August 25 2004
Thieves of Baghdad
by pv vivekanand
PARALLEL to the mounting crises the US-led military coalition is facing in post-Iraq are the emerging details of a multi-billion dollar scam that could put to shame the Arabian tale, The Thief of Baghdad.
The outstanding difference is that the scam is not a tale; the thieves are many, they are not Iraqi but American, and the money involved was indeed Iraqi.
This is what has emerged from audit reports of the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was disbanded on June 28.
Paul Bremer, who headed the CPA, and his entourage flew out of Baghdad on the same day, leaving behind what American auditors now determine as misuse of proceeds of Iraqi oil exports to benefit American contractors, with the major beneficiary being none other than Halliburton.
In 11 reports drawn up since June, auditors from CPA inspector-general Stuart Bowen's team have reported a pattern of spending which an ambiguity that left the door open not only for gross wastage but also for corruption.
Scrutinising the accounts of money spent in Iraq, the Defence Contract Audit Agency, the General Accounting Office (the investigative arm of the US Congress), and Bowen's team have singled out Halliburton for its pricing and spending practices.
However, seen from the Middle Eastern vantage point, a line has to be drawn between American money and Iraqi money being spent in Iraq. American money, whether spent or pilfered in Iraq, is an American problem, but not so with Iraqi money that belongs to the people of Iraq.
Yet to be revealed is whether members of the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) were party to the scam. Surely, observers point out, some of them should have benefited from the hundreds of millions of dollars flying around. Probably, an expanded investigation by an independent authority might bring out some names.
There were three sources of funding — war chests as some commentators call them — for the war and occupation of Iraq. The first was $65 billion directly allocated as military spending by the US Congress and administered by the US Defence Department. It was American taxpayer's money.
The second was $18.4 billion, also approved by the US Congress, but administered by the CPA. Again, it was American taxpayer's money and supposed to be spent on reconstruction of Iraq along with $16 billion or so pledged by other countries.
The third was the Development Fund for Iraq, which represented proceeds from Iraq's oil exports and leftover money from the oil-for-food programme that the UN ran in co-ordination with the Saddam Hussein regime. The fund handled about $20 billion by the time the CPA was disbanded when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in late June.
From the first war chest, the Pentagon has overspent the military spending allocation of $65 billion by $12 billion and now the Bush administration is seeking an additional $25 billion. Since the money represented strictly American money, let us leave that to the American taxpayer to figure out and wonder why the war against Iraq and occupation of that country cost an average American family $3,500 so far.
From the $18.4 billion allocation for reconstructing Iraq, the CPA spent only two per cent. Why? The answer is simple: Allocating American funds for reconstruction projects in Iraq has riders, including a transparent tendering system that starts with prequalification of bidders and the whole works.
The CPA could not touch that money without going through the complicated process involving competitive bidding subject to scrutiny and inspections throughout.
The catch is with the third source: According to the auditors, the CPA seems to have violated the guidelines and procedures by dipping its hand deep into the Development of Iraq Fund — which is strictly Iraqi money — and paid contractors, mainly Hallyburton. The money from the fund should have been used only for running the administration of Iraq and should not have been used to pay contractors.
Pratap Chatterjee of the UK-based Corporate Watch (www.corporatewatch.org) has written extensively about how Iraqi or US Congress-appropriated funds were being spent in Iraq.
He notes that the Pentagon was not unable to explain just how Halliburton gained possession of Iraqi funds when neither the US Congress nor the Iraqi government authorised their transfer to Halliburton in the first place.
A yet-to-be released audit report, unveiled in the American media, says that the auditors found that $8.8 billion allocated by the CPA from the Development Fund for Iraq could have been misappropriated. The findings have prompted three American senators to demand that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld account for the money.
The auditors first classified the $8.8 billion as "missing" and tried to trace the money.
The auditors found that had Bremer allocated the money to Halliburton, to the CPA itself and Iraqi ministries for "administrative expenses" including salaries of hundreds of thousands of government employees – including pensioners — teachers, medical staff and administrators as well as to fund Iraqi security and police forces.
But then, the accounts of the CPA as well as that of the ministries were "padded." An example was the existence of 74,000 "security guards" on the CPA payroll, where the auditors discovered that the actual number was not even one third of that figure. Obviously, Bremer's top American aides had a lot to do with that padding, as American commentators assert.
CPA accounts showed equipment worth tens of millions of dollars were bought with the money, but there was no trace of the items bought. The auditors reportedly found that some of the equipment existed only in paper while others were bought but spirited away to unknown destinations.
A classic example was a giant generator bought for nearly $750,000 which could not be located. The auditors traced it to the stores of Halliburton, in which US Vice-President Dick Cheney owns a million shares. Halliburton immediately explained that its officials had misplaced or forgotten to turn in the receipts to the correct people.
In mid-June, shortly before Bremer left Iraq, an unexplained haste was seen in allocating funds, with reports suggesting that the CPA was rushing to dispose of whatever funds are left from the Iraqi oil proceeds in order not to have to hand over the funds to the interim government.
The US-controlled Programme Review Board was in charge of
managing Iraq's finances. In the second week of June, it approved the expenditure of nearly $2 billion for reconstruction projects from the Development Fund for Iraq.
At that time questions were raised why the $2 billion additional funding for projects for which the US Congress
has already allocated funds from American taxpayer's
money.
For example, $500 million were earmarked for Iraqi security forces, even though Congress allocated $3.2 billion for the same purpose (and where the UN estimates the cost to be less than $2.5 billion); $315 million are allocated for the electricity sector despite a $5.5 billion Congress appropriation for the same sector (UN estimate $4 billion); and $460 million are allocated to the oil sector where the US Congress has allocated $1.7 billion.
Experts who keep a close watch on Iraqi oil sales and funds questioned why these allocations were not made when the 2004 Iraqi budget was adopted and subsequently revised in March.
The interim government is dutybound under UN Security Council 1546 of June 8 not to raise questions and honour all outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq made before June 30.
The experts pointed out at that time that American corporate giants with rebuilding contracts in occupied Iraq are being
benefited by the additional funds with the interim government having no say in the affair.
Halliburton has been in the eye of the storm since the beginning. It has billions of worth of contracts from the defence department to provide meals, accommodation, laundry and Internet connections for American soldiers in Iraq as well as fuel to the US military has been found to have overcharged the Pentagon by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The allegations led to a Pentagon announcement that it would withhold payment of 15 per cent of all Halliburton invoices until the company offers satisfactory explanations. But the next day, the Pentagon corrected itself and Hallyburton had two weeks of grace to meet the demand.
Non-governmental organisations working in Iraq have raised complaints of gross mismanagement of funds by the CPA.
Britain's charity group Christian Aid said in June that at least $20 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country have disappeared from CPA bank accounts.
Three Democrat senators, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Byron L Dorgan of North Dakota and Tom Harkin of Iowa, have demanded a "full, written account" of the money that was channelled to Iraqi ministries and authorities by the CPA.
"We are requesting a full, written account of the $8.8 billion transferred earlier this year from the CPA to the Iraqi ministries, including the amount each ministry received and the way in which the ministry spent the money," said the letter.
Now Rumsfeld has to answer the Democrat senators' questions.
One of the questions Rumsfeld is likely to asked is whether he was aware that Cheney was continuing to receive money from Halliburton although he is not at its helm anymore.
The Guardian newspaper of Britain reported in March 2003 that Halliburton is still making annual payments of upto $1 million classified as "deferred compensation."
According to the Guardian, when Cheney left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he instructed the company to pay him his settlement dues him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.
Cheney sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8 million and arranged to pay any profits to charity, according to the newspaper.
In June this year, Time magazine cited a Pentagon email dated March 5, 2003, indicating that Cheney was directly involved in the selection of Halliburton for a major contract in Iraq.
The email, said to be sent by an official for the Army Corps of Engineers, saying that the contract for construction of oil pipelines in Iraq was approved by Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith “contingent on informing WH (White House) tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP’s (Vice President’s) office.” Time noted that the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for allocating contracts, and thus the email suggests that Halliburton was awarded the deal in coordination with Cheney’s office.
The contract was given to Halliburton three days later without any bids from other companies.
Cheney has denied any involvement in the contract process.
One his spokesman denied that the email implied any direct involvement of Cheney.
Halliburton has admitted to overcharging by $6 million on its contracts to supply meals to US soldiers. It drew up invoices and got paid for meals that were never eaten and never cooked.
According to Time reporter Jyoti Thottam, “Why would a company like Halliburton, which, after all, runs a successful oil-field-services business far removed from Iraq, agree to stay there? Profits. Iraq contracts have added $5.7 billion to Halliburton’s revenues since January 2003, accounting for almost all the company’s growth at a time when it was struggling with $4 billion in asbestos claims. The fact is, war is one of Halliburton’s specialties.”
Halliburton, which already has contracts worth $17 billion in Iraq, is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group vying for contracts in the war-torn country. None of the other companies has been cited in an Iraq scandal yet.
Bechtel has contracts worth about $2 billion in Iraq. They include rehabilitation of Iraq’s power, water and sewage systems that were destroyed in the war, rehabilitation of airports, and the dredging of the Umm Qasr port, repair and reconstruction of hospitals, schools, government buildings and irrigation and transportation systems.
Indeed, Iraq sounds more like the fabled cave of the 40 thieves that Alibaba stumbled upon. But what it contains is not loot but national wealth that belongs to the people of Iraq, who are still left without proper water and power supply and means to make a living despite the tens of billions of dollars spent purportedly to make their life better.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Monday, August 23, 2004
Omission or oversight?
August 23 2004
'Omission or oversight?'
PV Vivekanand
Tommy Franks, the retired American four-star general who commanded the war against Iraq, seems to have deliberately steering clear in his forthcoming book from a very sinister aspect of the American strategy in the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein — the US had "bought" the loyalty of many of the top commanders of Saddam's Republican Guards in order to win the war.
Instead, Franks' book, American Soldiers, cites an intelligence "coup" as the key that opened the door of Baghdad to the invading US forces; that Saddam was given misinformation on American military plans and thus he was not ready for the ground thrust from the south (he was expecting an assault from the north); hence his forces were not in place to engage the invaders in what could have turned out to be a ferocious battle.
The book says that prior to the war an American intelligence agent codenamed April Fool was approached by an Iraqi diplomat, and that, with Frank's knowledge, the American agent — April Fool — sold the Iraqi false "top secret" invasion plot.
According to Franks, "the story line we sold them went as follows: the coalition was planning to build up only a portion of its ground force in Kuwait, while preparing a major airborne assault into northern Iraq>'
As a result, Franks argues, Saddam focused on the north and left the south vulnerable.
Had Saddam been ready in the south and engaged the American invaders in battle there, the American forces would have taken heavy casualties, judging from Saddam's military defences and fortifications around Baghdad. There was no shortage of heavy guns and ammunitions, rockets and explosives that were shown in the television footage as the US military advanced unchallenged into the heart of Baghdad.
However, Franks very conveniently fails to mention in the book that American intelligence agents were in Baghdad ahead of the war (some of them posed themselves as pro-peace, anti-war "human shields") and contacted senior Republican Guards officers, according to sources closely familiar with the events of the war (Manorama reported it on April 13, 2003).
In the first days of the war that was launched on March 20, US warplanes bombed Republican Guard bases outside Baghdad for three consecutive nights in what was aimed to a massive show of force that would convince any military officer of the superior firepower of the US.
Subsequently, the undercover agents approached the Guards officers and influenced them into accepting that Iraq's defeat was inevitable in view of the massive firepower of the world's sole superpower, and then bribed them with cash, safe passage out of Iraq for them and their families and guaranteed resettlement elsewhere under new identities.
In early April, a few days before the fall of Baghdad, the officers and their families were airlifted out of the Iraqi capital in the darkness of the night. While some senior officers left behind instructions to their soldiers to abandon their posts, others left no instructions, and thus total confusion prevailed among the ranks. That explained the half-hearted defence of Baghdad put up by Saddam's soldiers for a few hours before they melted away into the civilian population between April 7 and April 9, 2003. Baghdad fell on Aug.9.
Why did Frank, who would have definitely known about the betrayal of the Iraqi generals, omit this particularly important piece of information from his book?
The reason is clear: For a career military officer like Franks, it is almost a disgrace to admit that his military victory was the result of enemy officers' betrayal of their country rather than the success of his own military strategy.
To reveal that the fall of Baghdad was achieved with only a handful of American casualties because Iraqi generals were bribed and taken away from the scene would be a big blow to the American commanders, including President George W Bush himself.
'Omission or oversight?'
PV Vivekanand
Tommy Franks, the retired American four-star general who commanded the war against Iraq, seems to have deliberately steering clear in his forthcoming book from a very sinister aspect of the American strategy in the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein — the US had "bought" the loyalty of many of the top commanders of Saddam's Republican Guards in order to win the war.
Instead, Franks' book, American Soldiers, cites an intelligence "coup" as the key that opened the door of Baghdad to the invading US forces; that Saddam was given misinformation on American military plans and thus he was not ready for the ground thrust from the south (he was expecting an assault from the north); hence his forces were not in place to engage the invaders in what could have turned out to be a ferocious battle.
The book says that prior to the war an American intelligence agent codenamed April Fool was approached by an Iraqi diplomat, and that, with Frank's knowledge, the American agent — April Fool — sold the Iraqi false "top secret" invasion plot.
According to Franks, "the story line we sold them went as follows: the coalition was planning to build up only a portion of its ground force in Kuwait, while preparing a major airborne assault into northern Iraq>'
As a result, Franks argues, Saddam focused on the north and left the south vulnerable.
Had Saddam been ready in the south and engaged the American invaders in battle there, the American forces would have taken heavy casualties, judging from Saddam's military defences and fortifications around Baghdad. There was no shortage of heavy guns and ammunitions, rockets and explosives that were shown in the television footage as the US military advanced unchallenged into the heart of Baghdad.
However, Franks very conveniently fails to mention in the book that American intelligence agents were in Baghdad ahead of the war (some of them posed themselves as pro-peace, anti-war "human shields") and contacted senior Republican Guards officers, according to sources closely familiar with the events of the war (Manorama reported it on April 13, 2003).
In the first days of the war that was launched on March 20, US warplanes bombed Republican Guard bases outside Baghdad for three consecutive nights in what was aimed to a massive show of force that would convince any military officer of the superior firepower of the US.
Subsequently, the undercover agents approached the Guards officers and influenced them into accepting that Iraq's defeat was inevitable in view of the massive firepower of the world's sole superpower, and then bribed them with cash, safe passage out of Iraq for them and their families and guaranteed resettlement elsewhere under new identities.
In early April, a few days before the fall of Baghdad, the officers and their families were airlifted out of the Iraqi capital in the darkness of the night. While some senior officers left behind instructions to their soldiers to abandon their posts, others left no instructions, and thus total confusion prevailed among the ranks. That explained the half-hearted defence of Baghdad put up by Saddam's soldiers for a few hours before they melted away into the civilian population between April 7 and April 9, 2003. Baghdad fell on Aug.9.
Why did Frank, who would have definitely known about the betrayal of the Iraqi generals, omit this particularly important piece of information from his book?
The reason is clear: For a career military officer like Franks, it is almost a disgrace to admit that his military victory was the result of enemy officers' betrayal of their country rather than the success of his own military strategy.
To reveal that the fall of Baghdad was achieved with only a handful of American casualties because Iraqi generals were bribed and taken away from the scene would be a big blow to the American commanders, including President George W Bush himself.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Trouble waiting round the corner
PV Vivekanand
MOQTADA Sadr appears to have managed to cut a deal with the interim government in Iraq and pre-empted a US-backed Iraqi security forces' storming of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf that would have possibly led to his capture or death.
He has agreed to disarm his Mahdi Army militia and leave the city and also integrate his movement into Iraqi politics.
However, one could not but be sceptical about the strength of the commitments in the deal. The priorities and approaches of Sadr and the interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, might have converged on the compromise to defuse the crisis in Najaf, but the two are fundamentally poles apart in their visions of the future of Iraq.
Allawi has no choice but to follow the US-drafted course for Iraq since the US military has Iraq in a stranglehold. His political future is tied with the US version of Iraq for in the interim at least. That course would not allow him any room to have someone like Sadr who could pounce at the right moment and scramble the scenario.
Sadr is not of the mold where he would hold his peace while Allawi gets ahead on the US-designed course. Definitely, at some point, sooner than later, the two would clash, even if Sadr were to enter the evolving mainstream Iraqi politics.
With the guerrilla war showing little sign of abating, Allawi would be hardpressed to meet the basic demands of the people of Iraqi in a satisfactory manner, whether for water, power, food, jobs and security. Given that the south of Iraq had not been given a fair share of attention for development during the Saddam Hussein reign, the situation in that region is all the more precarious for Allawi as he tries to restore normalcy to the country.
As such, apart from the wide gap in ideologies with Allawi, Sadr would also have to confront the interim prime minister with the daily life issues of his people; that is, if Sadr follows the traditions of politics. On both counts, the scene is the perfect reciple for trouble pitting the two. The only question is how long will it take for fresh blood to spill.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Spare us the exonerations
August 12 2004
Please spare us the exonerations
pv vivekanand
IT IS disgusting to read reports after reports about reports of the findings of the dozens of secret and public investigations conducted into the abuse of prisoners at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities in post-war Iraq. Almost all the reports exonerate top political officials of the Bush administration and the Pentagon as well as the top brass in the US military while media reports are lavish with suggestions that only a "handful" of "rogue elements" and "undisciplined" soldiers and private contractors were behind the abuse.
But then, does it really matter to us who exactly in the American hierarchy was responsible for the worst kind of violations of human dignity in recent history?
It is a collective responsibility that should weigh down heavily on the American mind.
We do realise that investigating the abuses and identifying those directly responsible for the abuses is an American imperative. The legal process has to be followed the guilty should be punished; that is what the American sytem demands.
It is a more of an internal issue for the Americans.
For us in this part of the world, everyone, from the senior-most official, elected or otherwise, in the US down to the private American who treated Iraqi prisoners likes the worst animals on earth, is equally guilty of prejudice and hatred cultivated by the policies of successive American administrations.
Can the US administration wriggle out of the reality that dehumanising Arabs, particularly the Palestinians and Iraqis, through the mainstream media and project them as unworthy of being treated as human beings was a direct or indirect American policy objective? Will the American public would ever be told of this reality?
As such, reports of repeated exonerations of top political officials of the Bush administration makes us want to throw up.
Where does the buck stop?
Indeed, a line has been drawn between the officers who actually served in Iraq and those who pulled the strings from Washington.
Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the top American military officer in Iraq at the time of the abuse, was quietly removed from the post months after reports of the abuse appeared in the media.
Sanchez as well as his boss, General John Abizaid, head of the US Central Command, have testified in the US Congress that they did not find out about the abuse until this year when a military policeman revealed the problem at the prison. However, other accounts have spoken of complaints of abuse being filed in the third quarter of last year.
The senior most officer to be suspended in this connection was Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade in Iraq late last year. She has been issued a letter of reprimand and been suspended from her post. Seven other military police reservists are facing charges. All except one of them have pleaded innocent saying they were only following orders. Even the one who pleaded guilty says he had instructions to treat the prisoners that way.
If Karpinski is to be believed, then she is also innocent. She could not be expected to know what was going on in the corridors of the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad except from reports filed by her juniors.
The latest US Army report also has cleared top US military officers in Iraq of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib but implicates 20 or more intelligence troops in the scandal.
The report, according to Reuters, recommends disciplinary action such as administrative reduction in rank and loss of pay as well as further investigation that could lead to military trials.
It does not matter to us if US President George Bush pleads that he did not know what was going in the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad; that he did not know his soldiers and "private experts in interrogation" were playing sadistic football with Iraqi prisoners, humiliating them to the lowest level that any human being would ever consider himself to be and torturing them and subjecting them to conditions where they longed for death.
Whoever they are, the torturers and tormentors did not happen to walk into Abu Gharaib on their own. They were brought there and unleashed on the Iraqis by the US government. Can Washington argue its way out of that responsibility?
It has been nearly five months since the news hit the headlines that an internal investigation has unearthed gross violations of human rights, dignity and self-respect at Abu Ghraib. Probably, had it not been for journalists like Seymour Hersh and others the world would not have known about it either until sometime later (let us respect the integrity and investigating skills of American journalists in general; someone or another might have unveiled the findings of the investigation sooner or later).
For sure, top officials in Washington knew about the abuses several months earlier since they should have but been informed about complaints being received before the investigation was launched.
Throughout this period, the administration only tried to keep it away from the world that there were credible reports about prisoner abuse in Iraq. It is surprising that they hoped to get away with it, expecting to keep everything under wraps under the rules of confidentiality of the US military.
As such, the pledges by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials that they were committed to thoroughly investigating the reports of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan sounded hollow and meaningless and seemed aimed only at public consumption. That is not to say that they would not investigate the cases, but that they are trying to divert attention from the fact that they had created the atmosphere that led to the abuses.
When the news of the abuses came out, everyone tried to pass the buck for some time and then the president and his defence secretary offered an "apology" but they did not know about the incidents until the investigation report was released.
It is the second part that we find insulting our intelligence, because it was precisely the indifference and contempt with which consecutive American administrations treated the Arabs that led to emboldening whoever abused Iraqi prisoners into thinking that it was permitted. Secondly, the administration knew well that such practices were common in Guantanamo Bay and it was no coincidence that one of the top commanders there was transferred to Iraq to introduce the same there.
A relevant question is: Would Bush or any other administration official would ever admit that they would not care how their military collects "information" that help the battle against Iraqi resistance? Would they really care that it came through torture of the worst degree?
We also know that Washington strategists hired Israeli "experts" at interrogating Palestinians and deployed them at Abu Ghraib. They were not sent there to hold the hands of the prisoners but to unleash a reign of terror among the detainees. Indeed, the Israeli experts would have loved doing it, if only because some of their own rules restrain them from exercising such sadism and brutality against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. They had no such constraints in Iraq. They were free to do whatever they wished with the detainees with no questions asked.
American 'tradition'
In a broader context, it is an American tradition, as author and commentator Doug Stokes argues, to use whatever means to contain and destroy social forces considered inimical to US interests.
Stokes has described the reports prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib as merely confirming "what has long been a legitimate tactic within US counter-insurgency warfare: the targeting and torture of civilians."
"This terror serves not only to break the will of those targeted but has a wider symbolic psychological function in that it dramatically raises the cost of dissent," he writes. "Whether it is was a 'war on communism' during the Cold War, or a 'war on terrorism' in the post-9/11 era, the targets and tactics have remained the same and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are the logical outcome of what the US has long been teaching both its own counter-insurgency specialists and those of allied nations."
He goes on to say: "The abuses committed at Abu Ghraib thus form part of a covert tradition within the history of US imperial policing and counter-insurgency warfare."
That might indeed be true when seen through an American point of view. However, for us here in the Middle East, the American and Israeli abuse of Iraqi prisoners has a sinister perspective: The victims were Arabs and Muslims.
Please spare us the exonerations
pv vivekanand
IT IS disgusting to read reports after reports about reports of the findings of the dozens of secret and public investigations conducted into the abuse of prisoners at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities in post-war Iraq. Almost all the reports exonerate top political officials of the Bush administration and the Pentagon as well as the top brass in the US military while media reports are lavish with suggestions that only a "handful" of "rogue elements" and "undisciplined" soldiers and private contractors were behind the abuse.
But then, does it really matter to us who exactly in the American hierarchy was responsible for the worst kind of violations of human dignity in recent history?
It is a collective responsibility that should weigh down heavily on the American mind.
We do realise that investigating the abuses and identifying those directly responsible for the abuses is an American imperative. The legal process has to be followed the guilty should be punished; that is what the American sytem demands.
It is a more of an internal issue for the Americans.
For us in this part of the world, everyone, from the senior-most official, elected or otherwise, in the US down to the private American who treated Iraqi prisoners likes the worst animals on earth, is equally guilty of prejudice and hatred cultivated by the policies of successive American administrations.
Can the US administration wriggle out of the reality that dehumanising Arabs, particularly the Palestinians and Iraqis, through the mainstream media and project them as unworthy of being treated as human beings was a direct or indirect American policy objective? Will the American public would ever be told of this reality?
As such, reports of repeated exonerations of top political officials of the Bush administration makes us want to throw up.
Where does the buck stop?
Indeed, a line has been drawn between the officers who actually served in Iraq and those who pulled the strings from Washington.
Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the top American military officer in Iraq at the time of the abuse, was quietly removed from the post months after reports of the abuse appeared in the media.
Sanchez as well as his boss, General John Abizaid, head of the US Central Command, have testified in the US Congress that they did not find out about the abuse until this year when a military policeman revealed the problem at the prison. However, other accounts have spoken of complaints of abuse being filed in the third quarter of last year.
The senior most officer to be suspended in this connection was Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade in Iraq late last year. She has been issued a letter of reprimand and been suspended from her post. Seven other military police reservists are facing charges. All except one of them have pleaded innocent saying they were only following orders. Even the one who pleaded guilty says he had instructions to treat the prisoners that way.
If Karpinski is to be believed, then she is also innocent. She could not be expected to know what was going on in the corridors of the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad except from reports filed by her juniors.
The latest US Army report also has cleared top US military officers in Iraq of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib but implicates 20 or more intelligence troops in the scandal.
The report, according to Reuters, recommends disciplinary action such as administrative reduction in rank and loss of pay as well as further investigation that could lead to military trials.
It does not matter to us if US President George Bush pleads that he did not know what was going in the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad; that he did not know his soldiers and "private experts in interrogation" were playing sadistic football with Iraqi prisoners, humiliating them to the lowest level that any human being would ever consider himself to be and torturing them and subjecting them to conditions where they longed for death.
Whoever they are, the torturers and tormentors did not happen to walk into Abu Gharaib on their own. They were brought there and unleashed on the Iraqis by the US government. Can Washington argue its way out of that responsibility?
It has been nearly five months since the news hit the headlines that an internal investigation has unearthed gross violations of human rights, dignity and self-respect at Abu Ghraib. Probably, had it not been for journalists like Seymour Hersh and others the world would not have known about it either until sometime later (let us respect the integrity and investigating skills of American journalists in general; someone or another might have unveiled the findings of the investigation sooner or later).
For sure, top officials in Washington knew about the abuses several months earlier since they should have but been informed about complaints being received before the investigation was launched.
Throughout this period, the administration only tried to keep it away from the world that there were credible reports about prisoner abuse in Iraq. It is surprising that they hoped to get away with it, expecting to keep everything under wraps under the rules of confidentiality of the US military.
As such, the pledges by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials that they were committed to thoroughly investigating the reports of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan sounded hollow and meaningless and seemed aimed only at public consumption. That is not to say that they would not investigate the cases, but that they are trying to divert attention from the fact that they had created the atmosphere that led to the abuses.
When the news of the abuses came out, everyone tried to pass the buck for some time and then the president and his defence secretary offered an "apology" but they did not know about the incidents until the investigation report was released.
It is the second part that we find insulting our intelligence, because it was precisely the indifference and contempt with which consecutive American administrations treated the Arabs that led to emboldening whoever abused Iraqi prisoners into thinking that it was permitted. Secondly, the administration knew well that such practices were common in Guantanamo Bay and it was no coincidence that one of the top commanders there was transferred to Iraq to introduce the same there.
A relevant question is: Would Bush or any other administration official would ever admit that they would not care how their military collects "information" that help the battle against Iraqi resistance? Would they really care that it came through torture of the worst degree?
We also know that Washington strategists hired Israeli "experts" at interrogating Palestinians and deployed them at Abu Ghraib. They were not sent there to hold the hands of the prisoners but to unleash a reign of terror among the detainees. Indeed, the Israeli experts would have loved doing it, if only because some of their own rules restrain them from exercising such sadism and brutality against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. They had no such constraints in Iraq. They were free to do whatever they wished with the detainees with no questions asked.
American 'tradition'
In a broader context, it is an American tradition, as author and commentator Doug Stokes argues, to use whatever means to contain and destroy social forces considered inimical to US interests.
Stokes has described the reports prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib as merely confirming "what has long been a legitimate tactic within US counter-insurgency warfare: the targeting and torture of civilians."
"This terror serves not only to break the will of those targeted but has a wider symbolic psychological function in that it dramatically raises the cost of dissent," he writes. "Whether it is was a 'war on communism' during the Cold War, or a 'war on terrorism' in the post-9/11 era, the targets and tactics have remained the same and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are the logical outcome of what the US has long been teaching both its own counter-insurgency specialists and those of allied nations."
He goes on to say: "The abuses committed at Abu Ghraib thus form part of a covert tradition within the history of US imperial policing and counter-insurgency warfare."
That might indeed be true when seen through an American point of view. However, for us here in the Middle East, the American and Israeli abuse of Iraqi prisoners has a sinister perspective: The victims were Arabs and Muslims.
Battle won, but war is lost
by pv vivekanand
THE US military's assault on Najaf with a view to dislodging Motqada Sadr and his militia from the holy city is definitely a make-or-break drive. The US military will win the battle for Najaf, but the victory will be another brick in the tomb of American hopes of winning the war in Iraq and another contribution to increasing anti-US sentiments in the Islamic world, particularly the 120 million Shiites.
Temporary deals might be worked out that could prolong the crisis in Najaf by holding back the climax of the assault, but the US would not be dissuaded from its objective — neutralising Sadr as a challenger to the US military's efforts to pacify Iraq and improve conditions for implementing the Washington-backed process to conduct elections in January to a government that would give legitimacy to the American role in the country.
American strategists are perfectly aware that Sadr's declarations that he would never bow to the US and is ready to fight until death as well as his exhortations to his Mahdi's Army militia to continue fighting after his death are strengthening the resolve of anti-US forces in Iraq. The less he is allowed to say the better, as seen from Washington.
Neutralising Sadr is a political as well as security imperative for the interim government. Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, has to show his people that he is strong and capable of overcoming all challenges and also send a tough warning to other militant groups by setting an example in Najaf.
However, a no-holds-barred assault against Najaf and a possible storming of the Imam Ali Mosque there — even if by Iraqi Muslim security personnel — would be like stirring an already troubled hornet's nest and further alienate the Shiites against the interim government.
Sadr loyalists have already warned if their leader is harmed — he was reported to have been wounded in the US assault on Friday — then they would turn to be suicide bombers against the US forces and allies. The warning should not be taken lightly since it signals a deadly turn of events for the US military in southern Iraq.
The demonstrations in Iraq and Iran on Friday against the US operations in Najaf are the forerunners of much worse Shiite repercussions against the US-led coalition forces and their allies in Iraq. The events in Najaf could lead to sparking an anti-US Shiite revolt in the south of the country along the lines of the rebellion in the so-called "Sunni triangle" encompassing areas near Baghdad and the Anbar province adjoining the border with Jordan and Syria.
The US also risks alienating Shiites beyond the immediate Iraq-Iran theatre, including those in countries like Pakistan and Lebanon.
The Shiites had largely stayed put in south of Iraq and refrained from militarily challenging the US role in the country for one year after the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Obviously, they were hoping to gain power by virtue of their numerical strength in the country.
But they rose up in protest when they saw that their "natural" role as the majority sect in the 25-million population Iraq was being sidelines by people they considered as too close to the US for comfort. Allawi is indeed a Shiite, so are several other members of the interim cabinet, but many Shiites in Iraq are not willing to grant Allawi and others the Shiite legitimacy that they need.
When the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in late June, most Iraqis — Sunnis and Shiites — were willing to Allawi a chance to prove its independence and ability to take control and administer the country. However, the interim authority's decisions and actions since it took over have not been very popular.
The Shiites would like to have their own say as to who their representative should be in the government — and it need not be Moqtada Sadr. They believe that their right to have a dominating say in the affairs of the country was hijacked when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government, whose members were chosen by Washington.
Sadr has also declared his boycott of the Iraqi national convention to be held this week to elect an interim assembly of 100 members who would guide the interim government to elections next year.
The Iranian link, if any, to the crisis in Najaf is unclear. US officials have suggested that Tehran is closely aligned with Sadr, but they have not come up with solid evidence to substantiate the theory.
At this juncture, the US military's attack on Najaf itself is seen as targeting Shiites rather than Sadr and his supporters per se. And the first to pay the price in terms of alienation with the Shiites will be the interim government, whose image as an independent authority would be further undermined.
Cracks have also started appearing in the interim government itself.
Vice-President Ibrahim Jaafari, head of the influential Dawa Party, has called for the departure of the US forces from Najaf whose very presence there was invited by Allawi after his ultimatum to Sadr's forces to quit the city went unheeded.
Also having an effect against the interim government is the fatwa issued by the Sunni Association of Muslim Clergymen that no Iraqi should co-operate with the US forces in killing other Muslims.
While the fatwa appeared to be oriented more towards the clashes in the Anbar province — Fallujah, and, to a limited extent, Ramadi — pitting local residents against the US military, it is deemed to have an impact on Shiites as well.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the most reverred Shiite leader, is undergoing treatment in a London clinic for heart ailments. Some reports have suggested that the US-coalition, which includes the UK, had engineered his trip to London in order to clear the ground for an all-out assault against Sadr.
The demands laid down by a Sadr aide to end the crisis in Najaf are unlikely to be accepted by the US military. Sadr wants the departure of US forces from Najaf and handing over the city to the Marjayia, the Shiite religious authority; in return the Mahdi Army will also leave the city but will not be disarmed.
The militia is demanding recognition as an ideological movement and that members should allowed to carry weapons for self-defence, with an option to turn itself to be a political party. These are the minimum demands. Beyond them, Sadr wants all his "followers to gather under a legitimate constitution written by a free, elected government."
Giving in to the demands would mean a serious setback to the American resolve against militants in Iraq and questions raised over the credibility and legitimacy of the interim government. That is something the US strategists or the interim government could ill-afford. For them, Sadr has to be removed from the scene and his armed followers should never again be allowed to pose a challenge to the US domination of the country.
Therefore, compromise deals, if any is made, would only be stop-gap measures that would only slightly delay a US-led assault to end the crisis once and for all. What happens thereafter is clear: A low-intensity but sustained war of attrition between Shiites and the US-led coalition and their Iraqi allies that could wreck the Washington's vision of elections and transition of power to a "democratically elected government."
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Golan - it's water not security
August 10 2004
It's water, not security
pv vivekanand
An Israeli general's statement that his country does not need to keep Syria's Golan Heights under occupation should be seen strictly in the military context. It does not mean that Israel is ready to return the Golan Heights to Syria as the basis for a peace agreement or it has any intention to do so. All it might mean is that the Israeli military says it is capable of "defending" Israel without having military forces present on the Golan Heights.
Indeed, it signals a shift from consistent Israeli contention that it was prompted to seize the Golan Heights in 1967 because the Syrians were using the Heights to shoot down at Israeli farmers and that the Jewish state needed to retain the Heights in order to ensure its security. However, it does not seem to have a political context at this jucture.
Given that Syria possesses missiles capable of hitting almost everywhere in Israel, the "security" claim has always sounded hollow. Therefore, the latest statement is only an affirmation that retaining the Golan Heights is not central to Israeli security.
That the hawkish prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is holding back any comment on the remark by Chief of Staff General Moshe Yaalon indicates that Sharon would like the idea to be floated to drag out a Syrian response if only for theoretical purposes. Sure enough, Syria has rebuffed the idea by insisting on definite Israeli action on the ground with a commitment to withdrawing from the Golan.
Sharon, a military general who has also served as Israel's minister for water, could not but be acutely aware of the importance of the Golan Heights for his country's paranoia and preoccupation with securing water sources.
Sharon should be aware that it is as much as a military strategy as a need to ensure its main source of water that is behind Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights and its refusal to give it up in return for peace with Syria.
The Golan is the source for more than 55 per cent of Israel's fresh water needs. Given the scarcity of water in the region and its paranoia of being forced to depend on Syria, Israel would never give up the Golan. At best, it might be willing to make a face-saving compromise by returning part of the Golan and would never agree to return the whole of the strategic Heights, which overlook the See of Galilee in northern Israel (it also known as Lake Tiberias and Israelis call it Lake of Kinneret. Lake Tiberias is best known for its association with the lives of Jesus Christ and his disciples. In the Bible the lake is referred to as the Sea of Chinnereth or Chinneroth, Gennesar, Lake of Gennesaret, Sea of Galilee, and Sea of Tiberias, a name that has survived in the modern Arabic Bahrat Tabariya. It is 20 kilometres long and 12 kilometres wide and lies around 220 metres below sea level).
Securing water sources has been an Israeli priority since its founding in 1948 and it remains a preoccupation today; the per capita consumption of water in Israel is eight times that of the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, which accounts for 18 per cent of Israel's needs of drinking water.
In 1950, the then Israeli prime minister, Ben Gurion, declared that Jews were fighting a battle for water and that the Jewish existence in Palestine was contingent on the outcome of such battle.
Water from Syrian upstream sources flown down the Golan and is accumulated at the Sea of Galilee before flowing further to the River Jordan and onto the Dead Sea, the lowest point on earth.
Israel, which occupied the Golan in the 1967 war and unilaterally annexed it in 1981, usually argues that since the Golan overlooks northern Israeli towns a withdrawal from the Heights would leave northern Israeli towns vulnerable to Syrian missile and infantry attacks.
In what was a departure from that assertion, Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said in an interview published on Friday there was no military reason why Israel could not withdraw to its pre-1967 war border with Syria.
Yaalon's comments was a departure from the military's traditional view that Israel needs at least part of the plateau as a "security buffer."
Yaalon told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot: "If you ask me, theoretically, if we can reach an agreement with Syria ... my answer is that from a military standpoint it is possible to reach an agreement by giving up the Golan Heights.
"The army is able to defend any border. This is correct for any political decision that is taken in Israel," he said.
Yaalon warned that Syria still represents a threat to Israel's "security" and that the two counties could once again find themselves engaged in a war.
"I can't ignore the scenario in which an escalation on the Lebanese front leads to a confrontation between the two armies," he said.
Yaalon noted that Syria has "missiles that put all of Israel in range and chemical capabilities."
Sharon has consistently opposed a withdrawal from the Syrian plateau. Sharon's predecessor, Ehud Barak, offered to withdraw from parts of the heights in 2000, but insisted on retaining some of the territory and American guarantees.
Syria wants action
Syria responded to Yaalon on Friday saying that it will not take seriously Israeli offers to pull out of the Golan Heights unless they are backed by moves on the ground or an open commitment to withdraw.
Ahmad Haj Ali, advisor to the Syrian information minister, said:
"We don't give such statements any weight unless they are associated with a serious move (towards peace) and with international guarantees. Whoever is willing to make peace should return the land to its owners and withdraw immediately or declare that openly and clearly."
Haj Ali said he believed Yaalon's statement was designed to "show Israel was the party seeking peace in order to look good in the upcoming American elections."
Syrian-Israeli peace talks were launched in 1991 in Madrid, but they collapsed in 2000, with Syrians insisting on a complete withdrawal from the Golan, and Israel seeking border adjustments near the Sea of Galilee,.
Now, Israel says Syria must first end its support for Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Palestinian groups it hosts in Syria itself. Syria rejects the demands saying it is supporting the legitimate right of people to resist foreign occupation.
In the Syrian view, Israel will not to relinquish the Golan, where some 20,000 Jewish settlers live, because it considers the Heights as a part of Israeli land. Furthermore, Israel believes its present borders should be recognised as such in any peace agreement.
It will reject any plan which includes any relinquishment of any part of Israel's land as opposing the right of the Jews in such land and jeopardising Israel's security and existence. That is why Israel will not withdraw from the Golan under all circumstances and will not demolish any settlement on the Heights, says the Syrian National Information Centre.
Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who represents a majority in the Likud party of Sharon and seen more hawkish than the prime minister, has said: "We are ready to continue negotiating with the Syrians on the basis that they are aware that they won't get back the Golan and that we, from our side, won't give up a total peace."
However, the Syrians have been insisting that the peace negotiations be resumed from the point they broke off while Barak was in power where he had promised to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan Heights except a one-square-kilometre area on a condition that the US provides certain guarantees.
At this point in time, it seems unlikely that Sharon finds himself under any compulsion to make any overture to Syria. He is too busy securing his own position while advancing his plan for "unilateral disengagement" from the Gaza Strip.
It's water, not security
pv vivekanand
An Israeli general's statement that his country does not need to keep Syria's Golan Heights under occupation should be seen strictly in the military context. It does not mean that Israel is ready to return the Golan Heights to Syria as the basis for a peace agreement or it has any intention to do so. All it might mean is that the Israeli military says it is capable of "defending" Israel without having military forces present on the Golan Heights.
Indeed, it signals a shift from consistent Israeli contention that it was prompted to seize the Golan Heights in 1967 because the Syrians were using the Heights to shoot down at Israeli farmers and that the Jewish state needed to retain the Heights in order to ensure its security. However, it does not seem to have a political context at this jucture.
Given that Syria possesses missiles capable of hitting almost everywhere in Israel, the "security" claim has always sounded hollow. Therefore, the latest statement is only an affirmation that retaining the Golan Heights is not central to Israeli security.
That the hawkish prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is holding back any comment on the remark by Chief of Staff General Moshe Yaalon indicates that Sharon would like the idea to be floated to drag out a Syrian response if only for theoretical purposes. Sure enough, Syria has rebuffed the idea by insisting on definite Israeli action on the ground with a commitment to withdrawing from the Golan.
Sharon, a military general who has also served as Israel's minister for water, could not but be acutely aware of the importance of the Golan Heights for his country's paranoia and preoccupation with securing water sources.
Sharon should be aware that it is as much as a military strategy as a need to ensure its main source of water that is behind Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights and its refusal to give it up in return for peace with Syria.
The Golan is the source for more than 55 per cent of Israel's fresh water needs. Given the scarcity of water in the region and its paranoia of being forced to depend on Syria, Israel would never give up the Golan. At best, it might be willing to make a face-saving compromise by returning part of the Golan and would never agree to return the whole of the strategic Heights, which overlook the See of Galilee in northern Israel (it also known as Lake Tiberias and Israelis call it Lake of Kinneret. Lake Tiberias is best known for its association with the lives of Jesus Christ and his disciples. In the Bible the lake is referred to as the Sea of Chinnereth or Chinneroth, Gennesar, Lake of Gennesaret, Sea of Galilee, and Sea of Tiberias, a name that has survived in the modern Arabic Bahrat Tabariya. It is 20 kilometres long and 12 kilometres wide and lies around 220 metres below sea level).
Securing water sources has been an Israeli priority since its founding in 1948 and it remains a preoccupation today; the per capita consumption of water in Israel is eight times that of the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, which accounts for 18 per cent of Israel's needs of drinking water.
In 1950, the then Israeli prime minister, Ben Gurion, declared that Jews were fighting a battle for water and that the Jewish existence in Palestine was contingent on the outcome of such battle.
Water from Syrian upstream sources flown down the Golan and is accumulated at the Sea of Galilee before flowing further to the River Jordan and onto the Dead Sea, the lowest point on earth.
Israel, which occupied the Golan in the 1967 war and unilaterally annexed it in 1981, usually argues that since the Golan overlooks northern Israeli towns a withdrawal from the Heights would leave northern Israeli towns vulnerable to Syrian missile and infantry attacks.
In what was a departure from that assertion, Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said in an interview published on Friday there was no military reason why Israel could not withdraw to its pre-1967 war border with Syria.
Yaalon's comments was a departure from the military's traditional view that Israel needs at least part of the plateau as a "security buffer."
Yaalon told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot: "If you ask me, theoretically, if we can reach an agreement with Syria ... my answer is that from a military standpoint it is possible to reach an agreement by giving up the Golan Heights.
"The army is able to defend any border. This is correct for any political decision that is taken in Israel," he said.
Yaalon warned that Syria still represents a threat to Israel's "security" and that the two counties could once again find themselves engaged in a war.
"I can't ignore the scenario in which an escalation on the Lebanese front leads to a confrontation between the two armies," he said.
Yaalon noted that Syria has "missiles that put all of Israel in range and chemical capabilities."
Sharon has consistently opposed a withdrawal from the Syrian plateau. Sharon's predecessor, Ehud Barak, offered to withdraw from parts of the heights in 2000, but insisted on retaining some of the territory and American guarantees.
Syria wants action
Syria responded to Yaalon on Friday saying that it will not take seriously Israeli offers to pull out of the Golan Heights unless they are backed by moves on the ground or an open commitment to withdraw.
Ahmad Haj Ali, advisor to the Syrian information minister, said:
"We don't give such statements any weight unless they are associated with a serious move (towards peace) and with international guarantees. Whoever is willing to make peace should return the land to its owners and withdraw immediately or declare that openly and clearly."
Haj Ali said he believed Yaalon's statement was designed to "show Israel was the party seeking peace in order to look good in the upcoming American elections."
Syrian-Israeli peace talks were launched in 1991 in Madrid, but they collapsed in 2000, with Syrians insisting on a complete withdrawal from the Golan, and Israel seeking border adjustments near the Sea of Galilee,.
Now, Israel says Syria must first end its support for Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Palestinian groups it hosts in Syria itself. Syria rejects the demands saying it is supporting the legitimate right of people to resist foreign occupation.
In the Syrian view, Israel will not to relinquish the Golan, where some 20,000 Jewish settlers live, because it considers the Heights as a part of Israeli land. Furthermore, Israel believes its present borders should be recognised as such in any peace agreement.
It will reject any plan which includes any relinquishment of any part of Israel's land as opposing the right of the Jews in such land and jeopardising Israel's security and existence. That is why Israel will not withdraw from the Golan under all circumstances and will not demolish any settlement on the Heights, says the Syrian National Information Centre.
Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who represents a majority in the Likud party of Sharon and seen more hawkish than the prime minister, has said: "We are ready to continue negotiating with the Syrians on the basis that they are aware that they won't get back the Golan and that we, from our side, won't give up a total peace."
However, the Syrians have been insisting that the peace negotiations be resumed from the point they broke off while Barak was in power where he had promised to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan Heights except a one-square-kilometre area on a condition that the US provides certain guarantees.
At this point in time, it seems unlikely that Sharon finds himself under any compulsion to make any overture to Syria. He is too busy securing his own position while advancing his plan for "unilateral disengagement" from the Gaza Strip.
Friday, August 06, 2004
9/11 and Israeli insider trading
rican Investigators have established that in the
two weeks before the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York
and Washington, a group of Israeli speculators did a
particular manoeuvring in the stock market by selling
"short" stocks of 38 companies that were expected to
lose in value as a result of the attacks. They made
tens of millions of dollars through the deal, which
clearly indicated that they had prior knowledge of the
attacks.
Selling "short" means passing the shares of a friendly
buyer and then buy them back when the price falls. No
money actually hands except in books and both seller
and buyer are winners. If such deals take place just
ahead of events that have economic impact in the
market, then they automatically become suspect and are
treated as having carried out by people who had prior
knowledge of such events.
The deals were made between Aug.26 and Sept.10, 2001,
and according to
the American Securities and Exchange Commission these
speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and
Frankfurt, Germany stock exchanges.
The deals were made despite strict monitoring by the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which uses special
software to keep a watch on stock market trading with
a view to check for possible warning sign of a
terrorist attack or suspicious economic behaviour.
The CIA immediately suspected that the Aug.26-Sept.10
deals had something to do with prior knowledge of the
attacks. The agency requested the Financial Services
Authority in London to investigate the suspicious
deals, with the hope that trail might lead to the
terrorists.
However, what the agency found was the trail led to a
group of Israeli speculators operating out of Canada.
And then it emerged that the deals were also made
through the stock markets of Japan, Germany, the
United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Hong Kong,
Switzerland and Spain, and the same Israeli group were
behind those deals.
According to Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC, a North
Dakota-based private consulting company that
publishes research on markets worldwide, as much as
$22 million were made as profit by the speculators.
London broker and analyst Richard Crossley has said
that that someone was selling shares in unusually
large quantities beginning three weeks before the
Sept.11 attacks and he had decided that this as
evidence that someone had insider foreknowledge of
the attacks.
According to the the Interdisciplinary Center, a
counter-terrorism think tank involving former
intelligence officers, "insider trading" — another
name for "short selling" — made nearly $16 million
profit by short selling shares in American and United
Airlines, the two airlines that suffered hijacking,
and the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which
occupied 22 floors of the WTC.
The CIA failed to link any of the suspicious
transactions with Osama Bin Laden or anyone remotedly
connected with it, and when the Israeli connection
became known, there was a total blackout of any
reports what the agency had found. At that time, many
suspected that the trail led to American firms or
intelligence agencies.
The companies whose stocks were sold "short" include:
he list includes stocks of American Airways, United
Air, Continental, Northwest, Southwest and US Airways
airlines, as well as Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin
Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American
International Group, AMR Corporation, Axa SA, Bank of
America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp,
Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb
Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc,
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation,
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive
Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies,
American Express, the Citigroup Inc. ,Royal & Sun
Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado
Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL
Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns. The names of these
companies were released by the American Securities and
Exchange Commission, which, at that time, was seeking
information on whoever had sold short their shares and
repurchased them after the Sept.11 attacks.
All these companies suffered directly or indirectly as
a result of the attacks and all their shares fell
steeply after the attacks. The four planes used in the
attacks in New York and Washington belonged to
American Airways and United. On Sept.,6, 2001, alone
2,075 sell-short deals were made on shares of
United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the
attacks, 2,282 sell-short deals were recorded for
American Airlines. The profit from the deals were
estimated at b etween $2 million and $4 million.
What is more interesting is that most of the short
selling deals were handled primarily by Deutsche
Bank-A.B.Brown. Until 1998, the bank was chaired by A.
B. Krongard, who later became executive director of
the CIA.
Also interesting is that despite conflicting reports
in the beginning, it was reported by the New York
Times on Sept.22, 11 days after the attacks, that only
three Israelis were confirmed as dead: two on the
hijacked planes and another who had been visiting the
World Trade Centre towers on business.
The FBI and CIA say that they are continuing
investigations, but other sources say the
investigations have been completed some months ago,
and the findings were being held back just as key
parts of the congressional investigation into the 9/11
attacks are being kept away from the public eye.
After all, that the stranglehold that Israel has on
Washington.
two weeks before the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York
and Washington, a group of Israeli speculators did a
particular manoeuvring in the stock market by selling
"short" stocks of 38 companies that were expected to
lose in value as a result of the attacks. They made
tens of millions of dollars through the deal, which
clearly indicated that they had prior knowledge of the
attacks.
Selling "short" means passing the shares of a friendly
buyer and then buy them back when the price falls. No
money actually hands except in books and both seller
and buyer are winners. If such deals take place just
ahead of events that have economic impact in the
market, then they automatically become suspect and are
treated as having carried out by people who had prior
knowledge of such events.
The deals were made between Aug.26 and Sept.10, 2001,
and according to
the American Securities and Exchange Commission these
speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and
Frankfurt, Germany stock exchanges.
The deals were made despite strict monitoring by the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which uses special
software to keep a watch on stock market trading with
a view to check for possible warning sign of a
terrorist attack or suspicious economic behaviour.
The CIA immediately suspected that the Aug.26-Sept.10
deals had something to do with prior knowledge of the
attacks. The agency requested the Financial Services
Authority in London to investigate the suspicious
deals, with the hope that trail might lead to the
terrorists.
However, what the agency found was the trail led to a
group of Israeli speculators operating out of Canada.
And then it emerged that the deals were also made
through the stock markets of Japan, Germany, the
United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Hong Kong,
Switzerland and Spain, and the same Israeli group were
behind those deals.
According to Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC, a North
Dakota-based private consulting company that
publishes research on markets worldwide, as much as
$22 million were made as profit by the speculators.
London broker and analyst Richard Crossley has said
that that someone was selling shares in unusually
large quantities beginning three weeks before the
Sept.11 attacks and he had decided that this as
evidence that someone had insider foreknowledge of
the attacks.
According to the the Interdisciplinary Center, a
counter-terrorism think tank involving former
intelligence officers, "insider trading" — another
name for "short selling" — made nearly $16 million
profit by short selling shares in American and United
Airlines, the two airlines that suffered hijacking,
and the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which
occupied 22 floors of the WTC.
The CIA failed to link any of the suspicious
transactions with Osama Bin Laden or anyone remotedly
connected with it, and when the Israeli connection
became known, there was a total blackout of any
reports what the agency had found. At that time, many
suspected that the trail led to American firms or
intelligence agencies.
The companies whose stocks were sold "short" include:
he list includes stocks of American Airways, United
Air, Continental, Northwest, Southwest and US Airways
airlines, as well as Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin
Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American
International Group, AMR Corporation, Axa SA, Bank of
America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp,
Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb
Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc,
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation,
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive
Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies,
American Express, the Citigroup Inc. ,Royal & Sun
Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado
Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL
Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns. The names of these
companies were released by the American Securities and
Exchange Commission, which, at that time, was seeking
information on whoever had sold short their shares and
repurchased them after the Sept.11 attacks.
All these companies suffered directly or indirectly as
a result of the attacks and all their shares fell
steeply after the attacks. The four planes used in the
attacks in New York and Washington belonged to
American Airways and United. On Sept.,6, 2001, alone
2,075 sell-short deals were made on shares of
United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the
attacks, 2,282 sell-short deals were recorded for
American Airlines. The profit from the deals were
estimated at b etween $2 million and $4 million.
What is more interesting is that most of the short
selling deals were handled primarily by Deutsche
Bank-A.B.Brown. Until 1998, the bank was chaired by A.
B. Krongard, who later became executive director of
the CIA.
Also interesting is that despite conflicting reports
in the beginning, it was reported by the New York
Times on Sept.22, 11 days after the attacks, that only
three Israelis were confirmed as dead: two on the
hijacked planes and another who had been visiting the
World Trade Centre towers on business.
The FBI and CIA say that they are continuing
investigations, but other sources say the
investigations have been completed some months ago,
and the findings were being held back just as key
parts of the congressional investigation into the 9/11
attacks are being kept away from the public eye.
After all, that the stranglehold that Israel has on
Washington.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Iran linked to 9/11?
July 25 2004
Iran linked to 9/11?
BY PV VIVEKANAND
The US has set Iran in its gunsights for "regime change" and Tehran would be hard pressed escape the trap. That is what has emerged from the US independent commission's finding that Iran had allowed eight to 10 of the Sept.11 suicide hijackers to pass through its territory months before the actual assaults and made sure their passports were not stamped with any record of the transit.
American pundits on both sides of the fence — those who opposed and favoured the war on Iraq — are now arguing that the US targeted the wrong country for regime change since the report indicates that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Baghdad.
According to the commission, intelligence findings show that the Iranian government had instructed its border posts not to stamp the passports of Al Qaeda members from Saudi Arabia who were passing through Iran after training at Osama Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda operatives had freedom to cross between the two countries without any hindrance, the report asserts.
If the hijackers had Iranian entry stamp on passport they would have been subjected to strict questioning at any port of entry to the US and probably turned away.
The commission said that Osama Bin Laden's "representatives and Iranian officials had discussed putting aside Shiite-Sunni divisions to co-operate against the common enemy" and that a small group of A Qaeda members "subsequently travelled to Iran and Hizbollah camps in Lebanon for training in explosives, intelligence and security."
Iran has not denied the possibility that the suicide skyjackers passed through its territory and has cited in its defence the commission's finding that there was no evidence that Tehran was a party to the Sept.11 assaults or had known about them in advance.
Tehran has also rejected as unfounded American charges that it is sheltering Al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives who fled Afghanistan when the US invaded that country in late 2001 and that they include eight prominent Al Qaeda and Taliban figures remain in Iran, including Osama Bin Laden's son Saad and Saif Al Adel, once Al Qaeda's security chief.
They are supposedly kept under "protective custody" and it is thought that Iran might use them as pawns in dealings with the US.
The next scenario is predictable: US intelligence agencies coming up with evidence suggesting that Iran did know of Al Qaeda plans and was working in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden's group. It would take some time, but it is definitely coming.
There is already a move in Congress to produce legislation backing “regime change” in Iran.
US President George W. Bush, who labelled Iran part of an "exis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, has vowed that he is committed to regime change in Tehran would orchestrate it if he is re-elected in November. That is a very calculated statement. One could expect more "revelations" of the purported Iranian-Qaeda links in the months in the run-up to the first Tuesday of November when the Americans go to the polls but little action on the ground until then except stepped up pressure on Tehran.
That is what Bush meant when he said last week: "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved (in the Sept.11 attacks)… As to direct connections with Sept. 11, we’re digging into the facts to determine if there was one.”
Thorn on the side
Following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the next thorn on the American and Israeli sides is indeed Iran, whose theocratic leadership refuses to accept American domination of the region and continues to pose a hurdle to Washington's drive for absolutely unchallenged supremacy.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his neo-conservative allies in Washington have been calling for "regime change" in Iran after Iraq.
Israel, which says it fears Iran is developing nuclear weapons that could be used against the Jewish state, is no doubt planning how to "take out" Iran's nuclear facilities. One of more Israeli submarines equipped with long-range missiles capable of hitting Iran's nuclear plants on the Gulf coast as well as deep inside the country are already patrolling the waters of the Arabian Sea.
But simply destroying Iran's nuclear facilities would not be enough for the US to remove the challenge it faces from Tehran. It needs to replace the theocrats in power with an "American-friendly" regime like the interim government it has installed in Baghdad.
The new regime in Tehran, under the American plans, will allow the US military to set up bases in Iran, abandon all ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, reform its Islam, recognise Israel and will agree to be a US-Israeli dictated solution to the Middle East conflict.
However, a military approach along the lines of the Iraq invasion is not in the cards. After all, Iran is five times larger than Iraq and has 65 million people compared with 25 million Iraqis.
The Bush administration has already set the ground for the best option: Create internal troubles for the regime, build them up and turn them into an uprising against the government. Simultaneously, the US could intervene militarily to support the internal dissidents and finish the job of removing the regime from power.
Obviously, Washington strategists are betting that Iranian youth and students are discontented with the regime, which gives Muslim clerics too much influence over their lives, and the right assurances to them that the US is behind them in their drive to get rid of the mullahs would convince them to stage an uprising.
Towards this end, a US-based group of Iranians, including the son of the toppled Shah Pehlavi, has launched radio and television broadcasts aimed to incite the Iranians against the regime and American and allied agents are said to have penetrate Iranian groups inside the country.
Washington has also enlisted the help of Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the late Iranian patriarch, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Hossein Khomeini, who smuggled himself into Iraq and then visited the US without official approval before returning home last year, openly said he would favour an American military invasion of his country aimed at changing the clerical regime. He is said to have been placed under tight restrictions at home after his return home.
Hard-liners in the Bush camp who orchestrated the war against Iraq are sure to seize upon the Sept.11 commission's report and further strengthen the case of regime change for Iran In any event, Iran has emerged as a key behind-the-scene player in the invasion of Iraq. It is believed to have played a key role in creating "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and fed it to anti-Saddam Ahmed Chalabi, who in turn furnished it to US intelligence agencies as well as the New York Times to build the case for war against Iraq.
(Chalabi is also accused of spying for Iran and tipping them off that US intelligence agencies were listening in to telephone conversations of Iranian leaders and notable others. That is deemed to have dealt a serious blow to American intelligence gathering on Iran).
'Natural course'
Since the US set the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its military sights following the Sept.11 attacks and fingered Iraq immediately after invading Afghanistan., it was clear that Iran and Syria were also listed for "regime change" although not necessarily in that order.
It is no coincidence that the next two US targets in the Middle East, Syria and Iran, are also among the most vocal against Israel just as Iraq under Saddam was. It is not simply a matter of convenience for the US that fundamental changes are made in these countries to remove the challenge to Israel if not to better suit the interests of Washington's sole "strategic ally" in the Middle East; it is indeed a policy objective just as the ouster of Saddam was.
Washington flirted with Syria in the early 90s because it suited US interests to do so but now Damascus has become more of a liability than an asset only because it insists on its rights and represents the toughest of all Arab parties on whom Israel wants to impose its version of peace.
Similarly, the US hoped it could do business with Iran when "moderate" Mohammed Khatami was elected president in 1997. However, those hopes failed to materialise in view of the "hard-line" religious establishment's grip on power on a parallel track with that of the government but with overriding authority.
Now that Khatami would soon step down after serving two terms, the US has little hopes that another "moderate" might take his place, and hence the recent posture that Washington had "given up" on Khatami.
Under the American view, the religious establishment's constitutional authority is too deep-rooted to be pried away through conventional political means adopted by political forces within the country. Again, in the US eyes, a "regime change" aiming at destroying the religious leaders' power is the order of the day in Iran.
Iran's support for Lebanon's Hizbollah and Palestinian groups is a constant source of concern for Israel, and, by extension, the US. Further compounding the concern are the advances that Iran has reportedly made in developing long-range missiles which could hit Israel, its acquisition of two Russian submarines and the ongoing construction of a nuclear power plant on the Gulf coast and the existence of two other nuclear facilities inland.
Bush's options
The revelations of the alleged Tehran-Qaeda collaboration places the Bush administration in a fresh bind. The link is far more firm than the discredited American claim that a senior Iraqi diplomat had met the leader of the Sept.11 suicide hijackers in Europe a few months before the air assaults in New York and Washington.
In recent months, the Washington strategists appeared to have set the Iranian file aside, focusing instead on ensuring that Bush wins re-election in November. However, they ensured that Tehran remained under international pressure by citing its alleged quest to develop nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the Bush administration would not undertake another military adventure at this juncture, given the worsening crisis in post-Saddam Iraq and the growing belief among Americans that they were misled by their president and his aides into accepting military action against that country.
Obviously the purported Iran-Qaeda links would be sued to tighten the case against Iran — and also somehow dragging in Syria — but stopping short of any action that would have a negative impact on his already sagging prospects for re-election. Action will come only if the American people find him fit for another four years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what that would be is anyone's guess.
Iran linked to 9/11?
BY PV VIVEKANAND
The US has set Iran in its gunsights for "regime change" and Tehran would be hard pressed escape the trap. That is what has emerged from the US independent commission's finding that Iran had allowed eight to 10 of the Sept.11 suicide hijackers to pass through its territory months before the actual assaults and made sure their passports were not stamped with any record of the transit.
American pundits on both sides of the fence — those who opposed and favoured the war on Iraq — are now arguing that the US targeted the wrong country for regime change since the report indicates that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Baghdad.
According to the commission, intelligence findings show that the Iranian government had instructed its border posts not to stamp the passports of Al Qaeda members from Saudi Arabia who were passing through Iran after training at Osama Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda operatives had freedom to cross between the two countries without any hindrance, the report asserts.
If the hijackers had Iranian entry stamp on passport they would have been subjected to strict questioning at any port of entry to the US and probably turned away.
The commission said that Osama Bin Laden's "representatives and Iranian officials had discussed putting aside Shiite-Sunni divisions to co-operate against the common enemy" and that a small group of A Qaeda members "subsequently travelled to Iran and Hizbollah camps in Lebanon for training in explosives, intelligence and security."
Iran has not denied the possibility that the suicide skyjackers passed through its territory and has cited in its defence the commission's finding that there was no evidence that Tehran was a party to the Sept.11 assaults or had known about them in advance.
Tehran has also rejected as unfounded American charges that it is sheltering Al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives who fled Afghanistan when the US invaded that country in late 2001 and that they include eight prominent Al Qaeda and Taliban figures remain in Iran, including Osama Bin Laden's son Saad and Saif Al Adel, once Al Qaeda's security chief.
They are supposedly kept under "protective custody" and it is thought that Iran might use them as pawns in dealings with the US.
The next scenario is predictable: US intelligence agencies coming up with evidence suggesting that Iran did know of Al Qaeda plans and was working in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden's group. It would take some time, but it is definitely coming.
There is already a move in Congress to produce legislation backing “regime change” in Iran.
US President George W. Bush, who labelled Iran part of an "exis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, has vowed that he is committed to regime change in Tehran would orchestrate it if he is re-elected in November. That is a very calculated statement. One could expect more "revelations" of the purported Iranian-Qaeda links in the months in the run-up to the first Tuesday of November when the Americans go to the polls but little action on the ground until then except stepped up pressure on Tehran.
That is what Bush meant when he said last week: "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved (in the Sept.11 attacks)… As to direct connections with Sept. 11, we’re digging into the facts to determine if there was one.”
Thorn on the side
Following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the next thorn on the American and Israeli sides is indeed Iran, whose theocratic leadership refuses to accept American domination of the region and continues to pose a hurdle to Washington's drive for absolutely unchallenged supremacy.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his neo-conservative allies in Washington have been calling for "regime change" in Iran after Iraq.
Israel, which says it fears Iran is developing nuclear weapons that could be used against the Jewish state, is no doubt planning how to "take out" Iran's nuclear facilities. One of more Israeli submarines equipped with long-range missiles capable of hitting Iran's nuclear plants on the Gulf coast as well as deep inside the country are already patrolling the waters of the Arabian Sea.
But simply destroying Iran's nuclear facilities would not be enough for the US to remove the challenge it faces from Tehran. It needs to replace the theocrats in power with an "American-friendly" regime like the interim government it has installed in Baghdad.
The new regime in Tehran, under the American plans, will allow the US military to set up bases in Iran, abandon all ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, reform its Islam, recognise Israel and will agree to be a US-Israeli dictated solution to the Middle East conflict.
However, a military approach along the lines of the Iraq invasion is not in the cards. After all, Iran is five times larger than Iraq and has 65 million people compared with 25 million Iraqis.
The Bush administration has already set the ground for the best option: Create internal troubles for the regime, build them up and turn them into an uprising against the government. Simultaneously, the US could intervene militarily to support the internal dissidents and finish the job of removing the regime from power.
Obviously, Washington strategists are betting that Iranian youth and students are discontented with the regime, which gives Muslim clerics too much influence over their lives, and the right assurances to them that the US is behind them in their drive to get rid of the mullahs would convince them to stage an uprising.
Towards this end, a US-based group of Iranians, including the son of the toppled Shah Pehlavi, has launched radio and television broadcasts aimed to incite the Iranians against the regime and American and allied agents are said to have penetrate Iranian groups inside the country.
Washington has also enlisted the help of Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the late Iranian patriarch, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Hossein Khomeini, who smuggled himself into Iraq and then visited the US without official approval before returning home last year, openly said he would favour an American military invasion of his country aimed at changing the clerical regime. He is said to have been placed under tight restrictions at home after his return home.
Hard-liners in the Bush camp who orchestrated the war against Iraq are sure to seize upon the Sept.11 commission's report and further strengthen the case of regime change for Iran In any event, Iran has emerged as a key behind-the-scene player in the invasion of Iraq. It is believed to have played a key role in creating "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and fed it to anti-Saddam Ahmed Chalabi, who in turn furnished it to US intelligence agencies as well as the New York Times to build the case for war against Iraq.
(Chalabi is also accused of spying for Iran and tipping them off that US intelligence agencies were listening in to telephone conversations of Iranian leaders and notable others. That is deemed to have dealt a serious blow to American intelligence gathering on Iran).
'Natural course'
Since the US set the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its military sights following the Sept.11 attacks and fingered Iraq immediately after invading Afghanistan., it was clear that Iran and Syria were also listed for "regime change" although not necessarily in that order.
It is no coincidence that the next two US targets in the Middle East, Syria and Iran, are also among the most vocal against Israel just as Iraq under Saddam was. It is not simply a matter of convenience for the US that fundamental changes are made in these countries to remove the challenge to Israel if not to better suit the interests of Washington's sole "strategic ally" in the Middle East; it is indeed a policy objective just as the ouster of Saddam was.
Washington flirted with Syria in the early 90s because it suited US interests to do so but now Damascus has become more of a liability than an asset only because it insists on its rights and represents the toughest of all Arab parties on whom Israel wants to impose its version of peace.
Similarly, the US hoped it could do business with Iran when "moderate" Mohammed Khatami was elected president in 1997. However, those hopes failed to materialise in view of the "hard-line" religious establishment's grip on power on a parallel track with that of the government but with overriding authority.
Now that Khatami would soon step down after serving two terms, the US has little hopes that another "moderate" might take his place, and hence the recent posture that Washington had "given up" on Khatami.
Under the American view, the religious establishment's constitutional authority is too deep-rooted to be pried away through conventional political means adopted by political forces within the country. Again, in the US eyes, a "regime change" aiming at destroying the religious leaders' power is the order of the day in Iran.
Iran's support for Lebanon's Hizbollah and Palestinian groups is a constant source of concern for Israel, and, by extension, the US. Further compounding the concern are the advances that Iran has reportedly made in developing long-range missiles which could hit Israel, its acquisition of two Russian submarines and the ongoing construction of a nuclear power plant on the Gulf coast and the existence of two other nuclear facilities inland.
Bush's options
The revelations of the alleged Tehran-Qaeda collaboration places the Bush administration in a fresh bind. The link is far more firm than the discredited American claim that a senior Iraqi diplomat had met the leader of the Sept.11 suicide hijackers in Europe a few months before the air assaults in New York and Washington.
In recent months, the Washington strategists appeared to have set the Iranian file aside, focusing instead on ensuring that Bush wins re-election in November. However, they ensured that Tehran remained under international pressure by citing its alleged quest to develop nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the Bush administration would not undertake another military adventure at this juncture, given the worsening crisis in post-Saddam Iraq and the growing belief among Americans that they were misled by their president and his aides into accepting military action against that country.
Obviously the purported Iran-Qaeda links would be sued to tighten the case against Iran — and also somehow dragging in Syria — but stopping short of any action that would have a negative impact on his already sagging prospects for re-election. Action will come only if the American people find him fit for another four years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what that would be is anyone's guess.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Arafat faces multi-crises
July 22 2004
Arafat faces multi-crises
PV Vivekanand
THERE is a security crisis and there is a political crisis within the Palestinian ranks, but solving them would not advance the Palestinian dream of independence. Indeed, the crises facing Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat are indeed the worst he had to confront since he assumed the helm of his people's struggle for liberation. Unless he moved swiftly to contain the situation, it might be too late for not only his survival as the symbol of the Palestinian struggle, but also the very fate of that struggle itself, writes PV Vivekanand.
For the first time, elected representatives of the Palestinians are demanding that Arafat crack down on corruption in his foundering administration. It is all the more ironic that the charges of corruption has been levelled not against an elected government in a free and sovereign state, but against the leaders of a revolutionary liberation movement of a people who have made and are continuing to make sublime sacrifices for the cause and have paid the price in untold suffering for their resistance against foreign occupation of their land.
It is not easy for Arafat, who is under virtual house arrest at his headquarters in Ramallah, to fight corruption among the people around him; many of them rally behind him only because he has been keeping a blind eye to their corrupt practices, and many would simply drop him if he were to hold them accountable for their shady financial dealings.
Corruption took roots in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from the very beginning if only because of the absence of any mechanism for accountability. It was a one-man show of Arafat, who went around Arab countries and collected hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for his liberation movement. He never accounted for the money to the donors or perhaps he did not feel the need to do so since he, as the living symbol of the Palestinian struggle for independence, was beyond reproach.
Arafat was "politically" careful with the money; he supported Palestinian refugee families recommended by his Fateh group, the dominant of the eight factions that made up the PLO, and then was selective in sharing the funds with other PLO factions; those whose positions, decisions and moves suited his thinking and interests got paid and others did not. That was the way he ran the PLO. At the same time, no one had any accurate idea about the PLO finances, including whether part of the money was invested abroad as was widely held. However, Arafat has never been accused of stashing away money for himself. The criticism was always against the way he played politics with PLO funds.
A simple example of Arafat's selective approach was seen in mid-1991 when he instructed his diplomatic representative in Amman, Jordan, not to settle the hotel bills of the leader of a leftist faction who had criticised him publicly. The faction leader had to borrow money from his cousins and friends in order to check out of the hotel.
Another example was when it was rumoured that Arafat had nearly $1 billion in PLO accounts under his control shortly after he signed the Oslo agreements in 1993. That rumour, his critics say, was instigated by himself because he wanted PLO factions which opposed the Oslo accords to support him in expectation that he was able to administer five-year autonomy of the West Bank and Gaza pending final status negotiations as envisaged under the agreement.
When the international community pledged nearly $2.5 billion as aid for the Palestinians to build themselves an entity in the Gaza Strip and West Bank following the signing of the Oslo agreements, the first thing Arafat would have expected was a direct transfer of the money to a bank account he controls. It jolted him to realise that the donors wanted every penny of their money accounted for and appointed the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the authority to decide how and where the money should be spent. It needed preliminary, feasibility and project studies before the UNDP would release any money to any project, and even at that there was no guarantee that every approved project would be financed.
Arafat and his associates never recovered from the shock of having to argue their case for ever dollar to be spent on building the Palestinian society in such a manner that everyone stood to lose something by returning to armed struggle.
The Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which was set up in 1996, was all but bankrupt when it was launched. It did not have money to pay the salaries of its policemen. There was no trace of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were reportedly controlled by Arafat, who started pressing for money to administer the PNA and its various agencies.
On several occasions, world donors got together and produced extra money to pay for PNA administration and then told Arafat he'd have to manage himself.
There has never been any credible auditing of the accounts of the PNA. Critics say many of those around him siphoned off PNA money through inflated contracts.
The security crisis developed with a spate of kidnappings that prompted Arafat to replace a police commander. However, he had to back down when he wanted to appoint his nephew and had to reverse the decision the next day amid major protests that saw the PNA office in Gaza set ablaze,
On Tuesday, Nabil Amr, a strong critic of Arafat, was shot and wounded at his home further highlighting the security problem and heralding what many fear to be armed clashes among rival Palestinian factions.
On top of that came a demand by the Palestinian parliament that Arafat accept his prime minister's resignation and appoint a government empowered to carry out reforms.
It was the Arafat camp's resistance to demands that prompted Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei to resign.
The Palestinian parliament is demanding that Arafat appoint a government "capable of carrying out its responsibilities," meaning giving it power to implement reforms. Similar calls have already been made on Arafat by the European Union as well as the Egyptian government.
Qorei is staying on as caretaker prime minister after Arafat
refused his resignation.
Arafat has also been pressed into revamping his security agencies. He had as many as eight different agencies, again reflecting his style of "not putting all the eggs in one basket." Effectively, having that many agencies meant that he could one against another and be assured that there is no one in overall charge except himself. This week, he reduced the number of security agencies to three, but he insisted that the head of the services report to him rather than the prime minister.
Qorei is seen to be betting that Arafat will be so embarrassed by the second resignation of a prime minister in little more than a year that he will hand over him genuine authority over security as well as authority to implement reforms. Arafat remains resistant, but he might not be able to hold out for long since the peace process is all but collapsed and he is rejected as negotiating partner by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Arafat's critics say that his position in negotiations with Israel under the Olso agreements was weakened because of his preoccupation dealing with dissent in ranks and fighting down any challenge to his absolute leadership style.
Arafat, known as one of the smartest survivors of today's leaders of freedom struggles, has outlived many crises. However, this time around, he find himself in a much weakened position, with mounting pressure from all sides.
There are many who remain convinced that Arafat will come out of the present crises, but, given the realities on the ground in Palestine, that would not make prospects for peace any brighter since Sharon, backed by the US, is bent upon implementing his vision of a "disengagement" with the Palestinians but without giving the Palestinians their rights.
Sharon remains defiant against the July 9 International Court of Justice ruling as well a UN General Assembly resolution issued on Tuesday calling for the dismantling of the "security" wall that it is building in the West Bank.
“The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law," said the IJC.
“Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto," it said. ,
“Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem," it said.
Israel had said even prior to the ruling that it would not abide by the court decision and it reiterated the same position and also rejected the UN General Assembly call.
Washington supports the Israeli position and that ends any debate over a realistic chance of Sharon being pressured into heeding the IJC and UN calls.
Sharon's defiance and his systematic elimination of Palestinian resistance leaders clearly indicate that there is little prospect for any meaningful negotiations for a peaceful settlements.
In order to pressure his international allies to continue to back him and pressure Israel into negotiations based on the internationally backed "road map" for peace, Arafat needs more credibility on the internal front and for that he needs to implement reforms.
The campaign for reform is led by a younger generation of Palestinians who are looking for results in their struggle against the Israeli occupation and who see the old guard as bogged down in corruption and rhetoric rather than action.
No one is denying that Arafat is the symbol of the struggle for liberation. It is his style of managing the struggle that has come under attack.
"The difference between Abu Ammar (Arafat) and myself is simple," veteran Palestinian leader George Habash once said. "Abu Ammar wants to become president of the state of Palestine while he is alive even if the state means enough land to stake down the Palestinian flag. I would be happy if my great grandson becomes a citizen of a free Palestine with all Palestinian rights restored even if it is 100 years from now."
No matter how one looks at the situation, Arafat is cornered. The question is: Will Arafat fight back from the corner still believing he would be able to impose himself on everyone or will be back down and accept the inevitability of reform that could only strengthen the cause and mission of his life?
Arafat faces multi-crises
PV Vivekanand
THERE is a security crisis and there is a political crisis within the Palestinian ranks, but solving them would not advance the Palestinian dream of independence. Indeed, the crises facing Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat are indeed the worst he had to confront since he assumed the helm of his people's struggle for liberation. Unless he moved swiftly to contain the situation, it might be too late for not only his survival as the symbol of the Palestinian struggle, but also the very fate of that struggle itself, writes PV Vivekanand.
For the first time, elected representatives of the Palestinians are demanding that Arafat crack down on corruption in his foundering administration. It is all the more ironic that the charges of corruption has been levelled not against an elected government in a free and sovereign state, but against the leaders of a revolutionary liberation movement of a people who have made and are continuing to make sublime sacrifices for the cause and have paid the price in untold suffering for their resistance against foreign occupation of their land.
It is not easy for Arafat, who is under virtual house arrest at his headquarters in Ramallah, to fight corruption among the people around him; many of them rally behind him only because he has been keeping a blind eye to their corrupt practices, and many would simply drop him if he were to hold them accountable for their shady financial dealings.
Corruption took roots in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from the very beginning if only because of the absence of any mechanism for accountability. It was a one-man show of Arafat, who went around Arab countries and collected hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for his liberation movement. He never accounted for the money to the donors or perhaps he did not feel the need to do so since he, as the living symbol of the Palestinian struggle for independence, was beyond reproach.
Arafat was "politically" careful with the money; he supported Palestinian refugee families recommended by his Fateh group, the dominant of the eight factions that made up the PLO, and then was selective in sharing the funds with other PLO factions; those whose positions, decisions and moves suited his thinking and interests got paid and others did not. That was the way he ran the PLO. At the same time, no one had any accurate idea about the PLO finances, including whether part of the money was invested abroad as was widely held. However, Arafat has never been accused of stashing away money for himself. The criticism was always against the way he played politics with PLO funds.
A simple example of Arafat's selective approach was seen in mid-1991 when he instructed his diplomatic representative in Amman, Jordan, not to settle the hotel bills of the leader of a leftist faction who had criticised him publicly. The faction leader had to borrow money from his cousins and friends in order to check out of the hotel.
Another example was when it was rumoured that Arafat had nearly $1 billion in PLO accounts under his control shortly after he signed the Oslo agreements in 1993. That rumour, his critics say, was instigated by himself because he wanted PLO factions which opposed the Oslo accords to support him in expectation that he was able to administer five-year autonomy of the West Bank and Gaza pending final status negotiations as envisaged under the agreement.
When the international community pledged nearly $2.5 billion as aid for the Palestinians to build themselves an entity in the Gaza Strip and West Bank following the signing of the Oslo agreements, the first thing Arafat would have expected was a direct transfer of the money to a bank account he controls. It jolted him to realise that the donors wanted every penny of their money accounted for and appointed the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the authority to decide how and where the money should be spent. It needed preliminary, feasibility and project studies before the UNDP would release any money to any project, and even at that there was no guarantee that every approved project would be financed.
Arafat and his associates never recovered from the shock of having to argue their case for ever dollar to be spent on building the Palestinian society in such a manner that everyone stood to lose something by returning to armed struggle.
The Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which was set up in 1996, was all but bankrupt when it was launched. It did not have money to pay the salaries of its policemen. There was no trace of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were reportedly controlled by Arafat, who started pressing for money to administer the PNA and its various agencies.
On several occasions, world donors got together and produced extra money to pay for PNA administration and then told Arafat he'd have to manage himself.
There has never been any credible auditing of the accounts of the PNA. Critics say many of those around him siphoned off PNA money through inflated contracts.
The security crisis developed with a spate of kidnappings that prompted Arafat to replace a police commander. However, he had to back down when he wanted to appoint his nephew and had to reverse the decision the next day amid major protests that saw the PNA office in Gaza set ablaze,
On Tuesday, Nabil Amr, a strong critic of Arafat, was shot and wounded at his home further highlighting the security problem and heralding what many fear to be armed clashes among rival Palestinian factions.
On top of that came a demand by the Palestinian parliament that Arafat accept his prime minister's resignation and appoint a government empowered to carry out reforms.
It was the Arafat camp's resistance to demands that prompted Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei to resign.
The Palestinian parliament is demanding that Arafat appoint a government "capable of carrying out its responsibilities," meaning giving it power to implement reforms. Similar calls have already been made on Arafat by the European Union as well as the Egyptian government.
Qorei is staying on as caretaker prime minister after Arafat
refused his resignation.
Arafat has also been pressed into revamping his security agencies. He had as many as eight different agencies, again reflecting his style of "not putting all the eggs in one basket." Effectively, having that many agencies meant that he could one against another and be assured that there is no one in overall charge except himself. This week, he reduced the number of security agencies to three, but he insisted that the head of the services report to him rather than the prime minister.
Qorei is seen to be betting that Arafat will be so embarrassed by the second resignation of a prime minister in little more than a year that he will hand over him genuine authority over security as well as authority to implement reforms. Arafat remains resistant, but he might not be able to hold out for long since the peace process is all but collapsed and he is rejected as negotiating partner by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Arafat's critics say that his position in negotiations with Israel under the Olso agreements was weakened because of his preoccupation dealing with dissent in ranks and fighting down any challenge to his absolute leadership style.
Arafat, known as one of the smartest survivors of today's leaders of freedom struggles, has outlived many crises. However, this time around, he find himself in a much weakened position, with mounting pressure from all sides.
There are many who remain convinced that Arafat will come out of the present crises, but, given the realities on the ground in Palestine, that would not make prospects for peace any brighter since Sharon, backed by the US, is bent upon implementing his vision of a "disengagement" with the Palestinians but without giving the Palestinians their rights.
Sharon remains defiant against the July 9 International Court of Justice ruling as well a UN General Assembly resolution issued on Tuesday calling for the dismantling of the "security" wall that it is building in the West Bank.
“The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law," said the IJC.
“Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto," it said. ,
“Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem," it said.
Israel had said even prior to the ruling that it would not abide by the court decision and it reiterated the same position and also rejected the UN General Assembly call.
Washington supports the Israeli position and that ends any debate over a realistic chance of Sharon being pressured into heeding the IJC and UN calls.
Sharon's defiance and his systematic elimination of Palestinian resistance leaders clearly indicate that there is little prospect for any meaningful negotiations for a peaceful settlements.
In order to pressure his international allies to continue to back him and pressure Israel into negotiations based on the internationally backed "road map" for peace, Arafat needs more credibility on the internal front and for that he needs to implement reforms.
The campaign for reform is led by a younger generation of Palestinians who are looking for results in their struggle against the Israeli occupation and who see the old guard as bogged down in corruption and rhetoric rather than action.
No one is denying that Arafat is the symbol of the struggle for liberation. It is his style of managing the struggle that has come under attack.
"The difference between Abu Ammar (Arafat) and myself is simple," veteran Palestinian leader George Habash once said. "Abu Ammar wants to become president of the state of Palestine while he is alive even if the state means enough land to stake down the Palestinian flag. I would be happy if my great grandson becomes a citizen of a free Palestine with all Palestinian rights restored even if it is 100 years from now."
No matter how one looks at the situation, Arafat is cornered. The question is: Will Arafat fight back from the corner still believing he would be able to impose himself on everyone or will be back down and accept the inevitability of reform that could only strengthen the cause and mission of his life?
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Iraq hopes scaled down
July 21 2004
Iraq hopes diminish
pv vivekanand
Hopes that the transfer of power in Iraq to the interim government would reduce guerrilla attacks have been scaled down in the wake of an increase in bombings and ambushes against the US-led coalition soldiers and their Iraqi allies.
Reports drawn up by US intelligence agencies and the Defence Department now portray a dramatically different picture than earlier expectations that Iraqi resistance as well as militant attacks against the US-led forces would ebb away after the interim government took over on June 28.
The conclusion now is that as long as there is a flow of money and arms into Iraq, the attacks would continue and there is little the US military or the interim government could do to bring the situation under control without committing an additional 100,000 soldiers supported by an extra 100,000 Iraqi security men.
The US is reporteldy planning to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq by 10,000 to 15,000 reservists by the end of the year. Simulataneously, the interim government is also building its police force.
Even with the additional forces, it would take several months of a "no-holds-barred" crackdown in all parts of the country to restore any semblance of normalcy that would be conducive to conducting elections in January.. Such action means detention of tens of thousands for indefinite periods without trial.
The coalition forces are facing trouble on many fronts.
Saddam loyalists have assumed control of the town of Samarra spanning the Tigris River north of Baghdad. Taliban-style fighters have vowed a fight to death before they allow American forces to enter Fallujah west of Baghdad to search for "foreign fighters." The town of Ramadi is following the Falloujah example.
Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army soldiers are keeping their peace in southern towns, but the situation is so tense that troubles could break out at the first given chance.
The Kurds are in control of most of the north of Iraq and life is normal there.
Hardline militants of the Ansar Al Islam group, which was chased away from northern Iraq, are said to be regrouping on the Iranian side of the border in the north.
Basra in the south is booming with Iranian-controlled trade. And terrorised life is a feature of Baghdad in central Iraq.
Reports indicate that Samarra is controlled by remnants of Saddam's Republican Guards who have redonned their uniforms and are defhying the coalition forces and the US-supported Iraqi Civil Defence Corps.
They are successfully held off attempts by the US forces from patrolling the streets of the predominantly Sunni town since early July.
In Falloujah, a security force, also made up of remnants from Saddam's armed forces, is in charge, but it is working closely with Islamist forces from the town and is refusing to disarm them. American forces fear entering the town, but they do lob a few missiles off and on against suspected guerrilla hideouts. Such strikes are helping to fuel not only the anti-US sentiments but also rejection of the interim government's authority because the missile attacks are approved by Allawi.
The US military claims that supporters of Jordanian-born Islamist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who allegedly masterminded dozens of devastating attacks on civilian targets, are holed up in Falloujah.
In the south, Moqtada Sadr has instructed his Mahdi Army militia co-operate with the police in restoring order, but trouble could break out if the militiamen were to be asked to give up their weapons.
Iraqi police want the militiamen to surrender their weapons, but the Sadrists counter that they want the arms to fight and subdue people they describe as arms merchants and drug traffickers as well Sunni militants planning to create trouble.
In the north, Ansar Al Islam, made of Kurdish militants many of whom former trainees at Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, have set up a camp on the Iranian side of the border.
The group maintained a camp in the village of Tawela stradling the Iraqi-Iranian border in north Iraq before the war. During the war, pro-US Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) fighters supported by American air power attacked and destroyed the camp. Some Ansar fighters were arrested but the bulk of Ansar camp esidents managed to escape across the border to Iran.
According to eyewitness accounts, Iranian security officials allowed only the Ansar camp residents across the border and refused other Iraqis who tried to enter Iran fleeing from the American military assault.
And now the Ansar Al Islam members are regrouping and have set up camps at the foot of an Iranian mountain range in Baramawa village, 20 kilometres west of Mariwan, and Darbandi Dizly near Daranaxa village further to the west.
Their presence is a threat the PUK and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) since Ansar Al Aslam opposed the PUK-KDP joint administration of autonomous Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
Ansar guerrillas have killed dozens of PUK members, including the "prime minister" of autonomous Kurdistan, who is now a vice-president in the interim government in Baghdad.
Worrying figures
The number of American soldiers killed in guerrilla attacks in the first 20 days of July is proportionately more than those who died in the entire month of June.
Statistics show that an average of two soldiers were killed every day in July from among the 160,000-strong coalition force (138,000 Americans and 22,000 allied soldiers); 38 have been killed between July 1 and July 20 compared with 42 in the month of June. However, the June figure was marked down from the 80 deaths in May and 135 in April.
More than 10,000 soldiers from the coalition were wounded since the war began, with more than 60 per cent of them unfit to be return to duty because of the severity of the injuries.
US officials had estimated that a maximum of 5,000 guerrillas falling under different groups — Saddam loyalists, Iraqi (Sunni and Shiite) opponents of the US role in Iraq and anti-American international jihadists — were active in Iraq. The figures were dramatically revised this month, with the total number of anti-US guerrillas from all groups estimated at more than 20,000.
The Americans and allied coalition forces are learning from their experience in Iraq how to deal with a guerrilla war, but the guerrillas are also perfecting their skills in mounting roadside bombings and suicide blasts as well as ambushes.
Large areas outside population centres are lawless, with not only guerrillas seeking targets but also hardcore bandits who rob anything and anyone entering their fiefdoms. The entire stretches of the highways running from Baghdad to the Jordanian and Syrian borders are no longer under the control of American or Iraqi government forces. Bandits roam the land and pick on anything that moves along those roads, witnesses have reported
An amnesty offered by the interim government is unlikely to draw in any sizeable number of fighters accepting it because assurances that they would be treated well sound hollow, given that Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is bringing back elements from the ousted Saddam Hussein regime known for their bruality and summary actions into the security forces and police.
Most worrying American strategists is what they see as the strong endurance power of Iraqis.
"The American planners did not take into consideration that Iraqis had lived under the tight UN sanctions for nearly 13 years and this has taught them to limit their needs," said a European expert. "There is no doubt that the US military and its coalition partners as well as the Iraqi security forces functioning under the interim government would have to double their numerical strength and also engage in a ruthless, all pervasive crackdown in order to check the resistance."
The pitfall in such an approach, the expert warned, is that the interim government and the coalition forces would alienate the Iraqi society further with arbitrary actions such as storming of homes, summary arrests, brutal interrogation methods, torture and detention without trial. Thousands of innoncents would be caught in the crossfire.
"The American and their Iraqi allies have a tiger by the tail," said the expert. "They cannot continue to take casualties at this rate but they cannot launch decisive action to stem the attacks without further fuelling the resistance while also drawing condemnation from the international community against what would be nothing but gross violations of human rights."
Allawi, who has set up a special agency to ferret out and eliminate the guerrillas, says that he has identified leaders of the resistance and his interim government is in a "dialogue" with them.
Obviously, the prime minister, a Shiite, is trying to convince the Sunni tribal leaders who fear that the majority Shiites would dominate the Sunnis in post-Saddam Iraq that they would not be victimised and their rights would be protected in a post-conflict Iraq. However, Allawi's assurances are set back by the firm positions adopted by the country's Shiite leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, who is sending out an impression from his southern powerbase that the Shiites are waiting for the elections to prove their clout in the country.
Iraq hopes diminish
pv vivekanand
Hopes that the transfer of power in Iraq to the interim government would reduce guerrilla attacks have been scaled down in the wake of an increase in bombings and ambushes against the US-led coalition soldiers and their Iraqi allies.
Reports drawn up by US intelligence agencies and the Defence Department now portray a dramatically different picture than earlier expectations that Iraqi resistance as well as militant attacks against the US-led forces would ebb away after the interim government took over on June 28.
The conclusion now is that as long as there is a flow of money and arms into Iraq, the attacks would continue and there is little the US military or the interim government could do to bring the situation under control without committing an additional 100,000 soldiers supported by an extra 100,000 Iraqi security men.
The US is reporteldy planning to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq by 10,000 to 15,000 reservists by the end of the year. Simulataneously, the interim government is also building its police force.
Even with the additional forces, it would take several months of a "no-holds-barred" crackdown in all parts of the country to restore any semblance of normalcy that would be conducive to conducting elections in January.. Such action means detention of tens of thousands for indefinite periods without trial.
The coalition forces are facing trouble on many fronts.
Saddam loyalists have assumed control of the town of Samarra spanning the Tigris River north of Baghdad. Taliban-style fighters have vowed a fight to death before they allow American forces to enter Fallujah west of Baghdad to search for "foreign fighters." The town of Ramadi is following the Falloujah example.
Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army soldiers are keeping their peace in southern towns, but the situation is so tense that troubles could break out at the first given chance.
The Kurds are in control of most of the north of Iraq and life is normal there.
Hardline militants of the Ansar Al Islam group, which was chased away from northern Iraq, are said to be regrouping on the Iranian side of the border in the north.
Basra in the south is booming with Iranian-controlled trade. And terrorised life is a feature of Baghdad in central Iraq.
Reports indicate that Samarra is controlled by remnants of Saddam's Republican Guards who have redonned their uniforms and are defhying the coalition forces and the US-supported Iraqi Civil Defence Corps.
They are successfully held off attempts by the US forces from patrolling the streets of the predominantly Sunni town since early July.
In Falloujah, a security force, also made up of remnants from Saddam's armed forces, is in charge, but it is working closely with Islamist forces from the town and is refusing to disarm them. American forces fear entering the town, but they do lob a few missiles off and on against suspected guerrilla hideouts. Such strikes are helping to fuel not only the anti-US sentiments but also rejection of the interim government's authority because the missile attacks are approved by Allawi.
The US military claims that supporters of Jordanian-born Islamist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who allegedly masterminded dozens of devastating attacks on civilian targets, are holed up in Falloujah.
In the south, Moqtada Sadr has instructed his Mahdi Army militia co-operate with the police in restoring order, but trouble could break out if the militiamen were to be asked to give up their weapons.
Iraqi police want the militiamen to surrender their weapons, but the Sadrists counter that they want the arms to fight and subdue people they describe as arms merchants and drug traffickers as well Sunni militants planning to create trouble.
In the north, Ansar Al Islam, made of Kurdish militants many of whom former trainees at Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, have set up a camp on the Iranian side of the border.
The group maintained a camp in the village of Tawela stradling the Iraqi-Iranian border in north Iraq before the war. During the war, pro-US Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) fighters supported by American air power attacked and destroyed the camp. Some Ansar fighters were arrested but the bulk of Ansar camp esidents managed to escape across the border to Iran.
According to eyewitness accounts, Iranian security officials allowed only the Ansar camp residents across the border and refused other Iraqis who tried to enter Iran fleeing from the American military assault.
And now the Ansar Al Islam members are regrouping and have set up camps at the foot of an Iranian mountain range in Baramawa village, 20 kilometres west of Mariwan, and Darbandi Dizly near Daranaxa village further to the west.
Their presence is a threat the PUK and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) since Ansar Al Aslam opposed the PUK-KDP joint administration of autonomous Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
Ansar guerrillas have killed dozens of PUK members, including the "prime minister" of autonomous Kurdistan, who is now a vice-president in the interim government in Baghdad.
Worrying figures
The number of American soldiers killed in guerrilla attacks in the first 20 days of July is proportionately more than those who died in the entire month of June.
Statistics show that an average of two soldiers were killed every day in July from among the 160,000-strong coalition force (138,000 Americans and 22,000 allied soldiers); 38 have been killed between July 1 and July 20 compared with 42 in the month of June. However, the June figure was marked down from the 80 deaths in May and 135 in April.
More than 10,000 soldiers from the coalition were wounded since the war began, with more than 60 per cent of them unfit to be return to duty because of the severity of the injuries.
US officials had estimated that a maximum of 5,000 guerrillas falling under different groups — Saddam loyalists, Iraqi (Sunni and Shiite) opponents of the US role in Iraq and anti-American international jihadists — were active in Iraq. The figures were dramatically revised this month, with the total number of anti-US guerrillas from all groups estimated at more than 20,000.
The Americans and allied coalition forces are learning from their experience in Iraq how to deal with a guerrilla war, but the guerrillas are also perfecting their skills in mounting roadside bombings and suicide blasts as well as ambushes.
Large areas outside population centres are lawless, with not only guerrillas seeking targets but also hardcore bandits who rob anything and anyone entering their fiefdoms. The entire stretches of the highways running from Baghdad to the Jordanian and Syrian borders are no longer under the control of American or Iraqi government forces. Bandits roam the land and pick on anything that moves along those roads, witnesses have reported
An amnesty offered by the interim government is unlikely to draw in any sizeable number of fighters accepting it because assurances that they would be treated well sound hollow, given that Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is bringing back elements from the ousted Saddam Hussein regime known for their bruality and summary actions into the security forces and police.
Most worrying American strategists is what they see as the strong endurance power of Iraqis.
"The American planners did not take into consideration that Iraqis had lived under the tight UN sanctions for nearly 13 years and this has taught them to limit their needs," said a European expert. "There is no doubt that the US military and its coalition partners as well as the Iraqi security forces functioning under the interim government would have to double their numerical strength and also engage in a ruthless, all pervasive crackdown in order to check the resistance."
The pitfall in such an approach, the expert warned, is that the interim government and the coalition forces would alienate the Iraqi society further with arbitrary actions such as storming of homes, summary arrests, brutal interrogation methods, torture and detention without trial. Thousands of innoncents would be caught in the crossfire.
"The American and their Iraqi allies have a tiger by the tail," said the expert. "They cannot continue to take casualties at this rate but they cannot launch decisive action to stem the attacks without further fuelling the resistance while also drawing condemnation from the international community against what would be nothing but gross violations of human rights."
Allawi, who has set up a special agency to ferret out and eliminate the guerrillas, says that he has identified leaders of the resistance and his interim government is in a "dialogue" with them.
Obviously, the prime minister, a Shiite, is trying to convince the Sunni tribal leaders who fear that the majority Shiites would dominate the Sunnis in post-Saddam Iraq that they would not be victimised and their rights would be protected in a post-conflict Iraq. However, Allawi's assurances are set back by the firm positions adopted by the country's Shiite leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, who is sending out an impression from his southern powerbase that the Shiites are waiting for the elections to prove their clout in the country.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Uniting or dividing Iraqis?
July 20 2004
Uniting or dividing Iraqis"?
PV Vivekanand
The Iraqi National Convention, which is aimed at uniting Iraqis under the forerunner of a democratic umbrella, could turn to be a forum for dividing the people of the beleaguered country and deepen schisms between the ethnically diverse Iraqi society.
It is Iraqis' first experience in getting together with a view to interacting although the mandate of the conference is limited. At the same time, it could also be a stage for leaders of various religious, ethnic, social and political groupings to meet and discuss the situation in the country after the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime.
Never before in recent history have the Iraqis been afforded an opportunity to attend a national conference where they could air their views without fear. "National conferences" were indeed held during the Saddam regime, but they inevitably tended to be forums to heap praise on Saddam and his government. Anyone who dared to criticise the regime risked his life. Therefore the upcoming convention should indeed be considered as a historic opportunity for the people of Iraq to start having a say in their affairs.
However, as reports from Baghdad indicate, politicians— mostly exiles who returned home after Saddam was ousted last year — have already hijacked the event. But then, that is the way politics work and first-time experiments could not be expected to work out perfectly, say the organisers of the forum.
The conference is an idea of the United Nations. Lakhdar Ibrahimi, the then UN special envoy to Iraq, worked out the details. He proposed that 1,000 people representing all religions, sects, tribes, and social and political groups as well as academics attend the conference and select 100 from among the participants to form an interim assembly.
The structure of the conference as well as the interim assembly proposed by Ibrahimi would have ensured a fair and just balance based on Iraq's ethnic diversities. However, that structure is deemed to have been undermined by now.
According to Jawadat Al Obeidi, secretary-general of the Iraqi Democratic Congress, a group which includes 216 Iraqi political parties, "gifted and honest Iraqi personalities" have been sidelined and their efforts to attend the conference were stonewalled by members of the Supreme Commission for the Preparation of the National Conference.
The interim assembly will act as parliament and will advise the interim government headed by President Ghazi Al Yawar and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi which took office on June 28.
It will have the authority to veto legislation and appoint alternate ministers and could replace the president and vice-presidents, the prime ministers and cabinet members in the event of death. The assembly will also determine the country's budget for 2005 and draft Iraq's constitution.
Security is indeed an issue for the conference and guerrillas who oppose the US-backed process have stepped up their attacks. As of Wednesday, even the venue of the conference remained a closely guarded secret.
Twenty-one of the 100 seats are already "gone" — taken over by 20 members of the now dissolved interim governing council and Fuad Masoum, a Kurd who is in charge of convening the meeting. Only Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, and four other members of the defunct governing council who joined the interim cabinet opted not to "reserve" seats for themselves in the assembly.
Apart from sealing their seats, the 20 others have also staked claims for their allies and cronies in the assembly, meaning that the bulk of the rest of the seats — 79 — have already been spoken for. As such, critics argue that the meeting, which begins on Saturday, will be nothing but a stage-managed event where many aspiring Iraqi politicians would find they are destined to be left out, and many have already announced they would not be attending the forum. Some of them have said they do not want to be part of a conference that is being "arranged" by the "occupation" since they do not recognise the transfer of sovereignty to the interim government by the US and continue to consider the country as occupied by the US-led coalition forces.
On the other hand, signs of a Shiite effort to dominate the conference and the assembly itself have emerged. Leading that effort is said to be Chalabi, a one-time American favourite as Saddam Hussein's successor in post-war Iraq.
Chalabi, who fell out with the Americans over charges that he misled the US on Saddam's alleged weapons stockpile, misappropriated American funds granted for spying and provided confidential intelligence information to Iran, has definitely groped his way back to a position of influence with or without American help.
He is a member of the Supreme Commission for the Preparation of the National Conference.
Reports indicate that he, with help from an umbrella group representing Shiites, has made sure that a significant number of the 1,000 people being asked to attend the conference are his people. So have a few other "influential" former members of the interim governing council, reports say.
In principle, the Iraqi conference should be be structured along the Afghan loya jiga model and attended by tribal leaders, academics, scholars, intellectuals, youth delegates, artists, writers, poets, leaders of professional associations and unions and religous leaders.
Around 550 of the 1,000 participants in the convention will be representatives of Iraq's 17 provinces and about 350 will be representatives of political parties, religious, tribal and nongovernmental groups, and "high-profile personalities." Twenty-five per cent should be women.
Political and ethnic power struggles characterised the selection of representatives from the provinces. Christians are given three seats, but they are demanding another two. Yazidis, Assyrians and other minority groups are complaining of low representation for themselves.
Motqada Sadr, the firebrand Shiite leader based in Najaf, has boycotted the process.
Sunnis from central Iraq complain that they have not been given the opporunity to select their "genuine represenatives." The Muslim Clerics' Association, a mainstream Sunni religious group, has also said it will not take part in the conference.
The Sunnis as well as many Shiites say it is meaningless to attend an event whose conclusion has already been determined.
According to reports, it is only a formality that it would be announced at the conference that Sharif Ali Bin Al Hussein, a descendent of the Hashemite royal family which was toppled in 1958, will be the speaker of the Interim National Council in a move arranged by Paul Bremer, the US viceroy who left Iraq on June 28 after handing over "sovereignty" to the interim government.
It is "arrangements" like these that have upset many. They might agree that Sharif Ali is the right candidate for the job, but they oppose the idea that the US has already made all the decisions to be taken at the conference.
Prominent intellectuals and leaders upstart political parties have declined invitations to attend the conference. They say their presence will only be used to legitimise what they see as an illegitimate process.
"We won't give them the legitimacy of our participation," Sheikh Jawad Khalisi, an influential Shiite Muslim cleric, was quoted as saying by the Los Angeles Times.
Khalisi is part of an alliance of Shiite, Sunni Muslim and Christian leaders and prominent academics who include Baghdad University political science professor Wamidh Namdi and Sheihk Harith Dhari, a powerful Sunni imam, said the paper.
"Every country that has been occupied throughout history has had some of its sons who cooperated with the occupation and some of its sons who resisted the occupation. We're choosing to resist," Khalisi said.
Nadhmi recently told the Washington Post that he and seven others declined to attend the conference: "We are not going to be used to give legitimacy to a constitution or a committee which has been, directly or indirectly, appointed by the occupation."
Ibrahimi, the erstwhile UN envoy to Iraq, had prepared a list of names of participants. Chalabi, reports say, cited secret files his people have took away from the former government's offices that show that some of the Ibrahimi nominees nominees had close ties with the Saddam regime; that made sure they were excluded.
Despite the divisions and schisms, there is no doubt that the convention is the first step for national interaction among Iraqis in the post-Saddam era. Many in the region feel that the process should have been more transparent with a view to bringing to the fore the diverse ideas and convictions of the people of Iraq rather than being set off in a direction where decisions designed to serve external interests are likely to be imposed on the very people who have to live with those decisions.
Uniting or dividing Iraqis"?
PV Vivekanand
The Iraqi National Convention, which is aimed at uniting Iraqis under the forerunner of a democratic umbrella, could turn to be a forum for dividing the people of the beleaguered country and deepen schisms between the ethnically diverse Iraqi society.
It is Iraqis' first experience in getting together with a view to interacting although the mandate of the conference is limited. At the same time, it could also be a stage for leaders of various religious, ethnic, social and political groupings to meet and discuss the situation in the country after the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime.
Never before in recent history have the Iraqis been afforded an opportunity to attend a national conference where they could air their views without fear. "National conferences" were indeed held during the Saddam regime, but they inevitably tended to be forums to heap praise on Saddam and his government. Anyone who dared to criticise the regime risked his life. Therefore the upcoming convention should indeed be considered as a historic opportunity for the people of Iraq to start having a say in their affairs.
However, as reports from Baghdad indicate, politicians— mostly exiles who returned home after Saddam was ousted last year — have already hijacked the event. But then, that is the way politics work and first-time experiments could not be expected to work out perfectly, say the organisers of the forum.
The conference is an idea of the United Nations. Lakhdar Ibrahimi, the then UN special envoy to Iraq, worked out the details. He proposed that 1,000 people representing all religions, sects, tribes, and social and political groups as well as academics attend the conference and select 100 from among the participants to form an interim assembly.
The structure of the conference as well as the interim assembly proposed by Ibrahimi would have ensured a fair and just balance based on Iraq's ethnic diversities. However, that structure is deemed to have been undermined by now.
According to Jawadat Al Obeidi, secretary-general of the Iraqi Democratic Congress, a group which includes 216 Iraqi political parties, "gifted and honest Iraqi personalities" have been sidelined and their efforts to attend the conference were stonewalled by members of the Supreme Commission for the Preparation of the National Conference.
The interim assembly will act as parliament and will advise the interim government headed by President Ghazi Al Yawar and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi which took office on June 28.
It will have the authority to veto legislation and appoint alternate ministers and could replace the president and vice-presidents, the prime ministers and cabinet members in the event of death. The assembly will also determine the country's budget for 2005 and draft Iraq's constitution.
Security is indeed an issue for the conference and guerrillas who oppose the US-backed process have stepped up their attacks. As of Wednesday, even the venue of the conference remained a closely guarded secret.
Twenty-one of the 100 seats are already "gone" — taken over by 20 members of the now dissolved interim governing council and Fuad Masoum, a Kurd who is in charge of convening the meeting. Only Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, and four other members of the defunct governing council who joined the interim cabinet opted not to "reserve" seats for themselves in the assembly.
Apart from sealing their seats, the 20 others have also staked claims for their allies and cronies in the assembly, meaning that the bulk of the rest of the seats — 79 — have already been spoken for. As such, critics argue that the meeting, which begins on Saturday, will be nothing but a stage-managed event where many aspiring Iraqi politicians would find they are destined to be left out, and many have already announced they would not be attending the forum. Some of them have said they do not want to be part of a conference that is being "arranged" by the "occupation" since they do not recognise the transfer of sovereignty to the interim government by the US and continue to consider the country as occupied by the US-led coalition forces.
On the other hand, signs of a Shiite effort to dominate the conference and the assembly itself have emerged. Leading that effort is said to be Chalabi, a one-time American favourite as Saddam Hussein's successor in post-war Iraq.
Chalabi, who fell out with the Americans over charges that he misled the US on Saddam's alleged weapons stockpile, misappropriated American funds granted for spying and provided confidential intelligence information to Iran, has definitely groped his way back to a position of influence with or without American help.
He is a member of the Supreme Commission for the Preparation of the National Conference.
Reports indicate that he, with help from an umbrella group representing Shiites, has made sure that a significant number of the 1,000 people being asked to attend the conference are his people. So have a few other "influential" former members of the interim governing council, reports say.
In principle, the Iraqi conference should be be structured along the Afghan loya jiga model and attended by tribal leaders, academics, scholars, intellectuals, youth delegates, artists, writers, poets, leaders of professional associations and unions and religous leaders.
Around 550 of the 1,000 participants in the convention will be representatives of Iraq's 17 provinces and about 350 will be representatives of political parties, religious, tribal and nongovernmental groups, and "high-profile personalities." Twenty-five per cent should be women.
Political and ethnic power struggles characterised the selection of representatives from the provinces. Christians are given three seats, but they are demanding another two. Yazidis, Assyrians and other minority groups are complaining of low representation for themselves.
Motqada Sadr, the firebrand Shiite leader based in Najaf, has boycotted the process.
Sunnis from central Iraq complain that they have not been given the opporunity to select their "genuine represenatives." The Muslim Clerics' Association, a mainstream Sunni religious group, has also said it will not take part in the conference.
The Sunnis as well as many Shiites say it is meaningless to attend an event whose conclusion has already been determined.
According to reports, it is only a formality that it would be announced at the conference that Sharif Ali Bin Al Hussein, a descendent of the Hashemite royal family which was toppled in 1958, will be the speaker of the Interim National Council in a move arranged by Paul Bremer, the US viceroy who left Iraq on June 28 after handing over "sovereignty" to the interim government.
It is "arrangements" like these that have upset many. They might agree that Sharif Ali is the right candidate for the job, but they oppose the idea that the US has already made all the decisions to be taken at the conference.
Prominent intellectuals and leaders upstart political parties have declined invitations to attend the conference. They say their presence will only be used to legitimise what they see as an illegitimate process.
"We won't give them the legitimacy of our participation," Sheikh Jawad Khalisi, an influential Shiite Muslim cleric, was quoted as saying by the Los Angeles Times.
Khalisi is part of an alliance of Shiite, Sunni Muslim and Christian leaders and prominent academics who include Baghdad University political science professor Wamidh Namdi and Sheihk Harith Dhari, a powerful Sunni imam, said the paper.
"Every country that has been occupied throughout history has had some of its sons who cooperated with the occupation and some of its sons who resisted the occupation. We're choosing to resist," Khalisi said.
Nadhmi recently told the Washington Post that he and seven others declined to attend the conference: "We are not going to be used to give legitimacy to a constitution or a committee which has been, directly or indirectly, appointed by the occupation."
Ibrahimi, the erstwhile UN envoy to Iraq, had prepared a list of names of participants. Chalabi, reports say, cited secret files his people have took away from the former government's offices that show that some of the Ibrahimi nominees nominees had close ties with the Saddam regime; that made sure they were excluded.
Despite the divisions and schisms, there is no doubt that the convention is the first step for national interaction among Iraqis in the post-Saddam era. Many in the region feel that the process should have been more transparent with a view to bringing to the fore the diverse ideas and convictions of the people of Iraq rather than being set off in a direction where decisions designed to serve external interests are likely to be imposed on the very people who have to live with those decisions.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Allawi signs emergency law
PV Vivekanand
Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi
has signed into law sweeping new emergency security
measures aimed at fighting the raging guerrilla war
against US-led coalition forces and their Iraqi
allies.
The law called National Safety Law gives Allawi the
power to declare martial law and a state of
emergency, issue arrest warrants, impose curfews,
arrest suspects, ban associations, restrict movement
of foreigners, bar demonstrations, and open mail and
tap telephones.The measures will be temporary and will
apply only in parts of Iraq.
The state of emergency cannot extend past 60 days and
must be dissolved as soon as the danger has ended,
but it can be renewed every 30 days, with a letter of
approval by the prime minister and the president and
deputy presidents. The same applies to curfews, which
could be imposed for limited periods of time in
limited areas.
The law grants Allawi the right to declare emergency
law in "any area of Iraq where people face a threat
to the lives of its citizen because of some people's
permanent violent campaign to prevent the creation of
a government that represents all Iraqis."
Effectively, it changes little on the ground since the
same measures were adopted by the US-led occupation
forces which handed over sovereignty to the interim
government on June 28.
UN Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 8 still
grants the American military many powers to introduce
those measures if it finds fit to do so.
The law is the first concrete move Allawi adopted
after taking over from the US-led forces, which remain
the country to ensure security.
Under the new law, courts would stay open seven days a
week to ensure the interior ministry and police could
obtain arrest warrants.
The government is also expected to announce an
amnesty for those insurgents not directly involved in
guerrilla attacks.
The widely anticipated National Safety Law, which
draws heavily from legislation in force during the
Saddam Hussein reign, had been delayed several times
as the government finalised the details and consulted
with American officials.
The law represents a forceful response to ther
tenacious insurgency and lays the groundwork for a
forceful response to civil unrest. The law was written
with the input of lawyers and the ministers of justice
and of human rights.
Allawi's government has said it also plans to restore
the death penalty, which was suspended during the US
occupation authority's reign that ended on June 28,
but the new law does not contain any reference to it.
Allawi, in interview with a Spanish paper, said on
Wednesday: "We want a restricted death penalty, for a
limited time, until there are elections and Iraqis can
decide for themselves.
He said the interim government had not yet made a
decision on how the death penalty should be
implemented.
The National Safety Law says the prime minister has
the right to "impose restrictions on the freedoms of
citizens or foreigners in Iraq" in the event of a
"dangerous threat" or "the occurrence of armed
instability that threatens state institutions or its
infrastructure."
The prime minister also has the power to take direct
control of all security and intelligence forces in the
area under emergency rule. He can also "appoint a
military or civilian commander to assume
administration of an emergency area" with the help of
an emergency force, as long as the president approves
it."
Restrictions that the prime minister could order
include banning of travel, group meetings and the
possession of weapons.
The law allows for the detention of "those suspicious
by their behaviour and to search them or search their
homes and places of employment and to impose mandatory
residence upon them."
The law states that a 100-member interim national
assembly expected to be formed later this month could
oversee how the law is enforced.
The prime minister's decisions under emergency rule
are subject to the review of the court of appeals,
which can cancel the decisions. The law forbids the
prime minister to cancel the transitional
administrative law during a state of emergency. The
law was signed by American administrators and Iraqi
Governing Council members in early March and functions
as an interim constitution.
.The law prevents the prime minister from exercising
martial powers in the region of Kurdistan without
consulting officials there.
Human Rights Minister Bakhityar Amin said the new law
was an absolute necessity.
"The lives of the Iraqi people are in danger, they are
in danger from evil forces, from gangs from
terrorists," he said. Amin compared the law to the US
Patriot Act.
Justice Minister Malik Dohan Al Hassan said the
premier would need to get warrants from an Iraqi court
before he could take each step.
"We realise this law might restrict some liberties,
but there are a number of guarantees," Hassan said.
"We have tried to guarantee justice and also to
guarantee human rights."
However, the law was needed to combat the insurgents
who are "preventing government employees from
attending their jobs, preventing foreign workers from
entering the country to help rebuild Iraq and in
general trying to derail general elections," he said.
Amin said the human rights and justice ministries will
form a joint body to monitor all areas where the
emergency laws are declared and investigate any
allegations of human rights violations.
Hassan said that in case Iraqi forces are unable to
perform their tasks or are overwhelmed, the Iraqis
"will request the assistance of foreign forces."
A senior US military official speaking on condition of
anonymity, said the Americans believe the new law will
not detract from the efforts of coalition forces here.
"We'll still be able to go out and do our mission,"
the official said. "There may be a requirement or
need for increase of co-ordination with specific rules
and specific measures that are going to be put in
place by the Iraqi government."
The emergency law had been expected to include a
provision providing amnesty for guerrillas who fought
the Americans before the June 28 sovereignty transfer
because their actions were legitimate acts of
resistance.
Amin, the human rights minister, said the amnesty was
still under discussion and "will be issued soon, as
soon as it's approved by the cabinet and presidential
council."
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Sex racket in Dubai
Two girls from Kerala who escaped from the
clutches of flesh-traders have unearthed organised
gangs involving Keralites luring girls from the
southern Indian state to the UAE with job offers and
then forcing them into prostitution.
The two separate cases have prompted Indian consulate
officials in Dubai to caution Indian women travelling
alone to anywhere in the Gulf on visit visas or
employment visas given to them by unknown parties
should verify the authenticity of the sponsor or
arrange to have a relative or a friend or someone
deemed reliable to receive them upon arrival.
It was always known that there were Keralite girls in
Dubai engaged in prostitution in small discreet, one-
or two-bedroom apartments in places like Deira, Bur
Dubai and Karama. However, it is the first time that
two of them have managed to escape and recounted
stories of how they were brought to the UAE on visit
was — with promises of employment — and then whisked
away from the airport to virtual bondage and pressed
into the oldest profession against their will.
Rajni, 25, (name changed) from central Kerala, is a
graduate in hotel management. She was working in
Bangalore, but tensions within the family prompted her
to take up what then appeared to be a "chance" offer
of employment in the UAE. She came to Dubai and was
picked up from the airport and driven to what she
learnt later was "the godown" — a place where girls
like her are told that their job is to sexually
entertain "clients."
The process of turning girls like Rajani into
prostitutes is known in the trade as "training" and
involved other Keralite women who are either already
in the trade or arrange "clients" for prostitutes and
take a commission.
Rajni refused, and next thing she knew was she was
raped and severely beaten up. She was locked up in a
room and denied food and water for several days until
she agreed to engage in prostitution.
All her "operators" as well as "clients" were from
Kerala.
Whenever she refused to "co-operate" she was beaten up
and starved. After a few days, she was being moved
from apartment to apartment at three-day or four-day
intervals.
She was kept under constant watch and was not allowed
to contact her family except on certain days when she
was handed a mobile phone and permitted to speak a few
words of pleasantries and niceties.
It took her more than three months to find a
"sympathetic client" — again, a Keralite — who agreed
to help her.
Rajni managed her escape while she was being moved
from one apartment to another in a taxi. She contacted
the man who promised to help her and she ended up at
a centre run by the Indian Welfare Association from
where she was flown home last week after the consulate
here issued her an outpass (since her passport was
held by her "operator") air passage provided by
well-wishing donors.
Chandni, 30, (name changed) a divorced mother of three
children, came to Dubai to work as a housemaid but on
a visit visa and ended up "entertaining" men.
After several weeks of an ordeal very similar to
Rajni, Chandni, with help from a "client," fled from
her "operator." However, her problems did not end
there. Her "operator" threatened the man who helped
her and took from him 7,000 dirhams in order to
"release" Chandni.
Chandni flew home on Monday.
These two cases are only the tip of an iceberg, by
most accounts.
Sources familiar with the racket say that a dozen or
so men and women are at its helm and they have
"agents" throughout Kerala always on the lookout for
vulnerable women — divorcees, those having serious
family problems, and those in financial crises — in
small villages and towns.
They approach such women with job offers in the Gulf
and the bait is easily swallowed, particularly that
the women are promised that they would be able to sent
home at least Rs15,000 a month.
Once they end up in the flesh trade here, they are
trapped. They cannot break away from from the gangs
and would not want to inform their family of the
reality of the situation — even if they had the
opportunity — because of the social stigma.
According to the sources, there are several hundred
Keralite women who have been brought here and forces
into prostitution.
"Only a small percentage of them knew beforehand that
they would be working as prostitutes here," said one
source.
As more cases emerge of Keralite women being brought
to Dubai on promises of employment and forced into
prostitution, police sources say they are unable to
act against the culprits in the absence of specific
complaints.
"We take immediate and stern action whenever a
complaint is filed," said a source. "We cannot act
based on generalities or media reports."
Wherever specifics are brought to their attention, the
immigration authorities conduct raids and detain
suspects on charges of violating immigration laws,
which is a regular feature in most cases, according to
the sources.
In the cases of Rajni and Chandni, complaints were
filed and those involved have been detained pending
prosecution.
An Indian source familiar with the approach of the
immigration authorities revealed several recent cases,
all of them involving only Keralites.
One of them involved a former employee of the defence
department who was engaged in strong-arm tactics. The
man used proxies to procure Keralite girls engaged in
prostitution and keep them as hostages in areas
outside Dubai. Other proxies will then inform the
"operator" of the girls that the issue could be
settled if the man was named as mediator.
The "mediator" then acts on behalf of the operator to
secure the release of the girls on payment of several
thousand dirhams, with no one suspecting him to be the
real culprit. Inevitably, the girls were sent back to
the "operator."
"He continued for some time and made some big money,
but then the authorities caught him on a specific
complaint some eight weeks ago," said the Indian
source. "He was found to have violated immigration
laws and was deported, with a ban on re-entry for one
year.
"However, the authorities found out that the man had
returned carrying a different passport after three
weeks. Apparently he sneaked back through Buraimi (in
Oman on the border of Al Ain, but administered by the
UAE).
"The man went underground when he suspected that he
was being hunted and spread word that he left the
country, but the authorities know that he is still
around and they are determined to nab him," said the
source.
During a recent raid of an apartment where 10 Russian
and two Indian girls were found engaged in
prostitution, a man who stood guard at the door jumped
down from the fourth-floor and injured himself. The
youth turned out to be the first man's nephew."
In another case, a middle-aged man was found to have
brought his 20-year-old unmarried niece to Dubai and
handed her over to flesh traders. The reason: He was
settling a score with his sister, the girl's mother,
in a dispute over property.
The authorities caught him and deported him on
immigration charges when the girl filed a complaint.
Rates for the girls range from 50 dirhams for a
one-time engagement upwards depending on a
classification of "regulars," "newcomers," "VIP," and
"VVIP" commanding up to 1,000 dirhams for a night.
"The charges are split among several parties, with the
girl getting less than 15 or 10 per cent," according
to the source. "For example, she might get 10 dirhams
from the 50 dirhams a customer paid. If she is lucky,
she might get some tip from the client."
Another case involved a young Keralite girl settled in
Tamil Nadu brought her as employed as an office
executive. Things went well for several weeks before
she was confronted by the Keralite manager who accused
her of being responsible for the company's alleged
loss of tens of thousands of dirhams. She was told she
had to make good the loss or be ready to go to prison
for at least two years. The third alternative:
"Entertain" some of the company's "clients."
Several weeks later, the girl found herself unable to
do anything but to continue to have sex with dozens of
"clients" everyday from a two-bedroom apartment in
Deira. She has by now realised the company, her
employment and the company's losses were all stage
managed into trapping her.
Now she does not want to go back home. "All I want is
to make enough money for me to buy a small house
somewhere far away from my family and settle down
there," she says. "I can't face my family." Shoba (not
real name), 31, a widowed mother of two from a village
near Trichur, recalls that she was brought here three
years ago to work a housemaid. "I was taken to an
apartment in Dubai and told my job was to sleep with
men," she said. "I refused, and they locked me up and
starved me for more than two weeks and regularly beat
me up until I lost my ability to resist and agreed to
whatever they told me to do."
Shoba was rescued by a Keralite customer, who paid her
"operator" 11,000 dirhams for her "release." Prakash
(not real name) married her. Subsequently, he lost his
job and he had no option but to draw from his
experience and that of his wife Shoba to run a
brothel themselves.
However, they swore that they never brought any girl
to the UAE to work as a prostitute.
"We just used our apartment for clients to have sex
with girls, who were sent her as a regular rotation by
other operators with whom we had an understanding,"
said Prakash in a conversation before he and Shoba
left the UAE two months ago. "We used to make 300 to
400 dirhams every day."
For those Malayalis who might take a fancy to any of
the girls and want her as a discreet "keep" and could
afford to pay, the charge for her to be "released"
from the bondage of her "operator" is anywhere upwards
of 15,000 dirhams in cash. Then she, her maintenance
and legal status and whatever else become his
responsibility.
Sept.14
DUBAI: A 23-year-old girl from Kerala who paid a hefty
amount to her friend's mother for what she thought was
an employment visa in the UAE was on her back home on
Tuesday after she escaped from a group of flesh
traders, also from Kerala.
It was the latest case of rescue of Keralite girls
lured to the UAE with job offers and then forced into
prostitution by organised Keralite syndicates. Four
such girls were rescued and sent home in the last
three weeks.
Several more are waiting for immigration clearance for
their temporary outpasses — since their passports were
taken away from them immediately after they landed at
the airport by the persons who brought them here in
the first place.
Reports of the cases have emboldened many who know of
similar others to contact media personnel as well as
the Indian consulate here with appeals for help.
Two of the girls who went back have spoken to
newspapers in Kerala of how they were "recruited" for
jobs with tempting salaries but turned into
prostitutes after they landed here.
The latest escapee, who hails from an impoverished
family from central Kerala, landed in Dubai on Sept.4
and taken to an apartment on the border between Dubai
and Sharjah.
The girl had discontinued a degree course in Kerala
after one year because of financial problems at home
and completed a course in computer applications.
She was contacted by the mother of one of her friends
offering the job of a "computer operator" in the UAE
in return for Rs75,000. Her family somehow raised the
money and paid the woman, who arranged a visit visa
for her and sent her here on a flight from Coimbatore.
Coimbatore is the take-off airport of choice of the
racketeers since immigration officers at Trivandrum,
Calicut and Cochin airports are deemed strict in
verifying the papers of women travelling alone to the
Gulf.
The girl was received by two men at Dubai airport and
taken to a flat situated opposite the sprawling Sahara
Shopping Mall on the line straddling the emirates of
Dubai and Sharjah. There were two other girls in the
flat and in a matter of hours she realised that she
had walked into a trap.
"I did not know what to do after the other girls told
me about their stories of how they ended up as virtual
slaves in custody and forced to become prostitutes,"
she recounted. "They told me how they were beaten up
mercilessly and starved when they refused to entertain
'clients', and kept that way until they agreed to do
whatever was asked of them," she said.
There were two men in the flat who were in charge of
the girls. One of them, named only as Satish, told the
newcomer to be "ready for the interview, but you know
by now what the interview will be."
"I lived in terror for the next two days during which
the other girls in the apartment were replaced," said
the girl. "Men used to come to the flat but someone
Satish or anyone else did not force me into anything."
On the second day, at around 8pm, she and other girl
were asked to dress up to go out. "We were brought
down by Satish and handed over to two men in a car,"
she said. "As the other girl got into the car, I
simply ran the other way thinking that even if I died
it would be better than what as awaiting me if I had
gotten into that car."
"I had no idea where I was running, but kept on going
and I almost bumped into a man who stopped and asked
me in English what the problem was, and I told him,
'please help me I am running away from someone'."
The man, Abdullah, a native of Andhra Pradesh,
appeared to have immediately understood the problem
and he helped her hide in a ditch for some time until
the hunt for her appeared to have died down.
Then Abdullah helped her up and took her to another
area in a taxi. During the ride she told him of her
story in bits and pieces of English, Hindi and Tamil.
She had — in fact that is what saved her — a slip of
paper with a telephone number of a friend of her
father, and Abdullah contacted that number and
checked. The man said he knew the girl and that he was
staying in the UAE with his wife and two children.
Abdullah asked the friend to come and take the girl
but on one condition: He had to bring his wife and
children. The man did and the girl was handed over to
the family.
The next day the girl contacted the Indian consulate
and was issued an outpass since she did not have her
passport (somehow she had the air ticket with the
return coupon in order). The consulate also issued a
letter to the local authorities that helped her clear
immigration procedures without having to produce her
passport.
clutches of flesh-traders have unearthed organised
gangs involving Keralites luring girls from the
southern Indian state to the UAE with job offers and
then forcing them into prostitution.
The two separate cases have prompted Indian consulate
officials in Dubai to caution Indian women travelling
alone to anywhere in the Gulf on visit visas or
employment visas given to them by unknown parties
should verify the authenticity of the sponsor or
arrange to have a relative or a friend or someone
deemed reliable to receive them upon arrival.
It was always known that there were Keralite girls in
Dubai engaged in prostitution in small discreet, one-
or two-bedroom apartments in places like Deira, Bur
Dubai and Karama. However, it is the first time that
two of them have managed to escape and recounted
stories of how they were brought to the UAE on visit
was — with promises of employment — and then whisked
away from the airport to virtual bondage and pressed
into the oldest profession against their will.
Rajni, 25, (name changed) from central Kerala, is a
graduate in hotel management. She was working in
Bangalore, but tensions within the family prompted her
to take up what then appeared to be a "chance" offer
of employment in the UAE. She came to Dubai and was
picked up from the airport and driven to what she
learnt later was "the godown" — a place where girls
like her are told that their job is to sexually
entertain "clients."
The process of turning girls like Rajani into
prostitutes is known in the trade as "training" and
involved other Keralite women who are either already
in the trade or arrange "clients" for prostitutes and
take a commission.
Rajni refused, and next thing she knew was she was
raped and severely beaten up. She was locked up in a
room and denied food and water for several days until
she agreed to engage in prostitution.
All her "operators" as well as "clients" were from
Kerala.
Whenever she refused to "co-operate" she was beaten up
and starved. After a few days, she was being moved
from apartment to apartment at three-day or four-day
intervals.
She was kept under constant watch and was not allowed
to contact her family except on certain days when she
was handed a mobile phone and permitted to speak a few
words of pleasantries and niceties.
It took her more than three months to find a
"sympathetic client" — again, a Keralite — who agreed
to help her.
Rajni managed her escape while she was being moved
from one apartment to another in a taxi. She contacted
the man who promised to help her and she ended up at
a centre run by the Indian Welfare Association from
where she was flown home last week after the consulate
here issued her an outpass (since her passport was
held by her "operator") air passage provided by
well-wishing donors.
Chandni, 30, (name changed) a divorced mother of three
children, came to Dubai to work as a housemaid but on
a visit visa and ended up "entertaining" men.
After several weeks of an ordeal very similar to
Rajni, Chandni, with help from a "client," fled from
her "operator." However, her problems did not end
there. Her "operator" threatened the man who helped
her and took from him 7,000 dirhams in order to
"release" Chandni.
Chandni flew home on Monday.
These two cases are only the tip of an iceberg, by
most accounts.
Sources familiar with the racket say that a dozen or
so men and women are at its helm and they have
"agents" throughout Kerala always on the lookout for
vulnerable women — divorcees, those having serious
family problems, and those in financial crises — in
small villages and towns.
They approach such women with job offers in the Gulf
and the bait is easily swallowed, particularly that
the women are promised that they would be able to sent
home at least Rs15,000 a month.
Once they end up in the flesh trade here, they are
trapped. They cannot break away from from the gangs
and would not want to inform their family of the
reality of the situation — even if they had the
opportunity — because of the social stigma.
According to the sources, there are several hundred
Keralite women who have been brought here and forces
into prostitution.
"Only a small percentage of them knew beforehand that
they would be working as prostitutes here," said one
source.
As more cases emerge of Keralite women being brought
to Dubai on promises of employment and forced into
prostitution, police sources say they are unable to
act against the culprits in the absence of specific
complaints.
"We take immediate and stern action whenever a
complaint is filed," said a source. "We cannot act
based on generalities or media reports."
Wherever specifics are brought to their attention, the
immigration authorities conduct raids and detain
suspects on charges of violating immigration laws,
which is a regular feature in most cases, according to
the sources.
In the cases of Rajni and Chandni, complaints were
filed and those involved have been detained pending
prosecution.
An Indian source familiar with the approach of the
immigration authorities revealed several recent cases,
all of them involving only Keralites.
One of them involved a former employee of the defence
department who was engaged in strong-arm tactics. The
man used proxies to procure Keralite girls engaged in
prostitution and keep them as hostages in areas
outside Dubai. Other proxies will then inform the
"operator" of the girls that the issue could be
settled if the man was named as mediator.
The "mediator" then acts on behalf of the operator to
secure the release of the girls on payment of several
thousand dirhams, with no one suspecting him to be the
real culprit. Inevitably, the girls were sent back to
the "operator."
"He continued for some time and made some big money,
but then the authorities caught him on a specific
complaint some eight weeks ago," said the Indian
source. "He was found to have violated immigration
laws and was deported, with a ban on re-entry for one
year.
"However, the authorities found out that the man had
returned carrying a different passport after three
weeks. Apparently he sneaked back through Buraimi (in
Oman on the border of Al Ain, but administered by the
UAE).
"The man went underground when he suspected that he
was being hunted and spread word that he left the
country, but the authorities know that he is still
around and they are determined to nab him," said the
source.
During a recent raid of an apartment where 10 Russian
and two Indian girls were found engaged in
prostitution, a man who stood guard at the door jumped
down from the fourth-floor and injured himself. The
youth turned out to be the first man's nephew."
In another case, a middle-aged man was found to have
brought his 20-year-old unmarried niece to Dubai and
handed her over to flesh traders. The reason: He was
settling a score with his sister, the girl's mother,
in a dispute over property.
The authorities caught him and deported him on
immigration charges when the girl filed a complaint.
Rates for the girls range from 50 dirhams for a
one-time engagement upwards depending on a
classification of "regulars," "newcomers," "VIP," and
"VVIP" commanding up to 1,000 dirhams for a night.
"The charges are split among several parties, with the
girl getting less than 15 or 10 per cent," according
to the source. "For example, she might get 10 dirhams
from the 50 dirhams a customer paid. If she is lucky,
she might get some tip from the client."
Another case involved a young Keralite girl settled in
Tamil Nadu brought her as employed as an office
executive. Things went well for several weeks before
she was confronted by the Keralite manager who accused
her of being responsible for the company's alleged
loss of tens of thousands of dirhams. She was told she
had to make good the loss or be ready to go to prison
for at least two years. The third alternative:
"Entertain" some of the company's "clients."
Several weeks later, the girl found herself unable to
do anything but to continue to have sex with dozens of
"clients" everyday from a two-bedroom apartment in
Deira. She has by now realised the company, her
employment and the company's losses were all stage
managed into trapping her.
Now she does not want to go back home. "All I want is
to make enough money for me to buy a small house
somewhere far away from my family and settle down
there," she says. "I can't face my family." Shoba (not
real name), 31, a widowed mother of two from a village
near Trichur, recalls that she was brought here three
years ago to work a housemaid. "I was taken to an
apartment in Dubai and told my job was to sleep with
men," she said. "I refused, and they locked me up and
starved me for more than two weeks and regularly beat
me up until I lost my ability to resist and agreed to
whatever they told me to do."
Shoba was rescued by a Keralite customer, who paid her
"operator" 11,000 dirhams for her "release." Prakash
(not real name) married her. Subsequently, he lost his
job and he had no option but to draw from his
experience and that of his wife Shoba to run a
brothel themselves.
However, they swore that they never brought any girl
to the UAE to work as a prostitute.
"We just used our apartment for clients to have sex
with girls, who were sent her as a regular rotation by
other operators with whom we had an understanding,"
said Prakash in a conversation before he and Shoba
left the UAE two months ago. "We used to make 300 to
400 dirhams every day."
For those Malayalis who might take a fancy to any of
the girls and want her as a discreet "keep" and could
afford to pay, the charge for her to be "released"
from the bondage of her "operator" is anywhere upwards
of 15,000 dirhams in cash. Then she, her maintenance
and legal status and whatever else become his
responsibility.
Sept.14
DUBAI: A 23-year-old girl from Kerala who paid a hefty
amount to her friend's mother for what she thought was
an employment visa in the UAE was on her back home on
Tuesday after she escaped from a group of flesh
traders, also from Kerala.
It was the latest case of rescue of Keralite girls
lured to the UAE with job offers and then forced into
prostitution by organised Keralite syndicates. Four
such girls were rescued and sent home in the last
three weeks.
Several more are waiting for immigration clearance for
their temporary outpasses — since their passports were
taken away from them immediately after they landed at
the airport by the persons who brought them here in
the first place.
Reports of the cases have emboldened many who know of
similar others to contact media personnel as well as
the Indian consulate here with appeals for help.
Two of the girls who went back have spoken to
newspapers in Kerala of how they were "recruited" for
jobs with tempting salaries but turned into
prostitutes after they landed here.
The latest escapee, who hails from an impoverished
family from central Kerala, landed in Dubai on Sept.4
and taken to an apartment on the border between Dubai
and Sharjah.
The girl had discontinued a degree course in Kerala
after one year because of financial problems at home
and completed a course in computer applications.
She was contacted by the mother of one of her friends
offering the job of a "computer operator" in the UAE
in return for Rs75,000. Her family somehow raised the
money and paid the woman, who arranged a visit visa
for her and sent her here on a flight from Coimbatore.
Coimbatore is the take-off airport of choice of the
racketeers since immigration officers at Trivandrum,
Calicut and Cochin airports are deemed strict in
verifying the papers of women travelling alone to the
Gulf.
The girl was received by two men at Dubai airport and
taken to a flat situated opposite the sprawling Sahara
Shopping Mall on the line straddling the emirates of
Dubai and Sharjah. There were two other girls in the
flat and in a matter of hours she realised that she
had walked into a trap.
"I did not know what to do after the other girls told
me about their stories of how they ended up as virtual
slaves in custody and forced to become prostitutes,"
she recounted. "They told me how they were beaten up
mercilessly and starved when they refused to entertain
'clients', and kept that way until they agreed to do
whatever was asked of them," she said.
There were two men in the flat who were in charge of
the girls. One of them, named only as Satish, told the
newcomer to be "ready for the interview, but you know
by now what the interview will be."
"I lived in terror for the next two days during which
the other girls in the apartment were replaced," said
the girl. "Men used to come to the flat but someone
Satish or anyone else did not force me into anything."
On the second day, at around 8pm, she and other girl
were asked to dress up to go out. "We were brought
down by Satish and handed over to two men in a car,"
she said. "As the other girl got into the car, I
simply ran the other way thinking that even if I died
it would be better than what as awaiting me if I had
gotten into that car."
"I had no idea where I was running, but kept on going
and I almost bumped into a man who stopped and asked
me in English what the problem was, and I told him,
'please help me I am running away from someone'."
The man, Abdullah, a native of Andhra Pradesh,
appeared to have immediately understood the problem
and he helped her hide in a ditch for some time until
the hunt for her appeared to have died down.
Then Abdullah helped her up and took her to another
area in a taxi. During the ride she told him of her
story in bits and pieces of English, Hindi and Tamil.
She had — in fact that is what saved her — a slip of
paper with a telephone number of a friend of her
father, and Abdullah contacted that number and
checked. The man said he knew the girl and that he was
staying in the UAE with his wife and two children.
Abdullah asked the friend to come and take the girl
but on one condition: He had to bring his wife and
children. The man did and the girl was handed over to
the family.
The next day the girl contacted the Indian consulate
and was issued an outpass since she did not have her
passport (somehow she had the air ticket with the
return coupon in order). The consulate also issued a
letter to the local authorities that helped her clear
immigration procedures without having to produce her
passport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}