Breme'rs 'fatwas' for Iraq

The US has bound the interim government of
Iraq in a series of mandatory restrictions in an
attempt to keep it as a puppet in American hands after
this week's transfer of sovereignty. Effectively,
these restrictions are nothing but legalised
colonialisation, critics say.
Nearly 150 Americans are installed in key positions in
various ministries and departments on five-year
contracts that could not be nullified by the interim
government. These officials have virtual veto power
over any decision taken by the concerned ministries
and departments. Their contracts could be anulled only
by a two-third majority of a to-be installed national
assembly of 100 Iraqis who would be named at a
national conference to be held in July.
In addition, Paul Bremer, the American overseer who
would leave office on Wednesday, has also named more
than 20 Iraqis to jobs that he describes as aimed at
checking corruption and ensuring transparency of
governance. In essence, these Iraqis are seen as
American stooges whose job is to impose and promote
the American concept of governance that hardly match
the realities on the ground in Iraq and the
peculiarities of a Middle Eastern Arab Muslim society.
Bremer has signed nearly 100 decrees — which his
critics have nicknameded "fatwas" (edicts) —  that are
obviously aimed at restricting the interim government
from taking or implementing any decision that runs
contrary to the American-designed shape of Iraq. These
"edicts" could be overturned only by a majority of
members of the interim cabinet as well as the
president and two vice-presidents. Given that most
members of the interim government are US-picked and
are bound to Washington one way or another, this is an
insurance that the "edicts" remain in place even if
some in the interim government might not approve them.

Among the most controversial of the "edicts" are:
-- a suspension of the death penalty.
-- an election law that a seven-member panel that
wields a veto power against any political party and
candidate in elections.
-- one of every three candidates of any recognised
political party must be a woman.
-- formation of committees that have sweeping powers
over communications, the media, and the stock market.
-- a commission which will have the authority to send
government officials, including members of the interim
cabinet, for trial on corruption charges.
-- a ban on former members of the Iraqi army from
holding public office for 18 months after their
retirement or resignation.
-- punishments of up to 30 years in jail for those
convicted of selling weapons.
-- a ban on former militiamen from being absorbed to
the Iraqi military and from campaigning for election
candidates.
Some of Bremer's edits are "administrative" in nature.
These include:
-- an anti-money laundering law that mandatorily
subjects to scrutiny any transaction involving $3,500.
-- an industrial-design law to protect microchip
designs.
-- a ceiling of 15 per cent on any tax.
-- a ban on violation of intellectual property laws.
-- a ban on employment of anyone under the age of 15.
A scrutiny of Bremer's "edicts" will show that few of
them are compatible with the way of life in Iraq.
For instance, the suspension of the death penalty is
imposed on a country where tribal feuds are settled
through the barrel of a gun on the "an-eye-for-an-eye"
principle of the desert. Therefore, if the judiciary
does not have the authority to order the execution of
a convicted murderer, then the tribes would seek to
settle the score by killing the murderer or even a key
member of his or her clan as revenge even before the
issue goes to court.
The proposed ban on political parties has already
drawn protests, with Iraqis saying that why should an
American-imposed body have the right to veto parties
and candicates in elections in Iraq.
While the Saddam Hussein regime was liberal in
approach to women and given women broad rights,
Iraqis, as other Arab Muslims of conservative
societies, will resent the imposition of a
one-in-three quota for women candidates in elections.
The 30-year mandatory punishment for weapon sellers
will immediately be rejected since almost every
household in Iraq has more than a firearm. Often, such
weapons are sold by families as last-resort means.
Therefore a ban on selling a weapon and such a high
penalty could never be accepted by Iraqis.
The ban on militiamen from joining the armed forces
runs contrary to the plans of the interim government,
which has already launched a process where all
militias — except those of the Kurds in the north
— will be disbanded and absorbed into the security
forces.
The ban on children under 15 from taking up employment
will be rejected outright. In a country where there is
little employment and where many families have lost
male adults earning a livelihood, children are the
sole wage-earners. Those families will go hungry if
the children are banned from working.
The interim government is unlikely to obey Bremer's
edicts, and such an approach will pit the interim
ministers against the "agents" Bremer has put in
place. The result: A perennial state of friction that
would not bode well for the interim government to
carry out its assigned task of shaping Iraq's future.

$3,415 per American family

The invasion and occupation of Iraq would
have cost the average US household at least $3,415 by
the end of this year, says a expert study.
The Washington-based think tank, the Institute for
Policy Studies (IPS), also says that not only have US
taxpayers paid a "very high price for the war," they
have also become "less secure at home and in the
world."
In a report entitled "Paying the Price: The Mounting
Costs of the Iraq War," IPS states that the US would
have spent $151.1 billion on the invasion and
occupation of Iraq by the end of the year. This
translates into $3,415 per American household.
The report points out that $151.1 billion could have
paid for comprehensive health care for 82 million
Americanchildren or the salaries of nearly three
million elementary school teachers.
The same amount, it says, if spent on international
programmes, could have cut world hunger in half and
covered HIV/AIDS medicine, childhood immunisation, and
clean water and sanitation needs of all developing
countries for more than two years.
Apart from the financial costs, the report says, the
US also absorbed "costs in blood" that are "by no
means insignificant."
More than 850 US troops have been killed since the
start of the war on March 20, 2003, just over 700 of
them since President George Bush declared the end of
major hostilities on May 1, 2003. In addition, more
than 5,134 troops were wounded until mid-June 4,600
of them since the official end of combat. Nearly
two-thirds of the wounded received injuries serious
enough to prevent them from returning to duty.
The toll among Iraqis is much higher.
According to the IPS report, t between 9,436 and
11,317 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a direct
result of the US. invasion and ensuing occupation,
while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. In
addition, during "major combat" operations both during
the invasion and after May 1, 2003, the report
estimates that between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers
and insurgents were killed as of mid-June.
The IPS report also refers to the long-run health
impacts of the estimated 1,100 to 2,200 tons of
ordnance made from depleted uranium (DU), which caused
illnesses among US soldiers in the first Gulf War and
led to a seven-fold increase in child birth defects in
southern Iraq since 1991, that were expended during
the March 2003 bombing campaign.
The report also highlights the psychological impact of
the warm, post-war resistance and crimes, including
murders, rapes, and kidnapping. It points out that
deaths from violence rose from an average of 14 per
month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003.
Other points that the report highlights include:
— Iraqi women do not enjoy safety and security outside
their homes.
– Many Iraqi children cannot attend school.
— Water and electricity networks are far short of
meeting the demands as a result of sabotage by
guerrillas and corruption by companies like
Halliburton.
— Iraq's hospitals and health systems have been
overwhelmed by a combination of lack of supplies and
unprecedented demand created by the ongoing violence.
The IPS report also highlights that the US has
suffered a seriouos blow to its own standing and
credibility in the international scene among both
Muslims countries as well as America's traditonal
allies in Europe. The US actions also led weakening
the UN and international law by the wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq and the inhumane treatment of
detainees in both wars.
In conclusion, the report states that the US have to
pay the price for its invasion of Iraq for a long
time. It refers to to an assessment by the
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
that the Iraq war has led to a swelling of the ranks
of anti-US groups, particularly Al Qaeda.
Accordingn to the IIS, Al Qaeda's membership at
18,000 with 1,000 active in Iraq.

The lamb and the tiger

by PV Vivekanand

A folk tale speaks about a tiger that seeks to savour
the flesh of a lamb drinking water downstream. It
accuses the lamb of polluting the water. The lamb
replies it is innocent since he is downstream and the
tiger upstream. "Oh, then it is your grandfather who
polluted the water some years ago," replies the tiger
and pounces on the lamb.
We are reminded of this tale every time we hear the
American allegation that Saddam Hussein had links with
Osama Bin Laden despite an independent commission's
findings to the contrary. Washington's
behind-the-scene efforts to make the charge stick are
at best pathetic.
The only difference is that Saddam Hussein was no
lamb.
Russia has joined the American bandwagon with an
assertion by Vladimir Putin that Russian security
agencies repeatedly had warned the White House after
Sept.11, 2001, that Saddam was planning "terrorist
attacks" against targets both outside and inside the
United States.
"This information was passed through channels to
American colleagues," according to Putin. "George Bush
had a chance to personally thank a chief of one of the
Russian secret services for the information that he
considered very important."
Indeed, the assertion, which lacks in details, could
help the US effort to justify the invasion of Iraq as
well as US President George W Bush's standing among
American voters since the Democrats have accused Bush
of launching the war with little justification.
"It appears Mr. Putin is trying to help Mr. Bush win
his second election, that Moscow is becoming a player
in the American political scene," Lilia Shevtsova, a
political scientist at the Moscow Carnegie Center, was
quoted as saying by the Baltimore Sun. The inference
is that Putin might feel more comfortable dealing with
Bush as president of the US than his Democratic rival
John Kerry and is hence pitching his lot into run-up
to the US presidential elections in November.
Without going into details, Bush himself has insisted
that Saddam's Iraq was linked to Bin Laden's Qaeda.
But neither Bush nor anyone else has come up with hard
evidence.
Middle Eastern circles endorse the finding by the
American independent commission investigating the
Sept.11 attacks that no proof exists of co-operation
between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

Linkage not possible

Allegations of a tie-up between Bin Laden and Saddam
were seen with scepticism in the Middle East whenever
such charges were made in the US.
Most analysts and observers in the Middle East think
such a linkage is not possible because the two,
despite their fierce anti-US postures, followed
different, dramatically divergent paths. Bin Laden
never considered Saddam as a Muslim faithful and
steadfastly rejected the Iraqi strongman's overtures
to set up an alliance.
Bin Laden blamed Saddam for the Mideast's troubles as
much as he blamed the US and Israel. He saw Saddam as
having set the ground for the US to set up a permanent
military presence in the Gulf region by invading
Kuwait in 1990.
Bin Laden was a bitter critic of Saddam for using
Islamic tenets whenever it suited and ignoring them
otherwise. A classic example cited by Bin Laden was
Saddam's imposition of parts of the Shariah (Islamic
law) in Iraq, like bans on alcohol and nightclubs and
enforcement of the Islamic dress code at times when it
suited him. The ban was imposed and implicitly lifted
at regular intervals during the Saddam reign in Iraq.
As far as Bin Laden was concerned Saddam was not a
true Muslim and this, in his eyes, ruled him out as an
ally. If anything, according to sources who knew Bin
Laden in the early 90s, the Yemeni-born Saudi militant
considered Saddam as a traitor of the Islamic and Arab
cause since he felt that the Iraqi strongman would
respond positively to any American overture to settle
Washington-Baghdad differences and rejoin the American
camp if the US administration invited him to do so.
"Saddam Hussein is in fact an infidel who is trying to
use Islam to serve his politics and secure support
among the faithful in Iraq," Bin Laden was known to
have commented to some of his "Arab Afghan" supporters
— Arabs, who like Bin Laden himself, volunteered to
fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan during
the 1980s. He also maintained that the people of Iraq
should be seen separate from the regime since "they
were Saddam's innocent victims" just as "the
Palestinians were the victims of Israel."

Secret report

A secret British intelligence report, which was
suppressed by the government in late 2002, said it was
not possible that Bin Laden and Saddam could have
forged an alliance if only because their "ideological"
differences were too wide. The same report also said
that there was no evidence of an Al Qaeda-Baghdad
link.
After the August 1998 Al Qaeda bombings of the
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the
retaliatory American attacks against a Bin Laden camp
in Afghanistan, Saddam reportedly extended an
invitation to Bin Laden to go to Iraq and take shelter
there against any further American military action.
Saddam promised him "absolute" safety and protection.
The Al Qaeda leader not only turned down the
"invitation" but also berated Saddam for thinking that
a "true believer" such as Bin Laden himself would
accept such an invitation from a "non-believer" like
Saddam.
Indeed, according to the sources, Al Qaeda activists
from Egypt, Sudan and other countries might have
visited Iraq while Saddam was in power, but this never
constituted any basis for an alliance as alleged by
the US.
Against this backdrop, persistent claims made by
senior American officials that Saddam and Bin Laden
had strong links sounded hollow and without substance.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell raised a big hue
and cry in mid-2002 that Ansar Al Islam, an Al Qaeda
affiliate, was housed in northern Iraq and was
developing chemical weapons there.
In less than 24 hours after Powell made the
allegation, the horde of Arab, regional and
international media based in the region rushed to the
area only to find a couple of ruined buildings there.
The only chemicals worth mentioning that were found in
the area was a packet of detergent that someone had
forgotten in a makeshift washing room.
So much for American intelligence findings.
However, the catch in the situation was always that
while administration allegations against Iraq were
played up, results of on-the-ground inspections were
played down, and not many got to read or hear the
actual findings. They were left with the first
impressions of the charge itself.
Contrary to what many Mideastern pundits argue, the US
investigating commission asserts that Bin Laden had
made overtures to Saddam but the Iraqi strongman never
responded.
It could indeed be true that someone, somewhere in the
Bin Laden camp might have made such requests, but it
is highly unlikely it came from Bin Laden to Saddam,
say Arab intelligence agencies.

False claims

The American investigating commission's failure to
find any evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq had links
pulls the rug from under the feet of steadfast claims
made by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and
other administration officials.
Even last week, Cheney claimed Saddam "had
long-established ties with Al Qaeda," but what he had
to cite as evidence was an already discredited report
that Mohammed Atta, leader of the 19 Sept. 11
hijackers, met in Prague, Czech Republic, with a
senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks.
The investigating panel concluded no such meeting had
occurred.
Putin's assertion that Saddam plotted terror attacks
against the US after Sept.11 brings forth several
elements into consideration.
It was assumed as early as November 2001, one month
after the US launched the war against Afghanistan,
that Iraq was the Bush administration's next target.
Bush said his interpretation was that his war against
terror include those countries which "terrified" their
neighbours with their weapons of mass destruction.
That was the clearest signal that he intended to wage
war on Iraq no matter.
Surely, if even the man on the street could sense that
Bush was on an irreversible course towards war against
Iraq, then Saddam and his advisers and strategists
should have also known of the inevitability of war.
From that point onwards, Saddam tried desperately to
avoid war. Despite his public anti-US rhetoric, it was
clear since July 2002 that he would have complied with
every American and UN demands in connection with
charges that he had a massive stockpile of weapons of
mass destruction. The truth, as it had emerged, was
that he did not have any. He did not risk anything by
allowing UN inspections and accepting other UN demands
aimed at ensuring that he did not resume his weapons
programmes.
However, Bush, nudged by his neo-conservative
pro-Israeli advisers, had made up his mind and
Saddam's offers of compliance were steadfastly turned
down. There was nothing in the world Saddam could have
done to change the course towards war.
The pattern of American behaviour since late 2001
clearly showed that the objective was indeed invasion
of Iraq, topple Saddam and occupy Iraq until the
country is reshaped as the most "American-friendly" in
the Middle East after Israel.
By late 2002, it became very clear that war would be
launched anytime. All the American manoeuvrings
through the UN under European pressure had only one
objective: Give no room for Saddam to get off the hook
even if he were to go on his knees.
It was during this period, according to Putin, Saddam
allegedly had plotted terror attacks against the US.
Logic does not agree with that assertion.
Notwithstanding all his shortcomings, Saddam would not
have been as naive as not to realise that any such
action against the US would have brought an immediate
military action upon Iraq and would have made
meaningless any effort to avert the war.
Many in the Middle East see as credible recent
revelations that Saddam had, through a Lebanese
intermediary, made a last-ditch offer to open all his
military facilities to the US without reservation and
meet any American demand as long as he remained in
power. That fits in with the overall picture that
Saddam knew that war was inevitable and was trying to
hang onto to the slimmest straw.
Against that reality, it seems inconceivable that
Saddam might have been plotting terror attacks against
the US at a time when he was desperately attempting to
ward off war that would inevitably topple him.
But then, that is what the lamb tried and failed.

No Saddam-Bin Laden ties

by pv vivekanand

THE FINDING by an American independent commission
investigating the Sept.11 attacks that no proof exists
between Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
should not be surprising. It was always known in
Mideastern circles that a tie-up between Bin Laden and
Saddam was never possible because the two, despite
their fierce anti-US postures, followed different,
dramatically divergent paths, religiously
ideologically, politically and otherwise.
Bin Laden, a truly committed Muslim with strong
convictions and beliefs, never considered Saddam as a
Muslim faithful and steadfastly rejected the Iraqi
strongman's overtures to set up an alliance.
Bin Laden blamed Saddam for the Mideast's troubles as
much as he blamed the US and Israel. He saw Saddam as
having set the ground for the US to set up a permanent
military presence in the Gulf region by invading
Kuwait in 1990.
Bin Laden was a bitter critic of Saddam for using
Islamic tenets whenever it suited and ignoring them
otherwise. A classic example cited by Bin Laden was
Saddam's imposition of parts of the Shariah (Islamic
law) in Iraq, like bans on alcohol and nightclubs and
enforcement of the Islamic dress code at times when it
suited him. The bans were imposed and implicitly
lifted at regular intervals during the Saddam reign in
Iraq.
As far as Bin Laden was concerned Saddam was not a
true Muslim and this, in his eyes, ruled him out as an
ally. If anything, Bin Laden considered Saddam as a
traitor of the Islamic and Arab cause since he felt
that the Iraqi strongman would respond positively to
any American overture to settle Washington-Baghdad
differences and rejoin the American camp if the Bush
Senior administration, the Clinton administration or
the Bush Junior administration were inclined to do so.
"Saddam Hussein is in fact an infidel who is trying to
use Islam to serve his politics and secure support
among the faithful in Iraq," Bin Laden was known to
have commented to some of his "Arab Afghan" supporters
-- Arabs, who like Bin Laden himself, volunteered to
fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan during
the 1980s. He also maintained that the people of Iraq
should be seen separate from the regime since "they
were Saddam's innocent victims" just as "the
Palestinians were the victims of Israel."
A secret British intelligence report, which was
suppressed by the government in late 2002, said it was
not possible that Bin Laden and Saddam could have
forged an alliance if only because their "ideological"
differences were too wide. The same report also said
that there was no evidence of an Al Qaeda-Baghdad
link.
After the August 1998 Al Qaeda bombings of the
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the
retaliatory American attacks against a Bin Laden camp
in Afghanistan, Saddam extended an invitation to Bin
Laden to go to Iraq and take shelter there against any
further American military action. Saddam promised him
"absolute" safety and protection.
The Al Qaeda leader not only turned down the
"invitation" but also berated Saddam for thinking that
a "true believer" such as Bin Laden himself would
accept such an invitation from a "non-believer" like
Saddam.
Indeed, according to the sources, Al Qaeda activists
from Egypt, Sudan and other countries might have
visited Iraq while Saddam was in power, but this
never constituted any basis for an alliance as alleged
by the US.
Against this backdrop, persistent claims made by
senior American officials that Saddam and Bin Laden
had strong links had sounded hollow — to those who are
familiar with the thinking of the two — and without
substance.
On the other hand, the US investigating commission
asserts that Saddam had never responded to requests
for help from Bin Laden in 1994. The reality,
according to highly credible and informed sources in
the Middle East, was that such a request was indeed
made by an unidentified Sudanese member of Al Qaeda
but without Bin Laden's knowledge. That Sudanese,
identified as Mamdouh Kais, was killed in a 1997
accident in Afghanistan, according to the sources.
Arab intelligence agencies which have more to fear
from a Bin Laden-Saddam alliance than the West have
asserted that they could not establish a link between
Al Qaeda and Baghdad.
The investigating commission's failure to find any
evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq had links pulls the
rug from under the feet of steadfast claims made by
President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and
other administration officials.
Even last week, Cheney claimed Saddam "had
long-established ties with Al Qaeda," but what he had
to cite as evidence was an already discredited report
that Mohammed Atta, leader of the 19 Sept. 11
hijackers, met in Prague, Czech Republic, with a
senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks.
The investigating panel concluded no such meeting
occurred.

Abu Ghraib photos

Qadhafi and plot to kill Abdullah

IT is unlikely that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi will
face any international punishment for his alleged plot
to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. If Qadhafi
were to be punished, then it would prove too
embarassing for the Bush administration, which had
touted his pledge in December to renounce terrorism
and abandon weapons of mass destruction as a major
victory of the US-led war against terrorism.
The US cannot cannot afford to see Qadhafi as having
committed a unredeemable sin by allegedly plotting to
kill Crown Prince Abdullah. It In the short run, there
would be a lot of talk about punishing Qadhafi but
these would fade away, with Iraq, Palestine and
American elections as well as Washington's push for
Arab reforms taking centrestage.
The key here is that the US had known since September
of the alleged Libyan plot to kill Prince Abdullah and
kept back the information from the Saudis. No doubt
the top officials of the Bush administration had known
about it throughout. Therefore last week's pledge by
President George Bush that he was concerned and the
affair would be thoroughly investigated sounds hollow
since it is based on the asusmption that he came to
know about it only now; whereas it is illogical that
he was not immediately informed by US intelligence
agencies of a plot against the de factor ruler of a
country as important as Saudi Arabia when it was
discovered.
According to reports in the American and Saudi media,
the alleged plot to kill Abdullah involved Qadhafi and
his top intelligence agents as well as Abdul Rahman
Alamoudi, an American Muslim leader jailed in
Alexandria, Virginia, on federal charges of having
illegal financial dealings with Libya; and by
Mohammeed Ismael, a Libyan intelligence officer in
Saudi custody.
Alamoudi was detained by British authorities last
August as he boarded a flight from London to Syria
with $340,000 in cash. They suspected he was carrying
the money for the Palestinian group Hamas. He denied
it and said a Libyan had simply gave him the money at
his hotel room with no explanation. Then he said the
money came from the Libya-based World Islamic Call
Society. Then he said the money came from Libyan
intelligence.
He was sent to the US where he faced charges of
violating the US sanctions agains Libya - travelling
to Libya and receiving money from Libyans.
Then, in a bid to escape from the charges, he made a
deal with the US authorities and revealed the plot
against Abdullah.
Alamoudi is the founder of several Islamic groups
including the American Muslim Council, and is an
occasional White House visitor during the Clinton and
current Bush administrations.
He said he was summoned to Libya by top intelligence
officer Abdullah Sannousi, who introduced him to
Mohamed Ismael, another intelligence agent, in a
meeting attended by Sannousi's deputy Mousa Koussa.
Alamoudi and Ismael worked together since then.
Almoudi received at least $3 million from Libya and
met Saudi dissidents in London to hire them for the
killing.
He said he had met Qadhafi twice since then and both
times the Libyan leader told him to speed up the plot
to kill Abdullah.
The plot began in May 2003, shortly after Qadhafi and
Abdullah had a fierce verbal clash at an Arab
emergency meeting in Egypt. Qadhafi accused Saudi
Arabia of agreeing to give military facilities to the
US for invading Iraq and Abdullah retorted that
Qadhafi himself was helped by the US to assume power
in Libya in a coup.
Prince Abdullah shouted at Qadhafi: "Your lies
precede you and your grave is in front of you."
Alamoudi's version was corroborated by Ismael, who was
arrested in October last year. According to Saudi
newspaper reports, he was arrested after police were
alerted by an employee of a money exchange company who
grew suspicious about a $1 million transfer that had
come in Ismael's name.
Ismael tried to explain that the money was to be spent
for expenses related to the Umra pilgrimage of several
"leading" women from Libya.
The money exchange employee alerted Saudi police and
Ismael was kept under observation. But he was not
arrested in Saudi Arabia. He was apparenlty allowed to
leave the country and was detained in Egypt and sent
back to Saudi Arabia.
Four Saudi dissidents was arrested from a hotel
outside Mecca whether they had gone to collect money
for their role in the plot.
Saudi police questioned Alamoudi and the four, and the
plot was unveiled.
By then, American authorities had also known the
details of the plot from Alamoudi and the two versions
matched.
In the meantime, American-Libyan relations grew
stronger. Qadhafi had offered in secret talks with the
US and UK to renounce terrorism and abandon his
secret weapons projects in mid=2003 and in December
he made the public pledge to drop his weapons plans
and renounced terrorism.
The US is indeed concerned that Qadhafi should be
keeping his pledge, but the explanation, if any is
available, is that the plot against Abdullah came
before his pledge and therefore he is a changed man
now.
The American approach to the affair is rather low key.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher
acknowledged that Washington had known of reports
"that Libya was in contact with Saudi dissidents who
have threatened violence against the Saudi royal
family" before Qadhafi's pledge on Dec.19 abandoning
his weapons programmes and renouncing terrorism.
"We raised those concerns directly with the Libyan
leadership, and they assured us that they would not
support the use of violence for settling political
differences with any state," said Boucher. The
allegations were one reason the US had not removed
Libya from the State Department's list of nations that
support terrorism.
President Bush said last week: "We're going to make
sure we fully understand the veracity of the plot
line. . . . When we find out the facts, we will deal
with them accordingly. . . . I have sent a message to
(Qadhafi) that if he honours his commitments to resist
terror and to fully disclose and disarm his weapons
programmes, we will begin a process of normalisation,
which we have done."
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Shalqam has
denied the allegations "completely and categorically."

In the meantime, investigations are continuing, with
Americans and Saudi officials seekign to to interview
at least two of Alamoudi's US associates, who
apparently are overseas.
The US and Saudi Arabia are also pressing British
officials to intensify their investigation of Saad
Faqih, a Saudi dissident in London suspected of having
played a role in the Libyan plot. Faqih has denied
any connection to the plot. Faqih acknowledged having
known Alamoudi for years but denied being funded by
him or by Ismael.
Saudi dissidents in London are suspected of having
given Alamoudi and Ismael clues to locate men in
Saudi Arabia willing to join an assassination plot
that involved the use of small arms or
rocket-propelled grenades.
In technical terms, if the charge against Libya is
proved true, then it could lead to reinstatement of
international sanctions on Libya that were lifted by
the United Nations Security Council last September
after Tripoli government renounced terrorism, admitted
responsibility for the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing and
agreed to pay $10 million compensation to the
families.
However, to acknowledge that he had gone wrong in
dealing with Qadhafi would be embarassing for Bush,
who had highlighted Qadhafi's pledge against
developing weapons and supporting terorrism as a one
of the most tangible results of the US-led war against
terrorism. Washington would only seek to absolve
Qadhafi of any wrongdoing.

Saddam's oil vouchers

Separate investigations by the UN, the US
Congress and an auditor appointed by the now-defunct
Iraqi Interim Governing Council (IGC) have unveiled
different forms of oil export scams run by the ousted
Saddam Hussein regime.
In all, the regime is said to have sold several
billion dollars worth of smuggled oil. The money has
not been accounted for, but it is unlikely that the
cash was ever sent to Iraq. The money changed hands
through carefully concealed bank transfers and in cash
outside Iraq under instructions issued by the regime.
One channel was to inflate the invoices of goods
supplied to Iraq under the UN's oil-for-food
programme. The Saddam regime had the final say about
what was to be imported under the programme —  mainly
food, medicine and related supplies — and at what cost
while the UN collected proceeds from the sale of Iraqi
oil.
The regime made secret deals with suppliers of food,
medicine and related items to inflate the costs. The
supplier submitted the invoices to the UN and
collected the money, and remitted the inflated
difference to secret accounts of the Saddam regime
outside Iraq. The regime used the money to benefit its
top leaders and to pay bribes to friendly politicians
and groups as needed.
During the seven-year oil-for-food programme that
ended in October 2003, Iraq exported $65 billion and
more than $38 billion in food and medicine had been
delivered to the Iraqi people. It is not known how
much money was involved in the inflated invoices.
The difference in the exports and imports went to a UN
fund that paid compensation to victims of the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The second scam run by the Saddam regime was through
smuggling oil in violation of the UN sanctions imposed
after the invasion of Kuwait.
The regime used to pump around 200,000 barrels of oil
through a pipeline that runs from Kirkuk in northern
Iraq to Syria's Banias port.
Oil companies took delivery of the oil from Banias
port upon producing coded slips issued by Iraq's
State Oil Marketing Company or SOMO.
The US knew about this, but could not do anything to
stop the smuggling through Syria because Damascus
refused to co-operate with Washington.One of the first
things the US military did after invading Iraq and
toppling Saddam last year was to close down the
pipeline.
The scam through Syria allegedly benefited about
270 foreign government officials, legislators,
political activists and journalists as well as
companies from more than 52 countries who are said
to have received money from Saddam for supporting him
in international and regional forums.
The Saddam regime issued "oil vouchers" to various
beneficiaries who could then sell them to oil dealers
or agents operating from Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. The
agents would then sell the vouchers to oil companies
which, in turn, would submit them to the State Oil
Marketing Company or SOMO and collected coded slips
that entitled them to collect the oil from Banias
port. Both the beneficiary and the agent collected
quick and handsome profits. More often than note,
beneficiaries sold the vouchers at an average of $3
per barrel for instant cash.
The beneficiaries of the scam allegedly included
Western, Arab and Asian politicians and groups (the
list includes the Indian Congress Party, which
allegedly received one million barrels, according to
Al Mada, an Iraqi newspaper, which released the list.
The Congress Party has issued a categorical denial of
the allegation).
Another alleged beneficiary was Benon V Sevan, the
former director of the UN oil-for-food programme. He
has denied the charge, but a secret memo based on an
inspection of documents recovered from the former
regime's offices claim that Senan collected the oil
vouchers and channelled the proceeds to a Panamanian
trading company.
The alleged beneficiaries of oil vouchers included
19 political parties, and numerous politicians and
journalists. Russia led the way among countries, with
46 recipients for a total of about 2.5 billion
barrels. Significant individual recipients include
British MP George Galloway, the president of
Indonesia, the prime minister of Libya, the former
prime minister of Yemen, a former French minister of
interior, Patrick Maugein who, according to French
sources, is a financial supporter of French President
Chirac, the sons of the former Egyptian leader Gamal
Abdul Nasser, the President of Lebanon Emil Lehoud,
the former Syrian minister of defence Mustafa Tlass,
several Jordanian politicians and others.,
Some of them have issued categorical denials, some
have said they were offered oil vouchers but turned
them down and others said they had accepted the
vouchers on behalf of someone else or for charity
projects.
Another channel adopted by the Saddam regime to beat
the UN sanctions was to smuggle oil through barges and
small ships through the Gulf. The vessels used to
collect the oil from Umm Qasr in southern Iraq and
followed a route hugging the Iranian shore before
entering Gulf waters where the oil was pumped to
larger ships bound for the Far East. Gulf-based Iraqi
agents collected the money.
The regime also sent truckloads of oil to Turkey
through Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Although
they were avowed enemies of the Saddam regime, Kurdish
militia groups allowed the trucks through because they
benefited in cash — they collected a "toll" from
every vehicle.
"Oil vouchers "were also distributed to companies and
individuals from Sudan, Yemen, Cyprus, Turkey,
Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, the UAE,
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Panama, Thailand, Chad,
China, Nigeria, Kenya, Ireland, Bahrain, and the
Philippines. Two Saudi companies were also listed.
The full disclosure of the names and details of the
alleged foreign beneficiaries of Saddam's oil bribes
could be devastating to those named.
At this point in time, Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the
Iraqi National Congress, who has fallen out of favour
with the US, is believed to be in possession of the
entire files that contain all details. He has refused
to hand them over to the US.
A US-backed Iraqi police raid of Chalabi's offices and
residence last month was seen as an effort to locate
those documents.
Washington has distanced itself from its one-time pet
Chalabi, who is now accused of spying for Iran,
misappropriating tens of millions of American money
allocated for pre-war anti-Saddam campaigns and for
intelligence operations in post-war Iraq,
profiteering from reconstruction contracts in the
country and implicitly undermining American political
efforts there.

Bitter fights ahead

The newly installed interim authority in Iraq is the
best bet for the US to advance its designs in the
Middle East. However, developments in the last week
clearly showed that Iraqi politicians and leaders of
various ethnic groups have a mind of their and this
might not exactly be dancing to Washington's tunes.
Both sides, despite pledges of co-operation with each
other, are destined to fight it out at every juncture
of Iraq's course towards shaping its own political
future.
The US plans for Iraq has turned a key corner with the
installation of an interim government, which will
formally take charge on July 1. The next item on the
US agenda is "legitimising" its military occupation of
Iraq by sealing a special agreement with the interim
government while also securing a United Nations
Security Council resolution which is purposely kept
ambiguous about withdrawing US military forces from
the embattled country.
No matter what angle one would look at the situation,
it is loud and clear that the US will maintain its
military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future
and exercise absolute control over the country through
direct and indirect means.
The US has already devised mechanisms that give it
absolute power over all political and administrative
decisions taken by the interim government.
Upto 150 American officials will be installed under
contracts signed by the US-led Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) — these contracts are binding on the
interim government — and these US officials will hold
direct authority over all the key institutions — state
finances, the armed forces and media and
communications.
Earlier, the US envisaged that the interim government
will have little control over its armed forces, but
the revised version of a draft resolution at the UN
Security Council gives the interim government control
over the Iraqi army and police.
However, the interim government would have no
authority to make or change laws and will be unable to
make major decisions within specific ministries
without tacit US approval.
An example is a media and telecommunications
commission appointed by US overseer Paul Bremer. The
body will have immense powers over the media,
including the power to shut down news agencies and
newspapers. Fines of millions of dollars could be
imposed on television channels for violating the "code
of conduct" laid down by the US.
A US-appointed Board of Supreme Audit will have
representatives in every Iraqi ministry, with powers
to monitor all contracts and expenditure.
The US-installed members of the board will have a
five-year term of office and cannot be removed except
by a two-thirds vote in a Iraqi parliament as and when
it is elected. American “advisors” will remain in
every ministry, reporting to a virtual parallel
government operating out of the American embassy in
Baghdad, which, with over 3,000 staff, will be the
largest in the world, and run by John Negroponte, a
man known for ruthlessness in Vietnam and Latin
America in the 60s and 70s.
It does not really matter to the Americans that the
revised draft UN Security Council resolution says that
the interim authority could ask Washington to
withdraw its forces at any time from Iraq since the
US knows there would never be any such request since
those supposed to be making the request are
American-controlled.
The unseen string is the power of American funds that
are being spent in Iraq. That is the leverage that the
US would be using to have it way in the country.
The revised draft of the sought-for UN Security
Council resolution states that the interim government
will be "fully sovereign" and reaffirms the right of
the Iraqi people to determine their political future
freely, control their natural resources and coordinate
international assistance.
That catch in the resolution is: While it notes "that
the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at
the request of the incoming interim government," it
doesn't specifically give the new leaders the right to
ask the force to leave.
Instead, it anticipates that the incoming government
will make a formal request "to retain the presence of
the multinational force" and leaves room for the date
of that request to be included in the resolution.
That is where the interim government would be coerced
into signing a proposed "Status of Forces Agreement"
under which it would request that the US military will
stay on in Iraq until the interim government is
capable of assuming security of the country.
The new interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, has
already said the US military will be asked to stay on
and promised that Iraq's security forces will be a
"pivotal partner" with US and other coalition troops
in the fight to restore security to Iraq.
This is not likely to happen any soon, and hence the
January 2006 deadline —  the installation of a
constitutionally elected government —  will remain
only a clause in the resolution with as much as value
as the paper it is written on.
That is the American grandiose plan. The only unseen
element in the plan is how the people of Iraq are
going to recognise and respect the interim government
in the days, weeks and months ahead.
If the signs on the ground are any indication, it will
be tough going for the interim government, and, by
extension, to the US.
The interim government will not be able to assume
control of security without American military help,
and no election worth the name could be held as long
as the American military could not pacify Iraqis. With
the mounting Iraqi resistance against occupation, the
deadline set for electing a government does not seem
realistic.
Washington knows that well, but it would not be the
one to tell the world that its plans for Iraq have
little to do with freedom and democracy for Iraqis but
aim at consolidating the American grip on the oil-rich
Gulf region.
The interim government, or at least some of its
members, have shown that they are determined to assert
their independence and aim for full sovereignty
despite the obvious American effort to retain absolute
control of the country. That was what we saw when the
now dissolved Interim Governing Council (IGC) insisted
on its own choice for president, Sheikh Ghazi Yawar,
rather than Adnan Pachachi, who was backed by the US.
It was as much a signal to the US that things might
not be going Washingtons' way no matter how carefully
the plans were laid down months ago.
It is no easy sailing for the caretaker government.
The biggest challenge it faces is securing the
endorsement and support of a majority of the country's
25 million people, of whom Shiites have a majority of
60 per cent.
It has to tread a delicate line between serving the
interests of the people of Iraq and risking being
labelled as American agents if its decisions are seen
dictated by Washington.
Notwithstanding the language in the UN draft
resolution and declarations from Washington that Iraq
would soon have "full sovereignty," the interim
government and the US would be engaged in a
long-running battle involving bottlenecks in
appropriation of the country's oil revenues,
reconstruction contracts and local administration.
On the political front, the US will veto any move to
characterise Israel as an enemy or to even censure the
Jewish state for its occupation of Arab territories.
However, the interim authority would draw Iraqi fire
if it is deemed as staying silent on Israeli actions
against the Palestinians.
Similarly, the US would be keeping a close eye on
Iraq's relations with other countries and would
intervene at any point it feels such ties have a
negative effect on American interests.
Having advanced its goals of ensuring energy security
and assuring itself of a say in the international oil
market by taking control of Iraq and having eliminated
a potential military threat to its ally Israel by
removing Saddam, Washington is unlikely to give up
its stranglehold on the country and deprive itself of
a weapon which it wants to use to achieve its third
elusive objective: Regional stability of the type that
serves American interests.

Execution video 'doctored'

PV Vivekanand

The infamous, revolting video showing the
decapitation of American Nicholas Berg by alleged Al
Qaeda members is a complete fraud and it was shot
inside the US-controlled Abu Ghraib prison outside
Baghdad. This is a contention put forward by experts
who made a frame-by-frame analysis of the footage.
The inference in the contention that the footage is
fraud is that the US military, reeling back from
allegations of gross abuse of Iraqi detainees by US
soldiers and interrogators under contract, wanted to
hit back by showing that Al Qaeda members were inhuman
executioners. The footage, which was put on an
Islamic website, drew worldwide condemnation of Al
Qaeda, and by inference Arab Muslims.
"The hastily released and shoddy video showing five
phoney Al queda members participating in the
decapitation of Nicholas Berg twas intended,
exclusively, to defray attention from the scandalous
sexual abuses of Iraqi PoW's that took place at the
Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad," says the
California-based La Voz de Aztlan, a news service.
"Evidence in fact shows that the Berg decapitation was
filmed inside the walls of the notorious Abu Ghraib
prison, this cursed dungeon where probably Satan
himself roams its corridors."
La Voz de Aztlan says many of its subscribers saw the
footage and raised doubts about its authenticity.
US intelligence officials have claimed that al Qaeda
assciated Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was the masked person
shown decapitating Berg with a large knife, but the
officials have not explained by the masked man did not
show any sign any handicap (whereas it is believed
that that Zarqawi lost one leg in an explosion).
According to La Voz de Aztlan, the features that
expose the footage as fraud are:
1. The white plastic chair in which Berg is shown
sitting in the video is identifical to the chair in
which an American female soldier is sitting with a US
Marine in fatigues standing behind her in one of the
infamous abuse photographs that came from Abu Ghraib.
The same chair is seen in at least four other
photographs that showed American abuse of Iraqi
detainees.
2. The orange prison overall that Berg is shown
wearing is exactly the same given by the US
authorities to prisoners taken in Afghanistan and
detained at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba.
There is no explanation why the same uniform was worn
by Berg if his captors and executioners were Al Qaeda.
3. Three of the five captors and executioners are
shown wearing bullet-proof vests that are of standard
US military supply. There has never been any
indication ever that Al Qaeda fighters anywhere in
the world ever used bullet-proof vests at all. And how
did they end up with American standard supply vests
which are not available in the market?
Furthermore, the one "Al Qaeda fighters" on the
extreme right in one of the video shots is pudgy and
is wearing very clean tennis shoes. This will not be
the case with an Al Qaeda fighter.
4. In one of the shots in the video showing Berg being
executed, a head wearing an American military cap of
the same type used by Abu Ghraib wardens is seen
poking into the right hand frame for a split second.
This could be seen only in slow motion review of the
footage. There cannot be any mistaking the similarity
between the Abu Ghraib cap and the cap seen on the
video. The man could be carrying a second video camera
as seen in slow motion.
5. The colour and texture of the wall as shown in the
frames taken from the video as shown in several
photographs of the Abu Ghraib abuse.,
The video footage of the "Berg execution" was uploaded
from London, England to a now defunct website in a
server located in Malaysia on May 11. Berg's body was
found near a highway bypass outside Baghdad on May 9.
According to La Voz la Aztlan, the website at
http://www.al-asnar.biz was shut down as soon as
"conservative news outlets like CNN and Fox News were
notified. These two news services wasted no time in
coming out with headlines like 'Islamic Terrorists
Decapitate an American in Iraq.' Within minutes, local
news services from New York to Los Angeles were
screaming 'Muslim Animals Chop Off the Head of an
American' and were showing only short segments of the
fake video. Pro-Zionist radio stations in Los Angeles
have spent literally days since then talking about the
Muslim barbarians and why it is so important to
support the war in Iraq. "
Additionally, Berg's family has said that they had
learnt that Berg, a former soldier who was trying to
sell a communication technology in Iraq, was in
American military custody at the time of his death.
His body was found outside Baghdad two days before
the videotape surfaced, but it was never explained the
body was decapitated.
"The real Nick Berg may or may not be dead, but the
heavily edited video is nothing but a fake," says La
Voz de Aztlan.
"For the time being, the mainstream media is totally
ignoring the above evidence," it says. "Hopefully soon
some brave mainstream publisher will dare to bring
this important information to the American people."

For related images, see
http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm

Saddam not 'brainwashed'

June 3, 2004

Saddam not 'brainwashed'
PV Vivekanand

Saddam Hussein is suffering from fatique but has not been "brainwashed" during his detention since December last year. He has retained full control of his faculties and, if anything, has sharpened his argumentary skills, and one could expect to see verbal tirades from the ousted Iraqi leader during his trial at an Iraqi court on charges of crimes against humanity.
This much was from the 30-minute session where an Iraqi court formally read out the charges against him and he refused to sign a paper acknowledging that he understood the charges and proceedings.
While he was shown on television making his argument, his voice was not broadcast and Salim Chalabi, the man in charge of prosecuting him, said later hearings may not be broadcast live for fear of acting as a rallying call to insurgents.
Judging from the way he conducted himself, it was clear that Saddam has not changed a bit in his approach.
Probably it took some time for him to collect himself after being brought to the court in chains after the first few minutes of his being produced in court, was really the Saddam of the old: arrogant, scornful while focused and intense.
Every word he used was so typical of Saddam, starting with the overpowering approach where he could have been mentally taking charge of the courtroom by asking the judge to introduce himself and questioning his credentials.
"What is this court? Who are you? Under whose jurisdiction do you fall? I am the president of the Republic Iraq,"
His insistence that "I am the president of the Republic of Iraq" could be easily seen as a reflection of his self-assurance that he was elected with more than 95 per cent of the votes in the referendum he held prior to the war.
"I am the elected leader of the Iraqi people. Please do not take that away from me. ...Please do not strip me of the title," he told the judge.
 His description of the trial as theatre and US President George W Bush as the "real criminal," his dismissal of the charge that he had ordered the gassing of Kurds — "yes, I have heard about it" — his defence that his 1990 invasion of Kuwait was "for the people of Iraq" and his reference to Kuwaitis as dogs are vivid examples of his behaviour and approach while he was in power.
His response to the court's offer to appoint a lawyer for him if he could not afford one was again so typical: "As everyone says, the Americans say, I have millions of dollars stashed away in Geneva. Why shouldn't I afford a lawyer?"
On Kuwait, he told the judge: "How can you, as an Iraqi, accuse me of an invasion of Kuwait when Kuwait is part of Iraq? How can you call it an invasion? I was doing something for the good of Iraqis. These mad dogs were trying to put down the price of Iraqi oil and turn Iraqi women into 10-dinar prostitutes."
Waving a pen for emphasis while being polite Saddam questioned the legality of prosecuting him for crimes that he argued were covered by presidential immunity. He often showed anger and exasperation at the same time.
All these expressions underlined one thing: Saddam has not been "brainwashed" and left to be a mental wreck by his American interrogators. He has retained his faculties and it is a safe bet that one could get to see another Slobodan Milosevic in action once the trial gets going in earnest, perhaps in a few months' time.
Saddam being produced in court marked an unprecedented episode in the Arab World. For the first time, a former Arab leader was being put on trial in his own country to be judged by his own people.
Indeed, there are many firsts happening in Iraq, and some of them defy logic and reason if seen on their own outside the right context. However, putting Saddam on trial is an imperative of the interim government, which wants to send the strongest message yet to the people of Iraq that it is in control of the country and that not only the brutal era of the Baathists is over in an irreversible course of events but also that the former regime's leaders would pay for their doings against Iraqis.
International legal experts differ over whether a "fair trial" is possible for Saddam. Some say that they would have preferred to see Saddam put on trial in an international framework with UN involvement while others say that it is the privilege and right of the people of Iraq and their government to try the ousted president. All said and done, Saddam and his close associates during his reign in power have been put on trial before an Iraqi court made up of Iraqi judges and the process would take its own course regardless of what anyone has to say about it, including the opinion that Saddam never applied justice in the functions of his judiciary and thus he does not deserve fairness during his trial.
Then, there are those who are insisting that he should be given the death penalty while others believe that he should be subjected to prolonged imprisonment, which they feel is more appropriate for a man who had little mercy for others, including his own sons-in-law.
On the other side of the coin is the fact that it might even have been painful for Arab nationalists, given that Saddam was once seen as the most powerful Arab leader with all that it implies and as the strongest symbol of Arab resistance against biased American polices in the Middle East. To see him brought into court in chains and treated like a criminal was shocking and saddening to many who remember the way he used to conduct himself while in power.

The wholesale fraud in Iraq

by pv vivekanand

IF there ever was a fraud, then it is the American
plan to hand over "sovereignty and power to Iraqis" on
June 30, nearly 15 months after invading and occupying
that country. It is only a smokescreen that would help
the US argue that it had ended its occupation of Iraq
and Iraqis are running the country.
The US wants the UN to be part of that smokescreen,
and hence its efforts to have the Security Council
adopt a resolution that legitimises its occupation of
Iraq but with restrictions on what the UN could do in
the country if it were given a role.
Notwithstanding the blatant lies and false
explanations provided by Washington, the reality after
the so-called hand over will be of continued complete
American control and domination of Iraq.
In order to understand the US moves in the Middle
East, it has to be noted that the American foreign
policy in the region has always been based on three
key pillars: Ensuring US energy security, ensuring
Israel's security and ensuring regional security
through friendly governments in the region.
Seen against that backdrop, the fundamental objectives
of the US occupation of Iraq become clear. They are:
— ENERGY SECURITY: The US wants unquestioned control
of Iraq's oil resources in order to use those
resources to control the international energy market
and as a leverage against oil-hungry Europeans and Far
Easterners, including Japan. (It is a wrong notion to
argue that the US wants to steal Iraq's oil resources
and pump billions of dollars in Iraq's oil sales into
the American economy).
In the bargain, the US is also ensuring its own energy
security and also enriching the American multinational
oil conglomerates that form the backbone of financial
support for both Democrats and Republicans. Direct and
indirect control of vast oil deposits of Iraq by
American oil giants gives Washington an unprecedented
and strongest weapons to impose its will on the
international oil market.
— ISRAELI SECURITY:  The US wants to ensure that Iraq
would never re-emerge as a military power as pose a
threat to the security of Israel, the strongest
American ally in the Middle East and "strategic
partner." In order to achieve that, the US seeks to
have an "American-friendly" regime in power in Baghdad
after setting in place a new constitution (like that
of post-World War II Japan) and also overriding powers
against any inclination by the "new Iraq" to challenge
Israel.
— REGIONAL SECURITY THROUGH FRIENDLY GOVERNMENTS: The
Sept.11 attacks shook the American reliance on
regional governments for regional security in a manner
that serves American interests. That 15 of the Sept.11
hijackers were Saudi nationals was the biggest jolt
since Saudi Arabia had always been the strongest
American friend in the Gulf. That Saudi nationals —
who deemed to be rich and different from other Arabs
such as Palestinians, Egyptians, Sudanese or another
"poor" Arabs — could take part in such an attack
against the US completely changed the American
perspective towards the Gulf and particularly Saudi
Arabia. Then followed the anti-Western bombings in
Saudi Arabia and strong signs that there is a sizeable
group in Saudi Arabia that opposes American
domination.
That explains why the US has distanced itself from
Saudi Arabia since Sept.11 and, among other things,
moved its military base from Saudi Arabia to Qatar and
imposed strict curbs on US visas being issued to Saudi
nationals. It showed that the US was no longer betting
on ensuring regional stability through its alliance
with "friendly countries" in the region. In the
changed American thinking, it was absolutely necessary
to have a strong American military presence right in
the Gulf region to ensure regional security the
American way, and Iraq was the best choice, and Saddam
Hussein offered the right pretext for invading and
occupying Iraq.
In September 2002, the Bush administration issued its
“National Security Strategy of the United States of
America.” It states that the guiding policy of the
United States is the right to use military force
anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against
any country it believes to be, or it believes may at
some point become, a threat to American interests. It
set the ground for the American invasion and
occupation of Iraq.
How is Washington trying to arrive at a point where
Iraq becomes the focal point for all its objectives in
the region:
First: The interim "government" to be in place on July
1 will be hand-picked by Washington, which has already
handed over the list of people it wants in key
positions of power. Every one of them will be
dependent on the US for continuing to remain in power;
one step out of the American-drawn lines, he or she
will be out. US intelligence agencies have enough
damning dossiers that would help the twist the arms of
those in power if and when needed.
Second: The US viceroy in Iraq, Paul Bremer, is
setting up high-power committees, again selected by
American experts and strategists, to act in an
"advisory" capacity to the various ministries and
departments. In reality, the concerned ministries and
departments will have to refer key decisions to the
committee and have to abide by the "recommendations"
of the panels. These committees are an additional
leverage to the US to ensure that independent minded
Iraqis among those hand-picked to be government
ministers would still be controlled by Washington.
Third: All aspects of security, except street
patrolling against petty crimes, will remain in the
hands of American commanders. The pretext here is that
the interim government wants the US military to remain
in Iraq to take care of security until the Iraqis are
able to take charge and run the affairs themselves.
Achieving that could take years. Washington has
already said that the interim government would not
have the authority to ask the US to leave Iraq. Bremer
and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said this
month that the US would quit Iraq if the interim
government asked it that they did not think it would
ask the US to do so. Subsequently, a senior State
Department official, appearing before the US Congress,
affirmed that the interim government would not have
the authority to ask the US to leave.
Fourth, by virtue of its allocations of billions of
dollars of American money to run the occupation of
Iraq, Washington will retain the overall control of
all proceeds from Iraq's oil exports. Bremer argues
that since the US is footing the bill for security and
other aspects of running the country, there could not
be separate accounts for American money and Iraqi
money coming from oil exports. American control of
Iraqi oil revenues means total dilution of any
financial independence for the interim government
expect perhaps to pay their own salaries. No
non-American company will be allowed any oil
exploration contract in Iraq.
Fifth: Bremer is also setting up committees and
watchdogs to control the media. These bodies will be
given blanket power to take whatever action against
newspapers, radios and television channels which do
not toe the American line.
Sixth: The US State Department is taking charge of
running Iraq in colonial style. The US is building the
largest American embassy — "Fortress America" — in
Baghdad. It will have more than 3,500 American staff
and will be the nerve centre for all American
operations in the Gulf region and will be led by John
Negroponte, the current delegate to the UN. Negroponte
is known for ruthlessness in Vietnam and Latin
America, with his main objective being to fight off
regimes hostile to the US in Latin America. He is the
perfect American diplomat to serve the purpose.
What Iraq will have on July 1 is nothing but a puppet
government whose members — who might issue nationalist
statements critical of the US from time to time —
would have no real authority in any sphere of
governance that would have any negative impact on the
American strategic objectives. That is what Washington
is aiming at.
Beyond everything else, the US is seeing Iraq as the
gateway to an emerging American empire. Conceptually,
domination of the Arabian Gulf through Iraq, combined
with effective control of the oil and natural gas
reserves of Central Asia, will offer the US absolute
control of a region that had always posed problems to
American interests. And it is totally unlikely that
the US would let anyone, least of all Iraqi
resistance, to beat it back from its objective. What
does that work out to? Boosting the use of brutal
military force against whoever stands in its way, and
that is what we are seeing and will continue to see
in Iraq — increased bloodshed and military crackdown.

Al Qaeda in Africa

Osama Bin Laden's direct and indirect
associates are opening up in a new front in Africa,
stretching from Djibouti and neighbouring Somalia in
the Horn of Africa to the Atlantic coast of Western
Sahara between Morocco and Algeria. The US, which does
not want to deploy its forces on the ground there, is
trying to counter the perceived threat by training
and equipping local security forces to deal with the
militants who have already started showing their teeth
there.
The region is seen as perfect breeding ground for
militancy because most people living there are denied
social justice and governments of the concerned
countries are deemed apathetic to the poverty and
living conditions in the mostly desert and rural
areas.
"People there see for themselves they have little to
lose since they are impoverished and little to look
forward to in life," comments an African expert, Awol
Usu. "Militant groups find it easy to locate young men
among them ready to wage extremism against governments
and pro-establishment symbols," said Usu.
"Government authority does not reach some of the
interior parts of some of the countries in the
Djibouti-Western Sahara belt," an area that covers
tens of thousands square kilometres, Usu told
Malayalamanorama.
Non-native militants, some them Pakistanis and
Afghanis, are moving through the region, distributing
leaflets and giving lectures exhorting local residents
to rise up and fight against the US and its allies.
Since they move through areas where no policing is
done or no security forces exist, they evade capture;
when confronted, they are fully armed to put up a
fight and account for themselves.
The New York Times reports that American generals
based in Europe see the largely ungoverned region as a
"new Afghanistan."
Intelligence reports indicate that well-finaned
militants are being trained and armed for attacks
similar to the March 11 attacks in Madrid that killed
nearly 200 people. Investigations have brought out a
North African link to the Madrid blasts.
In order to counter the threat, the US, instead of
planning on a heavy military presence, is sending
dispatching Special Operations forces to countries
like Mali and Mauritania in West Africa to train
soldiers and outfit them with pickup trucks, radios
and global-positioning equipment, according to the New
York Times. The US is spending an annual $25 million
for the scheme, which covers Mauritania, Mali, Niger,
Chad, Morocco, Algeria, Burkina Faso and will extend
to Senegal soon.
Other sources said the US was operating a separate
programme for Somalia, where no legal government
exists and clans are ruling their fiefdoms.
The paper quoted Lieutenant-Colonel Powl Smith, head
of the US European Command's anti-terrorism force, as
saying: "We want to be preventative, so that we don't
have to put boots on the ground here in North Africa
as we did in Afghanistan.By assisting local
governments to do the fighting themselves, "we don't
become a lightning rod for popular anger that radicals
can capitalise on," he said.
Intelligence sources believe that Al Qaeda militants
who fled in the wake of the Afghan war are now
travelling overland through the region contacting
local units to carry out attacks.
The most dreaded and organised militant group in the
region is believed to be the Salafist Group for
Preaching and Combat, whose leader Nabil Sahraoui
alias Abu Ibrahim Mustafa is said to be close to Bin
Laden and his deputies. The group kidnapped 32
Germans near the Algerian border and transported
some of them to northern Mali and collected $6 million
in ransom for their release last year in an episode
that gripped the region for several weeks. The man who
led the kidnap operations was identified as Ammari
Saifi, also known as Abderrezak Al Para. The $6
million he received are being spent on recruting,
training and arming militants.
Among the other regional groups known to have links
with Al Qaeda are Morocco's Islamic Combat Group,
which is blamed for the Casablanca bombings in May
2003 and the March 11 blasts in Madrid; Tunisia's
Combatant Group, whose leader Sami Ben Khemais was
arrested and jailed for plotting to bomb the US
embassy in Rome in 2001; the Armed Islamic Group of
Algeria; and the Islamic Fighting Group of Libya,
which had tried to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar
Qadhafi and stir local passion to rise up against the
regime.
The common factor among these groups is that most of
their leaders are known to have been among the
followers of Bin Laden — the so-called Arab Afghans
— and fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
during the 80s before returning home and setting up
their own outfits following the departure of Soviet
forces from Afghanistan in 1989.
Among the most prominent Al Qaeda activist whose
appearance signalled militant operations in the region
was Emad Abdelwahid Ahmed Alwan, also known as Abu
Mohamed, who travelled across Africa in 2002 to help
plan attacks. A Yemeni, Alwan was a a close associate
of Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, and was said
to have taken part in the October 2000 attack on the
American warship Cole off the Yemeni coast.
He was killed in late 2002 in a clash with Algerian
security forces. At that time he was said to be
planning an attack on the US embassy in Mali's
capital, Bamako.
In recent months, Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian
authorities have seized sizeable shipments of weapons
and explosives, including mortar launchers,
rocket-propelled grenade launchers and surface-to-air
missiles, from suspected militants.
One of the central pillars of the American strategy is
to bring in security chiefs of the concerned countries
to sit down together and hold unprecedented talks on
security and transborder co-operation. Several such
meetings have already been held.
There is a sense of urgency to the American effort,
since the developments in Iraq and the worsening
crisis there are seen to prompt militants throughout
the region to wage attacks against American and
allied targets.
However, the anti-US sentiments are already
deep-rooted and Washington would find it difficult to
keep pace with the militants who have the advantage of
the discontent of the local population as well as the
obvious anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bias that is showing
in American policy.

Torture the US way

May 6, 2004


Torture, the US way

PV Vivekanand

NO AMERICAN expression of regret over the abuse of Iraqis held at US-run prisons in occupied Iraq will convince the world that the Washington leadership, both political and military, was unaware of what was going on until the tell-tale images of prisoners being mistreated, tortured and humiliated were hit the media last month. It defies logic that those who draw up strategies and make decisions and policies failed to take note that Washington had authorised torture and abuse of prisoners as warranted in its post-Sept.11 "war against terrorism." Few around the world would ever buy the argument that the top echelons in Washington represent the "American conscience" that abhors violations of human rights and are numbed into shock by the images of the abuses in Iraq, writes PV Vivekanand.

"We want to know the truth," says US President George Bush referring to the spiralling scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in American detention in occupied Iraq. US Defence Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condolleezza Rice say the US is sorry about the abuse but stop short of offering an apology for the abuse, humiliation and torture the Iraqis suffered in American hands.
Other senior Bush administration officials repeat the same thing — that no one in the corridors of political power in Washington was aware that Iraqi prisoners were mistreated — to put it mildly of course — until the telling images appeared on CBS Television.
The whole scenario of arguments is deceptive since it had been established that the US government had authorised the use of torture of detainees since Sept.11, 2001, and if any administration official dealing with the issue says he or she did not know it, then it could not be taken except with a large dose of salt and vinegar.
Bush does not have to look anywhere for the truth that he wants to know. It is there, simple and straight: The way top decision makers and strategists the US dealt with Iraq in the 13 years to the run-up to the invasion and occupation of that country last year and since then in the occupied country was characterised by contempt for Arabs and Muslims, as if they were sub-standard human beings. And that had set the ground for the gross abuse of Iraqi prisoners in occupied Iraq since the attitude in Washington had been seeping down through the ranks.
Those who engaged in abuses knew well that they could get away with it; they were given the order to do whatever it takes to extraact information; and in the bargain they engaged in sadistic practices perhaps for personal pleasure as much as for terrifying the victims into revealing information (which often they might not have had).
How is it possible that top administration officials did not know what was going on in US-administered Iraqi prisons in light of the revelations that the US Army had filed a report about abuses in November last year?
Are we to believe that the confidential report filed by Major General Antonio Taguba in February saying there was "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse" of prisoners to soften them up for interrogation did not reach the defence secretary and upwards?
According to Taguba, US army intelligence officers, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives and private contractors "actively requested that military police guards set physical and mental conditions for favourable interrogation of witnesses."
It is not surprising at all since it fits in with the shift in the American approach to such issues since Sept.11, when "everything changed." It became a free-for-all when it came to countering the threat of terror against the US.
Obviously, the US does not consider itself be bound by any international law. The best example is Washington's allout campaign to exclude the US from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and to sign bilateral deals that offer immunity to US soldiers against charges of war crimes or human rights violations.

Mainstream newspapers like the Washington Post and Briton's Guardian reported in 2002 that the administration had authorised the use of torture of prisoners held in the Afghan war.
It was only a matter of convenience for the administration not to bring in the prisoners to the US mainland and then take the chance of exposing itself to charges of abuse of prisoners that it decided to send them to Guantanamo Bay where no rule applies except those set to serve intelligence purposes.
It was also not strange that American security agents took suspects arrested outside the US to special centres set up in "friendly countries" where they were free to use any interrogation method they chose without any question being asked.
Roughly 3,000 suspects are held in detention outside mainland US but under direct or indirect American control since Sept.11 and the Afghanistan war. They are not given access to legal help and are not provided any status at all.
The Washington Post, in a March 11, 2002 article, cited unnamed American diplomats and Indonesian and Pakistani government officials who recounted how American security agents kidnapped individuals abroad and transferred them, without extradition procedures, to other countries, where they were often imprisoned, tortured, and, in some cases, put to death.
In a Dec.26, 2002 report, the Washington Post said that the US had also supervised interrogation under torture of prisoners in occupied Afghanistan. It said that Afghan and Arab prisoners at a top security facility inside the US military’s Bagram air base were “sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles.”
“At times they are held in awkward, painful positions or deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights—subject to what are known as ‘stress and duress’ techniques," said the report.
According to Amnesty International, the London-based international human rights watchdog, “Many detainees i(n Iraq) have alleged they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods reported often include beatings; prolonged sleep deprivation; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding and exposure to bright light.”
Mind you, Amnesty said this in a 2003 report and not after the latest revelations. How come no one in Washington gave the report a second thought and did not order an inquiry? Fact is, they knew but could not care less.
In his state of the union address, Bush referred to the abuses that Iraqis suffered during the Saddam Hussein era. It definitely signalled that thoughts about the present situation of Iraqis in detention in post-war Iraq could not have escaped his mind and invalidates the argument that it never occurred to him that abuses could be continuing even today until the CBS images took him by surprise and shocked him.
It is now known that General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had managed to convince CBS to delay the release of the images by two weeks. What happened during the two weeks? Did Myers try to handle the issue on his own without informing the president, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States? Did Myers keep it away from Rumsfeld knowing very well that he had not blocked the release of the images but had only delayed it?
No matter how one scrutinises the scenario, it is next to impossible to accept any explanation that the abuses were isolated incidents and unruly servicemen and women were behind it without their bosses being aware of what was going on.

Are we to believe that the top American officials now trying fantically to pin the crime on a few "rogue" soldiers and military police had no idea whatsover of what was going on in Iraq and that the treatment given to Iraqi prisoners was different than that given to detainees linked to the war in Afghanistan?
Against such a backdrop, it is not at all unfair for anyone to take it for granted that torture was rampant in US-held Iraqi prisoners as American strategists desperately sought every bit of intelligence information that they could possibly use in their fight against Iraqi resistance.
The ongoing effort in Washington to convince the world that the "civilised United States" does not approve of torture and abuse of of anyone anywhere in the world is a washed out bid as far as the Arabs and Muslims are concerned.

For the Arabs on the street, the near apologies and regrets and vows to punish those "guilty" of abusing Iraqi prisoners mean very little. They are convinced that everyone in power in Washington knew perfectly well what was going on in prisons in post-war Iraq and now all are trying to feign ignorance and pass the buck.
Interestingly, the only countries to try to suppress the images and keep them away from the broader media were the US and Iraq itself.
Almost all major American newspapers are deemed to have made a deliberate attempt not to allow the images influence the American public. Indeed, they carried reports about the abuses but it could be discerned that there was an effort by many to point the accusing fingers only at those who were actually engaged in the sadistic abuses in Iraq. Few papers ever bothered to ask the quessential question: Did the people at the top know about the abuses?
A telling editorial was carried by the New York Times early this week. Titled Abuses at Abu Ghraib," the May 1 editorial said “President Bush spoke for all Americans of conscience yesterday when he expressed disgust” over the images.
According to the editorial, the torture and abuse defied “the accepted conventions of war” and were the work merely of a “few soldiers” who would be “taken care of.”
Why did the paper overlook that no administration official had denied the 2002 and 2003 reports of rampant torture and abuse of Afghan war detainees? Wasn't it obvious that the standing order was to use whatever it took to extract intelligence information from the detainees? Did anyone need any emphatic reminder that the same was applied in Iraq?
The Washington Post also implictly sought to tone down the reality of the situation..
“Taken together, the photographs demonstrate some of the most demeaning, humiliating and shameful treatment of prisoners imaginable, short of actual physical torture,” said the paper.
Oh! oh! oh! How does the Post then define "physical torture?" Perhaps, it wants more human suffering than what was reported by General Taguba , who wrote of "breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape...sodomising a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.”


We witnessed in the US since Sept.11 a dedicated and non-compromising approach to waging war against Iraq no matter what. The UN was pushed aside and every conceivable ruse was used to make it appear that the US had no choice but to invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein and occupy the country until such time it is shaped to suit American interests.
In reality, the Arab and Muslim world clearly saw through the game orchestrated by the Washington war camp run by the pro-Israeli neoconsevatives at every stage but no Arab or Muslim was able to prevent them from realising their objective of gaining military control of Iraq. Indeed, a majority in the international community knew that the American justifications for the war — whether weapons of mass destruction, international terorrism, human rights or democracy — were cited whenever it suited Washington to do so.
And today, the US has gained military control of Iraq in a broader sense, but is slipping more and more into a quagmire with defies logical solutions in view of the strategic and political objectives of the Bush administration.
The images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib have dealt one the biggest blows to the US designs in post-war Iraq. It has totally undermined American credibility in the world scene and there is no short-, medium-, or long-term solutions to repair the damage.
The images have exposed the American contention that the US wants the welfare of the people of Iraq and help them turn their country to a democracy where human rights would be most sacred.
The images — coupled by moumnting relevations that abuse by former detainees in post-war Iraq —  have turned a massive majority of the people of Iraq against the US occupation.
The only logical turn that the course of events in Iraq is increased guerrilla attacks and resistance that would put to a severe test the American resolve to realising its strategic goals of the invasion and occupation of that country. However, we would not bet on Washington deciding to cut and run from Iraq since consolidating the foothold it has gained in the Middle East through its presence in Iraq is the central pillar of the US quest for global domination.

Mideast - an overview

pv vivekanand

IF ANYONE thinks things could not get any worse than
what they are today in the Middle East — the crises in
Palestine and Iraq being the most critical — then the
thinking has to be reviewed. The reasons are very
clear, and I'd try to simplify them here:

Palestine: No compromise ever

The key to starting to solve the Palestinian problem
is for Israel to accept the legitimate rights of the
Palestinans to set up an independent state in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip —  the territories Israel
occupied in the 1967 war. Groups like Hamas and
Islamic Jihad which call for the total elimination of
the state of israel would gradually come around to
accepting that they could not regain the whole of
Palestine as it existed in 1948 and have to accept the
1967 lines. There are enough political indications
that there are enough forces in both groups which tend
to think that way and influence their actions.
But Israel, which is ready to withdraw from Gaza if
only because the coastal strip is the most problematic
to be kept under occupation, will never give up the
West Bank for a Palestinian state to be created there.
As far as Israel is concerned the entire land between
the Mediterranen Sea and the River Jordan is land that
God "promised" to the Jews. Therefore, any solution
that entails surrendering the territory for a
Palestinian state is totally out of question for
Israelis. Furthermore, the Palestinian demand for Arab
East Jerusalem touches upon the very core of Jewish
religious sentiments because of what the Jews consider
as the remnants of Solomon's Temple there which they
want to rebuild.
The best Israel will accept, whether under Ariel
Sharon or any other prime minister, is to grant the
Palestinians "autonomy" in parts of the West Bank
where Jewish settlements do not exist while the
Israeli army will retain absolute control of the
entire land and its exit and entry points as well as
access roads linking Palestinian towns.
Israel will allow the Palestinians to clean streets of
their towns, collect local taxes, run schools and
hospitals, and maintain death, birth and marriage
records. Nothing beyond that.
Israel will never accept the Palestinian demand that
those Palestinians who lost their homes and were
forced to flee their land during the 1948 war
following the creation of Israel and who now live as
refugees should be allowed to return home. Their
return, as far as Israel is concerned, will totally
negate the very concept of the Jewish state. The homes
and land that the Palestinian refugee wish to return
to are now in Israel proper and are inhabited by Jews.

The Palestinians will not accept any of these Israeli
positions at whatever cost, and hence the war of
resistance will only be intensified with no end in
sight as long as Israel maintains its position (which
no Israeli leader would be able to change anyway).
Thousands of Palestinians are standing ready to be
human bombs ready to sacrifice themselves in the
struggle for freedom, and no Israeli security measure
could check a determined fighter ready to blow himself
up.

Iraq: US will never quit

A review of the situation in Iraq also indicates a
deadlock when we consider the considerations behind
the US decision to wage war and occupy the country.
American policy in the Middle East has always been
based on three priorities: Energy security, Israeli
security and regional stability based on alliance with
countries in the region. On all three counts, it is
essential that the US maintains its military presence
in Iraq and ensure that an "America-friendly" regime
is running the country in a manner that serves US
interests
The key to starting to solve the crisis in Iraq is to
have the UN take over administration of the war-torn
country with absolute authority, with enough military
force to keep peace and enough funds to restore basic
infrastructure while the rest of the financial
requirement will come from exports of Iraqi oil.
The UN could administer Iraq for a predetermined
period during which it could help build a democratic
political system and then hand over sovereignty to the
people of Iraq.
Although it sounds simple, it is too complex.
Handing over Iraq to be run by the UN contradicts the
very objective of the United States, which led the
invasion and occupation of that country on the pretext
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
and was linked to Al Qaeda.
The US wants to set up a military base in Iraq to keep
watch over the region and to intervene whenever it
feels its interests are challenged. It wants absolute
control of Iraq's oil resources to not only to benefit
American oil companies but also to ensure its own
energy security.
It has already neutralised Iraq as a potential threat
to Israel's designs in the region but wants to ensure
that the situation remains that way.
On the third count, the US finds that it could no
longer count on its traditional allies such as Saudi
Arabia to maintain regional stability as Amerca's
friends. The US got its biggest jolt when it found
that 15 of the Sept.11, 2001 hijackers were Saudi
nationals and it warranted a new thinking. And it
explains why the US moved its military bases to Qatar
from Saudi Arabia last year. The American fears were
further heightened with the extremist attacks in Saudi
Arabia in the last one year and the rising
anti-American sentiments in the kingdom. Therefore,
the US has to remain in Iraq in order to ensure
regional stability to serve its interests since it
feels that it could no longer rely on regional
countries to do so.
Finally, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is very
much corporate oriented. Apart from the billions of
dollars that American private contractors are
collecting for their missions in post-war Iraq,
American oil companies, traditional bankrollers of US
politicians, also stand to gain tens of billions of
dollars from the Iraqi oil industry. Any move by the
Bush administration or its possible Kerry successor
to quit Iraq would be politically disasterous.
Quite simply, a departure from Iraq is not even
thinkable for the US. It would only pour in more
military firepower to overcome Iraqi resistance and
get more bogged down in the quagmire.

The overall picture

The crises in Palestine and Iraq would never be solved
without a dramatic volte-face in priorities, policy,
approach and strategies of the occupiers, Israel and
the US. However, such a shift is next to impossible.
Controlling Palestine in absolute terms is too crucial
for Israel to even consider accepting the Palestinian
rights to set up an independent state in the West Bank
just as maintaining its stranglehold on Iraq is
crucial to Washington's quest for global dominance,
politically, financially and militarily.
Both Israel and the US believe that the answer to
their respective problems is military force. They are
not willing to consider that freedom struggles could
not be put down through the barrel of guns and that
the occupier has to bow out at some point, sooner or
later.
They are ready to sacrifice whatever it
entails — casualties among their soldiers included —
to press for the realisation of their goals, which
means more and more military power being employed
against resistance, which could only gain strength and
intensity with every military blow from the occupier.
The net equation only means one thing: More and more
deaths and casualties on all sides, more so among the
Palestinians and Iraqis but enough on the Israeli and
American side to keep the situation boiling for the
foreseeable future.



in both cases and


THE Bush administration was caught unawares when the
scandal of prisoner abuse in Iraq blew up on its
face. It was already facing a worsening crisis, with
the majority Shiites showing their clout against
American designs in post-war Iraq, mounting casualties
among American forces deployed there and growing
international condemnation of its occupation of the
Arab Muslim country. However, there is no way out
since an Iraq under the American sphere of absolute
influence is the central pillar of the US strategy and
this means continued occupation of that country, ready
to taken on anything that challenges the American
strategic objectives. It is very similar to the
situation in Palestine, with Israel having no option
but to continue its occupation and suppression of the
Palestinian people since leaving the Palestinian
territories will question what people like Ariel
Sharon believe to be their raison d'etre.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is engaged in
a frantic exercise to cleanse its image in the wake of
the release of images depicting sadistic and
humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
However, the blemish will never be washed away and it
will go down in world history alongside the Nazi
practices and similar tales of gross disrespect for
human dignity and of cruelty against hapless human
beings overpowered through massive military force and
detained in conditions unfit even for the worst animal
on earth.
Indeed, Washington has announced court martial and
other proceedings against what it describes a
"handful" of American soldiers who were shown engaging
in abuses, torture and humiliation of Iraqis held in
its detention facilities in post-war Iraq. However,
more and more such images are emerging despite
Washington's efforts to suppress them. Worse still are
reports that American soldiers have been raping Iraqi
female prisoners detained on silly charges as refusing
to show identity cards at checkpoints. One account
says that at least two of the rape victims have gone
missing, presumably dead and buried somewhere in the
vast expanse of the Iraqi desert.
Adding to those are the emerging reports of abuses of
prisoners taken in the Afghan war and detained at the
Guantanamo Bay as well as prison camps within
Afghanistan.
Members of the US Congress who viewed fresh photos
and videos of Iraqi prisoner abuse on Wednesday
affirmed that they saw photos of sexual intercourse.
Others showed military dogs snarling at cowering
prisoners, as well as shots of Iraqi women commanded
to expose their breasts, they senators said.

'Congressional responsibility'

Comments by some of the senators, as could be
expected, contained scathing criticism of the
administration. But can they escape the blame, asks
Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who was
the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president.
He says: "Members of Congress decry the fact that the
administration did not inform us of these abuses and
purposely kept Congress out of the information loop.
Yet Congress made it clear to the administration from
the very beginning that it wanted no responsibility
for the war in Iraq.
"If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should
have vigorously exercised its responsibilities. This
means, first and foremost, that Congress should have
voted on a declaration of war as required by the
Constitution.
"Congress, after abandoning this responsibility in
October 2002, now complains it is in the dark. Who is
to say the legal ambiguity created by the
congressional refusal to declare war may not have
contributed to the mentality that prisoners need not
be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention?
Until Congress takes up its constitutional
responsibilities, complaints that the administration
is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring
hollow.
"Congress has the power – and the obligation – to keep
itself better informed. Congress should hold hearings
on the torture allegations, exercising its subpoena
power if necessary. Demanding that the administration
investigate the matter is simply another example of
Congress passing the buck. That's what got us into
trouble in the first place."



Major General Antonio Taguba, who carried out first
investigations into the abuse after an American
soldier blew the whistle on what was going on in Abu
Ghraib, says that the mistreatment resulted from
faulty leadership, a "lack of discipline, no training
whatsoever and no supervision" of the troops.
The photos and videos available with the Pentagon show
American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi
prisoner," according to the New Yorker magazine.
The secret report prepared by Taguba says that US
guards videotaped and photographed naked female
prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard"
is shown "having sex with a female detainee."
These treatments are now classified as, if you will,
as part of preparing the detainees for interrogation
by subjecting them to stress and humiliation.
London's Guardian newsapaper quoted Huda Shaker, a
political scientist at Baghdad University, as saying
that American soldiers used sexually explicit abuse at
her when she refused to allow them to search her
handbag at a checkpoint.
That is only the lightest of the experience of others,
she told the paper adding that several women held in
Abu Ghraib jail were sexually abused, including one
who was raped by an American military policeman and
became pregnant and who has now disappeared.
According to Shaker, several Iraqi women taken to Abu
Gharib for questioning and freed after weeks of
detention are unwilling to discuss their experience,
indicating that they were sexually abused.
Rumsfeld has defended military interrogation
techniques, rejecting complaints that they violate
international rules and may endanger Americans taken
prisoner.
He says that Pentagon lawyers had approved methods
such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well
as rules permitting guards to make prisoners assume
stressful positions.
The Arab media were implictly criticised for playing
down the images that appeared on a website which
showed an American being beheaded by masked militants
who said they were avenging the abuse at the Abu
Ghraib prison.
Well, let us put the criticism in perspective. Some
of the reports critical of the Arab media treatment of
the video-taped "execution" suggested that the Arabs
could even be jubilant that an American was killed in
revenge for the abuse at Abu Gharib.
Indeed, that assertion might indeed be true. But it
needs an explanation that those who might have thought
it was befiting that an American was killed come from
a background of untold misery caused by direct
American action (in Iraq) or indirect American action
(in Palestine). For them, it is the US-Israeli
alliance that is behind the troubles of the Middle
East and Israel's denial of Arab and Palestinian
rights.
For the Arabs and a majority in the international
community, there is no question whether the top
echelons of the US government and military knew of the
abuses in Iraq. They see as hoodwinking the repeated
affirmations and declarations, including those by
President George W Bush, Defence Secretary Ronald
Rumsfled and Secretary of State Colin Powell, that the
American political and military leadership was not
aware of what was going on in the Iraqi prisons.
As far as they are concerned, everyone on Washington
was aware what was going on and kept it concealed
until they had no choice when confronted by
irrefutable evidence of the abuses. And now they are
trying to save their own skin by blaming the abuses on
a few and putting up a public relations exercise
through the court martials and other proceedings.
Nothing more, nothing less.
No apologies, no excuses, no regrets and no other
exercise will convince the world majority otherwise.
It is not because they believe it is in American blood
to be sadistic and inhuman while dealing with
prisoners. It is not because they think Bush or
Rumsfeld gave direct orders to their soldiers to abuse
the prisoners.
It is because of the backdrop to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq and the obvious American bias
against the Arabs and close alliance with Israel,
which is flouting every international convention and
law and UN resolutions, continuing to occupy Arab
territories and waging a brutal war against the
Palestinians under its occupation.
Indeed, the invasion and occupation of Kuwait is seen
as an "Israeli project" as much as an "American
project" since it removed a potential Arab military
threat against the Jewish state as much as it allowed
the US to set up an advanced military base in the
Gulf.
The all-too-powerful umbrella of protection that the
US is offering Israel and Washington's almost-blanket
endorsement of every Israeli action and decision have
made it clear to the Arabs that they could not expect
fairness and justice in any effort to solve the
Arab-Israeli conflict. It is as if the US and Israel
are working together to oppress the Arabs and dominate
the Arab World, and, in the bargain, both treat the
Arabs as worthless beings who need to be given any
human consideration.
Reports have also come out that an Israeli team of
former security officials is training the American
military in Iraq on how to deal with the Iraqis along
the same lines as the Israeli military deals with the
Palestinians.
As evident from some of the images from Abu Gharib,
the US has indeed borrowed many of Israel's
"techniques," including hooding of prisoners,
depriving prisoners of sleep, humiliating them and
subjecting them to gross abuses.
The report of the treatment given to a 23-year old
Palestinian held on "administrative detention" by the
Israelis is most telling.
The prisoner was "cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day
for 120 days . . . [(he) had his head covered with a
sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards
played loud music right next to his ears and
frequently taunted him with threats of physical and
sexual violence."
The Taguba report cites many similarities between
Israeli treatment of Palestinians and American
treatment of Iraqi prisoners, thus clearly
establishing an Israeli connection to the abuses in
Iraq.
The case of a person identified as John Israel is an
example. The name is said to be phoney and the man
did not have top security clearance, but was somehow
given unfettered access to every knook and corner of
Abu Ghraib.
Why did he not have top security clearance?
Under American regulations, interrogators of Iraqi
prisoners have to US citizens and should be given a
top security clearance.
That does not mean that people like Israel, or
whatever his true name is, could be turned away, as
the Taguba report states.
Taguba has said that non-US and non-Iraqi
interrogators were present at Abu Ghraib. The report
states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel,
third country nationals, and local contractors do not
appear to be properly supervised within the detention
facility at Abu Ghraib." Clearly, intelligence
priorities warranted sharp interrogation skills and
these in turn were acquired by US military personnel
from Israelis, the unbeaten experts in that trade.
Indeed, any perception of American actions in Iraq
could not be seen without the Israeli aura, and that
in itself is the strongest argument yet that the US
military and political leadership care little for the
human rights of the people of Iraq just as the Israeli
attitude towards the Palestinians and Arabs.
The developments in Palestine and Iraq are closely
linked. If the United States fails in its endeavours
to stabilise iraq, consolidate its grip on the country
and set up a regional military base there, with a
"US-friendly" regime in power, then Israel's plans to
swallow Palestinian land would also falter.
If the situation in Palestine turns worse, as it is
happening now with the latest round of killings, then
it would inflame the crisis in Iraq, with the
intensity of the Iraqi resistance against occupation
continuing to grow, pushing the US into adopting
further actions similar to those which occurred in
Germany during World War II.
The fundamentals on the ground are clear: There is no
way Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon retract from
his drive to deny the Palestinian people their rights
if only because that would undermine what he believes
to the rights of Israel in Palestine.
Similarly, it is unthinkable for US President George
Bush to even consider withdrawing American forces from
Iraq since it departure from the beleaguered country
would pull the rug under the feet of Washington's
drive to unchallengingly dominate the international
scene. Leaving unfinished business in Iraq also means
setting a breeding ground for militancy and adding
fuel to the already bitter anti-American sentiments
among Arabs and Muslims.
Against the impossibility of the US deciding to quit
Iraq and Sharon deciding to respect Palestinian rights
and giving up his grand designs for Palestine, the
situation in the Middle East would turn from worse to
worst (if that is possible at all, given that what
could be worse than what we are witnessing in
Palestine and Iraq today). Regional stability will be
two words alien to the Middle East, with the cycle of
violence getting completely out of control, with
neither Sharon or Bush — or the next occupant of the
White House — unable to apply any brakes.