrat, said recently: "We're 95 percent of the deaths, 95 percent of the costs, and more than 90 percent of the troops.
"The costs are staggering, the number of troops are staggering, we're seeing continuing escalation of American casualties, and we need to turn to the UN for help, for a UN-sanctioned military operation that is under US command."
The congressional study also analysed the financial cost of the occupation. It said the US could maintain in Iraq a force of up to 106,000 if it uses Marine Corps units, Army Special Forces groups and National Guard combat units. Such units have generally not been used for peacekeeping, and the budget office said using them would bring the cost of the occupation to $19 billion a year compared with the $46.8 billion projected by the Pentagon.
According to the study, if the Defence Department stuck with its present plans of using army unit, then recruiting, training and equipping two new divisions would require an up-front cost of up to $19 billion and take five years; it would cost an extra $9 billion to $10 billion a year to put the units in place in Iraq raising the total cost of the occupation force up to 129,000 troops and cost up to $29 billion a year.
Byrd used the report to argue that the Bush administration failed to inform the nation of the true costs of invading Iraq, and said the United States must now get support from the international community to sustain the occupation.
Evidently, the Americans have not heard the last about the issue from Byrd. Come election time next time, every "shortcoming" of the Bush administration would be used to its full strength.
The pro-Israeli camp, or the so-called neoconservatives, in Washington might be feeling heat of the situation, after having stood firm on their suggestions that occupying Iraq was not a risky proposition. After all, Bush is coming to grips with the realities of the situation on the ground in Iraq and should be turning around to ask who pushed him into it.
"It reflects a reality check for the neo-conservatives, who now feel exposed," said Jonathan Stevenson, a security expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
"The post-conflict situation is proving much more fraught than the United States anticipated, but the Pentagon is still less inclined than the State Department to yield real authority to the United Nations. They are not ready to capitulate." Stevenson told Reuters.
The hawks who pushed Bush into invading Iraq on easy assumptions are believed to include
Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfovitz.
"The neo-conservatives had certainly followed the belief that Iraq would fall easily, the Americans would be welcomed as liberators and Iraq would become a democracy," according to Gareth Stansfield, an Iraq expert at Britain's Exeter University,
"The Americans are now trying to identify the least worst solution," Stansfield said. "They are looking for an exit strategy by internationalising the situation."
Worse still, reports from Washington indicate, the neoconseratives convinced Bush before the war that the UN was a teethless tiger and the US had the ability to take and implement unilateral US action.
It was under their advice that the UN would condemn itself to "irrelevance" unless it endorsed military action. But now Bush has to go back to the UN, and that is not something he would like to forget in a hurry.
According to Dana Allin, a senior fellow for transatlantic relations at the IISS, , returning to the UN represented "a defeat for the idea that the US can do this more or less on its own, without seeking a compromise on the Security Council on defining the legitimacy of the US occupation of Iraq."
But that view is not shared by the hawks in the Bush administration who are seen ready to expose the US to more risks in order to achieve their strategy of transforming the Middle East into an area that serves Israeli interests and propel the Jewish state as the dominant power in the region at American expense. They need a puppet regime in Iraq that would be ready to use as brutal force as that was employed by the Saddam regime; for them, the well-being of the people of Iraq is not a priority at all.
As such, a battle is brewing within Washington circles for and against granting the UN real authority in Iraq. That posts a key question: Could Bush's pointman Powell be able to work out a deal that pleases everyone now, but increases the risks for foreign troops landing in Iraq at a later stage?
Equally important is the question how "aggressive" would the proposed UN force be?
Given the presence of groups hostile to foreign presence, notably American, in post-war Iraq, the UN force might not be able to pursue a pacifist approach. Would than mean the Blue Berets storming houses and suspected hideouts with their guns blazing as the Americans are doing today?
PV Vivekanand
IT IS NOT surprising that US President George W Bush has agreed to accept an increased United Nations role in post-war Iraq although he has attached a condition that a UN-authorised military force in the counrty should be placed under American command.
The Bush administration's initial projections went wrong in Iraq, and now, nearly five months after a US-led military force toppled Saddam Hussein in war, Washington has come to realise that it is indeed slipping into a deeper abyss as every day passes with increased attacks on American soldiers and growing unrest among Iraqis that bode ill for the occupation authorities.
There would be backlashes in Washington and some heads might roll, particularly of those pro-Israeli hawks who orchestrated the war with predictions that Iraqis would be eternally grateful to the US for having ousted the Saddam regime.
That is indeed a problem for Bush and his people and we would be seeing its manifestations sooner than later
From the vantage point in the Middle East, Bush's change of mind was expected although he had all but ruled out any effort or a new Security Council resolution that could give a UN umbrella for hesitant countries prompted to contribute troops to keep peace in post-war Iraq. His advisers have come to appreciate the reality that it is impossible to keep Iraq under the US feet for long without facing the risk of the toes being blown away.
The conservative Financial Times of London commented this week: “Facing resistance by forces they have yet to identify with any conviction, the US-led occupation authorities are unable to control the roads or the borders, the water or the electricity supply. It is now increasingly clear they are also unable to defend the allies and institutions they need to rebuild Iraq.”
Few people in the Middle East and Asia needed to be told of the analysis that it was only a matter of time that the US strategists would realise the enormity of the task in Iraq and would want a face-saving formula, and that is what the Bush administration is trying to do by securing a UN resolution that would alleviate the risks that the US and allied forces are currently facing in Iraq.
According to the New York Times, the administration has already drawn up a draft resolution that has only been shown to the British government. Details of the draft are not available yet, but it is believed to contain language that clearly grants the US the overall command and authority to take important decisions on its own.
However, France and Russia, among others, might not want to grant that kind of authority to the US for several reasons, the first being of course allowing the US to have a largely free hand in Iraqi affairs under a UN umbrella. They are also aware that a UN-mandated force with majority American participation and under American command would not be accepted by many Iraqis who would find little difference between the Blue Berets and the American-led now occupying Iraq.
According to Ellie Goldsworthy, a military expert at London's Royal United Services Institute, Washington wanted to appear willing to compromise, while keeping military control.
"There is no solution that anyone will leap at," she told Reuters, but argued that even opponents of the US-led war recognised that Iraq could not be allowed to spin out of control.
"It's in everyone's interest to see internationalisation," she said. "It spreads the emotional as well as the military burden and would alleviate the political pressure on Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair."
India, Pakistan and Turkey are three countries which have adopted a position that their contribution to a military force would come only under a UN umbrella; all the three governments face bitter opposition to sending troops to Iraq even under a UN resolution.
The International Crisis Group, a body of experts in various aspects of governance, military affairs and international politics, has recommended a division of labour between the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the United Nations and the interim Iraqi Governing Council.
Under the proposal, the CPA should keep control of military security, law and order, and restoring basic infrastructure; the UN would oversee the Governing Council and the constitutional process, organise elections and coordinate humanitarian aid, among other responsibilities.
The council would take on day-to-day governance of Iraq, including a role in reconstituting the police and armed forces.
According to the group, only such a balanced approach could help resolve the problem of who governs Iraq during the occupation.
Regional experts say that an enhanced UN role with full authority in shaping post-Saddam Iraq is an absolute necessity in order to change the perception that Iraq has become an American colony.
Some analysts argue that Iraqis have lost faith in the UN: They believe that although the Security Council did not explicitly authorise the US to go to war, it is seen to have led the US into it.
The UN is seen by many Iraqis as being responsible for the sanctions imposed in 1990, which is said to have cost the lives of half a million Iraqi children. The Iraqis see the UN as responsible for the humiliating weapons inspections, which disarmed the country and delivered it up defenceless to the American attack. By setting up deadlines on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the UN helped provide the excuses that the Bush government desperately needed in order to sell the war to the American public.
And now the world boy has legitimised the US occupation of Iraq. That is how some commentators see the Iraqi mindset.
This week, a contingent led by Poles and including brigades that are commanded by Ukrainians and Spaniards replaced a US Marines unit in southwestern Iraq.
Other countries which have sent troops or have agreed send troops to post-war Iraq include Japan, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Thailand.
At present there are 150,000 American, 11,000 British and 10,000 other soldiers in Iraq.
Apart from the human cost of occupying Iraq -- at least 67 American soldiers have been killed since Bush announced a formal end to combat in Iraq in May -- Washington is burdened with spending $125 million a day in the country, according to some accounts.
Bush's decision to go for a UN resolution came after several rounds of intense meetings with his advisers and key cabinet official.
"While not unexpected, it was a tacit admission that the current American-dominated force is stretched too thin," said the New York Times. "It also amounts to one of the most significant changes in strategy since the end of major combat in Iraq."
A Congressional study has showed that the US Army lacked the active-duty troops to keep the current occupation force in Iraq past March, without getting extra help from either other services and reserves or from other nations, or without spending tens of billions to vastly expand its size, according to the Times.
The New York Times also quoted a senior official as saying that Bush's national security team hopes to start withdrawing the majority of American forces now in Iraq within 18 months to two years, and "making this peacekeeping operation look like the kind that are familiar to us," in Kosovo, Bosnia and other places where the United Nations has taken the major role.
Another senior administration official told the paper that Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell had discussed "ways to persuade the Security Council members to create such a force, and added that Mr. Powell "is going to be working with our colleagues and allies to talk about language that can bring maximum, effective resources to bear" in Iraq.
According to a US Congressional study, if the Defence Department pushed ahead with its plan of rotating active-duty army troops out of Iraq after a year, it would be able to sustain a force of only 67,000 to 106,000 active duty and reserve forces. A larger force would put at risk the military's operations elsewhere around the globe, according to the study.
It said the Pentagon did not have enough personnel to keep the troops fresh and still conduct operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Korea.
The study was requested by Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd, a critic of the Iraq war, after the Bush administration refused to discuss the long-term cost of a sustaining the occupation force in Iraq.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., also a Democrat, said recently: "We're 95 percent of the deaths, 95 percent of the costs, and more than 90 percent of the troops.
"The costs are staggering, the number of troops are staggering, we're seeing continuing escalation of American casualties, and we need to turn to the UN for help, for a UN-sanctioned military operation that is under US command."
The congressional study also analysed the financial cost of the occupation. It said the US could maintain in Iraq a force of up to 106,000 if it uses Marine Corps units, Army Special Forces groups and National Guard combat units. Such units have generally not been used for peacekeeping, and the budget office said using them would bring the cost of the occupation to $19 billion a year compared with the $46.8 billion projected by the Pentagon.
According to the study, if the Defence Department stuck with its present plans of using army unit, then recruiting, training and equipping two new divisions would require an up-front cost of up to $19 billion and take five years; it would cost an extra $9 billion to $10 billion a year to put the units in place in Iraq raising the total cost of the occupation force up to 129,000 troops and cost up to $29 billion a year.
Byrd used the report to argue that the Bush administration failed to inform the nation of the true costs of invading Iraq, and said the United States must now get support from the international community to sustain the occupation.
Evidently, the Americans have not heard the last about the issue from Byrd. Come election time next time, every "shortcoming" of the Bush administration would be used to its full strength.
The pro-Israeli camp, or the so-called neoconservatives, in Washington might be feeling heat of the situation, after having stood firm on their suggestions that occupying Iraq was not a risky proposition. After all, Bush is coming to grips with the realities of the situation on the ground in Iraq and should be turning around to ask who pushed him into it.
"It reflects a reality check for the neo-conservatives, who now feel exposed," said Jonathan Stevenson, a security expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
"The post-conflict situation is proving much more fraught than the United States anticipated, but the Pentagon is still less inclined than the State Department to yield real authority to the United Nations. They are not ready to capitulate." Stevenson told Reuters.
The hawks who pushed Bush into invading Iraq on easy assumptions are believed to include
Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfovitz.
"The neo-conservatives had certainly followed the belief that Iraq would fall easily, the Americans would be welcomed as liberators and Iraq would become a democracy," according to Gareth Stansfield, an Iraq expert at Britain's Exeter University,
"The Americans are now trying to identify the least worst solution," Stansfield said. "They are looking for an exit strategy by internationalising the situation."
Worse still, reports from Washington indicate, the neoconseratives convinced Bush before the war that the UN was a teethless tiger and the US had the ability to take and implement unilateral US action.
It was under their advice that the UN would condemn itself to "irrelevance" unless it endorsed military action. But now Bush has to go back to the UN, and that is not something he would like to forget in a hurry.
According to Dana Allin, a senior fellow for transatlantic relations at the IISS, , returning to the UN represented "a defeat for the idea that the US can do this more or less on its own, without seeking a compromise on the Security Council on defining the legitimacy of the US occupation of Iraq."
But that view is not shared by the hawks in the Bush administration who are seen ready to expose the US to more risks in order to achieve their strategy of transforming the Middle East into an area that serves Israeli interests and propel the Jewish state as the dominant power in the region at American expense. They need a puppet regime in Iraq that would be ready to use as brutal force as that was employed by the Saddam regime; for them, the well-being of the people of Iraq is not a priority at all.
As such, a battle is brewing within Washington circles for and against granting the UN real authority in Iraq. That posts a key question: Could Bush's pointman Powell be able to work out a deal that pleases everyone now, but increases the risks for foreign troops landing in Iraq at a later stage?
Equally important is the question how "aggressive" would the proposed UN force be?
Given the presence of groups hostile to foreign presence, notably American, in post-war Iraq, the UN force might not be able to pursue a pacifist approach. Would than mean the Blue Berets storming houses and suspected hideouts with their guns blazing as the Americans are doing today?
Thursday, September 04, 2003
Saddam fate not lost on Qadhafi
By PV Vivekanand
THE example that the US set with its invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein has not been lost on Libya's Muammar Qadhafi, who has now made deals involving acceptance of responsibility and payment of compensation for attacks outside Libya that are blamed on his agents.
That also proves that the US has succeeded largely in its drive -- launched with the war on Iraq — to establish itself as an unchallenged power in the world and warn off anyone who stands against American interests anywhere in the world.
Indeed, it could be argued that the Libyan moves towards settling its dispute with the US and UK over the 1988 bombing of an American airliner over Scotland and with France over the 1989 bombing of a French passenger plane over Niger were launched much earlier than the 2003 US-led ouster of Saddam from power in Iraq.
However, the way in which Libya succumbed to pressure and agreed to accept responsibility for the downing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988 and pay $2.7 billion as compensation and also to increase by an unspecified amount the compensation for victims of the 1989 bombing of a French UTA plane clearly indicates that Qadhafi was and is concerned that he might eventually have faced the same fate as Saddam Hussein if he had rejected the demands.
Had Libya not accepted the French demand for an increase in compensation in the UTA bombing, its moves to close the Lockerbie file with the US and UN would not have come through since France would have blocked a Security Council resolution lifting the UN sanctions against Libya. That situation would have left a Damocles threat hanging over Qadhafi.
Equally importantly, Libya needs advanced Western technology and equipment for its oil industry and this would not have come through without an end to the UN sanctions against it.
This week, Libya and France has reached a deal to settle the dispute over compensation for victims of the UTA bombing, which, according to a verdict by a French court, was carried out by Libyan agents.
Under the agreement over the PanAm blast that Libya worked out with the governments of the US and UK, it has already transferred $2.7 billion to an escrow account in the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland as compensation to the relatives of those killed in the bombing.
Technically, the transfer, coupled with the deal over the UTA bombing — signal the closure of the file on the bombing and should lead to the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya in 1991 when it refused to hand over two Libyans accused of the bombing.
Under the Lockerbie deal, 40 per cent of $10 million will be released to relatives of the 270 victims immediately upon the lifting of United Nations sanctions against Libya, another 40 per cent with the removal of US sanctions, and a final 20 per cent in return for Libya being removed from the US list of states “sponsoring terrorism.”
It was the disparity in the compensations that Libya agreed to pay in the Lockerbie case and the UTA case that prompted Paris to demand a comparable level of compensation for UTA 772’s victims.
Six Libyan officials were convicted in a French court in absentia for the UTA bombing attack and the victim’s relatives were paid up to $33,000 each by Libya.
It is not known how much Libya agree to pay more to settle the feud with France.
Qadhafi announced on state television late Sunday that an agreement had been reached following weekend negotiations in Tripoli.
"We can say that the UTA affair and the Lockerbie affair are now behind us and that we are turning a page with France and the United States," Qadhafi said. "The money is of little importance to us. We have our dignity."
It was as much a national need for Libya to strike a deal in both Lockerbie and UTA cases -- although the latter was not directly tied to UN sanctions -- in order to remove the sanctions.
Libya has been under strong American and British pressure and the UN sanctions had started to bite at the Libyan oil industry towards the late 90s and that was when Qadhafi worked out a compromise and allowed the two Libyans to be tried in a special Scottish court set up in the Netherlands.
The court tried the two, Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. It acquitted Fhimah but convicted Megrahi and sentenced to life in prison in Scotland.
However, the matter did not end there since an end to the UN sanctions — as well as sanctions adopted by the US on its own -- was contingent on Libya owning up responsibility for the blast and paying compensation to victims of the bombing.
It is clear that Qadhafi accepted the conditions and moved to settle the dispute once and for all because -- apart from concerns raised by the Saddam affair — he needed American and European involvement in his country's oil industry.
Libya holds the sixth largest known deposit of oil and is the eighth largest oil exporter and it is vital that it has access to advanced technology in oil exploration and production that was denied to it under the sanctions.
Therefore, the acceptance of responsibility and payment of compensation should be seen as political as well as technical rather than what it implies on the surface.
That leaves the key question hanging in the air: Who was behind the Lockerbie bombing?
That question has dogged all those who have been following up the case since the day the PanAm plane went down.
The question stemmed from the considerations of the following factors:
Researchers had unearthed circumstantial evidence suggesting that responsibility for Lockerbie may lie primarily with the intelligence services of several Western governments, particularly the United States. Researchers say the media were blindly following the official line and that no major British or US newspaper, radio, or TV channel undertook a sustained investigation of this possibility
At the very outset of investigations, the US said it suspected Iran was behind the bombing, and a few weeks later claimed it had prima facie evidence that a Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) led by Ahmed Jibrial, had planted bomb at Tehran's behest. Tehran was said to be exacting revenge for the downing of an Iran Air passenger plane in the Gulf by an American warship at the peak of the Iran-Iraq war.
Why was it then that the Iran angle was quietly dropped from the investigations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) zeroed in on Libya?
Why did then, the then US president, George Bush Senior, personally asked the then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher not to pursue the Iranian angle? (That Bush made that request and Thatcher accepted it was reported in the British press and was not denied by the British or American governments).
An independent investigation conducted by an agency hired by PanAm had reported that the explosives-laden suitcase which exploded on board the plane over Lockerbie was supposed to have contained drugs and was part of an operation involving the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
It was then reported that the CIA was co-operating with a Lebanon-based drug trafficking group in return for seeking to use the group's underworld connections to get to militants who were holding more than 10 Americans are hostage. As part of the deal, the CIA allowed the suitcase to pass unchecked and be placed aboard the PanAm plane. Reports said somewhere along the line before it went aboard, the contents of the suitcases were switched to explosives.
Charles McKee, a US Army Special Forces major who was leading the hostage rescue efforts in Lebanon, was aboard the plane and it was suggested that he might have carried the bomb-laden suitcase without being aware that it contained explosives instead of drugs.
The evidence that led to the conviction of the Libyan, Megrahi, was based on shreds of clothing that was used to wrap the radio cassette player which was rigged with the explosives in the suitcase.
US and British forensic experts traced the clothing to a shop in the Mediterranean island of Malta and the shop's owner testified that Megrahi "could have been" the man who bought the clothes. Apart from that, there was no evidence linking Megrahi to the bombing except an unproven contention that he had placed the suitcase at a luggage ramp at Malta with a New York tag and it found its way aboard the Pan Am flight from London where it had arrived via Frankfurt, Germany.
A tiny piece of debris recovered from the wreckage was found to be that of a timer manufactured and supplied to Libya by a small electronics company called MEBO based in Zurich, Switzerland.
However, similar timers were supplied to several parties, including the Stasi secret service of former East Germany which had close ties with the PFLP-GC.
Another theory said that the CIA station chief in Lebanon, who was travelling aboard the PanAm flight, was the actual target of the bombing and the plot involved "rogue" CIA agents who faced trial in the US on "treason" charge. The CIA chief in Lebanon was reportedly carrying with him evidence that implicated them and enough to convict them. That evidence, presumably under this theory, was also destroyed in the blast.
When Megrahi was first convicted in 2001, Libya appealed the ruling and said it would unveil "shocking" revelations of the mid-air blast during the appeal.
Qadhafi said Libya had in its possession evidence that pointed the figure at the "real culprit" behind the bombing, which the US says was Libya's revenge for a 1985 US bombing of Libyan cities.
He asserted that when he produced the purported evidence, it would leave the trial judges with the choice of quitting their profession or committing suicide.
But he never came forth with the evidence, obviously because that would have tied him down in a continuing dispute with the US, with no end in sight for the UN sanctions on his country. Megrahi's conviction was upheld by an appeals panel in early 2002.
Among new evidence unearthed by researchers and cited in a recent book, it is reported that the then US ambassador to Lebanon, John McCarthy, and South African Foreign Minister Pik Botha had their travel plans altered at the last minute in order to avoid the ill-fated PanAm flight.
Libya, whose Qadhafi was spewing anti-US rhetoric and supporting anti-US groups around the world, was indeed an ideal target to be implicated in the affair.
A book on the Lockerbie affair written by John Ashton and Ian Ferguson has brought up additional elements that raise further questions about the published and unpublished facts about the downing of the plane.
Both writers have worked with the case for years - Ashton as deputy to the late British film maker Allan Francovich, whose film The Maltese Double Cross, favouring the theory that the bombing was a consequence of a CIA-controlled drug running operation utilised to spy on Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian groups, and Ferguson, a journalist, has written many articles on Lockerbie, and along with Scottish lawyer Robert Black.
They have done extensive research and interviews with a large number of people involved in the disaster
They note in their book that:
-- After the 1988 American attack by the USS Vincennes on an Iranian Airbus, in which 255 pilgrims were killed,, Iranian broadcasts warned that the skies would “rain blood” in consequence. -- The PFLP_GC , which has a history of attacks on passenger aircraft, was known to be operating in Germany.
-- A bomb, rigged up in a Toshiba tape recorder identical to the one that was found to have caused the Lockerbie crash, was reported to have gone missing after a German police raid on a PFLP-GC group one year before the PanAm bombing.
-- American diplomats in Moscow were advised not to fly PanAm around Christmas time in 1988.
-- In two hours after the crash, US intelligence officers landed in Lockerbie and worked independently and were searching for particular pieces of debris, luggage and particular corpses.
A forensic expert from British police says that one body was moved, after it had been tagged and its location noted, while another disappeared entirely.
-- Large quantities of cash, cannabis and heroin were found in the wreckage.
-- Intelligence papers owned by make were removed from his luggage and replaced. A report noting the location of hostages held in Beirut was apparently found on the ground.
-- Among those who alleged possible CIA involvement include an Israeli spy, Java Aviv, hired by Pan Am to investigate the bombing, ex-US spy Lesser Coleman, who at one point sought political asylum in Sweden, William Chase, a Washington DC lobbyist, and Time journalist Roe Rowan. None of them was questioned by the American/British investigators.
"Under conditions where the US government is refusing to investigate its own intelligence failures leading up to the September 11 terror attacks, any exposure of a possible CIA role in aircraft terrorism clearly assumes great significance," said a review of the book written by Freemason and Ashton.
It says:
"Without making wild or unsustainable accusations, and despite serious political limitations, Ashton and Ferguson have provided an essential reference for anyone seeking to understand why a Boeing 747 should explode in mid-air killing hundreds of ordinary air travellers, and yet.... there is still no generally accepted explanation of why it happened and who was responsible."
THE example that the US set with its invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein has not been lost on Libya's Muammar Qadhafi, who has now made deals involving acceptance of responsibility and payment of compensation for attacks outside Libya that are blamed on his agents.
That also proves that the US has succeeded largely in its drive -- launched with the war on Iraq — to establish itself as an unchallenged power in the world and warn off anyone who stands against American interests anywhere in the world.
Indeed, it could be argued that the Libyan moves towards settling its dispute with the US and UK over the 1988 bombing of an American airliner over Scotland and with France over the 1989 bombing of a French passenger plane over Niger were launched much earlier than the 2003 US-led ouster of Saddam from power in Iraq.
However, the way in which Libya succumbed to pressure and agreed to accept responsibility for the downing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988 and pay $2.7 billion as compensation and also to increase by an unspecified amount the compensation for victims of the 1989 bombing of a French UTA plane clearly indicates that Qadhafi was and is concerned that he might eventually have faced the same fate as Saddam Hussein if he had rejected the demands.
Had Libya not accepted the French demand for an increase in compensation in the UTA bombing, its moves to close the Lockerbie file with the US and UN would not have come through since France would have blocked a Security Council resolution lifting the UN sanctions against Libya. That situation would have left a Damocles threat hanging over Qadhafi.
Equally importantly, Libya needs advanced Western technology and equipment for its oil industry and this would not have come through without an end to the UN sanctions against it.
This week, Libya and France has reached a deal to settle the dispute over compensation for victims of the UTA bombing, which, according to a verdict by a French court, was carried out by Libyan agents.
Under the agreement over the PanAm blast that Libya worked out with the governments of the US and UK, it has already transferred $2.7 billion to an escrow account in the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland as compensation to the relatives of those killed in the bombing.
Technically, the transfer, coupled with the deal over the UTA bombing — signal the closure of the file on the bombing and should lead to the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya in 1991 when it refused to hand over two Libyans accused of the bombing.
Under the Lockerbie deal, 40 per cent of $10 million will be released to relatives of the 270 victims immediately upon the lifting of United Nations sanctions against Libya, another 40 per cent with the removal of US sanctions, and a final 20 per cent in return for Libya being removed from the US list of states “sponsoring terrorism.”
It was the disparity in the compensations that Libya agreed to pay in the Lockerbie case and the UTA case that prompted Paris to demand a comparable level of compensation for UTA 772’s victims.
Six Libyan officials were convicted in a French court in absentia for the UTA bombing attack and the victim’s relatives were paid up to $33,000 each by Libya.
It is not known how much Libya agree to pay more to settle the feud with France.
Qadhafi announced on state television late Sunday that an agreement had been reached following weekend negotiations in Tripoli.
"We can say that the UTA affair and the Lockerbie affair are now behind us and that we are turning a page with France and the United States," Qadhafi said. "The money is of little importance to us. We have our dignity."
It was as much a national need for Libya to strike a deal in both Lockerbie and UTA cases -- although the latter was not directly tied to UN sanctions -- in order to remove the sanctions.
Libya has been under strong American and British pressure and the UN sanctions had started to bite at the Libyan oil industry towards the late 90s and that was when Qadhafi worked out a compromise and allowed the two Libyans to be tried in a special Scottish court set up in the Netherlands.
The court tried the two, Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. It acquitted Fhimah but convicted Megrahi and sentenced to life in prison in Scotland.
However, the matter did not end there since an end to the UN sanctions — as well as sanctions adopted by the US on its own -- was contingent on Libya owning up responsibility for the blast and paying compensation to victims of the bombing.
It is clear that Qadhafi accepted the conditions and moved to settle the dispute once and for all because -- apart from concerns raised by the Saddam affair — he needed American and European involvement in his country's oil industry.
Libya holds the sixth largest known deposit of oil and is the eighth largest oil exporter and it is vital that it has access to advanced technology in oil exploration and production that was denied to it under the sanctions.
Therefore, the acceptance of responsibility and payment of compensation should be seen as political as well as technical rather than what it implies on the surface.
That leaves the key question hanging in the air: Who was behind the Lockerbie bombing?
That question has dogged all those who have been following up the case since the day the PanAm plane went down.
The question stemmed from the considerations of the following factors:
Researchers had unearthed circumstantial evidence suggesting that responsibility for Lockerbie may lie primarily with the intelligence services of several Western governments, particularly the United States. Researchers say the media were blindly following the official line and that no major British or US newspaper, radio, or TV channel undertook a sustained investigation of this possibility
At the very outset of investigations, the US said it suspected Iran was behind the bombing, and a few weeks later claimed it had prima facie evidence that a Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) led by Ahmed Jibrial, had planted bomb at Tehran's behest. Tehran was said to be exacting revenge for the downing of an Iran Air passenger plane in the Gulf by an American warship at the peak of the Iran-Iraq war.
Why was it then that the Iran angle was quietly dropped from the investigations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) zeroed in on Libya?
Why did then, the then US president, George Bush Senior, personally asked the then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher not to pursue the Iranian angle? (That Bush made that request and Thatcher accepted it was reported in the British press and was not denied by the British or American governments).
An independent investigation conducted by an agency hired by PanAm had reported that the explosives-laden suitcase which exploded on board the plane over Lockerbie was supposed to have contained drugs and was part of an operation involving the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
It was then reported that the CIA was co-operating with a Lebanon-based drug trafficking group in return for seeking to use the group's underworld connections to get to militants who were holding more than 10 Americans are hostage. As part of the deal, the CIA allowed the suitcase to pass unchecked and be placed aboard the PanAm plane. Reports said somewhere along the line before it went aboard, the contents of the suitcases were switched to explosives.
Charles McKee, a US Army Special Forces major who was leading the hostage rescue efforts in Lebanon, was aboard the plane and it was suggested that he might have carried the bomb-laden suitcase without being aware that it contained explosives instead of drugs.
The evidence that led to the conviction of the Libyan, Megrahi, was based on shreds of clothing that was used to wrap the radio cassette player which was rigged with the explosives in the suitcase.
US and British forensic experts traced the clothing to a shop in the Mediterranean island of Malta and the shop's owner testified that Megrahi "could have been" the man who bought the clothes. Apart from that, there was no evidence linking Megrahi to the bombing except an unproven contention that he had placed the suitcase at a luggage ramp at Malta with a New York tag and it found its way aboard the Pan Am flight from London where it had arrived via Frankfurt, Germany.
A tiny piece of debris recovered from the wreckage was found to be that of a timer manufactured and supplied to Libya by a small electronics company called MEBO based in Zurich, Switzerland.
However, similar timers were supplied to several parties, including the Stasi secret service of former East Germany which had close ties with the PFLP-GC.
Another theory said that the CIA station chief in Lebanon, who was travelling aboard the PanAm flight, was the actual target of the bombing and the plot involved "rogue" CIA agents who faced trial in the US on "treason" charge. The CIA chief in Lebanon was reportedly carrying with him evidence that implicated them and enough to convict them. That evidence, presumably under this theory, was also destroyed in the blast.
When Megrahi was first convicted in 2001, Libya appealed the ruling and said it would unveil "shocking" revelations of the mid-air blast during the appeal.
Qadhafi said Libya had in its possession evidence that pointed the figure at the "real culprit" behind the bombing, which the US says was Libya's revenge for a 1985 US bombing of Libyan cities.
He asserted that when he produced the purported evidence, it would leave the trial judges with the choice of quitting their profession or committing suicide.
But he never came forth with the evidence, obviously because that would have tied him down in a continuing dispute with the US, with no end in sight for the UN sanctions on his country. Megrahi's conviction was upheld by an appeals panel in early 2002.
Among new evidence unearthed by researchers and cited in a recent book, it is reported that the then US ambassador to Lebanon, John McCarthy, and South African Foreign Minister Pik Botha had their travel plans altered at the last minute in order to avoid the ill-fated PanAm flight.
Libya, whose Qadhafi was spewing anti-US rhetoric and supporting anti-US groups around the world, was indeed an ideal target to be implicated in the affair.
A book on the Lockerbie affair written by John Ashton and Ian Ferguson has brought up additional elements that raise further questions about the published and unpublished facts about the downing of the plane.
Both writers have worked with the case for years - Ashton as deputy to the late British film maker Allan Francovich, whose film The Maltese Double Cross, favouring the theory that the bombing was a consequence of a CIA-controlled drug running operation utilised to spy on Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian groups, and Ferguson, a journalist, has written many articles on Lockerbie, and along with Scottish lawyer Robert Black.
They have done extensive research and interviews with a large number of people involved in the disaster
They note in their book that:
-- After the 1988 American attack by the USS Vincennes on an Iranian Airbus, in which 255 pilgrims were killed,, Iranian broadcasts warned that the skies would “rain blood” in consequence. -- The PFLP_GC , which has a history of attacks on passenger aircraft, was known to be operating in Germany.
-- A bomb, rigged up in a Toshiba tape recorder identical to the one that was found to have caused the Lockerbie crash, was reported to have gone missing after a German police raid on a PFLP-GC group one year before the PanAm bombing.
-- American diplomats in Moscow were advised not to fly PanAm around Christmas time in 1988.
-- In two hours after the crash, US intelligence officers landed in Lockerbie and worked independently and were searching for particular pieces of debris, luggage and particular corpses.
A forensic expert from British police says that one body was moved, after it had been tagged and its location noted, while another disappeared entirely.
-- Large quantities of cash, cannabis and heroin were found in the wreckage.
-- Intelligence papers owned by make were removed from his luggage and replaced. A report noting the location of hostages held in Beirut was apparently found on the ground.
-- Among those who alleged possible CIA involvement include an Israeli spy, Java Aviv, hired by Pan Am to investigate the bombing, ex-US spy Lesser Coleman, who at one point sought political asylum in Sweden, William Chase, a Washington DC lobbyist, and Time journalist Roe Rowan. None of them was questioned by the American/British investigators.
"Under conditions where the US government is refusing to investigate its own intelligence failures leading up to the September 11 terror attacks, any exposure of a possible CIA role in aircraft terrorism clearly assumes great significance," said a review of the book written by Freemason and Ashton.
It says:
"Without making wild or unsustainable accusations, and despite serious political limitations, Ashton and Ferguson have provided an essential reference for anyone seeking to understand why a Boeing 747 should explode in mid-air killing hundreds of ordinary air travellers, and yet.... there is still no generally accepted explanation of why it happened and who was responsible."
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Qaeda in Iraq but no Saddam ties
PV Vivekanand
FIGHTERS of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group entered Iraq and had been behind some of the most effective attacks against US forces occupying the country after Saddam Hussein's ouster, but there is no evidence that the group had links with the ousted regime, intelligence sources said on Sunday.
The US is also seeking to step up pressure on Saudi Arabia by highlighting that some of them were from the Wahabi sect of Sunnis since that is the dominant group in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family is also Wahabi.
The sources were commenting on reports from Iraq that nearly 20 people, including Saudis, Kuwaitis, Palestinians and Jordanians as well as Iraqis, who were detained following Friday's bombing outside Imam Al Mosque in Najaf, had admitted to being Al Qaeda members.
"It is doubtful that all of them were Al Qaeda members," said one source who spoke to Malayalamanorama on condition of anonymity. "Some them were driven into staging anti-US attacks on their own because of ideological and personal reasons while others were organised and under the Al Qaeda banner."
However, American officials say otherwise. They insist that Al Qaeda and the Saddam regime were linked and Friday's bombing was irrefutable evidence that the links are continuing.
At least two of the detainees were intelligence operatives of the Saddam regime, according to the reports.
The sources said the Ansar Al Islam group, which had presence in northern Iraq in an area beyond the control of the Saddam regime in Baghdad and cited by the US as the link between Saddam and Bin Laden, appears to be operating on its own.
Ansar Al Islam is one of the groups suspected to have carried out the Aug.19 bombing against the UN headquarters in Baghdad and an earlier attack against the Jordanian embassy in the Iraqi capital.
"To an extent it could be said that Ansar Al Islam is following the lines of Al Qaeda in post-war Iraq," said the intelligence source. "There might or might not be communications between the group and some of the Qaeda leaders in hiding after the Afghan war. It does not really matter since the danger is very much existent in Iraq with or without any Qaeda leadership role."
Ansar Al Islam is "one of the several groups that is engaged in hit-and-run attacks" against the Americans in Iraq, said the source.
"There are Saddam loyalists, remnants of the Baathist regime, independent Islamist groups which are dedicated to fighting the US because of what they see as Washington's bias against Muslims and others.
"The most dangerous among these are the Islamists and they pose a continuing threat to the US since it is not a specific group with a specific number of members; their number could run into thousands like the Islamic Jihad or Hamas groups of Palestine sicne they are driven by despair, frustration and fury over the American approach to the Palestinian problem as well as all Muslim issues."
According to the source, the Najaf blast served several purposes for whoever was behind it: Apart from throwing out of gear US efforts to pacify post-war Iraq, it eliminated the leading Shiite cleric in the south, Ayatollah Mohammed Al Baqr Al Hakim, who was advocating co-operation with the US forces occupying the country, it (could have) led to widening the deep schism between the Hakim camp and the group led to Moqdata Baqr who preaches a hostile approach to the US, and brought up many theories and suppositions that added more complexities to the chaos of Iraq.
Obviously, in the short term the Americans would like to use the purported Al Qaeda role in Friday's blast that killed over 100 to re-emphaise that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified since Al Qaeda had links with the Saddam regime.
Deliberately left to in the grey area is that Al Qaeda operations in Iraq today could not be cited as evidence that the ousted regime had links with it.
On the Saudi angle, it is clear that the emphatic reference in all statements that some of those arrested are "Wahabis" is another form of American pressure on Saudi Arabia after contenting that Arab guerrillas were entering Iraq across the 800-kilometre Saudi-Iraq border.
Riyadh has denied the charges, but the denial has done little to improve the worsening strain in relations between Saudi Arabia and the US since Sept.11, 2001.
Fifteen of those carried out the suicide hijacking were Saudi members of Al Qaeda and since then Washington has been building a steady case that the source for Al Qaeda funds was Saudis, including members of the ruling family and various charity organisations and groups linked to mosques.
FIGHTERS of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group entered Iraq and had been behind some of the most effective attacks against US forces occupying the country after Saddam Hussein's ouster, but there is no evidence that the group had links with the ousted regime, intelligence sources said on Sunday.
The US is also seeking to step up pressure on Saudi Arabia by highlighting that some of them were from the Wahabi sect of Sunnis since that is the dominant group in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family is also Wahabi.
The sources were commenting on reports from Iraq that nearly 20 people, including Saudis, Kuwaitis, Palestinians and Jordanians as well as Iraqis, who were detained following Friday's bombing outside Imam Al Mosque in Najaf, had admitted to being Al Qaeda members.
"It is doubtful that all of them were Al Qaeda members," said one source who spoke to Malayalamanorama on condition of anonymity. "Some them were driven into staging anti-US attacks on their own because of ideological and personal reasons while others were organised and under the Al Qaeda banner."
However, American officials say otherwise. They insist that Al Qaeda and the Saddam regime were linked and Friday's bombing was irrefutable evidence that the links are continuing.
At least two of the detainees were intelligence operatives of the Saddam regime, according to the reports.
The sources said the Ansar Al Islam group, which had presence in northern Iraq in an area beyond the control of the Saddam regime in Baghdad and cited by the US as the link between Saddam and Bin Laden, appears to be operating on its own.
Ansar Al Islam is one of the groups suspected to have carried out the Aug.19 bombing against the UN headquarters in Baghdad and an earlier attack against the Jordanian embassy in the Iraqi capital.
"To an extent it could be said that Ansar Al Islam is following the lines of Al Qaeda in post-war Iraq," said the intelligence source. "There might or might not be communications between the group and some of the Qaeda leaders in hiding after the Afghan war. It does not really matter since the danger is very much existent in Iraq with or without any Qaeda leadership role."
Ansar Al Islam is "one of the several groups that is engaged in hit-and-run attacks" against the Americans in Iraq, said the source.
"There are Saddam loyalists, remnants of the Baathist regime, independent Islamist groups which are dedicated to fighting the US because of what they see as Washington's bias against Muslims and others.
"The most dangerous among these are the Islamists and they pose a continuing threat to the US since it is not a specific group with a specific number of members; their number could run into thousands like the Islamic Jihad or Hamas groups of Palestine sicne they are driven by despair, frustration and fury over the American approach to the Palestinian problem as well as all Muslim issues."
According to the source, the Najaf blast served several purposes for whoever was behind it: Apart from throwing out of gear US efforts to pacify post-war Iraq, it eliminated the leading Shiite cleric in the south, Ayatollah Mohammed Al Baqr Al Hakim, who was advocating co-operation with the US forces occupying the country, it (could have) led to widening the deep schism between the Hakim camp and the group led to Moqdata Baqr who preaches a hostile approach to the US, and brought up many theories and suppositions that added more complexities to the chaos of Iraq.
Obviously, in the short term the Americans would like to use the purported Al Qaeda role in Friday's blast that killed over 100 to re-emphaise that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified since Al Qaeda had links with the Saddam regime.
Deliberately left to in the grey area is that Al Qaeda operations in Iraq today could not be cited as evidence that the ousted regime had links with it.
On the Saudi angle, it is clear that the emphatic reference in all statements that some of those arrested are "Wahabis" is another form of American pressure on Saudi Arabia after contenting that Arab guerrillas were entering Iraq across the 800-kilometre Saudi-Iraq border.
Riyadh has denied the charges, but the denial has done little to improve the worsening strain in relations between Saudi Arabia and the US since Sept.11, 2001.
Fifteen of those carried out the suicide hijacking were Saudi members of Al Qaeda and since then Washington has been building a steady case that the source for Al Qaeda funds was Saudis, including members of the ruling family and various charity organisations and groups linked to mosques.
Wolfowitz - the man who knows
by pv vivekanand
OF THE many American officials and members of Congress who passed through the Middle East — including Iraq — in recent weeks, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stood out as the man who zeroed in on Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for broadcasting statements and videotapes of Iraqi groups waging attacks on the US forces occupying Iraq.
Why should Wolfowitz be the one too perturbed by Al Jazeera and Al Araibya?
The reason is clear: Wolfowitz stands out among the so-called neoconservatives, or, to be more accurate, pro-Israelis, who orchestrated the war against Iraq, and he would definitely like the link to be kept away from public debate. Therefore, it is not as much the anti-US "incitement" broadcast by the two television channels that is distressing him as the pointed debates on the two channels on the short, medium-term and long-term implications of the US-led war against Iraq and how Israeli interests are served more than American interests by the US occupation and "containment" of Iraq.
There might or might not be truth in Wolfowitz's contention that the statements and videotapes attributed to Iraqi groups encourage further attacks on US forces occupying Iraq. But then, to warn the channels against broadcasting them goes against the grain of the very freedom of the media that is held high in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, would Wolfowitz dare to accuse American television and radio stations or newspapers of anything? Of course, he might find no compelling reason to do so since it is unlikely that the same material transmitted by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya will be carried by any US media in the same context and analysis.
An easy (hypothetical) example is: An American channel might carry a video-tape or statement issued by an Iraqi group vowing more attacks against the US forces in Iraq with an American commentary explaining that the group was obscure, unheard of before and suggesting that it could be nothing but terrorist and paid for by Saddam Hussein from his hideout, wherever that might be.
In contrast, the Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya commentary that would go with the same message or tape would say that it is an example of the growing Iraqi resistance against the US occupation and the group might or might not be linked with Saddam. Such portrayals are invariably picked up international news agencies and newspapers -- including American publications -- and reach American readers although with the typical twists and narrow interpretations.
The above summation is rather simplified. The key factor that complicates the American viewpoint here is the fact that it fails to take into account that the situation in Iraq today is very much an Arab concern and the Arab media are projecting the Arab viewpoint through lengthy debates that expose what many commentators describe as the hidden American/Israeli agenda in the invasion and occupation of the country.
To a large extent, American officials and even some of the media outlets see Arab newspapers, television and their enemy and embedded in the same camp with those resisting the American occupation of Iraq not because of Iraq alone but also because of Arab resentment over Washington's biased approach to Middle Eastern and Arab issues in general and Palestine in particular.
People like Wolfowitz are not willing to take in that Western media also portray the US presence in Iraq as occupation (that is the way even the UN describes it) and the attacks against US forces in Iraq as armed resistance.
They are overlooking that debates carried on American channels describe Palestinians fighting the Israeli occupation of their land as terrorists and such descriptions are an insult to the Arab cause in Palestine.
They do not want to acknowledge that Arab media do carry comments by American officials without censoring them.
They would never affirm -- perhaps they are incapable of doing so -- that the Arab media representation of events in Iraq are more accurate than that presented by their American counterparts.
As well-known Middle Eastern commentator Rami Khouri notes:
"At the technical level, the Arab media do exactly what the mainstream American media have done since March: They mirror and pander to the dominant emotional and political sentiments of their own public opinion, because they seek to maximise their market share of audience and advertising.
"In choosing, framing and scripting their stories, Arab and American television stations alike unabashedly and unapologetically cater to their respective audiences' sentiments: The flag-adorned US media emotionally support the US troops, and the Arab media are equally fervent in opposing America's occupation of Iraq."
Parallel to that analysis is indeed the American neoconservatives' anxiety to hide their pro-Israeli stand and activities away from the public eye and ear. It might even be argued that their concerns in this context are more intense than their alarm that Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is "inciting" attacks against US soldiers in Iraq. They know that reports and debates focusing on how far Israel's interests were and are being served in the war against and occupation of Iraq are doing them damage by exposing their pro-Israeli priorities and, at some point, they could be held accountable.
OF THE many American officials and members of Congress who passed through the Middle East — including Iraq — in recent weeks, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stood out as the man who zeroed in on Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for broadcasting statements and videotapes of Iraqi groups waging attacks on the US forces occupying Iraq.
Why should Wolfowitz be the one too perturbed by Al Jazeera and Al Araibya?
The reason is clear: Wolfowitz stands out among the so-called neoconservatives, or, to be more accurate, pro-Israelis, who orchestrated the war against Iraq, and he would definitely like the link to be kept away from public debate. Therefore, it is not as much the anti-US "incitement" broadcast by the two television channels that is distressing him as the pointed debates on the two channels on the short, medium-term and long-term implications of the US-led war against Iraq and how Israeli interests are served more than American interests by the US occupation and "containment" of Iraq.
There might or might not be truth in Wolfowitz's contention that the statements and videotapes attributed to Iraqi groups encourage further attacks on US forces occupying Iraq. But then, to warn the channels against broadcasting them goes against the grain of the very freedom of the media that is held high in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, would Wolfowitz dare to accuse American television and radio stations or newspapers of anything? Of course, he might find no compelling reason to do so since it is unlikely that the same material transmitted by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya will be carried by any US media in the same context and analysis.
An easy (hypothetical) example is: An American channel might carry a video-tape or statement issued by an Iraqi group vowing more attacks against the US forces in Iraq with an American commentary explaining that the group was obscure, unheard of before and suggesting that it could be nothing but terrorist and paid for by Saddam Hussein from his hideout, wherever that might be.
In contrast, the Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya commentary that would go with the same message or tape would say that it is an example of the growing Iraqi resistance against the US occupation and the group might or might not be linked with Saddam. Such portrayals are invariably picked up international news agencies and newspapers -- including American publications -- and reach American readers although with the typical twists and narrow interpretations.
The above summation is rather simplified. The key factor that complicates the American viewpoint here is the fact that it fails to take into account that the situation in Iraq today is very much an Arab concern and the Arab media are projecting the Arab viewpoint through lengthy debates that expose what many commentators describe as the hidden American/Israeli agenda in the invasion and occupation of the country.
To a large extent, American officials and even some of the media outlets see Arab newspapers, television and their enemy and embedded in the same camp with those resisting the American occupation of Iraq not because of Iraq alone but also because of Arab resentment over Washington's biased approach to Middle Eastern and Arab issues in general and Palestine in particular.
People like Wolfowitz are not willing to take in that Western media also portray the US presence in Iraq as occupation (that is the way even the UN describes it) and the attacks against US forces in Iraq as armed resistance.
They are overlooking that debates carried on American channels describe Palestinians fighting the Israeli occupation of their land as terrorists and such descriptions are an insult to the Arab cause in Palestine.
They do not want to acknowledge that Arab media do carry comments by American officials without censoring them.
They would never affirm -- perhaps they are incapable of doing so -- that the Arab media representation of events in Iraq are more accurate than that presented by their American counterparts.
As well-known Middle Eastern commentator Rami Khouri notes:
"At the technical level, the Arab media do exactly what the mainstream American media have done since March: They mirror and pander to the dominant emotional and political sentiments of their own public opinion, because they seek to maximise their market share of audience and advertising.
"In choosing, framing and scripting their stories, Arab and American television stations alike unabashedly and unapologetically cater to their respective audiences' sentiments: The flag-adorned US media emotionally support the US troops, and the Arab media are equally fervent in opposing America's occupation of Iraq."
Parallel to that analysis is indeed the American neoconservatives' anxiety to hide their pro-Israeli stand and activities away from the public eye and ear. It might even be argued that their concerns in this context are more intense than their alarm that Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is "inciting" attacks against US soldiers in Iraq. They know that reports and debates focusing on how far Israel's interests were and are being served in the war against and occupation of Iraq are doing them damage by exposing their pro-Israeli priorities and, at some point, they could be held accountable.
Sunday, August 31, 2003
Ross' fresh views on Mideast
PV Vivekanand
THE ONLY way to salvage the wrecked Middle East peace process and restore the implementation of the international "roadmap" for peace could a visit to the occupied territories by Arab foreign ministers for talks with the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers, says Dennis Ross, who tried his hand at mediating the Israeli-Palestinian crisis for several years.
Prima facie it is a non-starter since a delegation representing the Arab World visiting the Israeli-occupied territories, let alone meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, would imply Arab recogniton of the state of Israel. Not many Arab states are keen on doing that until Israel signs a peace accord that accepts and recognises a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.
However, the Ross proposal is interesting if only because it breaks new ground against the vicious cycle of violence raging in Palestine, with both sides saying it is impossible to return to diplomacy without basic changes in mindsets.
An overall review of the situation and the worsening mistrust between the two sides as well as the fundamental differences in their approaches clearly indicates that the peace process is beyond salvation with dramatic and emphatic moves from the two sides.
Ross, who served as special co-ordinator for the Middle East in the Clinton administration, wrote in the Washington Post this week that while there was a ceasefire since June announced by militant Palestinian groups, "the progress was always more illusionary than real... (and)... but there was not a peace process."
Ross took note of the complexities of the equation and that the Palestinians were hoping calm would produce Israeli pullbacks and the Israelis reluctant to pull back far
without some sign that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be controlled.
Both did not happen and now Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas faces the double challenge of having to pacify the Israelis and successfully resist Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's efforts to undermine him.
"The stakes are high," wrote Ross, who now heads a private thinktank in Washington. "Should Mahmoud Abbas resign there would be no Palestinian partner -- no one to assume responsibilities, no one to build a state based on reform and the
rule of law, and no one with whom to negotiate. Yasser Arafat would be happy, believing he would recoup his position. But his constant efforts to undermine Mahmoud Abbas and block any efforts to confront those who literally blew up the cease-fire have
cemented his status as a revolutionary whose only cause is his personal rule, not the well-being of Palestinians."
Writing under the title "Arab leaders must act," Ross conceded that Israel's policy of targeted killing of Palestinian resistance activists was also undermining Abbas.
"For Abbas to survive he will have to produce, and that is harder today than it was yesterday and will be even harder tomorrow than it is today," he said. "Israeli targeted killings signal that the Israelis will act if the Palestinians do not, and yet they also create
such anger among Palestinians that Abbas and his security chief find it more difficult to crack down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad — even in Gaza, where they have the means to do so."
The solution to the problem could lie with the Arabs, he wrote.
"It is time for Arab leaders to assume their responsibility. Slogans are not sufficient. Prime Minister Abbas needs the cover of Arab legitimacy to confront Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The Israelis need to see some dramatic actions by Palestinians and Arab leaders alike to give them a reason to pause and give the Palestinians the chance to take convincing steps on security.
"To that end, Arab leaders need to cross a threshold: Send a delegation of Arab foreign ministers -- to include Saud al Faisal -- to Jerusalem and Ramallah. They must meet with Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas. While calling on the Israelis to fulfill their
parts of the road map -- cease military operations, lift checkpoints, pull back from Palestinian cities, freeze settlement activity -- they must make clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad violated the ceasefire and threatened the Palestinian cause.
"The actions of these organisations can no longer be tolerated, and the
Palestinian Authority will have the active support and material assistance of Arab leaders in doing what the road map requires of the Palestinians -- namely, the effective targeting of terrorist groups, collection of illegal weapons, and dismantling of terrorist capability and infrastructure. There is no other way; the Arab call to action must be presented as the only way to achieve Palestinian interests."
THE ONLY way to salvage the wrecked Middle East peace process and restore the implementation of the international "roadmap" for peace could a visit to the occupied territories by Arab foreign ministers for talks with the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers, says Dennis Ross, who tried his hand at mediating the Israeli-Palestinian crisis for several years.
Prima facie it is a non-starter since a delegation representing the Arab World visiting the Israeli-occupied territories, let alone meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, would imply Arab recogniton of the state of Israel. Not many Arab states are keen on doing that until Israel signs a peace accord that accepts and recognises a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.
However, the Ross proposal is interesting if only because it breaks new ground against the vicious cycle of violence raging in Palestine, with both sides saying it is impossible to return to diplomacy without basic changes in mindsets.
An overall review of the situation and the worsening mistrust between the two sides as well as the fundamental differences in their approaches clearly indicates that the peace process is beyond salvation with dramatic and emphatic moves from the two sides.
Ross, who served as special co-ordinator for the Middle East in the Clinton administration, wrote in the Washington Post this week that while there was a ceasefire since June announced by militant Palestinian groups, "the progress was always more illusionary than real... (and)... but there was not a peace process."
Ross took note of the complexities of the equation and that the Palestinians were hoping calm would produce Israeli pullbacks and the Israelis reluctant to pull back far
without some sign that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be controlled.
Both did not happen and now Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas faces the double challenge of having to pacify the Israelis and successfully resist Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's efforts to undermine him.
"The stakes are high," wrote Ross, who now heads a private thinktank in Washington. "Should Mahmoud Abbas resign there would be no Palestinian partner -- no one to assume responsibilities, no one to build a state based on reform and the
rule of law, and no one with whom to negotiate. Yasser Arafat would be happy, believing he would recoup his position. But his constant efforts to undermine Mahmoud Abbas and block any efforts to confront those who literally blew up the cease-fire have
cemented his status as a revolutionary whose only cause is his personal rule, not the well-being of Palestinians."
Writing under the title "Arab leaders must act," Ross conceded that Israel's policy of targeted killing of Palestinian resistance activists was also undermining Abbas.
"For Abbas to survive he will have to produce, and that is harder today than it was yesterday and will be even harder tomorrow than it is today," he said. "Israeli targeted killings signal that the Israelis will act if the Palestinians do not, and yet they also create
such anger among Palestinians that Abbas and his security chief find it more difficult to crack down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad — even in Gaza, where they have the means to do so."
The solution to the problem could lie with the Arabs, he wrote.
"It is time for Arab leaders to assume their responsibility. Slogans are not sufficient. Prime Minister Abbas needs the cover of Arab legitimacy to confront Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The Israelis need to see some dramatic actions by Palestinians and Arab leaders alike to give them a reason to pause and give the Palestinians the chance to take convincing steps on security.
"To that end, Arab leaders need to cross a threshold: Send a delegation of Arab foreign ministers -- to include Saud al Faisal -- to Jerusalem and Ramallah. They must meet with Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas. While calling on the Israelis to fulfill their
parts of the road map -- cease military operations, lift checkpoints, pull back from Palestinian cities, freeze settlement activity -- they must make clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad violated the ceasefire and threatened the Palestinian cause.
"The actions of these organisations can no longer be tolerated, and the
Palestinian Authority will have the active support and material assistance of Arab leaders in doing what the road map requires of the Palestinians -- namely, the effective targeting of terrorist groups, collection of illegal weapons, and dismantling of terrorist capability and infrastructure. There is no other way; the Arab call to action must be presented as the only way to achieve Palestinian interests."
Friday, August 29, 2003
Iran-Argentine fight - US role
PV Vivekanand
A MAJOR diplomatic battle is brewing, with Iran pitted against American-British pressure — with Israel playing the game from behind the scenes -- following Britain's arrest of a former Iranian ambasador pending possible extradition to Argentina to face murder charges.
It is not simply an open and shut affair for any party involved in the tussle over Argentina's effort to put on trial former ambasasdor Hade Soleimanpour, 47, and several other Iranians on charges that they were behind a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded over 200.
For the US and its allies, including Israel, it offers an opportunity to drive home their contentions that Iran is a sponsor of itnernational terrorism in what many see as a run-up towards toppling the theocratic regime in Tehran that has stood fast in its opposition to American plans in the Gulf.
For Iran, it is a matter of remaining firm against what it describes as a conspiracy to implicate it in a cooked-up conspiracy and subject it to international isolation and further diplomatic and economic sanctions.
Worst time for Iran
The arrest of Soleimanpour could not have come at a worse juncture in history for Iran, which is already reeling from American pressure over its alleged plans to develop nuclear weapons and support for "terrorist" groups.
It does not need much imagination to assume that the crisis over the British detention of Soleimanpour, an environmentalist student at Durham University, is no coincidence and could be part of an engineered effort to step up the presure on Iran.
Soleimanpur was arrested on Aug.19 after Argentine federal Judge Juan Jose Galeano sent a request to British authorities seeking his arrest in connection with the July 18, 1994, bombing at a Jewish community centre — the Asociacion Mutua Israelita Argentina (AMIA).
The Argentine arrest warrant said Soleimanpour, who was ambassador to Argentina at the time of the explosion, involved in the planning and commission of the bombing and that he provided information about the place and the timing of the attack.
Soleimanpour has been denied bail at a London court and remanded until Aug.29. He has been studying at Durham University in northeastern England since February 2002. His wife is a reputed biologist and the couple have two children.
Soleimanpour's wife and children were vacationing in Iran at the time of his arrest.
The extradition warrant for Soleimanpour was one of eight issued by Judge Galeano against Iranian citizens in August.
Similar warrants issued in March against four Iranian diplomats caused tension between Buenos Aires and Tehran, and resulted in the recall of the Iranian ambassador.
Allegations
Argentine and Jewish leaders blame the Iranian government of orchestrating the attack with help from members of Lebanon's Hizbollah group. Both have denied the charges many times in the past.
The purported motive for the bombing was cited as "Iranian hostility towards Jews" in general. Argentina, which has a 300-000 strong Jewish community, was chosen for the attack because Buenos Aires refusal to suppy nuclear material to Iran, says some versions of the bombing.
However, apart from hints and suggestions, no concrete evidence has been cited to prove the charge.
A 1992 bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in which 29 people were killed also remains unsolved.
Iranian response
Predictably, Iran has hit back with vehemence to Soleimanpour's arrest. It has cut off all trade and cultural ties with Argentina but stopped short of severing diplomatic ties.
The Argentine charge d'affaires in Tehran has been informed his government would be held accountable for all the legal and political impacts of the ruling, reports in the Iranian press said.
Argentine losses in the tug-of-war is relatively little when compared with that of the UK, whose government says the arrest of Soleimanpour is judicial matter beyond its influence.
British-Iranian relations have generally been uneasy. However, signs of an improvement have appeared in recent years. .
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has visited the country four times in the last two years and there is growing co-operation between the two countries over Afghanistan and the war against drugs trade.
New investigation
Argentina had investigated the 1994 bombing and had all but closed the file two years ago.
A new investigation was launched early this year when an unidentified Iranian described as a defector and held in Germany alleged that former Argentine president Carlos S. Menem had accepted $10 million from the Iranian government to cover up the bombing.
Menem denied the accusation but was forced to admit he had a Swiss bank account that he previously had denied. It remains unknown at this point whether that account had received the purported $10 million hush money.
The investigation was given a boost when Nestor Kirchner became Argentina's president in May 25 and promised to declassify intelligence files about the attack and the subsequent nvestigation.
Soleimanpour had been interviewed by police in Britain three times and he had denied all charges.
Tehran has labelled the affair as politically motivated and orchestrated by Israel and its allies.
President Mohammed Khatami has demanded that Soleimanpour be released and the British government offer an apology for the arrest. He has vowed to take "strong action" if the demand was not met.
"The rulings lack judicial and legal basis and are merely politically motivated," said Hamid Reza Asefi, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman. "This measure was politically motivated under the influence of the Zionist regime," he said.
Another Iranian spokesman, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, asserted that "a special wing in the US and Zionists are undoubtedly hard at work to distort Iran`s international image."
Diplomatic contacts are continuing between London and Tehran, but it is unlikely that the row be settled, given the signs that the US has shifted its gunsights to Iran following the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
In strict legal terms, a British court has to study the "evidence" that Argentina says it has against Soleimanpour and rule whether he should be extradited. It could take several months before a verdict is issued.
In the meantime, Tehran could impose a boycott of British products and ban all dealings with London. That would have a serious impact on European-Iranian relations and play into the hands of the US.
US President George W Bush, who named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, has made no secret of his desire to see the theocratic regime in Tehran toppled.
No doubt the Bush administration would be seizing the opportunity offered by the Argentine affair to strengthen its argument that Iran under the present regime and set-up is a source of regional and international destabilisation.
So far, Iran, obviously mindful of the Iraq experience, has played a careful game and defended its nuclear programme saying it is intended for peaceful purposes.
It rejects American charges that it supports terror by emphatically pointing out that its backing for Palestinian resistance groups, Syria and Lebanon's Hizbollah is matter of principle since Israel is occupying Arab land.
The pressure on Tehran went a notch higher this week, with a report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seen to voost concerns that Iran's alleged failure to inform the agency of its atomic activities boosts fears that it wants nuclear weapons.
The IAEA report is reported to have found Iran in breach of its UN nuclear safeguards obligations and could lead to Iran declared as in "non-compliance" with its UN Safeguards Agreement.
A verdict of non-compliance means IAEA notification to the UN Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions.
Tehran insists it is co-operating fully with the IAEA. It said last week that it was was ready to sign up to snap inspections of its nuclear programme, but said it wanted prior clarification on "the preservation of its sovereignty."
Obviously, Iran is worried that snap IAEA inspections could be used for American spying on its military facilities and defence capablities.
In the final analysis, the US is trying to get Tehran over a barrell like it did with Iraq. Either way it turns, Iran would face American and international pressure to come clean on its nuclear programmes -- and its missile projects -- or face economic sanctions. But then, opening itself for nuclear inspections could mean exposing its military capabilities to the US and its allies.
Indeed, Tehran might not really be worried about limited UN sanctions since it has shown the world that it could survive despite international isolation; perhaps it might indeed be a better option that opening the door for its defensive capabilities to be advertised to the US while it is clear that Washington is bent upon regime change in Tehran.
However, Iran's real fear should be of being pushed into a corner with a combination external pressures, American incitement of Iranians to revolt against the regime and flexing military muscles across the border from Iraq and sanctions against its oil industry. These could be with a steady build-up of a negative image on the international scene -- like the Argentine affair — that could eventually be worked into endorsement of action for regime change in Tehran.
A MAJOR diplomatic battle is brewing, with Iran pitted against American-British pressure — with Israel playing the game from behind the scenes -- following Britain's arrest of a former Iranian ambasador pending possible extradition to Argentina to face murder charges.
It is not simply an open and shut affair for any party involved in the tussle over Argentina's effort to put on trial former ambasasdor Hade Soleimanpour, 47, and several other Iranians on charges that they were behind a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded over 200.
For the US and its allies, including Israel, it offers an opportunity to drive home their contentions that Iran is a sponsor of itnernational terrorism in what many see as a run-up towards toppling the theocratic regime in Tehran that has stood fast in its opposition to American plans in the Gulf.
For Iran, it is a matter of remaining firm against what it describes as a conspiracy to implicate it in a cooked-up conspiracy and subject it to international isolation and further diplomatic and economic sanctions.
Worst time for Iran
The arrest of Soleimanpour could not have come at a worse juncture in history for Iran, which is already reeling from American pressure over its alleged plans to develop nuclear weapons and support for "terrorist" groups.
It does not need much imagination to assume that the crisis over the British detention of Soleimanpour, an environmentalist student at Durham University, is no coincidence and could be part of an engineered effort to step up the presure on Iran.
Soleimanpur was arrested on Aug.19 after Argentine federal Judge Juan Jose Galeano sent a request to British authorities seeking his arrest in connection with the July 18, 1994, bombing at a Jewish community centre — the Asociacion Mutua Israelita Argentina (AMIA).
The Argentine arrest warrant said Soleimanpour, who was ambassador to Argentina at the time of the explosion, involved in the planning and commission of the bombing and that he provided information about the place and the timing of the attack.
Soleimanpour has been denied bail at a London court and remanded until Aug.29. He has been studying at Durham University in northeastern England since February 2002. His wife is a reputed biologist and the couple have two children.
Soleimanpour's wife and children were vacationing in Iran at the time of his arrest.
The extradition warrant for Soleimanpour was one of eight issued by Judge Galeano against Iranian citizens in August.
Similar warrants issued in March against four Iranian diplomats caused tension between Buenos Aires and Tehran, and resulted in the recall of the Iranian ambassador.
Allegations
Argentine and Jewish leaders blame the Iranian government of orchestrating the attack with help from members of Lebanon's Hizbollah group. Both have denied the charges many times in the past.
The purported motive for the bombing was cited as "Iranian hostility towards Jews" in general. Argentina, which has a 300-000 strong Jewish community, was chosen for the attack because Buenos Aires refusal to suppy nuclear material to Iran, says some versions of the bombing.
However, apart from hints and suggestions, no concrete evidence has been cited to prove the charge.
A 1992 bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in which 29 people were killed also remains unsolved.
Iranian response
Predictably, Iran has hit back with vehemence to Soleimanpour's arrest. It has cut off all trade and cultural ties with Argentina but stopped short of severing diplomatic ties.
The Argentine charge d'affaires in Tehran has been informed his government would be held accountable for all the legal and political impacts of the ruling, reports in the Iranian press said.
Argentine losses in the tug-of-war is relatively little when compared with that of the UK, whose government says the arrest of Soleimanpour is judicial matter beyond its influence.
British-Iranian relations have generally been uneasy. However, signs of an improvement have appeared in recent years. .
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has visited the country four times in the last two years and there is growing co-operation between the two countries over Afghanistan and the war against drugs trade.
New investigation
Argentina had investigated the 1994 bombing and had all but closed the file two years ago.
A new investigation was launched early this year when an unidentified Iranian described as a defector and held in Germany alleged that former Argentine president Carlos S. Menem had accepted $10 million from the Iranian government to cover up the bombing.
Menem denied the accusation but was forced to admit he had a Swiss bank account that he previously had denied. It remains unknown at this point whether that account had received the purported $10 million hush money.
The investigation was given a boost when Nestor Kirchner became Argentina's president in May 25 and promised to declassify intelligence files about the attack and the subsequent nvestigation.
Soleimanpour had been interviewed by police in Britain three times and he had denied all charges.
Tehran has labelled the affair as politically motivated and orchestrated by Israel and its allies.
President Mohammed Khatami has demanded that Soleimanpour be released and the British government offer an apology for the arrest. He has vowed to take "strong action" if the demand was not met.
"The rulings lack judicial and legal basis and are merely politically motivated," said Hamid Reza Asefi, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman. "This measure was politically motivated under the influence of the Zionist regime," he said.
Another Iranian spokesman, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, asserted that "a special wing in the US and Zionists are undoubtedly hard at work to distort Iran`s international image."
Diplomatic contacts are continuing between London and Tehran, but it is unlikely that the row be settled, given the signs that the US has shifted its gunsights to Iran following the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
In strict legal terms, a British court has to study the "evidence" that Argentina says it has against Soleimanpour and rule whether he should be extradited. It could take several months before a verdict is issued.
In the meantime, Tehran could impose a boycott of British products and ban all dealings with London. That would have a serious impact on European-Iranian relations and play into the hands of the US.
US President George W Bush, who named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, has made no secret of his desire to see the theocratic regime in Tehran toppled.
No doubt the Bush administration would be seizing the opportunity offered by the Argentine affair to strengthen its argument that Iran under the present regime and set-up is a source of regional and international destabilisation.
So far, Iran, obviously mindful of the Iraq experience, has played a careful game and defended its nuclear programme saying it is intended for peaceful purposes.
It rejects American charges that it supports terror by emphatically pointing out that its backing for Palestinian resistance groups, Syria and Lebanon's Hizbollah is matter of principle since Israel is occupying Arab land.
The pressure on Tehran went a notch higher this week, with a report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seen to voost concerns that Iran's alleged failure to inform the agency of its atomic activities boosts fears that it wants nuclear weapons.
The IAEA report is reported to have found Iran in breach of its UN nuclear safeguards obligations and could lead to Iran declared as in "non-compliance" with its UN Safeguards Agreement.
A verdict of non-compliance means IAEA notification to the UN Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions.
Tehran insists it is co-operating fully with the IAEA. It said last week that it was was ready to sign up to snap inspections of its nuclear programme, but said it wanted prior clarification on "the preservation of its sovereignty."
Obviously, Iran is worried that snap IAEA inspections could be used for American spying on its military facilities and defence capablities.
In the final analysis, the US is trying to get Tehran over a barrell like it did with Iraq. Either way it turns, Iran would face American and international pressure to come clean on its nuclear programmes -- and its missile projects -- or face economic sanctions. But then, opening itself for nuclear inspections could mean exposing its military capabilities to the US and its allies.
Indeed, Tehran might not really be worried about limited UN sanctions since it has shown the world that it could survive despite international isolation; perhaps it might indeed be a better option that opening the door for its defensive capabilities to be advertised to the US while it is clear that Washington is bent upon regime change in Tehran.
However, Iran's real fear should be of being pushed into a corner with a combination external pressures, American incitement of Iranians to revolt against the regime and flexing military muscles across the border from Iraq and sanctions against its oil industry. These could be with a steady build-up of a negative image on the international scene -- like the Argentine affair — that could eventually be worked into endorsement of action for regime change in Tehran.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Hossein Khomeini — ace or dud?
PV Vivekanand
"The Great Satan," his late grandfather called the US as he loomed into the Iranian scene as the saviour of the nation after ousting the Shah from power in 1979. "Death to America," his followers rallied to him.
"America means freedom," says his grandson today. "Iranians will welcome American intervention if that the way to freedom for themselves," he says.
The region is still reverberating from the shocking comments made this month by Hossein Khomeini, 46, the eldest grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who founded the Islamic Republic of Iran after ousting the Shah.
Many see Hossein Khomeini's sudden appearance in Baghdad as a glimpse into the uncertainty of regional developments that have been brought about by the US invasion of Iraq, ouster of Saddam Hussein from power and occupation of the country.
It comes amid an American intensification of pressure against Iran, after accusing the theocratic regime there of being a destabilising factor in the region by seeking to develop nuclear weapons and supporting "terrorist" groups in Palestine and Lebanon.
It is in line with the American campaign to destabilise Iran and bring about a regime change there -- without necessarily launching an Iraq-style war -- that Washington seems to have enlisted Hossein Khomeini among others.
What is untested is the political clout of Hossein Khomeini, who carries the title of hojatoeslam -- several rungs down the ultimate Shiite rank of grand ayatollah that his grandfather occupied.
But his comments are seized by the US and other Western countries -- which do not necessarily back American designs against the regime of Khomeini's successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- as giving a degree of legitimacy for Washington's drive against Tehran.
Not much is known about Hossein Khomeini except that he used to be a constant companion of his grandfather, including 14 years of exile in Iraq during the Shah's reign. His father, Mustafa Khomeini, was killed by agents of the Shah's dreaded Savak secret police in the 70s. That left Ahmed Khomeini as the only surviving son of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ahmed Khomenei is believed to have been poisoned to death in the bitter power struggle that followed the demise of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.
Some Iranians content that Hossein Khomeini went against the regime that followed the death of his grandfather when it became clear that the ultimate helm of Shiites was not a hereditary affair.
Others say that Hossein Khomeini was always a liberal and had disputes with his grandfather, who once jailed him for a week.
In any event, it is now clear that Hossein Khomeini has joined the US camp - something that could make his grandfather turn in his grave -- and Washington is using him in its propaganda campaign against the Khamenei-led theocratic regime in Tehran.
He is housed in a palace on the banks of the river Tigris in Baghdad that once belonged to Saddam deputy Izzat Ibrahim Al Douri and grants interview after interview to the media. After all, the world is keen to know what had happened to the Khomeini family tree and given that the late Ayatollah Khomeini continues to the most reverred among Iranians, as well as among Iraq's Shiites, who comprise almost two-thirds of Iraq's 24 million people.
It is in the course of those interviews that Hossein Khomeini sent shockwaves through the region and indeed outside by describing the current regime in Tehran as "the worst dictatorship... worse even than the communists."
He contented that the overthrow of Saddam would allow newfound freedoms to flourish in the region and if they did not, US intervention would be welcomed by most Iranians.
He argued that Iraqi Shiites calling for an Islamist government in Iraq were misguided because the Iranian experiment had failed.
"Religion has got to be separated from regimes, such as it is in America," he said.
"Iranians insist on freedom, but they are not sure where it will come from," he said. "If it comes from inside, they will welcome it, but if it was necessary for it to come from abroad, especially from the United States, people will accept it."
The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority has confirmed that US officials had met with Hossein Khomeini because his viewpoints were interesting. Other than that, not much is known about links, if any, between the US and the man who carries the legacy of a grandfather who changed the course of history in the region 24 years ago.
Hossein Khomeini suggested that Iranian clerics from the renowned theocratic schools in the city of Qom could move to Najaf in Iraq if the United States establishes security in Iraq.
"If Qom remains under the same kind of oppressive atmosphere everyone will come to Najaf."
He called on Iraqi Shiites should overcome their historical persecution complex by pushing for a democratic government that respected their rights.
In an interview with the BBC Persian Service, Hossein Khomeini accused the regime of oppressing the Iranian people and committing human rights abuses.
He argued that Iran's reformist movement was finished and suggested that a referendum to decide how the country should be governed in the future.
He questioned the principle of velayat faqih, or Islamic jurisprudence, upon which the Iranian system is based.
According to Hossein Khomeini, if his grandfather were alive today, he would have opposed all of Iran's current leaders because of what he described as their excesses and wrongdoing.
The reformist camp in Iran is finished, he said.
People who had voted for President Mohammed Khatami in 1997 hoping things would change had seen things get worse, rather than better, in his second term of office, he said, adding that those who voted for an Islamic Republic in Iran more than 20 years ago were now in a minority.
He is vague about his political ambitions, but affirms he would like to be involved in politics.
"I would love to be effective in bringing about freedom with a movement either inside Iran or outside," he said. "I want freedom for myself and my children, whether in the leadership or a step away."
Despite his rejection of many of his grandfather's beliefs, Hossein Khomeini says he has loving memories of the man.
"He would play wonderfully with his grandsons. And he did his own housework," said Hossein Khomeini. "He didn't want people to do things for him. He was very well organised. He had hours for sleeping, hours for studying."
He said it was difficult to entirely write off his grandfather's extraordinary political career.
"He was a man of the circumstances of the time," he said. "My grandfather accomplished a big historical achievement."
He said he had slipped out of Iran in early July and now lives under risk of assassination by Iranian security agents.
"Iran has given an order that I must be assassinated by whatever means possible," he said. "Their feeling is: This man is dangerous."
Comments made by some of those who interviewed him are equally interesting:
"So what is a man whose grandfather cemented the Islamic theocracy in Iran by exploiting the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis doing espousing views that could have come straight from an American foreign policy briefing or have been written by the press office of the Coalition Provisional Authority situated in the former presidential palace a couple of miles down the road?" said the Observer of London.
"Listening to his grandson condemning the current situation in Tehran, it is difficult not to get a sense that perhaps history is repeating itself," it said. "Whatever way the administration decides to play it (in Iran), Khomeini could be useful to both sides."
Thomas Friedman, who interviewed Hossein Khomeini in early August, wrote: "The best thing about being in Baghdad these days is that you just never know who's going to show up for dinner."
Friedman said he was introduced to Hossein Khomeini by "a rising progressive Iraqi Shiite cleric, Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, at his home on the banks of the Tigris."
Jamaleddine introduced Hossein Khomeini to Friedman, as -- and rightfully so -- "this is Sayyid Hussein Khomeini — the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution."
Friedman wrote of Hossein Khomeini: "He has Ayatollah Khomeini's fiery eyes and steely determination, but the soul of a Muslim liberal."
The Boston Globe wrote: "Hossein Khomeini's "danger to Iran comes largely from his hugely well-known name. His father, Hojjatoleslam Ahmad Khomeini, was a leader in Iran's Islamic revolution and died in 1995. His grandfather is revered among Iranians, as well as among Iraq's Shi'ites, who constitute two-thirds of this country (Iraq)."
The Star Ledger wrote; "A longtime reformist silenced and shut out of Iran's conservative inner circle of power, (Hossein) Khomeini confined his critiques of the Islamic Republic to scholarly rather than political arguments. He said a religious government can only come once the 12th Shi'ite prophet Mahdi -- who disappeared in the 9th century -- returns."
Ibrahim Sada, editor of Egypt's second largest circulation Al Akbar daily, was harshly critical of Hossein Khomeini whom he described as an opportunist of the worst kind. Sada said the younger Khomeini was once one of the greatest supporters his grandfather and questioned why now the change of heart.
Sada presented a strong argument that by distancing himself from and even denouncing what his grandfather had advocated, Hossein Khomeini was playing into the hands of the enemies of the Tehran regime but discrediting himself because his legitimacy and status came from the Khomeini bloodline.
What the world is waiting to see is how the US would play Hossein Khomeini in its game with Iran. Would he be an ace or a dud?
"The Great Satan," his late grandfather called the US as he loomed into the Iranian scene as the saviour of the nation after ousting the Shah from power in 1979. "Death to America," his followers rallied to him.
"America means freedom," says his grandson today. "Iranians will welcome American intervention if that the way to freedom for themselves," he says.
The region is still reverberating from the shocking comments made this month by Hossein Khomeini, 46, the eldest grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who founded the Islamic Republic of Iran after ousting the Shah.
Many see Hossein Khomeini's sudden appearance in Baghdad as a glimpse into the uncertainty of regional developments that have been brought about by the US invasion of Iraq, ouster of Saddam Hussein from power and occupation of the country.
It comes amid an American intensification of pressure against Iran, after accusing the theocratic regime there of being a destabilising factor in the region by seeking to develop nuclear weapons and supporting "terrorist" groups in Palestine and Lebanon.
It is in line with the American campaign to destabilise Iran and bring about a regime change there -- without necessarily launching an Iraq-style war -- that Washington seems to have enlisted Hossein Khomeini among others.
What is untested is the political clout of Hossein Khomeini, who carries the title of hojatoeslam -- several rungs down the ultimate Shiite rank of grand ayatollah that his grandfather occupied.
But his comments are seized by the US and other Western countries -- which do not necessarily back American designs against the regime of Khomeini's successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- as giving a degree of legitimacy for Washington's drive against Tehran.
Not much is known about Hossein Khomeini except that he used to be a constant companion of his grandfather, including 14 years of exile in Iraq during the Shah's reign. His father, Mustafa Khomeini, was killed by agents of the Shah's dreaded Savak secret police in the 70s. That left Ahmed Khomeini as the only surviving son of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ahmed Khomenei is believed to have been poisoned to death in the bitter power struggle that followed the demise of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.
Some Iranians content that Hossein Khomeini went against the regime that followed the death of his grandfather when it became clear that the ultimate helm of Shiites was not a hereditary affair.
Others say that Hossein Khomeini was always a liberal and had disputes with his grandfather, who once jailed him for a week.
In any event, it is now clear that Hossein Khomeini has joined the US camp - something that could make his grandfather turn in his grave -- and Washington is using him in its propaganda campaign against the Khamenei-led theocratic regime in Tehran.
He is housed in a palace on the banks of the river Tigris in Baghdad that once belonged to Saddam deputy Izzat Ibrahim Al Douri and grants interview after interview to the media. After all, the world is keen to know what had happened to the Khomeini family tree and given that the late Ayatollah Khomeini continues to the most reverred among Iranians, as well as among Iraq's Shiites, who comprise almost two-thirds of Iraq's 24 million people.
It is in the course of those interviews that Hossein Khomeini sent shockwaves through the region and indeed outside by describing the current regime in Tehran as "the worst dictatorship... worse even than the communists."
He contented that the overthrow of Saddam would allow newfound freedoms to flourish in the region and if they did not, US intervention would be welcomed by most Iranians.
He argued that Iraqi Shiites calling for an Islamist government in Iraq were misguided because the Iranian experiment had failed.
"Religion has got to be separated from regimes, such as it is in America," he said.
"Iranians insist on freedom, but they are not sure where it will come from," he said. "If it comes from inside, they will welcome it, but if it was necessary for it to come from abroad, especially from the United States, people will accept it."
The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority has confirmed that US officials had met with Hossein Khomeini because his viewpoints were interesting. Other than that, not much is known about links, if any, between the US and the man who carries the legacy of a grandfather who changed the course of history in the region 24 years ago.
Hossein Khomeini suggested that Iranian clerics from the renowned theocratic schools in the city of Qom could move to Najaf in Iraq if the United States establishes security in Iraq.
"If Qom remains under the same kind of oppressive atmosphere everyone will come to Najaf."
He called on Iraqi Shiites should overcome their historical persecution complex by pushing for a democratic government that respected their rights.
In an interview with the BBC Persian Service, Hossein Khomeini accused the regime of oppressing the Iranian people and committing human rights abuses.
He argued that Iran's reformist movement was finished and suggested that a referendum to decide how the country should be governed in the future.
He questioned the principle of velayat faqih, or Islamic jurisprudence, upon which the Iranian system is based.
According to Hossein Khomeini, if his grandfather were alive today, he would have opposed all of Iran's current leaders because of what he described as their excesses and wrongdoing.
The reformist camp in Iran is finished, he said.
People who had voted for President Mohammed Khatami in 1997 hoping things would change had seen things get worse, rather than better, in his second term of office, he said, adding that those who voted for an Islamic Republic in Iran more than 20 years ago were now in a minority.
He is vague about his political ambitions, but affirms he would like to be involved in politics.
"I would love to be effective in bringing about freedom with a movement either inside Iran or outside," he said. "I want freedom for myself and my children, whether in the leadership or a step away."
Despite his rejection of many of his grandfather's beliefs, Hossein Khomeini says he has loving memories of the man.
"He would play wonderfully with his grandsons. And he did his own housework," said Hossein Khomeini. "He didn't want people to do things for him. He was very well organised. He had hours for sleeping, hours for studying."
He said it was difficult to entirely write off his grandfather's extraordinary political career.
"He was a man of the circumstances of the time," he said. "My grandfather accomplished a big historical achievement."
He said he had slipped out of Iran in early July and now lives under risk of assassination by Iranian security agents.
"Iran has given an order that I must be assassinated by whatever means possible," he said. "Their feeling is: This man is dangerous."
Comments made by some of those who interviewed him are equally interesting:
"So what is a man whose grandfather cemented the Islamic theocracy in Iran by exploiting the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis doing espousing views that could have come straight from an American foreign policy briefing or have been written by the press office of the Coalition Provisional Authority situated in the former presidential palace a couple of miles down the road?" said the Observer of London.
"Listening to his grandson condemning the current situation in Tehran, it is difficult not to get a sense that perhaps history is repeating itself," it said. "Whatever way the administration decides to play it (in Iran), Khomeini could be useful to both sides."
Thomas Friedman, who interviewed Hossein Khomeini in early August, wrote: "The best thing about being in Baghdad these days is that you just never know who's going to show up for dinner."
Friedman said he was introduced to Hossein Khomeini by "a rising progressive Iraqi Shiite cleric, Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, at his home on the banks of the Tigris."
Jamaleddine introduced Hossein Khomeini to Friedman, as -- and rightfully so -- "this is Sayyid Hussein Khomeini — the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution."
Friedman wrote of Hossein Khomeini: "He has Ayatollah Khomeini's fiery eyes and steely determination, but the soul of a Muslim liberal."
The Boston Globe wrote: "Hossein Khomeini's "danger to Iran comes largely from his hugely well-known name. His father, Hojjatoleslam Ahmad Khomeini, was a leader in Iran's Islamic revolution and died in 1995. His grandfather is revered among Iranians, as well as among Iraq's Shi'ites, who constitute two-thirds of this country (Iraq)."
The Star Ledger wrote; "A longtime reformist silenced and shut out of Iran's conservative inner circle of power, (Hossein) Khomeini confined his critiques of the Islamic Republic to scholarly rather than political arguments. He said a religious government can only come once the 12th Shi'ite prophet Mahdi -- who disappeared in the 9th century -- returns."
Ibrahim Sada, editor of Egypt's second largest circulation Al Akbar daily, was harshly critical of Hossein Khomeini whom he described as an opportunist of the worst kind. Sada said the younger Khomeini was once one of the greatest supporters his grandfather and questioned why now the change of heart.
Sada presented a strong argument that by distancing himself from and even denouncing what his grandfather had advocated, Hossein Khomeini was playing into the hands of the enemies of the Tehran regime but discrediting himself because his legitimacy and status came from the Khomeini bloodline.
What the world is waiting to see is how the US would play Hossein Khomeini in its game with Iran. Would he be an ace or a dud?
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Streak of violence
PV Vivekanand
WASHINGTON has grossly miscalculated the streak of violence in the Iraqi society that is behind the continuing and rising wave of attacks against coalition troops occupying Iraq. True, American strategists might have taken note of the history of violence and bloodshed in the country and perpetual state of tension and confrontation there, but they went wrong when they expected the people of Iraq to stay put and remain forever grateful to Washington for ending the tyrannic regime of Saddam Hussein.
That is the fundamental message that the Bush administration should learn from last week's bombing at the UN headquarters in Baghdad that killed at least 20 people -- including chief of mission Sergio Vieira e Mello -- and injured over 100 others.
Shocking as it might have been to many around the world, the bombing should not have been surprising since the natural course of events dictated that the UN would be targeted, notwithstanding the world body's efforts to alleviate the suffering of the people of post-Saddam Iraq.
The US brushed aside international opposition and UN refusal to authorise war and going ahead with its invasion of Iraq on justifications that have been proved hollow. The US told the world that it did not care what the international community felt about its moves and pressing its own agenda in Iraq after invading the country and toppling Saddam.
At that point, everyone respected the UN's position that it needed much more evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before authorising war.
But the twist came when the UN Security Council was pressured into adopting Resolution 1500 welcoming the formation of the US-picked Iraqi Governing Council (but stopping short of recognising it), it was seen by some as the forerunner of an eventual UN endorsement of American moves and decisions concerning Iraq. The bombing at the UN office in Baghdad was a message that the world body should not allow itself to be manipulated by the US. If the very image of the UN flag flying outside the Canal Hotel in Baghdad was seen as the world body's acquiesence with the US occupation of Iraq, it came to symbolise what many saw as its being part and parcel of the occupation of the country; and last week's bombing was a message to the UN to stay way from becoming part of occupation as much as it was also a warning to the international community not to assign troops to support the American occupation of Iraq.
One needs to understand the violent streak in Iraqi blood that could be traced to several centuries ago.
Many historians note that Iraq was ruled for more than 150 years in the 13th and 14th century by the Mongols, known for their savagery and brutality as well as intolerance as evident in their policy of not taking prisoners in their conquests. For them, taking prisoners not only meant having to feed and guard them but also leaving the door open for a potential enemy to re-emerge to pose a new challenge.
That approach has been handed down to the generations and remains a strong feature of the Iraqi society today, the historians argue.
Examples are many to support this theory. The simplest of them is the fact that it takes very little for two Iraqis to go for each other's throat at the slighest provocation. Degeneration of arguments into fisticuffs among Iraqis are a daily feature of life in the country. It does not really matter whether they belong to the same community or otherwise; quite simply, they have a violent temper of a magnitude that is several notches higher than any other people, whether Arab, Muslim or otherwise.
That streak has prevailed throughout the years of the evolution of modern Iraq.
There has never been any smooth transition of power in Iraq over the centuries. The Ottomans, who occupied the entire region for nearly 500 years, had great difficulty in containing the Iraqis and it was only through conspiring with local communities and playing one against another that the Ottomans largely saved their own skin from the dangers of controlling a people whose history is more bloody than any other in the region.
The very diversity of Iraqi society -- Sunnis, Shites, Kurds (with varying links to Iran, Syria and Turkey), Turkomen, Christians and Assyrians, not to mention groups following differing ideologies -- always remained a challenge to anyone who tried to rule them.
In the years after the Ottoman Empire collapses after World War I, Britain, by sheer military force, held the communities together and imposed on them the Hashemite monarchy. But then, more than 20,000 British and allied Indian soldiers died between 1916 and 1920 in battles with Iraqi tribes who resisted the British designs in post-Ottoman Iraq.
"Iraq was and is a very violent and dangerous place," wrties British journalist Patrik Coburn. "It is easy to get into, as the British armies found in 1914, but one of the most difficult countries in the world to rule."
Recovering from the centuries of oppression and enjoying what they saw as newfound freedoms, the Iraqis started challenging the Hashemite monarchy soon thereafter, and the ruling family hit back with equal force and brutality. However, it was not until 1958 that the Iraqis got together and mustered enough strength for themselves to overthrow the monarchy.
Even at that, the ouster of the regime was violent. Jubilant Iraqis dragged the bodies of royal family members through the streets of Baghdad; oldtimers remember that pieces of bones from the bodies were offered for sale as coveted souvenirs. Such violence should be compared with the ouster of the monarchy in Egypt only four years earlier, when the Egyptians put their ousted king and his family aboard a boat from Alexandria into the Mediterranean and sent him out to exile.
No doubt, it is the very nature of the Iraqi society that produced a ruthless and iron-fisted Saddam Hussein as its ruler. Had Saddam been soft, he would not have survived in power and the Iraqis themselves understood it more than anyone else.
It was not at all surprising during the Saddam reign to hear many Iraqi grudgingly agreeing that "we Iraqis need someone like Saddam to keep the country together because we Iraqis recognise the language of physical force than anything else."
As such, it should not have been shocking for the Iraqis to see the gruesome images of the dead bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein -- Saddam's sons – on television and blown up on front pages of newspapers. They simply accepted it as something that could happen any day; but then, by displaying those bodies, the Americans sent a wrong message to some Iraqis -- that the US was all-too powerful and could and would do anything it wanted in the country; surely that did not go down well with them since it touched the very core of the Iraqi mindset (notwithstanding the bitter and intense hatred that the Saddam family had acquired for themselves).
And now the Americans, recording an everage of 12 attacks on its soldiers every day in occupied Iraq and having lost about 60 soldiers since May, are learning the lessons the hard way; and it is only a matter of time when a massive attack takes place to claim dozens of American soldiers' lives in one go.
WASHINGTON has grossly miscalculated the streak of violence in the Iraqi society that is behind the continuing and rising wave of attacks against coalition troops occupying Iraq. True, American strategists might have taken note of the history of violence and bloodshed in the country and perpetual state of tension and confrontation there, but they went wrong when they expected the people of Iraq to stay put and remain forever grateful to Washington for ending the tyrannic regime of Saddam Hussein.
That is the fundamental message that the Bush administration should learn from last week's bombing at the UN headquarters in Baghdad that killed at least 20 people -- including chief of mission Sergio Vieira e Mello -- and injured over 100 others.
Shocking as it might have been to many around the world, the bombing should not have been surprising since the natural course of events dictated that the UN would be targeted, notwithstanding the world body's efforts to alleviate the suffering of the people of post-Saddam Iraq.
The US brushed aside international opposition and UN refusal to authorise war and going ahead with its invasion of Iraq on justifications that have been proved hollow. The US told the world that it did not care what the international community felt about its moves and pressing its own agenda in Iraq after invading the country and toppling Saddam.
At that point, everyone respected the UN's position that it needed much more evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before authorising war.
But the twist came when the UN Security Council was pressured into adopting Resolution 1500 welcoming the formation of the US-picked Iraqi Governing Council (but stopping short of recognising it), it was seen by some as the forerunner of an eventual UN endorsement of American moves and decisions concerning Iraq. The bombing at the UN office in Baghdad was a message that the world body should not allow itself to be manipulated by the US. If the very image of the UN flag flying outside the Canal Hotel in Baghdad was seen as the world body's acquiesence with the US occupation of Iraq, it came to symbolise what many saw as its being part and parcel of the occupation of the country; and last week's bombing was a message to the UN to stay way from becoming part of occupation as much as it was also a warning to the international community not to assign troops to support the American occupation of Iraq.
One needs to understand the violent streak in Iraqi blood that could be traced to several centuries ago.
Many historians note that Iraq was ruled for more than 150 years in the 13th and 14th century by the Mongols, known for their savagery and brutality as well as intolerance as evident in their policy of not taking prisoners in their conquests. For them, taking prisoners not only meant having to feed and guard them but also leaving the door open for a potential enemy to re-emerge to pose a new challenge.
That approach has been handed down to the generations and remains a strong feature of the Iraqi society today, the historians argue.
Examples are many to support this theory. The simplest of them is the fact that it takes very little for two Iraqis to go for each other's throat at the slighest provocation. Degeneration of arguments into fisticuffs among Iraqis are a daily feature of life in the country. It does not really matter whether they belong to the same community or otherwise; quite simply, they have a violent temper of a magnitude that is several notches higher than any other people, whether Arab, Muslim or otherwise.
That streak has prevailed throughout the years of the evolution of modern Iraq.
There has never been any smooth transition of power in Iraq over the centuries. The Ottomans, who occupied the entire region for nearly 500 years, had great difficulty in containing the Iraqis and it was only through conspiring with local communities and playing one against another that the Ottomans largely saved their own skin from the dangers of controlling a people whose history is more bloody than any other in the region.
The very diversity of Iraqi society -- Sunnis, Shites, Kurds (with varying links to Iran, Syria and Turkey), Turkomen, Christians and Assyrians, not to mention groups following differing ideologies -- always remained a challenge to anyone who tried to rule them.
In the years after the Ottoman Empire collapses after World War I, Britain, by sheer military force, held the communities together and imposed on them the Hashemite monarchy. But then, more than 20,000 British and allied Indian soldiers died between 1916 and 1920 in battles with Iraqi tribes who resisted the British designs in post-Ottoman Iraq.
"Iraq was and is a very violent and dangerous place," wrties British journalist Patrik Coburn. "It is easy to get into, as the British armies found in 1914, but one of the most difficult countries in the world to rule."
Recovering from the centuries of oppression and enjoying what they saw as newfound freedoms, the Iraqis started challenging the Hashemite monarchy soon thereafter, and the ruling family hit back with equal force and brutality. However, it was not until 1958 that the Iraqis got together and mustered enough strength for themselves to overthrow the monarchy.
Even at that, the ouster of the regime was violent. Jubilant Iraqis dragged the bodies of royal family members through the streets of Baghdad; oldtimers remember that pieces of bones from the bodies were offered for sale as coveted souvenirs. Such violence should be compared with the ouster of the monarchy in Egypt only four years earlier, when the Egyptians put their ousted king and his family aboard a boat from Alexandria into the Mediterranean and sent him out to exile.
No doubt, it is the very nature of the Iraqi society that produced a ruthless and iron-fisted Saddam Hussein as its ruler. Had Saddam been soft, he would not have survived in power and the Iraqis themselves understood it more than anyone else.
It was not at all surprising during the Saddam reign to hear many Iraqi grudgingly agreeing that "we Iraqis need someone like Saddam to keep the country together because we Iraqis recognise the language of physical force than anything else."
As such, it should not have been shocking for the Iraqis to see the gruesome images of the dead bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein -- Saddam's sons – on television and blown up on front pages of newspapers. They simply accepted it as something that could happen any day; but then, by displaying those bodies, the Americans sent a wrong message to some Iraqis -- that the US was all-too powerful and could and would do anything it wanted in the country; surely that did not go down well with them since it touched the very core of the Iraqi mindset (notwithstanding the bitter and intense hatred that the Saddam family had acquired for themselves).
And now the Americans, recording an everage of 12 attacks on its soldiers every day in occupied Iraq and having lost about 60 soldiers since May, are learning the lessons the hard way; and it is only a matter of time when a massive attack takes place to claim dozens of American soldiers' lives in one go.
Saturday, August 23, 2003
Ben Laden remains elusive
AMERICAN intelligence agents and their cronies
scouting the Afghan countryside have grown wary of
false tip-offs about the whereabouts of Osama Bin
Laden coming up almost every day and have got nowhere
near the elusive Al Qaeda leader, who gave the slip of
tens of thousands of American soldiers and their
allies at the end of the Afghan war last year.
It is more of a matter of luck than anything else that
the Americans agents believe would be decisive in
capturing Bin Laden alive or dead. The leads they
have received so far are so flimsy that they are they
not even sure that the man is alive or dead. This is
the finding of Western intelligence sources who keep
track of American operations in the Afghan war
theatre, which covers Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and
some of the former Soviet republics which border
Afghanistan.
At the same time, as every day passes by without any
success in locating Bin Laden and his ally Taliban
leader Mullah Omar, the Bin Laden legend continues to
grow among his faithful similar to that of the
Phantom, the "ghost who walks" immortalised in comic
books.
Frustrating the Americans are the occasional tapes
released through Qatar's Al Jazeera television station
carrying a voice that sounds like Bin Laden and
confirmed as that of the Al Qaeda chief.
Instead leading the hunters closer to the quarry,
every wasted day makes it more difficult for the
American military to get their hands on information
about him let alone capturing him, according to the
intelligence sources.
"They have been working overtime to get Bin Laden,"
said the source. "But the operations are all messed up
and the hunters are non-plussed to explain how some of
the best equipped intelligence agencies backed up the
best resources in the world could not come up with one
man -- Bin Laden.
"They would never admit that they have run aground
without leads and hence the high secrecy and media
blackout imposed on the actual state of the hunt for
Bin Laden."
Intelligence agents were led dozens of times this year
to believe that they are hours close to capturing Bin
Laden in the western deserts of Pakistan and the
mountain ranges on the Pak-Afghan border. Invariably,
all of them turned out to be false alarms, and most of
them produced by people overenthusiastic about the $25
million bounty offered for information leading to the
capture or death of Bin Laden.
"Surprisingly, however, even those bounty-seekers
coming forward with 'information' on Bin Laden have
been limited in numbers, " said a highly informed
source.
"The Bin Laden situation is not like Iraq and Saddam
Hussein where there was little love lost for the
dictator and there could be hundreds of thousands
ready to try their hand at getting the $25 million
bounty on his head," said the source. "What the
American and British intelligence agents have come
across among Afghans as well as Pakistanis in the
border areas is devotion to Bin Laden and
determination to defend him at whatever cost."
The communities along the Pak-Afghan border live by
their own laws and are bound by codes of honour
handed down over centuries that could not broken by
any external consideration. Those who dare to violate
the code of conduct -- particularly a commitment to
protect a "guest" who has sought protection -- might
not live another day to recount the tale.
American efforts to locate turncoat Al Qaeda agents
also have had little success.
What the US agents have failed to realise and respect
is the high motivation among Al Qaeda that makes it
almost impossible to break into the rank and file of
the organisation.
It might sound strange, given that $25 million would
represent the income of several generations of
hundreds of communities in an Afghan or Pakistan town,
but that is the way the Bin Laden culture has taken
root among devout Muslims in the region.
"For the bulk of them Bin Laden is their leader in the
fight against the Western evil as represented by the
Americans and they have surprisingly unwavering
commitment to their beliefs and convictions," said the
source. "They understand his language and words more
than American assurances about their well-being,
including democracy and everything else connected to
that."
"No amount of bounty is going to undermine their stand
since they believe that they will be held accountable
to God in their afterlife if they betray someone like
Bin Laden."
However, that has not stopped some of them from
collecting "easy money" in return for false
information to the point that the American-British
combine is no longer generous with cash to informants,
said the source.
"Tens of thousands of dollars and gifts like mobile
phones used to change hands every day in the hunt for
Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in the initial days after
the Afghan war," said the source. "It is no longer the
case since the agents now feel that they had been
taken for a ride by the so-called informants and
bounty hunters."
An 11,000-strong American task force backed by Afghan
allies is combing the area for what they call remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qaeda — including of course
Mullah Omar and Bin Laden — in the Afghan-Pakistan
border.
American agents and Pakistani security forces are
searching the Pakistani side of the border, but apart
an intensification of mortar and rocket attacks, the
Americans have found little success.
Iran is no help either.
Given the Iranian theocratic hostility towards the US
and Tehran's tight-knit and merciless approach to
people suspected of spying for foreign elements, the
American intelligence community has run into a blank
wall in trying to get information from within Iran.
They know that a handful of Al Qaeda activists are in
Iranian hands but they don't even know the identity of
the detainees.
According to Mansoor Ijaz, who is described by
London's Guardian newspaper as a financier who has
spent years tracking Bin Laden's movements and
operations, the Al Qaeda leader is is hiding in the
"northern tribal areas" -- the long belt of seven
deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretches
down the length of the mountain ranges that mark
Pakistan's 2,400-kilometre border with Afghanistan.
Ijaz should know, says the Guardian, since Manoor Ijaz
has "close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence
agencies and has worked, behind the scenes, as
negotiator over Bin Laden in the past."
According to the paper, Mansoor Ijaz was involved in
negotiating attempts by Sudan to provide crucial
information on Bin Laden in 1997 and worked on an
attempt to have him extradited from Afghanistan
through the United Arab Emirates in 2000.
Mansoor Ijaz told the paper that he believes Bin Laden
is protected by an "elaborate security cordon of three
concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a
ring around 200 kilometres in diameter of tribesmen,
whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani
troops or US special forces."
"Inside them is a tighter ring, around (20
kilometres) in diameter, made up of tribal elders who
would warn if the outer ring were breached," it says.
"At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself,
protected by one or two of his closest relatives and
advisers. Bin Laden has agreed with the elders that he
will use no electronic communications and will move
only at night and between specified places within a
limited radius."
No wonder the US has made little headway in its
unprecedentedly intense hunt for Bin Laden, and it is
highly unlikely that its approach would come to
fruition any soon.
scouting the Afghan countryside have grown wary of
false tip-offs about the whereabouts of Osama Bin
Laden coming up almost every day and have got nowhere
near the elusive Al Qaeda leader, who gave the slip of
tens of thousands of American soldiers and their
allies at the end of the Afghan war last year.
It is more of a matter of luck than anything else that
the Americans agents believe would be decisive in
capturing Bin Laden alive or dead. The leads they
have received so far are so flimsy that they are they
not even sure that the man is alive or dead. This is
the finding of Western intelligence sources who keep
track of American operations in the Afghan war
theatre, which covers Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and
some of the former Soviet republics which border
Afghanistan.
At the same time, as every day passes by without any
success in locating Bin Laden and his ally Taliban
leader Mullah Omar, the Bin Laden legend continues to
grow among his faithful similar to that of the
Phantom, the "ghost who walks" immortalised in comic
books.
Frustrating the Americans are the occasional tapes
released through Qatar's Al Jazeera television station
carrying a voice that sounds like Bin Laden and
confirmed as that of the Al Qaeda chief.
Instead leading the hunters closer to the quarry,
every wasted day makes it more difficult for the
American military to get their hands on information
about him let alone capturing him, according to the
intelligence sources.
"They have been working overtime to get Bin Laden,"
said the source. "But the operations are all messed up
and the hunters are non-plussed to explain how some of
the best equipped intelligence agencies backed up the
best resources in the world could not come up with one
man -- Bin Laden.
"They would never admit that they have run aground
without leads and hence the high secrecy and media
blackout imposed on the actual state of the hunt for
Bin Laden."
Intelligence agents were led dozens of times this year
to believe that they are hours close to capturing Bin
Laden in the western deserts of Pakistan and the
mountain ranges on the Pak-Afghan border. Invariably,
all of them turned out to be false alarms, and most of
them produced by people overenthusiastic about the $25
million bounty offered for information leading to the
capture or death of Bin Laden.
"Surprisingly, however, even those bounty-seekers
coming forward with 'information' on Bin Laden have
been limited in numbers, " said a highly informed
source.
"The Bin Laden situation is not like Iraq and Saddam
Hussein where there was little love lost for the
dictator and there could be hundreds of thousands
ready to try their hand at getting the $25 million
bounty on his head," said the source. "What the
American and British intelligence agents have come
across among Afghans as well as Pakistanis in the
border areas is devotion to Bin Laden and
determination to defend him at whatever cost."
The communities along the Pak-Afghan border live by
their own laws and are bound by codes of honour
handed down over centuries that could not broken by
any external consideration. Those who dare to violate
the code of conduct -- particularly a commitment to
protect a "guest" who has sought protection -- might
not live another day to recount the tale.
American efforts to locate turncoat Al Qaeda agents
also have had little success.
What the US agents have failed to realise and respect
is the high motivation among Al Qaeda that makes it
almost impossible to break into the rank and file of
the organisation.
It might sound strange, given that $25 million would
represent the income of several generations of
hundreds of communities in an Afghan or Pakistan town,
but that is the way the Bin Laden culture has taken
root among devout Muslims in the region.
"For the bulk of them Bin Laden is their leader in the
fight against the Western evil as represented by the
Americans and they have surprisingly unwavering
commitment to their beliefs and convictions," said the
source. "They understand his language and words more
than American assurances about their well-being,
including democracy and everything else connected to
that."
"No amount of bounty is going to undermine their stand
since they believe that they will be held accountable
to God in their afterlife if they betray someone like
Bin Laden."
However, that has not stopped some of them from
collecting "easy money" in return for false
information to the point that the American-British
combine is no longer generous with cash to informants,
said the source.
"Tens of thousands of dollars and gifts like mobile
phones used to change hands every day in the hunt for
Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in the initial days after
the Afghan war," said the source. "It is no longer the
case since the agents now feel that they had been
taken for a ride by the so-called informants and
bounty hunters."
An 11,000-strong American task force backed by Afghan
allies is combing the area for what they call remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qaeda — including of course
Mullah Omar and Bin Laden — in the Afghan-Pakistan
border.
American agents and Pakistani security forces are
searching the Pakistani side of the border, but apart
an intensification of mortar and rocket attacks, the
Americans have found little success.
Iran is no help either.
Given the Iranian theocratic hostility towards the US
and Tehran's tight-knit and merciless approach to
people suspected of spying for foreign elements, the
American intelligence community has run into a blank
wall in trying to get information from within Iran.
They know that a handful of Al Qaeda activists are in
Iranian hands but they don't even know the identity of
the detainees.
According to Mansoor Ijaz, who is described by
London's Guardian newspaper as a financier who has
spent years tracking Bin Laden's movements and
operations, the Al Qaeda leader is is hiding in the
"northern tribal areas" -- the long belt of seven
deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretches
down the length of the mountain ranges that mark
Pakistan's 2,400-kilometre border with Afghanistan.
Ijaz should know, says the Guardian, since Manoor Ijaz
has "close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence
agencies and has worked, behind the scenes, as
negotiator over Bin Laden in the past."
According to the paper, Mansoor Ijaz was involved in
negotiating attempts by Sudan to provide crucial
information on Bin Laden in 1997 and worked on an
attempt to have him extradited from Afghanistan
through the United Arab Emirates in 2000.
Mansoor Ijaz told the paper that he believes Bin Laden
is protected by an "elaborate security cordon of three
concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a
ring around 200 kilometres in diameter of tribesmen,
whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani
troops or US special forces."
"Inside them is a tighter ring, around (20
kilometres) in diameter, made up of tribal elders who
would warn if the outer ring were breached," it says.
"At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself,
protected by one or two of his closest relatives and
advisers. Bin Laden has agreed with the elders that he
will use no electronic communications and will move
only at night and between specified places within a
limited radius."
No wonder the US has made little headway in its
unprecedentedly intense hunt for Bin Laden, and it is
highly unlikely that its approach would come to
fruition any soon.
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}