Thursday, July 28, 2005
Who pays the price?
July 28 2005
Who pays the price?
PV Vivekanand
WHOEVER was behind the July 7 bombings in London could not be a friend of Muslims or Asians or Arabs for that matter. For, from now on life for British Muslims and Asians is going to a nightmare in the UK.
While we reserve comment on the claims of responsibility for the dastardly crime against humanity, there is no doubt whatsover that whoever engineered the bombings have done nothing but the greatest harm to Muslims are a whole around the world. True Muslims who believe in the faith and its teachings would never undertake such heinous actions.
Wednesday's atrocity in Baghdad was another example of the mindlessness of such people. Nearly 40 children who had gathered to collect chocolates from American soldiers perished when someone driving a bomb-laden vehicle rammed into them.
Of course, the action is described as part of "resistance" against the American military in Iraq. But who paid the price? The families of those innocent children whose future the so-called "resistance" groups say they are seeking to protect. What was the net result, apart from the meaningless death of innocent children? Nothing but grief, anger, frustration and hatred.
What was the net result of the London blasts?
Nothing but grief, anger, frustration and hatred.
Definitely, Muslims are targeted, either by those who claims to be Muslims without realling understanding the faith or those who are plotting and carrying out actions that are aimed at spreading anti-Muslim feelings all over the globe.
Wrong epicentres
July 28 2005
Wrong epicentres
PV Vivekanand
"WHAT are all these about? Why are they doing it? Is the world as we know it coming to an end?" Although not without a trace of exaggeration, these questions are asked by many around the world in the wake of this month's bombings in London and Egypt.
Most people shake their heads in disbelief and seem resigned to accepting that there is something seriously wrong with someone, somewhere for obscure reasons.
It is no such mystery to the people of the region, and they know that the world has not heard the last of such atrocities. Justice has to prevail and the US-UK alliance has to start to recognise that the questions raised need hard and convincing answers.
The answer to the question — "what are all these about" — could be very simple or very complex depending on one's understanding. The simple answer — as the West explains it — is that terrorists are out to inflict as much damage to the Western way of life and thinking and would stop at nothing because they are prodded by "Islamic radicalism." At least that is what British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others would like the world to believe.
But is it as simple as that? Can Blair or his best expert on Islam pinpoint where "radicalism" figure in the faith?
Is the so-called radicalism linked to Muslims' "hatred" for the Western way of life prompted by jealousy, as US President George W Bush and his aides would like the world to believe?
If one were to accept the argument of "hatred," then the immediate question is: Why European nations like Sweden and Latin American countries like Brazil — where the style of life is radically different from that in the Muslim World — are not targeted for attacks?
The complex answer to the first question was perfectly answered by Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa in a recent interview with MSNBC TV. He pointed out that terrorism does not discriminate between people.
"We're angry, sad. We feel we're all in the same boat, regardless of whatever — where you are, in Europe, in Africa, in the Mideast, in America. We're all in the same boat," Musa said when asked about the recent bombings. "So, we cannot live with terrorism, waves of terrorism. That has really sown havoc in many cities. And the casualties are always innocent civilians," he told interviewer Rita Cosby.
He said security measures were not the sole answer to the challenge and called for solutions to the fundamental causes.
"We cannot defeat terrorism only through security measures. We have to have a political understanding of the seriousness of the situation, the causes behind that, the effects, the organisations. So, we must have a comprehensive approach," he said.
There is hostility towards the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds, he said, adding, however, that this is not a blanket attitude.
"It is anti-certain American policies," he said. "There is a huge, strong, solid opposition to the policies of the United States, especially when it comes to the Middle East and the bias in its policy between — towards Israel, at the expense of the other side. But this is a policy that could change and that should change."
Now, what are the chances of such a change in policy?
Almost impossible, given the present geopolitical realities of the region. And where does that take us? A spiralling confrontation between those discontented with the US policy and those in the US who would not and cannot even think of shifting the American approach to the conflicts in the Middle East?
Blair did refer to the issue, but put that in a different context. He did not talk about any policy shift, but acknowledged that the Arab-Israeli conflict needed to be addressed.
Few would disagree with Blair that terrorist attacks are senseless and would never be a useful tool to achieve anything. It is indeed a folly for terrorists to believe that they could force any country to shift policies under pressure of attacks.
Blair did affirm that the world must make progress on issues used by militants as a reason for violence such as the Middle East conflict.
Core causes
We don't really know how far his thinking went when he admitted that there are core causes.
"There are obviously certain things in government and the international community we have to do to try to take away the legitimate causes upon which people prey," Blair said, adding that these and other issues such as Afghanistan and the Middle East were only used as an excuse by extremists.
"I don't accept they really care about these causes, the perpetrators of this ideology," he said. "There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq in London, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere, in the United States of America, anywhere. There is no justification for it, period," he said.
"Neither have they any justification for killing people in Israel either," he said.
However, making progress on issues such as Palestinian statehood was "important," Blair said.
"There is a legitimate concern but that doesn't justify in the slightest way the suicide bombings or terrorism, but there is a concern about that and you have to deal with it," he said.
And that is where Blair hit the nail on its head, perhaps unwittingly though.
It is not a simple concern and it could not be addressed without fundamental changes in the Western, mainly American and British, approach to the problem.
It is a question about people's life and their right to live in dignity in their own land. It is not about what is not acceptable to the Islamic faith in the Western way of life. It is about lost lives and homes and the urge for freedom and life with dignity.
In Palestine, the equation is simple for the people. Israel is occupying the land of the Palestinian people and any effort to dislodge the occupation is fruitless as long as the US supports the Jewish state. It is not only support that the US is extending to Israel, but also outright protection from international action against it through forums like the United Nations.
The amount of funds and military supplies that flow to Israel from the US and the American record of vetos against any UN Security Council resolution calling for meaningful action speak for themselves.
Is it any mystery that the US automatically becomes an enemy in the eyes of the Palestinian people?
Again, it has to be remembered, as Musa pointed out, it is not a blanket anti-American hostility. People know that the ordinary American is not even aware of the depth of his or her government's involvement in the Middle East. Their question to the average American is straight: Why is it that you are not aware of what is going on?
Deceptive policies
Again, the people in this part of the world have all known all along of the deceptive policies of the US. No one is taken for a ride when Washington says that it wants peace in the Middle East but it is up to Israel and the Arabs to work out a peace agreement. That posture is clearly seen through. A majority in the region believe that had the US taken its hand off the Arab-Israeli conflict, a solution would have been reached years ago. It was the American way of professing neutrality but heavily lending itself to supporting Israel that is behind the Middle Eastern hostility towards Washington's policies and thus the administration in power itself.
Then another issue is Iraq. As Musa told MSNBC, another policy that needs to change is the US presence in Iraq.
"The best thing for Iraq is to have a plan, a reconciliation among all members of the Iraqis fighting, not to exclude any of the groups, so, reconciliation, a time frame for the withdrawal of the forces," he said. "A time frame — it's not a question of, you should withdraw today or tomorrow, but a time frame, an agreed time frame," he said. "That would send a message to the people in Iraq and around that it is not a question of, we are not coming to stay, but we are going to leave."
Let us not go into the details. It is clear to the world today that the Bush administration blatantly lied its way into the invasion and occupation of Iraq. People might not cry for Saddam Hussein, but they cry for the people of Iraq today, Zarqawi or no Zarqawi.
As the question of Islamists themselves, it has to be taken into consideration, as noted regional commentator Rami Khoury points out , that "Islamist activist politics, legitimised by and packaged inside a political/military resistance role, is on the rise throughout this region."
"Engaging this force constructively and democratically is an urgent political challenge in the Middle East, and it is not being grasped quickly enough," he says.
But are the Islamist forces at work in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine behind the terror attacks?
Most definitely not. The West has to recognise the difference between them.
Corridors of power
In countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon as well as most other Arab countries, the Islamist forces are seeking political power through the ballot. They know that they could get to the corridors of power if they play their cards right. In some countries, they feel that the system itself is stacked up against them and there is no way people's will would prevail until such time the regimes themselves acccept the inevitability of accepting their people's will.
Islamist groups have made strong headway into regional politics and they would continue to do so, but not because of their rejection of the political system but because of the natural evolution of politics.
Lebanon's Hizbollah is now in the country's government. There is nothing anyone could do about it since Hizbollah represents a good segment of the Lebanese population.
In Jordan, the Islamists are the strongest group. Indeed, they were given seats in the cabinet in the mid-90s because of the legislative clout they gained through electiosn, but they themselves bowed out citing reasons of their own that had to do with the country's peace negotiations with Israel and their efforts to impose certain restrictions in the society that were not acceptable to the people.
In Syria, the regime of Bashar Al Assad is slowly easing the ropes against groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Brotherhood is accepting indirect help from the US in order to stabilise itself as a political force in the country. And Washington would find itself confronting the group as and when the latter thinks the time is right to assert itself.
In Palestine, Hamas would emerge as a strong political force when elections are held there. Washington is worried about the prospect, but then it is unable to do much because Hamas represents the aspirations of the people to independence. Beyond that, Hamas would its political clout diminishing to a large extent if it were to push the broader agenda of elimination of the state of Israel.
Real threat
To focus on groups like Hamas in the US-led war against terror would be a misguided approach. They are not the source of terror threats. They represent the genuine desire of a people to secure their usurped rights.
The real threat is those disgruntled people who have seen that no matter how much they try there would never be a shift in the US approach to their genuine grievances. They are convinced that the US, instead of realising the need for fairness, justice and evenhandedness, is targeting them with a view to subduing and even eliminating them as a hurdle in way of Israel's quest to keep occupied lands for itself and for dominance in the region. They have understood that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had more to do with protecting Israel's interests than American interests, and they have realised that they are unable to wage a face-to-face battle with the US-Israeli combine and its allies. For them then the best way to hit back is to inflict as much damage as possible through selves or allies.
That is what we are witnessing today. The attacks in London and Sharm Al Sheikh, misguided and unacceptable as they were, are only indicators of the shape of things to come unless those who have the genuine interests of the US and UK in mind realise that the real problem lies in the conscious denial of justice to people.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Man of neocon dreams?
July 25 2005
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Man of neocon dream?
A conservative has won Iranian presidential elections, meaning that the country's theocratic camp has dug in its heels in power at a crucial period in history not only for the Iranians but also for the entire region. The emergence of Tehran's conservative mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the next president after winning an upset victory in the run-off presidential elections on June 24, need not necessarily mean that the Iranian voters also have turned conservative, but it signals tough times ahead. The collision course between the US and Iran had been kept in relative abeyance during the reign of Mohammed Khatami as president, and Ahmadinejad's victory has given a fillip to that confrontation.
Ahmadinejad's victory gives the conservatives control of Iran's two highest elected offices: The presidency and parliament. This combination strengthens the theocratic camp that is bitterly opposed to any rapprochement with the US.
Ahmadinejad, who served as mayor of Tehran, garnered 62 per cent or 27.8 million votes whereas former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, described by many as a reformist, polled only 37 per cent. That in itself was surprising because it was widely assumed that Rafanjani had the edge in the race.
There are indeed allegations of rigging and irregularities in the elections, but they are not going to make any difference to the reality that governance of the country has been returned to the theocratic camp.
The all powerful Guardian Council has confirmed the election results, adding that there had not been any irregularities in the voting process. The Council, which approves all the candidates before the election takes place, also confirmed that the deadline of June 28 had passed, after which it was no longer possible to formally contest the electoral process, and that no one had lodged any official protest.
Reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi resigned from two high-ranking government posts last week after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei refused to investigate charges of irregularities in the first round of elections.
Ahmadinejad, who has worked closely with the outgoing government of Mohammed Khatami as well as the conservative camp, is seen to enjoy the support of the powerful Basij Islamist volunteer militia, which helped turn out voters in his favour.
Ahmedinejad will be Iran's first non-cleric president for 24 years when he assumes office next month as Khatami's successor.
Iran in US cross-hairs
It might indeed be argued that Ahmedinejad's victory has played neatly into the neoconservative camp in the US, because it negates the possibility of a compromise between Washington and Tehran and clears the ground for the neocons to step up their efforts to engineer a "regime change" in Iran.
Washington's ideal goal is a free hand that would allow it to shape Iran into suiting American interests. It does not want any hangovers from the hardline camp in Iran. An immediate example is Iraq, where it was clear that even if Saddam Hussein were to accept all American conditions and demands in the run-up to the March 2003 war, the Bush administration would not have accepted a compromise with him since the American strategists wanted absolute control of Iraq without someone like Saddam tagging along for a share of power.
Similarly, in Iran, Washington wants the Iranian groups it supports, including the monarchists, to be in power so that the US could call the shots in the country without having to worry about the theocrats who ousted the monarchy and assumed power in 1979.
There is no ambiguity in the American goal for regime change in Iran. President George W Bush promised his neoconvervative camp prior to his re-election in November that this would be one of his priorities during the second term in the White House.
Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy, who was in Iran for the first round of presidential elections, believes the election results have delighted the neoconservative camp.
"Now we're in a situation where unfortunately somebody who has risen to power, carried forward by the Basijis and other vigilantes and people who are opposed to loosening of repression on women and political dissidents, and so forth," he says. "I think it's quite correct, this is a dream come true, these election results, for (US Defence Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (US Vice-President Dick) Cheney and Bush .... because they see now a wonderful foil.
Neocon's want collision
"I suspect they were worried about Rafsanjani's statements in recent weeks about wanting to be open to the US for rapprochement. This is really a dream come true for the neo-cons."
Experts on Iran see Ahmedinejad as essentially a nationalist who is unlikely to give priority to relations with either Europe or United States. He has committed himself to building a strong Iran and building the country's interests within its borders. He has also committed to developing the country's nuclear programmes -- not necessarily building nuclear bombs, but using nuclear energy for the nation's needs. He argues that it is the right of his country to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as any other country in the world.
In his first post-election press conference, Ahmadinejad reaffirmed these commitments but said he would continue negotiations with the European Union.
Of course the US is not buying that argument and there would be increased pressure on Iran in the days ahead.
Ervand Abrahamian, professor of Middle Eastern and Iranian history at Baruch College, City University of New York, observes: "(The election of Ahmadinejad is) very significant in that US has been really on a collision course with Iran ever since the axis of evil speech (by Bush in late 2002). And the collisions, in a way, have been delayed because of the quagmire in Iraq, but this election in Tehran is going to basically put the collision course -- back on course."
Ahmadinejad, who won the elections on a popular platform portraying himself as a representative of the working class, has declared as much.
He has said that he does not think his country needs to improve relations with the US and could carry out development on its own without help from Washington.
"The policy of the Islamic Republic towards the United States has been stated many times before," he said. "With its self-belief and self-reliance, our nation continues on the path of progress. And in this path does not have any significant need for relations with the United States. We will pay attention to relations with any country that bears no hostile intent towards us."
US strategy takes shape
In turn, Bush, US Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice and Rumsfeld have dismissed the Iranian election as a farce.
"There were over 1,000 candidates that were disqualified that weren't even allowed to run," said Rumsfeld after the run-off. "So, the fact that they had a mock election and elected a hard-liner ought not to come as any surprise to anybody, because all the other people were told they couldn't run. It's against the law."
Indeed, Rumsfeld appeared to offer an insight into the American strategy vis-a-vis Iran under the presidency of Ahmaddinejad when he said: "Now, I don't know much about this fellow. He's young. I have read backgrounds on him, but he is no friend of democracy. He is no friend of freedom. He is a person who is very much supportive of the current ayatollahs who are telling the people of that country how to live their lives, and my guess is over time, the young people and the women will find him, as well as his masters, unacceptable."
It is the second part of what Rumsfeld said should figure as highly relevant since the US strategy is to stir up political unrest among Iranian people to a point where an uprising could take place and then the US military might intervene to a limited extent.
An Iraq-style military invasion of Iran is deemed to be ruled out if only because the mission would be too formidable, given the size of Iran and its huge population in comparison with Iraq.
One of the key elements in the American-British strategy is massive propaganda against the theocratic regime in power in Tehran. This is done through more than 15 radio and television channels beaming anti-government propaganda in Farsi to Iranians. These programmes focus on what they describe as government failures to serve the people of Iran and how the
Iranians could have a better life and more freedoms with western-style democracy. Many programmes show how Westerners live --particularly the young generation -- and suggest that the people of Iran could also live like them.
Also highlighted are programmes that show how the regime is "squandering" the country's resources and leave the people with their problems such as high unemployment, lack of infrastructure and services, and rising cost of living,
Stirring up troubles
An Israeli intelligence website reports that the recent troubles in Ahwaz, the mainly Arab region of Iran, were engineered by American and British intelligence and more of such unrest could be expected as part of the American strategy to destablise the Tehran regime.
Towards this end, according to the report, Washington is in touch with Arab Iranian leaders and groups. Said Taher Naama, deputy chief the National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz, the NLMA, which is led by Hazal Al Hashemi, was invited to the White House on April 23., says the report, (which adds that these are not the actual names of the NLMA leaders). Naama was invited to meetings with the National Security Council, including national security adviser Steve Hadley, and senior Iranian experts in the State Department.
"While Naama's presence in Washington was not thrown open to the media, the Bush administration did not seem to care if it was exposed through intelligence channels to the rulers of Tehran," says the report.
The Arab Iranian community has eight organisations and the US is said to be in contact with all of them.
American-British axis
A glimpse into how the American-British intelligence is working behind the scenes in Iran came in April when a forged a letter purportedly written by Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an adviser to Iran's President Mohammed Khatami, surfaced in Ahvaz and elsewhere in Khuzestan province. The letter was tailor-made to trigger unrest among Arab Iranians.
The letter mentioned plans to evict Arabs from the oil-rich Khuzestan province and settle ethnic Persians there. Leading the riots were Arab students, who were particularly incensed by a mention in the forged letter that Arab students would have to leave Khuzestan and go elsewhere to study.
Five people were killed in the clashes between the rioting Arabs and security forces. About 310 people were arrested in the clashes. They were released later.
According to the intelligence report, American-British agents had forged the Abtahi letter and they also incited the Arabs in the province to riot and clash with the security forces. Abtahi himself has denied having written such a letter.
In mid-June, several bombs went off in Ahwaz, killing at least eight people. Two others died in Tehran on the same day, but it is still not known whether the two incidents were linked. Tehran blamed a London-based Arab Iranian group -- the Popular Democratic Front of Ahwazi Arabs -- for the bombings and the group denied the charge.
Recent disturbances in Iranian Kurdistan when Jalal Talabani became Iraq's first Kurdish president were also part of the American intelligence operations, reports say. American spies are working with the illegal Kurdistan Democratic party of Iran, which is based in Kurdish-held Iraq. The group is said to have provoked the recent disturbances by releasing a plan for a federal constitution in Iran.
At the same time, people like Abrahamian believes that a misplaced move could turn out to be costly for Washington.
Elite decapitation
Noting that the US has already drawn up plans for military strikes at Iranian nuclear installations, Abrahamian says: "They (the US) also have plans, what they call elite decapitation, which would be surgical strikes at ministries of the top people. And that would be basically a sort of slippery slope they would start on.
"They would think that doing that would prevent Iran developing the nuclear programme, not taking into account that Iran also has its own cards it could play. If that was done, if any military action was implemented, I think that the Iranians would use the cards they have, which is in Afghanistan and Iraq, both areas, they have actually great advantages. They could unravel the already bad position the United States is in those countries, completely unravel it. All they have to do is give the green light to (Iraqi hardline Shiite leader Mortada) Sadr in southern Iraq to have a Shiite revolt....."
Similarly, Tehran could also stir up trouble for the Americans in Afghanistan with help from some of the warlords there, he notes.
"It's often forgotten here that Iran has actually done everything it can so far to help United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan," says Abrahamian. And if there's a confrontation, military confrontation, there would be no reason for them to co-operate with United States. They would do exactly what would be in their interests, which would be to destroy the US position in those two countries."
Pitfalls ahead
Indeed, the US-UK alliance cannot be expected to be unaware of the pitfalls.
Says a seasoned regional observer: "The American-British strategy is to intervene militarily only when the internal unrest reaches its high point and Washington and London could depend on Iranians to a large extent to overthrow the regime. The US and the UK will provide military assistance of a minimum level in order to help those Iranian elements which want to change the regime in Tehran, but only when the time is right."
While Ahmedinejad's victory is seen by the reformist camp as a triumph for theocracy, it remains to be seen how he will deal with economic issues, rising unemployment, civil liberties and women's rights. That could be crucial to determining the success of the American campaign to fuel internal unrest and bring things to a boil in Iran.
With inputs from websites
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Man of neocon dream?
A conservative has won Iranian presidential elections, meaning that the country's theocratic camp has dug in its heels in power at a crucial period in history not only for the Iranians but also for the entire region. The emergence of Tehran's conservative mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the next president after winning an upset victory in the run-off presidential elections on June 24, need not necessarily mean that the Iranian voters also have turned conservative, but it signals tough times ahead. The collision course between the US and Iran had been kept in relative abeyance during the reign of Mohammed Khatami as president, and Ahmadinejad's victory has given a fillip to that confrontation.
Ahmadinejad's victory gives the conservatives control of Iran's two highest elected offices: The presidency and parliament. This combination strengthens the theocratic camp that is bitterly opposed to any rapprochement with the US.
Ahmadinejad, who served as mayor of Tehran, garnered 62 per cent or 27.8 million votes whereas former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, described by many as a reformist, polled only 37 per cent. That in itself was surprising because it was widely assumed that Rafanjani had the edge in the race.
There are indeed allegations of rigging and irregularities in the elections, but they are not going to make any difference to the reality that governance of the country has been returned to the theocratic camp.
The all powerful Guardian Council has confirmed the election results, adding that there had not been any irregularities in the voting process. The Council, which approves all the candidates before the election takes place, also confirmed that the deadline of June 28 had passed, after which it was no longer possible to formally contest the electoral process, and that no one had lodged any official protest.
Reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi resigned from two high-ranking government posts last week after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei refused to investigate charges of irregularities in the first round of elections.
Ahmadinejad, who has worked closely with the outgoing government of Mohammed Khatami as well as the conservative camp, is seen to enjoy the support of the powerful Basij Islamist volunteer militia, which helped turn out voters in his favour.
Ahmedinejad will be Iran's first non-cleric president for 24 years when he assumes office next month as Khatami's successor.
Iran in US cross-hairs
It might indeed be argued that Ahmedinejad's victory has played neatly into the neoconservative camp in the US, because it negates the possibility of a compromise between Washington and Tehran and clears the ground for the neocons to step up their efforts to engineer a "regime change" in Iran.
Washington's ideal goal is a free hand that would allow it to shape Iran into suiting American interests. It does not want any hangovers from the hardline camp in Iran. An immediate example is Iraq, where it was clear that even if Saddam Hussein were to accept all American conditions and demands in the run-up to the March 2003 war, the Bush administration would not have accepted a compromise with him since the American strategists wanted absolute control of Iraq without someone like Saddam tagging along for a share of power.
Similarly, in Iran, Washington wants the Iranian groups it supports, including the monarchists, to be in power so that the US could call the shots in the country without having to worry about the theocrats who ousted the monarchy and assumed power in 1979.
There is no ambiguity in the American goal for regime change in Iran. President George W Bush promised his neoconvervative camp prior to his re-election in November that this would be one of his priorities during the second term in the White House.
Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy, who was in Iran for the first round of presidential elections, believes the election results have delighted the neoconservative camp.
"Now we're in a situation where unfortunately somebody who has risen to power, carried forward by the Basijis and other vigilantes and people who are opposed to loosening of repression on women and political dissidents, and so forth," he says. "I think it's quite correct, this is a dream come true, these election results, for (US Defence Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (US Vice-President Dick) Cheney and Bush .... because they see now a wonderful foil.
Neocon's want collision
"I suspect they were worried about Rafsanjani's statements in recent weeks about wanting to be open to the US for rapprochement. This is really a dream come true for the neo-cons."
Experts on Iran see Ahmedinejad as essentially a nationalist who is unlikely to give priority to relations with either Europe or United States. He has committed himself to building a strong Iran and building the country's interests within its borders. He has also committed to developing the country's nuclear programmes -- not necessarily building nuclear bombs, but using nuclear energy for the nation's needs. He argues that it is the right of his country to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as any other country in the world.
In his first post-election press conference, Ahmadinejad reaffirmed these commitments but said he would continue negotiations with the European Union.
Of course the US is not buying that argument and there would be increased pressure on Iran in the days ahead.
Ervand Abrahamian, professor of Middle Eastern and Iranian history at Baruch College, City University of New York, observes: "(The election of Ahmadinejad is) very significant in that US has been really on a collision course with Iran ever since the axis of evil speech (by Bush in late 2002). And the collisions, in a way, have been delayed because of the quagmire in Iraq, but this election in Tehran is going to basically put the collision course -- back on course."
Ahmadinejad, who won the elections on a popular platform portraying himself as a representative of the working class, has declared as much.
He has said that he does not think his country needs to improve relations with the US and could carry out development on its own without help from Washington.
"The policy of the Islamic Republic towards the United States has been stated many times before," he said. "With its self-belief and self-reliance, our nation continues on the path of progress. And in this path does not have any significant need for relations with the United States. We will pay attention to relations with any country that bears no hostile intent towards us."
US strategy takes shape
In turn, Bush, US Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice and Rumsfeld have dismissed the Iranian election as a farce.
"There were over 1,000 candidates that were disqualified that weren't even allowed to run," said Rumsfeld after the run-off. "So, the fact that they had a mock election and elected a hard-liner ought not to come as any surprise to anybody, because all the other people were told they couldn't run. It's against the law."
Indeed, Rumsfeld appeared to offer an insight into the American strategy vis-a-vis Iran under the presidency of Ahmaddinejad when he said: "Now, I don't know much about this fellow. He's young. I have read backgrounds on him, but he is no friend of democracy. He is no friend of freedom. He is a person who is very much supportive of the current ayatollahs who are telling the people of that country how to live their lives, and my guess is over time, the young people and the women will find him, as well as his masters, unacceptable."
It is the second part of what Rumsfeld said should figure as highly relevant since the US strategy is to stir up political unrest among Iranian people to a point where an uprising could take place and then the US military might intervene to a limited extent.
An Iraq-style military invasion of Iran is deemed to be ruled out if only because the mission would be too formidable, given the size of Iran and its huge population in comparison with Iraq.
One of the key elements in the American-British strategy is massive propaganda against the theocratic regime in power in Tehran. This is done through more than 15 radio and television channels beaming anti-government propaganda in Farsi to Iranians. These programmes focus on what they describe as government failures to serve the people of Iran and how the
Iranians could have a better life and more freedoms with western-style democracy. Many programmes show how Westerners live --particularly the young generation -- and suggest that the people of Iran could also live like them.
Also highlighted are programmes that show how the regime is "squandering" the country's resources and leave the people with their problems such as high unemployment, lack of infrastructure and services, and rising cost of living,
Stirring up troubles
An Israeli intelligence website reports that the recent troubles in Ahwaz, the mainly Arab region of Iran, were engineered by American and British intelligence and more of such unrest could be expected as part of the American strategy to destablise the Tehran regime.
Towards this end, according to the report, Washington is in touch with Arab Iranian leaders and groups. Said Taher Naama, deputy chief the National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz, the NLMA, which is led by Hazal Al Hashemi, was invited to the White House on April 23., says the report, (which adds that these are not the actual names of the NLMA leaders). Naama was invited to meetings with the National Security Council, including national security adviser Steve Hadley, and senior Iranian experts in the State Department.
"While Naama's presence in Washington was not thrown open to the media, the Bush administration did not seem to care if it was exposed through intelligence channels to the rulers of Tehran," says the report.
The Arab Iranian community has eight organisations and the US is said to be in contact with all of them.
American-British axis
A glimpse into how the American-British intelligence is working behind the scenes in Iran came in April when a forged a letter purportedly written by Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an adviser to Iran's President Mohammed Khatami, surfaced in Ahvaz and elsewhere in Khuzestan province. The letter was tailor-made to trigger unrest among Arab Iranians.
The letter mentioned plans to evict Arabs from the oil-rich Khuzestan province and settle ethnic Persians there. Leading the riots were Arab students, who were particularly incensed by a mention in the forged letter that Arab students would have to leave Khuzestan and go elsewhere to study.
Five people were killed in the clashes between the rioting Arabs and security forces. About 310 people were arrested in the clashes. They were released later.
According to the intelligence report, American-British agents had forged the Abtahi letter and they also incited the Arabs in the province to riot and clash with the security forces. Abtahi himself has denied having written such a letter.
In mid-June, several bombs went off in Ahwaz, killing at least eight people. Two others died in Tehran on the same day, but it is still not known whether the two incidents were linked. Tehran blamed a London-based Arab Iranian group -- the Popular Democratic Front of Ahwazi Arabs -- for the bombings and the group denied the charge.
Recent disturbances in Iranian Kurdistan when Jalal Talabani became Iraq's first Kurdish president were also part of the American intelligence operations, reports say. American spies are working with the illegal Kurdistan Democratic party of Iran, which is based in Kurdish-held Iraq. The group is said to have provoked the recent disturbances by releasing a plan for a federal constitution in Iran.
At the same time, people like Abrahamian believes that a misplaced move could turn out to be costly for Washington.
Elite decapitation
Noting that the US has already drawn up plans for military strikes at Iranian nuclear installations, Abrahamian says: "They (the US) also have plans, what they call elite decapitation, which would be surgical strikes at ministries of the top people. And that would be basically a sort of slippery slope they would start on.
"They would think that doing that would prevent Iran developing the nuclear programme, not taking into account that Iran also has its own cards it could play. If that was done, if any military action was implemented, I think that the Iranians would use the cards they have, which is in Afghanistan and Iraq, both areas, they have actually great advantages. They could unravel the already bad position the United States is in those countries, completely unravel it. All they have to do is give the green light to (Iraqi hardline Shiite leader Mortada) Sadr in southern Iraq to have a Shiite revolt....."
Similarly, Tehran could also stir up trouble for the Americans in Afghanistan with help from some of the warlords there, he notes.
"It's often forgotten here that Iran has actually done everything it can so far to help United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan," says Abrahamian. And if there's a confrontation, military confrontation, there would be no reason for them to co-operate with United States. They would do exactly what would be in their interests, which would be to destroy the US position in those two countries."
Pitfalls ahead
Indeed, the US-UK alliance cannot be expected to be unaware of the pitfalls.
Says a seasoned regional observer: "The American-British strategy is to intervene militarily only when the internal unrest reaches its high point and Washington and London could depend on Iranians to a large extent to overthrow the regime. The US and the UK will provide military assistance of a minimum level in order to help those Iranian elements which want to change the regime in Tehran, but only when the time is right."
While Ahmedinejad's victory is seen by the reformist camp as a triumph for theocracy, it remains to be seen how he will deal with economic issues, rising unemployment, civil liberties and women's rights. That could be crucial to determining the success of the American campaign to fuel internal unrest and bring things to a boil in Iran.
With inputs from websites
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Americans are angry
Images from anti-war protests staged on Sept.24, 2005. The article was written on July 23, 2005
PV Vivekanand
AMERICANS are angry, and the fury is growing. Soon something will have to yield, and the entire facade of the deep conspiracy and deception that went into hoodwinking them into accepting the invasion and occupation of Iraq as legitimate would collapse. That is what one realises when browsing through the thousands of websites that have sprung up to carry many objective and in-depth anayses and comments. No mainstream media are touching the real story of deception of which the unfolding details of how senior officials in the Bush administration stopped at nothing and pulled all the plugs in their desperate effort to build a non-existent case against Iraq. Exposing an undercover operative of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is only one of the classic examples of the neoconservatives' desperation, writes PV Vivekanand.
It now seems to be a certainty that Karl Rove, a senior adviser to US President George W Bush, had revealed the name of the undercover CIA operative to the Time magazine as welll as columnist Robert Novak. Time magazine's reporter, Matt Cooper, has also revealed that Vice-President Dick Cheney's aide Lewis Libby was another of his sources.
Linked to the same case is Judith Miller, The New York Times reporter, who was the main conduit for then Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi to plant false information in the US media. Miller is being praised as a heroine for opting to go to prison rather than reveal her sources in connection with the same case although she did not write about it.
However, American writers point out, the media which have been paying tribute to Miller's "courage" are clearly overlooking the fact that she is in prison not because of a stand against revealing sources but for a different reason.
Miller is in prison to protect someone high up in the Bush administration or someone who was there. It could be anyone, including the president, the vice-president or one of their powerful aides, including some who are now occupying high international positions and a revelation that they had revealed the name of the CIA operative to a journalist could have far-reaching consequences to their present status.
Not many journalists and commentators in the US are impressed by Miller, as their comments on various websites indicate. They are asserting that if Miller were to uphold the high ethics of journalism and freedom of the press, then she should have exposed the Bush administration's deceptive campaign to wage war against Iraq.
She is well-known for her expertise with the Middle East, and it should not have been a secret to her that the administration was determined to invade and occupy Iraq much before the actual invasion and that the scene was being prepared for it through deceptive means.
A suggestion, direct or indirect, explicit or implicit, never came in any of Miller's writings in the run-up to or during or after the invasion of Iraq that Washington had made up its mind to seal Saddam Hussein's fate even when it was dilly-dallying with the UN about weapon inspections in Iraq.
Instead, she steadily helped channel to her paper a flow of unverified information — now we know it Chalabi was her source — about Saddam's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, her critics point out.
The legality of the right of journalists to protect their sources is being debated in Washington now, and several members of Congress known to have strong links with the neoconservative camp are trying to introduce legislation that offers protection to journalists who refuse to reveal their sources.
Obviously, the Rove-Libby case is only the tip of an iceberg. Much deeper and intriguing plotting and planning has gone into setting the deceptive path towards the war against Iraq. And those who want to introduce legal protection for journalists refusing to reveal sources might perhaps be ensuring protection for themselves when more skeletons tumble out from the shelves of the Bush administration.
No one doubts that there was a grandiose scheme that went to paving the way for the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq and it was helped by many media outlets which, wittingly or unwittingly, sidestepped journalistic ethics, principles or code of conduct in their anxiety to help the neoconservatives to build the case for war.
We should have known this week whether Miller was protecting Karl Rove, Lewis Libby or someone else. But it has not happened.
Time reporter Cooper has already revealed that Rove was the first to tell him that the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson was an undercover CIA operative and she was instrumental in sending Wilson to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had bought nuclear material from that country.
Cooper has also disclosed that Libby was another of his sources.
Now that both Libby and Rove have been named, it was logical that Miller would opt to admit that either of them or both of them were her sources too and get herself released from prison.
Her imprisonment could last for another three months if she continues to refuse to reveal her sources. Since she did not grab the opportunity offered when Copper named Rove and Libby, she is seen as definitely protecting someone else, and this opens up yet another chapter of deception at the highest levels in Washington to set the stage for war against Iraq.
In legal terms, both Rove and Libby could be charged with treason because they exposed an undercover CIA operative. Had the woman concerned been a regular employee of the CIA, there would have no such charge, but exposing an undercover agent is a serious crime.
That a senior White House official would go to the exent of committing such a crime is only a reflection of the determination to invade and occupy Iraq, many Americans argue.
Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson writes that the election victory of Bush in 2000 was the hardliners in Washington were waiting for in their gameplan to invade and occupy Iraq.
According to Jackson, "Libby, Cheney, and the other influential right-wing hard-liners, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, saw their dreams come true" when Bush was elected.
He notes that Cheney was defence secretary in the administration of Bush Senior and Libby and Wolfowitz were two of his aides who, after the first Gulf war left Saddam in power, drafted a document advocating ‘‘pre-emptive’’ war against possible threats.
They said the United States should be ‘‘postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated," notes Jackson. But their plans had to be held in abeyance because Democrat Bill Clinton won the 1991 elections and occupied the White House for the eight years beginning in January 1992.
"But when the junior Bush became president in 2000, the hard right on foreign policy took the helm," writes Jackson. "They used the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 as an excuse for invading Iraq, even though President Bush’s own 9/11 Commission found no tie between Saddam and 9/11.
"Libby was in the thick of whipping up fear over the thinnest of evidence. The level to which Libby and Cheney stooped to get their war was highlighted by the momentous presentation of Saddam’s 'threat’' before the United Nations Security Council by then secretary of state Colin Powell.
"Powell gave a presentation six weeks before the war where he said, 'every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions.’ Those assertions resulted in grudging acceptance of the war from many Democrats.
"Virtually all of Powell’s solid sources fell apart when the United States turned Iraq upside down, killing thousands of Iraqi civilians in the process. He would have looked much worse had he listened to everything Libby and Cheney tried to feed him."
Jackson concludes: " Libby may end up as a symbol of a government so driven to ignore the truth it was willing to resort to dirty tricks to stop anyone from telling it."
Why was the uranium-from-Niger deception so important for the Bush administration that its senior officials went far out of their way to discredit the Wilsons?
Ambassador Wilson exposed a particular lie that played an essential role it played in the administration’s plans for war against Iraq.
Wilson pulled the rug from under the argument that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The argument was one that the administration wanted to flash before Congress and convince it into approving war on Iraq.
Indeed, the "intelligence" on the non-existent Niger connection came from the British government, the White House's main partner, but even London had doubts over the authenticity of the information.
But it was a windfall for the neoconservative camp. The neocons charged up the spin-machine in Washington and soon it was taken for granted in the media that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear weapons development programme.
Then came Wilson's bombshell, and no one in the neocon camp was willing to forgive him for upsetting the war wagon going to Baghdad, and hence the former ambasasdor and his wife had to pay a big price, and they paid it indeed.
What is deplorable is the way the administration continues to play phantom and insist that it was right all along and there was nothing wrong — notwithstanding that all its justifications for the Iraq war were lies, that it led the US and some of its allies into an illegal war where thousands of American soldiers have been killed and maimed — not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis — and spent more than $200 billion of American taxpayer's money.
What is precisely the Wilson and CIA angle to the campaign of deception and lies?
It is simple and straight.
Wilson was sent by the CIA to Africa in 2002 to investigate claims that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger — a claim that was central to the White House justification for its invasion of Iraq that Saddam was building nuclear-arms capability.
Wilson conducted the investigation and reported back that there was no basis whatsoever for the claim. Well, it was not what the White House wanted and he was told to keep quiet.
However, the administration continued to maintain that Saddam was seeking nuclear material from Niger. Bush himself made that claim in public in his 2003 State of the Union address.
Obviously, Wilson was shocked by the blatant deception, and wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times critical of the administration's strategies and exposing the deceit.
Wilson's article asked the question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes to justify an invasion?"
At this point, he became an enemy of the administration, and it was time to punish Wilson for blowing the whistle and also to set an example for others like the former ambassador who had known of the campaign of deception at various levels. That punishment came in the form of exposing Wilson's wife Valery Plame as an undercover CIA operative.
Apparently, Rove suggested to Cooper that it was because of his wife's CIA influence that the former ambassador was assigned to investigate the Niger nuclear claim. The revelation was purportedly aimed at discrediting Wilson, but, in the bargain, his wife was named as a CIA undercover agent.
Obviously, the administration saw the stakes in the game as too high not to allow Wilson to get away with revealing its deceptions over Iraq and also sought to set a deterrent against others with similar thoughts. That is why someone like Rove went to the extent of exposing an undercover CIA agent that would have much deeper impact within the intelligence community. Exposing an undercover operative could lead to exposing many others. In this case, it is known that at least one "foreign undercover agent" of the CIA was executed by the host government because that agent was also exposed when Valery Plame was named a CIA agent. The damage to US intelligence operations could be vast, and no one is talking about it, at least not yet.
It should indeed be a shock to the American people that senior officials in their government were party to compromising intelligence and undermining the country's national security interests.
And we are hearing more and more from the American people expressing their anger and indignation over how they were taken for a ride in the Iraq context.
The first published account that Plame was a CIA operative came in a syndicated column written by Robert Novak, but he got off the hook by making a deal with the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the "leakage."
In his column, Novak identifed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. He suggested that her influence had been used by Wilson to get the assignment to verify the Niger claim and torpedo the mission for his own narrow partisan ends. Novak cited as sources "two senior administration officials."
Plame was assigned to the CIA's Non-Proliferation Centre, an organisation of analysts, technical experts and former field operatives who work on detecting and, if possible, preventing foreign proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Novak wrote: "Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, met with officials at the Non-Proliferation Centre before the invasion of Iraq to discuss reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. A US official with knowledge of those meetings said Plame did not attend. But the former US intelligence official said she was involved in preparing materials for those meetings."
Then came the Time magazine report written by Cooper revealing Plame's name and an investigation was launched into who leaked the name. What we are hearing today is the continuation of that episode.
What was Miller's "crime"? She revealed that a White House official had mentioned the name of Plame, although she did not write about it.
And when the investigation was launched, Miller refused to reveal whom she'd talked to and that was why she was sent to jail. Novak was spared because of his deal with the investigator. Cooper tried to put up a fight, but ultimately he agreed to reveal his source to a grand jury and thus avoided going to prison like Miller.
A close look at Miller's writings since Sept.11, 2001 indicates that she had contributed much to building the non-existent case for war against Iraq by accepting whatever lies were fed to her of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Of course, she might not have known that these were lies. But, surely, a journalist with decades of experience behind her would have definitely tried to verify some of the information. Obviously, as The New York Times had to admit later, the paper did not do justice to the mandatory process of verifying some of the reports.
But why would Miller persist in carrying the deceptive "details" that Chalabi provided her?
Well, the answer might perhaps be found in a March 18, 2002 letter revealing a conversation that took place between the former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, and one of the architects of the Iraq war — Paul Wolfowitz, often described as the most hawkish among the neoconservatives who planned the Iraq war eight years earlier (in a recommendation to Israel) and implemented the plan in 2003.
Meyer wrote to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on a meeting he held with Wolfowitz:
"We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option."
It was written one year before the US launched the invasion of Iraq.
Beyond that is the direct reference that Wolfowitz made to Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC).
Meyer observed in the letter that Wolfowitz insisted that the INC should not be discredited despite warnings from Meyer.
"When I mentioned that the INC was penetrated by Iraqi intelligence, Wolfowitz commented that this was probably the case with all the opposition groups: It was something we would have to live with..."
(Indeed, it was Wolfowitz who insisted that Bush include a statement that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger in his State of the Union address despite a CIA warning that the information was unreliable and could not be verified.
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Bush said in his address.
No doubt, the statement was technically correct because it accurately reflected a British intelligence report. However, the White House knew it was information that the CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.
That was the level of desperation of the Bush administration to build the false case for the war against Iraq).
Is there any connection with Wolfowitz's "obsession" with Chalabi and the false information the INC chief provided to Miller that unfailingly found its way to The New York Times?
Is Miller trying to protect Wolfowitz, who is now president of the World Bank?
The web of lies is spread far and wide. Among the officials who played a key role in creating the so-called Niger file and added it to Washington's case for war against Iraq was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John R. Bolton , according to Representative Henry Waxman, a ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee.
The document was part of an American presentation countering and discrediting a Dec.7., 2002 Iraqi disclosure about its weapons of mass destruction programme.
On Dec.19, 2002, the State Department issued a fact sheet entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council."
Under the heading "Nuclear Weapons," the fact sheet stated:
The declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?
Waxman says he was told by the State Department in September 2003 that Bolton had no role in creating the document.
However, says Waxman, there is evidence that Bolton was specifically asked for help to counter the Iraqi declaration and Bolton assigned the work to "the Bureau of Nonproliferation," a subordinate office that reports directly to Bolton.
Is Miller protecting Bolton, who is nominated by Bush to be the next US ambassador to the UN?
We don't know yet who Miller is trying to protect and we could only take a wild shot at it, but we don't have to do that to know what she is not protecting.
The fury of the American people are showing in cyberspace.
Here is a classic example (http://wuamericaru.blogspot.com):
"The current Administration has done its very best to mangle, tear asunder, or annihilate: our constitutional rights, our freedoms and liberty, our privacy, America's standing in the world, the economy, the environment and ways of protecting it, the healthcare system and Medicare, Social Security, sound education and student development, the quality and safety of the agriculture industry and our food and water supply, proper judicial procedures, the peoples' right to know what their "duly elected" government is really doing. This is just a short list.
"The way in which the administration has imposed its whims and will over the entire country — and certain parts of the world that don't need mentioning — in a seemingly carte blanche manner, is very frightening and disturbing. It is troubling that a country founded on a premise and a philosophy of democratic, citizen-run government can devolve into a shell of its former self, with dangerous, avaricious, and bloodthirsty individuals and groups filling the void. On the outside, everything looks peachy keen. When one gets to the heart of the matter, however, they can see the slow, painful, and agonising death of the greatest country that ever was."
Justin Raimundo, a well-known anti-war activist and commentator, puts in a better perspective (www.antiwar.com/justin):
"What we are witnessing is an insurgency arising to take back Washington from the occupiers. It is a two-pronged legal assault, launched from within the FBI and the Department of Justice by patriotic Americans who mean to take back their country from the invader. That is the meaning of the Plame investigation and the AIPAC-Larry Franklin spy case. The battlefield is not Baghdad, it's an American courtroom: the weapon of choice is not the RPG but the subpoena. As the prosecutor-insurgents inch slowly toward the White House, occasionally scoring direct hits inside the Green Zone, the panic begins to spread: talk of "staying the course" is tempered by hints of negotiations and rumours of withdrawal. Donald Rumsfeld tells us that the Iraqi insurgency could last a decade or more, but the Washington version is likely to end much sooner — in a clear victory for the insurgents."
With inputs from website sources
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Unrealistic deadlines
The dice is loaded
WASHINGTON has set a mid-July deadline for Iraq's former prime minister Iyad Allawi to finalise a deal with the country's Sunni community to at least partially contain the ongoing insurgency there. The Bush administration is pinning high hopes that Allawi would succeed in his mission. Allawi is holding marathon meetings in Amman, Jordan, with Iraqi Sunni leaders who travel there upon his invitation, according to intelligence reports.
Allawi is seeking to convene a Sunni Arab Congress grouping some 250 delegates representing all Sunni factions, parties and guerrilla groups. They will be invited to enter Iraq’s mainstream political process.
Allawi is backed in his mission by Sunni Defence Minister Saadoun Al Duleimi.
The optimism that Allawi would be able to finalise a deal with the Sunnis is seen behind the upbeat note in the speech US President George W. Bush made on June 28 at the US air base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Bush said that he was not making any major change in his approach to the insurgency in Iraq but that he had a plan to end the crisis in the beleaguered country where dozens of Iraqis are being killed on a daily basis. He assured Americans that he would win the war in Iraq.
According to the sources, Washington retained Allawi as its pointman Iraq even after his party failed to secure enough seats in the Jan.30 elections that produced a new government with Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani as president and Shiite Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister.
The mainstream Sunni community stayed away from the elections and are not represented in the government. Washington wanted to address that through nominating a few Sunni leaders, but Shiite rejection of that strategy scuttled the American plan.
Since then Allawi, a Shiite with strong connections with the Central Intelligence Agency has been trying to convince the Sunnis into dropping their boycott and joining the process of drafting a constitution leading to new elections for a government on the basis of that constitution.
Since the Jaafari government took office in April, more than 1,000, most of them Iraqis, have been killed in the insurgency.
While Allawi is tasked with dealing with the Sunni community, the US military is focusing on the non-Iraqi Jihad component of the insurgents said to be led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant affiliated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Allawi has enlisted the help of Jordan and Egypt as well as the Arab League in his mission. He visited Cairo on June 24 and held talks with President Hosni Mubarak and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. Both supported his mission.
A recent call by the grand mufti of Al Azhar, the highest Sunni authority, on the insurgents in Iraq to suspend their attacks was seen as linked to Mubarak's endorsement of Allawi's mission.
According to the sources, Allawi visited Syria on June 23 and held talks with President Bashar Al Assad, but the response from Damascus to his appeals for a total blockade of jihadist volunteers entering Iraq through the porous border was not seen to be very positive.
The Syrians categorically denied that they were party to the infiltration to Iraq and pointed out that they had co-operated fully with the US forces in recent operations against Zarqawi near the frontier.
Jordan has also endorsed Allawi's mission. Allawi was based in Amman during the last decade of Saddam Hussein's reign in power and he had developed close contacts with senior Jordanian leaders. National security adviser General Saad Kheir is said to be in charge of the Jordanian liaison officers carrying messages back and forth between the Iraqi parties.
Among the people Allawi has already met in Amman were some leaders of the militant Ansar Al Islam movement, which has claimed responsibility for scores of attacks against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq as well as kidnappings (Jordan has given an undertaking that it would not seek to detain any visitors to Allawi in Amman even though they might be wanted for anti-Jordanian activities in Iraq).
Ansar al Islam was upset when the contacts with Allawi were leaked to the media and therefore it hastily issued several statements reaffirming its commitment to jihad.
Washington is not hoping for a complete end to insurgent attacks on the basis of agreements hoped to be worked out at the proposed Sunni congress. It is only expecting to convince the mainstream Sunni leaders to stay away from the insurgency and refuse to align themselves with non-Iraqi jihadists like Zarqawi.
If that mission is accomplished, according to the American strategy, then it would make it easier for the US military in Iraq to hunt down jihadists and eliminate them.
Bush, who has said he did not think he needed to send more troops to Iraq to suppress the insurgency, should but be aware that there is no military solution in Iraq and hence he is betting on Allawi's success.
However, the reality on the ground suggests Allawi would not be able to make much headway either.
If anything, the intensity of the insurgency has only grown in recent weeks. It was based on this realisation that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the gloomy assessment that insurgencies tend to go on for six, eight, 10, 12 years.
US Middle East commander General John Abizaid recently told a Congressional panel that the Iraqi insurgency was still running with the same intensity and foreign fighters were continuing to join the war at the same level that existed six months ago.
Other factors that undermine Allawi's mission include the pattern that has emerged in Iraq under which the Sunni leaders engage themselves in political talks with mediators but also continue to support the insurgency — "they keep shooting and speaking at the same time" as one source puts it."
Another is the ambitions of the Shiites and Kurds to consolidate their newfound prominence in pos-Saddam Iraq at the expense of the Sunnis. Both communities are expanding their respective spheres of influence in the south and north and this has narrowed the Sunni options to central Iraq and the area is fast shrinking.
The US has not been able to influence Iran into suspending its alleged clandestine operations in support of the insurgents. American strategists argue that the conservative Shiite theocrats of Tehran and Qom are aware that American gunsights would be trained against them if the US military is allowed to stabilise Iraq and therefor continued instability in their western neighbour is deemed to be a necessity for their survival in power.
Both President Talabani and Prime Minister Jaafari as well as the Kurdish and Shiite camps they represent are not very enthusiastic about giving more weightage to the Sunnis in governance and this also is seen as working against Allawi's mission.
What all these boil down to is simple: The US is severely handicapped in its effort to pacify Iraq. More and more volunteers are turning up to fight the US-led coalition forces and Iraqis seen aligned with them, including the more than 160,000 ill-trained soldiers. The killing and maiming of a few insurgents here and there are temporary victories since those challenging the US presence in Iraq are fighting the war without any rules and resort to most unexpected tactics.
"The solution is more political than military at this point," according to Michael O'Hanlon, who heads the Iraq Index project at the Brookings Institution. "We do need to improve safety on the streets, to get the politics working to our advantage, but most of the solution is to get the Sunni Arabs aboard the political process," he recently told San Francisco Chronicle.
That is what Allawi is trying to do and this why Bush is hoping against hope that Allawi would succeed. However, the mid-July deadline is unrealistic. Allawi had been in touch with the Sunnis since he took over from US administrator Paul Bremer in June 2004 and has not made much headway, and there are only negative signals coming out of Iraq for any deadline for the Sunnis to sign on his proposals.
WASHINGTON has set a mid-July deadline for Iraq's former prime minister Iyad Allawi to finalise a deal with the country's Sunni community to at least partially contain the ongoing insurgency there. The Bush administration is pinning high hopes that Allawi would succeed in his mission. Allawi is holding marathon meetings in Amman, Jordan, with Iraqi Sunni leaders who travel there upon his invitation, according to intelligence reports.
Allawi is seeking to convene a Sunni Arab Congress grouping some 250 delegates representing all Sunni factions, parties and guerrilla groups. They will be invited to enter Iraq’s mainstream political process.
Allawi is backed in his mission by Sunni Defence Minister Saadoun Al Duleimi.
The optimism that Allawi would be able to finalise a deal with the Sunnis is seen behind the upbeat note in the speech US President George W. Bush made on June 28 at the US air base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Bush said that he was not making any major change in his approach to the insurgency in Iraq but that he had a plan to end the crisis in the beleaguered country where dozens of Iraqis are being killed on a daily basis. He assured Americans that he would win the war in Iraq.
According to the sources, Washington retained Allawi as its pointman Iraq even after his party failed to secure enough seats in the Jan.30 elections that produced a new government with Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani as president and Shiite Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister.
The mainstream Sunni community stayed away from the elections and are not represented in the government. Washington wanted to address that through nominating a few Sunni leaders, but Shiite rejection of that strategy scuttled the American plan.
Since then Allawi, a Shiite with strong connections with the Central Intelligence Agency has been trying to convince the Sunnis into dropping their boycott and joining the process of drafting a constitution leading to new elections for a government on the basis of that constitution.
Since the Jaafari government took office in April, more than 1,000, most of them Iraqis, have been killed in the insurgency.
While Allawi is tasked with dealing with the Sunni community, the US military is focusing on the non-Iraqi Jihad component of the insurgents said to be led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant affiliated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Allawi has enlisted the help of Jordan and Egypt as well as the Arab League in his mission. He visited Cairo on June 24 and held talks with President Hosni Mubarak and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. Both supported his mission.
A recent call by the grand mufti of Al Azhar, the highest Sunni authority, on the insurgents in Iraq to suspend their attacks was seen as linked to Mubarak's endorsement of Allawi's mission.
According to the sources, Allawi visited Syria on June 23 and held talks with President Bashar Al Assad, but the response from Damascus to his appeals for a total blockade of jihadist volunteers entering Iraq through the porous border was not seen to be very positive.
The Syrians categorically denied that they were party to the infiltration to Iraq and pointed out that they had co-operated fully with the US forces in recent operations against Zarqawi near the frontier.
Jordan has also endorsed Allawi's mission. Allawi was based in Amman during the last decade of Saddam Hussein's reign in power and he had developed close contacts with senior Jordanian leaders. National security adviser General Saad Kheir is said to be in charge of the Jordanian liaison officers carrying messages back and forth between the Iraqi parties.
Among the people Allawi has already met in Amman were some leaders of the militant Ansar Al Islam movement, which has claimed responsibility for scores of attacks against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq as well as kidnappings (Jordan has given an undertaking that it would not seek to detain any visitors to Allawi in Amman even though they might be wanted for anti-Jordanian activities in Iraq).
Ansar al Islam was upset when the contacts with Allawi were leaked to the media and therefore it hastily issued several statements reaffirming its commitment to jihad.
Washington is not hoping for a complete end to insurgent attacks on the basis of agreements hoped to be worked out at the proposed Sunni congress. It is only expecting to convince the mainstream Sunni leaders to stay away from the insurgency and refuse to align themselves with non-Iraqi jihadists like Zarqawi.
If that mission is accomplished, according to the American strategy, then it would make it easier for the US military in Iraq to hunt down jihadists and eliminate them.
Bush, who has said he did not think he needed to send more troops to Iraq to suppress the insurgency, should but be aware that there is no military solution in Iraq and hence he is betting on Allawi's success.
However, the reality on the ground suggests Allawi would not be able to make much headway either.
If anything, the intensity of the insurgency has only grown in recent weeks. It was based on this realisation that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the gloomy assessment that insurgencies tend to go on for six, eight, 10, 12 years.
US Middle East commander General John Abizaid recently told a Congressional panel that the Iraqi insurgency was still running with the same intensity and foreign fighters were continuing to join the war at the same level that existed six months ago.
Other factors that undermine Allawi's mission include the pattern that has emerged in Iraq under which the Sunni leaders engage themselves in political talks with mediators but also continue to support the insurgency — "they keep shooting and speaking at the same time" as one source puts it."
Another is the ambitions of the Shiites and Kurds to consolidate their newfound prominence in pos-Saddam Iraq at the expense of the Sunnis. Both communities are expanding their respective spheres of influence in the south and north and this has narrowed the Sunni options to central Iraq and the area is fast shrinking.
The US has not been able to influence Iran into suspending its alleged clandestine operations in support of the insurgents. American strategists argue that the conservative Shiite theocrats of Tehran and Qom are aware that American gunsights would be trained against them if the US military is allowed to stabilise Iraq and therefor continued instability in their western neighbour is deemed to be a necessity for their survival in power.
Both President Talabani and Prime Minister Jaafari as well as the Kurdish and Shiite camps they represent are not very enthusiastic about giving more weightage to the Sunnis in governance and this also is seen as working against Allawi's mission.
What all these boil down to is simple: The US is severely handicapped in its effort to pacify Iraq. More and more volunteers are turning up to fight the US-led coalition forces and Iraqis seen aligned with them, including the more than 160,000 ill-trained soldiers. The killing and maiming of a few insurgents here and there are temporary victories since those challenging the US presence in Iraq are fighting the war without any rules and resort to most unexpected tactics.
"The solution is more political than military at this point," according to Michael O'Hanlon, who heads the Iraq Index project at the Brookings Institution. "We do need to improve safety on the streets, to get the politics working to our advantage, but most of the solution is to get the Sunni Arabs aboard the political process," he recently told San Francisco Chronicle.
That is what Allawi is trying to do and this why Bush is hoping against hope that Allawi would succeed. However, the mid-July deadline is unrealistic. Allawi had been in touch with the Sunnis since he took over from US administrator Paul Bremer in June 2004 and has not made much headway, and there are only negative signals coming out of Iraq for any deadline for the Sunnis to sign on his proposals.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Attempt at tearing the veil
June 30 2005
Attempt at tearing the veil
AN INTENSE campaign is under way in cyberspace to support a move by US Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Democrat - California) to force the Bush administration to reveal whether it had decided to invade and occupy Iraq by mid-2002 — months before it sought congressional approval for military action against Saddam Hussein.
Lee has submitted a resolution of inquiry into this effect to the House of Representatives and the motion has been referred to the assembly's Committee on International Relations.
If adopted, the motion will require the White House and the State Department to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of its adoption all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between Jan.1, 2002, and Oct.16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."
The resolution is supported by 26 other members of the House of Representatives.
In formal terms, President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice would be required to provide "all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession" of the president and secretary of state relating to communications with officials of the United Kingdom from Jan.1, 2002, to Oct.6, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq, "including any discussions or communications between the president or other administration officials and officials of the United Kingdom that occurred before the meeting on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street in London, England, between Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom intelligence officer Richard Dearlove, and other national security officials of the Blair administration."
Proponents of the resolution are asking Americans to support it by pressuring their respective members of congress into not only voting in its favour but also explain in the House of Representatives why if they do not favour it.
"Tell them that you will not vote for anyone that votes against the inquiry," says a comment appearing on www.whatreallyhappened.com.
The motion is linked to the minutes of a secret meeting held at the British prime minister's office on July 23, 2002 that have come be known as the "Downing Street memo." It quotes Richard
Dearlove of the MI6 intelligence agency as telling the meeting that he had found in talks with American officials that the Bush administration had already taken a decision to invade Iraq and was intelligence reports to be doctored to justify the decision. It was not until October 2002 that the administration secured congressional approval for military action against Iraq in the pretext that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and posed a direct threat to the national security of the US.
The memo states that by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Saddam by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
Dearlove continues: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Dearlove also told the meeting that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the same meeting that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." "But," he continues, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran."
The White House and State Department have withheld direct comment on the memo. President Bush evaded a direct answer to a question put to him at a joint press conference with visiting Blair a few weeks ago. He maintained that he had always sought a "peaceful" solution to the Iraq crisis and it was only when all options were exhausted, including UN involvement, that he decided to take military action.
If the Downing Street memo reflects the reality — as its proponents believe it does — then it would be established that the president lied to the US Congress.
The Bush administration would not be able to block the release of all communications in the Iraq context made between Jan.1 2002 and Oct.6, 2002 if the US Congress asks it to do so. And those communications would clearly reveal whether the contention made by Dearlove was accurate, the proponents of the Lee resolution say.
A group of nearly 120 members of Congress has submitted a call on the White House to make a formal comment on the Downing Street memo, but the administration has not responded to it.
A flyer accompanying the text of the Lee resolution appearing on www.afterdowningstreet.com is calling on Americans to their congress members to co-sponsor the motion.
The resolution must be voted on in committee within 14 legislative days of its introduction.
The Republicans, who control the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, may take the matter up right away, hoping to vote it down before Congress takes a recess in August. If they do not, they will be required to take it up by Sept.16. The more congress members in the full House of Representatives who co-sponsor the resolution, the more likely committee members are to vote for it.
The appeal on the web site urges that committee members should be asked not only to vote for it but to discuss it at length and engage in a substantive debate when the committee meets, so that members who oppose it have to explain their reasons.
"This resolution is important because the information in the Downing Street documents so strongly suggests that President Bush intentionally deceived Congress about the reasons for war, " it says. "If that is not the case, then releasing the documents requested here will clear that up — something the president should be eager to do."
If the Republicans in the US Congress somehow manage to vote down the resolution, then it would clearly be established that the Bush administration has something to hide in its communications with the Blair government. Thus, the White House is caught in its own trap. It could not afford to release the sought for documents because it would establish the case against the administration. In the other hand, blocking the congressional motion would signal an affirmation that the allegations that the administration had decided to wage war against Iraq but not only kept the elected representatives of the people in the dark but also lied to them.
But then, that is only the tip of the iceberg, given that other documents have surfaced indicating that the Bush administration was planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure "regime change" even before Bush took power in January 2001.
That document, which calls for the creation of a "global Pax Americana" was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (formerly Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The blueprint shows that the Bush camp planned to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," it says. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
If pursued with vigour and determination, the Lee resolution offers the American Congress and people the opportunity to tear the veil away from the real story of the invasion of Iraq. Both sides seem to have realised it, and we could expect to see a bitter battle in the US Congress, both in public and behind--the-scenes, but all bets are off on the outcome.
Attempt at tearing the veil
AN INTENSE campaign is under way in cyberspace to support a move by US Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Democrat - California) to force the Bush administration to reveal whether it had decided to invade and occupy Iraq by mid-2002 — months before it sought congressional approval for military action against Saddam Hussein.
Lee has submitted a resolution of inquiry into this effect to the House of Representatives and the motion has been referred to the assembly's Committee on International Relations.
If adopted, the motion will require the White House and the State Department to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of its adoption all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between Jan.1, 2002, and Oct.16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."
The resolution is supported by 26 other members of the House of Representatives.
In formal terms, President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice would be required to provide "all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession" of the president and secretary of state relating to communications with officials of the United Kingdom from Jan.1, 2002, to Oct.6, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq, "including any discussions or communications between the president or other administration officials and officials of the United Kingdom that occurred before the meeting on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street in London, England, between Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom intelligence officer Richard Dearlove, and other national security officials of the Blair administration."
Proponents of the resolution are asking Americans to support it by pressuring their respective members of congress into not only voting in its favour but also explain in the House of Representatives why if they do not favour it.
"Tell them that you will not vote for anyone that votes against the inquiry," says a comment appearing on www.whatreallyhappened.com.
The motion is linked to the minutes of a secret meeting held at the British prime minister's office on July 23, 2002 that have come be known as the "Downing Street memo." It quotes Richard
Dearlove of the MI6 intelligence agency as telling the meeting that he had found in talks with American officials that the Bush administration had already taken a decision to invade Iraq and was intelligence reports to be doctored to justify the decision. It was not until October 2002 that the administration secured congressional approval for military action against Iraq in the pretext that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and posed a direct threat to the national security of the US.
The memo states that by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Saddam by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
Dearlove continues: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Dearlove also told the meeting that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the same meeting that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." "But," he continues, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran."
The White House and State Department have withheld direct comment on the memo. President Bush evaded a direct answer to a question put to him at a joint press conference with visiting Blair a few weeks ago. He maintained that he had always sought a "peaceful" solution to the Iraq crisis and it was only when all options were exhausted, including UN involvement, that he decided to take military action.
If the Downing Street memo reflects the reality — as its proponents believe it does — then it would be established that the president lied to the US Congress.
The Bush administration would not be able to block the release of all communications in the Iraq context made between Jan.1 2002 and Oct.6, 2002 if the US Congress asks it to do so. And those communications would clearly reveal whether the contention made by Dearlove was accurate, the proponents of the Lee resolution say.
A group of nearly 120 members of Congress has submitted a call on the White House to make a formal comment on the Downing Street memo, but the administration has not responded to it.
A flyer accompanying the text of the Lee resolution appearing on www.afterdowningstreet.com is calling on Americans to their congress members to co-sponsor the motion.
The resolution must be voted on in committee within 14 legislative days of its introduction.
The Republicans, who control the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, may take the matter up right away, hoping to vote it down before Congress takes a recess in August. If they do not, they will be required to take it up by Sept.16. The more congress members in the full House of Representatives who co-sponsor the resolution, the more likely committee members are to vote for it.
The appeal on the web site urges that committee members should be asked not only to vote for it but to discuss it at length and engage in a substantive debate when the committee meets, so that members who oppose it have to explain their reasons.
"This resolution is important because the information in the Downing Street documents so strongly suggests that President Bush intentionally deceived Congress about the reasons for war, " it says. "If that is not the case, then releasing the documents requested here will clear that up — something the president should be eager to do."
If the Republicans in the US Congress somehow manage to vote down the resolution, then it would clearly be established that the Bush administration has something to hide in its communications with the Blair government. Thus, the White House is caught in its own trap. It could not afford to release the sought for documents because it would establish the case against the administration. In the other hand, blocking the congressional motion would signal an affirmation that the allegations that the administration had decided to wage war against Iraq but not only kept the elected representatives of the people in the dark but also lied to them.
But then, that is only the tip of the iceberg, given that other documents have surfaced indicating that the Bush administration was planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure "regime change" even before Bush took power in January 2001.
That document, which calls for the creation of a "global Pax Americana" was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (formerly Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The blueprint shows that the Bush camp planned to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," it says. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
If pursued with vigour and determination, the Lee resolution offers the American Congress and people the opportunity to tear the veil away from the real story of the invasion of Iraq. Both sides seem to have realised it, and we could expect to see a bitter battle in the US Congress, both in public and behind--the-scenes, but all bets are off on the outcome.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
No timetable (ever)
June 25, 2005
No timetable (ever) for US pullout
AMERICAN public have started taking serious notice of the crisis their country is facing in Iraq. That much is clear. What is not clear to them is how long would their military remain in Iraq and continue to take casualties. And hence the demand on the Bush administration to set a clear timetable for withdrawal from the country.
US President George W Bush had more of Americans in mind than the Iraqis or the rest of the world when he asserted on Friday that he would set no timetable for recalling the US military from Iraq.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumseld wants Americans to be patient and support their troops in Iraq. He has put the onus on Iraqi security forces to quell the insurgency and suggests that the crisis could go on "for five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.''
"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency," he said on Sunday. "We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.''
Well, that approach clearly set the background for an indefinite American presence in Iraq since it is wishful thinking that Iraqi security forces would ever be able to effectively counter the insurgency and bring the country under their control.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll ahead of a key speech on Tuesday in which Bush was to seek public support for the war found that 53 per cent of Americans who were surveyed said the war was not worth fighting.
A record 57 per cent said the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
What American leaders, including Bush and Rumsfeld, are not touching is the reality, as could be seen from the Mideast vantage point as far back in early 2002, that the US has no plans to quit Iraq in the foreseeable future.
In fact, there is no question of the US military leaving Iraq. Period.
There are several reasons to arrive at that conclusion:
The invasion and occupation of Iraq had more to do with the American question for global dominance than Saddam Hussein's oppression of his people; let us only mention that since the world knows of the hollowness of claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, had played a role in the Sept.11 attacks in the US and posed a direct threat to the security of the American people.
Having invaded and occupied Iraq, the US is no position to quit the country now. Ending the military presence in Iraq would mean a serious blow to Washington's long-term plans in the Middle East in all aspects — politics, military, energy-linked economy and global dominance. It would be humiliating for the US to leave Iraq now and would send what Washington would see as wrong signals to countries like Iran, Syria and even North Korea.
So it is clear that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld or anyone else in the current US administration means a withdrawal from Iraq while they do talk about it abstract terms.
What we are seeing today is a continuation of the same strategy of fitting or creating conditions to justify the arguments as indeed the Bush administration did in the run-up to the March 2003 war. That has clearly been established by the Downing Street memo — minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Britain's spychief reported to Blair and others in a secret meeting that the US was determined to go to war against Iraq and topple Saddam and that intelligence reports were being "fixed" to suit that goal.
Surely, ousting Saddam was not a goal in itself for the US, which now needs to pacify Iraq and have an American-friendly regime in power in Baghdad which will take care of US interests in the country and elsewhere in the region.
That is proving to be an impossible job because, among other things, the US failed to take into consideration many peculiarities of the Iraqi society and were almost blindfolded into Iraqi politics by Saddam opponents in exile who lied outright and convinced American strategists that they would have a clear and easy run of the country with overwhelming support from the people of Iraq once Saddam was removed from power.
The US also failed to take note that it was sending tens of thousands of its soldiers to a region where anti-US sentiments were already at a boiling point because of the lopsided American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Washington strategists should have realised that there would be thousands of young men ready to kill themselves for a chance to take a shot at American targets in "revenge" for the American policy that they saw as heavily loaded against their interests because of Washington's support for Israel.
And now Washington is trying frantically to find a solution that would pull it out of the quicksands in Iraq, and does not necessarily mean a withdrawal from that country.
That is what US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice actually meant when spoke on Tuesday stressing that the United States must "finish the job" in Iraq.
The "job" the Bush administration has in mind is not to bring "democracy" to Iraq although if it happens the way the US wants then it is welcome. The "job" is to drive down an American stake in Iraq that would not be pulled out in a hurry and everything else is secondary.
No timetable (ever) for US pullout
AMERICAN public have started taking serious notice of the crisis their country is facing in Iraq. That much is clear. What is not clear to them is how long would their military remain in Iraq and continue to take casualties. And hence the demand on the Bush administration to set a clear timetable for withdrawal from the country.
US President George W Bush had more of Americans in mind than the Iraqis or the rest of the world when he asserted on Friday that he would set no timetable for recalling the US military from Iraq.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumseld wants Americans to be patient and support their troops in Iraq. He has put the onus on Iraqi security forces to quell the insurgency and suggests that the crisis could go on "for five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.''
"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency," he said on Sunday. "We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.''
Well, that approach clearly set the background for an indefinite American presence in Iraq since it is wishful thinking that Iraqi security forces would ever be able to effectively counter the insurgency and bring the country under their control.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll ahead of a key speech on Tuesday in which Bush was to seek public support for the war found that 53 per cent of Americans who were surveyed said the war was not worth fighting.
A record 57 per cent said the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
What American leaders, including Bush and Rumsfeld, are not touching is the reality, as could be seen from the Mideast vantage point as far back in early 2002, that the US has no plans to quit Iraq in the foreseeable future.
In fact, there is no question of the US military leaving Iraq. Period.
There are several reasons to arrive at that conclusion:
The invasion and occupation of Iraq had more to do with the American question for global dominance than Saddam Hussein's oppression of his people; let us only mention that since the world knows of the hollowness of claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, had played a role in the Sept.11 attacks in the US and posed a direct threat to the security of the American people.
Having invaded and occupied Iraq, the US is no position to quit the country now. Ending the military presence in Iraq would mean a serious blow to Washington's long-term plans in the Middle East in all aspects — politics, military, energy-linked economy and global dominance. It would be humiliating for the US to leave Iraq now and would send what Washington would see as wrong signals to countries like Iran, Syria and even North Korea.
So it is clear that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld or anyone else in the current US administration means a withdrawal from Iraq while they do talk about it abstract terms.
What we are seeing today is a continuation of the same strategy of fitting or creating conditions to justify the arguments as indeed the Bush administration did in the run-up to the March 2003 war. That has clearly been established by the Downing Street memo — minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Britain's spychief reported to Blair and others in a secret meeting that the US was determined to go to war against Iraq and topple Saddam and that intelligence reports were being "fixed" to suit that goal.
Surely, ousting Saddam was not a goal in itself for the US, which now needs to pacify Iraq and have an American-friendly regime in power in Baghdad which will take care of US interests in the country and elsewhere in the region.
That is proving to be an impossible job because, among other things, the US failed to take into consideration many peculiarities of the Iraqi society and were almost blindfolded into Iraqi politics by Saddam opponents in exile who lied outright and convinced American strategists that they would have a clear and easy run of the country with overwhelming support from the people of Iraq once Saddam was removed from power.
The US also failed to take note that it was sending tens of thousands of its soldiers to a region where anti-US sentiments were already at a boiling point because of the lopsided American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Washington strategists should have realised that there would be thousands of young men ready to kill themselves for a chance to take a shot at American targets in "revenge" for the American policy that they saw as heavily loaded against their interests because of Washington's support for Israel.
And now Washington is trying frantically to find a solution that would pull it out of the quicksands in Iraq, and does not necessarily mean a withdrawal from that country.
That is what US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice actually meant when spoke on Tuesday stressing that the United States must "finish the job" in Iraq.
The "job" the Bush administration has in mind is not to bring "democracy" to Iraq although if it happens the way the US wants then it is welcome. The "job" is to drive down an American stake in Iraq that would not be pulled out in a hurry and everything else is secondary.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
What lies ahead for Lebanon
June 24, 2005
What lies ahead for Lebanon
THE PEOPLE of Lebanon, the Arabs at large and the international community are fascinated by the fast pace of events in Lebanon that has taken everyone by surprise since the Feb.14 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al Hariri. Many analysts tend to describe the developments in Lebanon as the "cedar revolution."
Syria has been forced to withdraw its military from Lebanon — thus ending nearly three decades of its absolute dominance of its neighbour. The country held parliamentary elections that saw the anti-Syrian opposition securing an eight-seat majority in the 129-member assembly.
And the Lebanese are set to embark on a new era in their modern history, but they have to deal with numerous wild cards that could spring surprises, writes PV Vivekanand.
With the bloc led by Saadeddine Al Hariri, son of the slain prime minister, sweeping the polls on an anti-Syrian reform ticket plus of course the sympathy factor, the stage is set for the next but crucial phase of Lebanese politics. No matter what the perspective, reshaping Lebanon's relations with Syria is one of the top priorities of the new government and that is where it might run into serious problems.
Those problems will stem from the differing priorities of the various groups that make up Lebanon's political mosaic.
According to election returns and party affiliations, the "Lebanese national opposition," a coalition led by Saadeddine Al Hariri, won 72 seats, enabling to form the next government. Hariri's coalition includes the Progressive Socialist Party of Walid Junblatt with 14 seats, the Lebanese Forces Party of jailed Samir Geagea with six seats and the Qornet Shehwan grouping with six seats.
The Shiite Hizbollah and its ally Amal won a total of 35 seats. Former general Michael Aoun, who returned from exile in May, won 21 seats after he made an alliance with pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud when he found himself without any allies.
All groupings have differing and conflicting priorities and these could emerge with force once a government is installed, most probably with Saadeddine Al Hariri as prime minister and Junblatt as well as Geagea's wife and the widow of slain president Bashir Germayel assuming key positions.
According to analyst Dr. Walid Phares, a professor of Middle East Studies and senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the new political map is:
Hariri, a Sunni who is backed by Saudi Arabia and the US, tops the list. He is supported by Junblatt, who, according to Phares, is anti-American. The two of them "control the legislature with backing from a smaller number of Christian legislators who are historically anti-Syrian but have joined the alliance to achieve interim or tactical agendas," says the analyst.
Hizbollah and Amal stand second, and with them the remnants of the pro-Syrian regime. They will ally themselves to any government that will protect them from the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which calls forr their disarmament.
Aoun, with the largest bloc of the Christian MPs, is third and has begun from a position of weakness, but perhaps he will emerge as the loudest voice, Phares predicts.
Aoun backs the call for Hizbollah to be disarmed but considers the confrontation with Syria over.
The Hariri camp wants to take Lebanon totally away from the Syrian orbit and set it on a course of its own while maintaining Beirut-Damascus relationship in a tight frame. It will be a delicate rope-trick since the Syrians will be closely watching every Lebanese move for signs that Beirut is succumbing to American pressure to cut a seperate peace deal with Israel without Syria having any say.
Few politicians and commentators have bothered to recall that the US had given an implicit green signal to Syria in 1990 to have its way in Lebanon in return for Damascus joining the coalition which evicted Iraq from Kuwait through war in early 1991. The US maintained that position until it became clear that Syria would not sign on the Israeli-dotted lines in a peace agreement. Syria's opposition to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 sealed the course of the American action against Damascus. Indeed, it could even be argued that Syria did not respect its side of the 1990 bargain by opposing the Iraq war of 2003.
Today, the US backs the Hariri camp as well as all other forces opposed to Syria, and there are strong indications that Washington would seek to cut Lebanon out of the overall Arab-Israeli equation and work out such a separate Lebanese-Israeli deal. Whether a Hariri-led government would be amenable to that remains to be seen.
In principle, Lebanon does not have any territorial dispute with Israel after the UN Security Council ruled last year that the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms area belongs to Syria and not to Lebanon.
Israel occupied the area from Syria in the 1967 war, but Damascus had since then argued that it belonged to Lebanon. That was seen as a ploy to keep Lebanon engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict since groups like Hizbollah could wage continued resistance against the Jewish state even after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 1999.
The US-engineered resolution adopted by the UN Security Council did away with that.
An Israeli-Lebanese peace agreement would leave Syria on its own to deal with the Jewish state's occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, and Damascus could be expected to fight that eventuality with tooth and nail. And here would be the key role of groups like the Shiite Hizbollah and Amal, which will block such moves.
At the same time, they would also have to withstand pressure for them to be disarmed, and the Hariri bloc seems have given them some assurance that this would not be done. However, the next item on the American agenda in Lebanon is disarming Hizbollah and Palestinian groups in camps in the south of the country. This was affirmed by US Assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney during a meeting with Arab journalists this week.
Therefore, the tacit, temporary alliance that the Hariri camp had with Hizbollah mediated by Druze leader Junblatt will be put to test sooner than later.
In the meantime, Syria also expect increased American pressure.
That was made clear when Washington accused Syria of being behind the killing of George Hawi, former chief of Lebanon's Communist Party and a harsh critic of Syria,. It is the third prominent assassination of an anti-Syrian Lebanese figure. The first two were Hariri, who was killed in a bomb blast on Feb.14, and journalist Samir Kassis, a bitter critic of Syria, who died in a bombing this month.
While the immediate conclusion is that Syria was behind the three killings, a quick scrutiny of the realities on the ground would indicate that there is something wrong in following conventional thinking to decide that the Syrians are eliminating anti-Syrian voices in Lebanon.
In fact, Damascus and its allies in Lebanon lost a lot as a result of the killings and stand to lose much more in the days ahead.
We have seen the Syrians being forced to end its nearly 30 years of dominance in Lebanon following the Hariri assassination and international pressure mounting on Damascus to stay away from Lebanese affairs.
We know that the Syrians are not stupid or naive enough to think that they could get aay with killing people like Hariri and Kassis. They would know that the first accusing figure would be levelled against them. They would know that the US is waiting to grab any opportunity that came along to step up pressure against Syria. They would know that such assassinations would only bring immense strains on Syrian-Lebanese relations. They would also know that they would be the end losers in Lebanon.
Who benefited indirectly from the killings? Whover hated Syria's role in Lebanon and wanted to end it.
This would mean a majority of the people of Lebanon and Israel.
Are there people capable of carrying out such precision assassinations present in Lebanon? Yes, the pro-Syrian Lebanese secutity agencies.
Will they do that, knowing well that Syria will have to pay the price? No.
Then who could have done it? Anyone who has a state intelligence aparata and strong intelligence presence in Lebanon.
Who would that be? None other than Israel.
Israel got rid of Syria from Lebanon. Now, it could seek to deal directly with Lebanon away from Syrian influence and strike an agreement that removes Lebanon from the overall Arab-Israeli equation. That would also leave Syria as the last holdout against signing peace with Israel.
The killing of Hawi was strange. He was not a real threat to the pro-Syrian government; nor was he a danger to Syria itself. Lebanese media have noted that Hawi was not engaged in remarkable or delicate political activities and his ideas did not affect anybody, even if he was close to the opposition against Syrian tutelage.
"Just as Kassir's assassination took place soon after the first round of the parliamentary elections in Beirut, Hawi's assassination came after the wrap-up of the final round of parliamentary elections, as if Lebanon is destined to walk through a minefield before reaching the safe shores of freedom," wrote Beirut's Daily Star newspaper.
"All the politicians who condemned Hawi's assassination unanimously agreed the country is not secure — with or without international fostering; with the presence of a government fully subject to Syria's influence or one independent and free of Syria's hegemony," wrote the paper.
Security Forces have arrested five Syrian nationals shortly after the murder of Hawi in a car bomb. They were to be hiding on the roof of a nearby building, but nothing else was reported about them beyond that.
Junblatt, who says he fears that Syria is tageting him, asserted that "The one who doesn't want Lebanon to gain its independence and freedom and wants chaos to prevail is the one behind murdering Hawi."
President Lahoud rejected charges that he was somehow involved in the killing. He vowed to uncover those responsible for this "barbaric crime," saying all state capacities would be mobilied to achieve this goal.
"Every time Lebanon advances new steps to keep law and order, evil hands destabilise the situation again," said Lahoud.
"With regard to the persistent suggestion that the president is linked to the so-called security state, everyone knows that he does not directly supervise the security agencies," he pointed out.
What happens next in Lebanon?
There is indeed fear that any politician could be killed at any juncture and this would figure as a key consideration for any political move in the country in the days ahead. While the obvious "beneficiary" from such a state of fear is Syria — as most anti-Syrians argue — it has to be remembered that Israel, which is indeed enthusiastic that it could now play its own game in Lebanon — stands to gain the most.
In the meantime, it is highly unlikely that an objective and realistic investigation into the Hariri, Kassis and Hrawi killings would produce irrefutable evidence as to who the perpetrators were. The assassinations were professional, indicating the involvement of a state-run intelligence network; and Israel's Mossad has the best expertise and indeed experience in carrying out such actions and leaving no trace of its involvement. Regardless of whether Syria had anything to do with any or all of the killings, Damascus is targeted for American action. And we could expect the determined American action taking its course just as we saw Washington bulldozing its way into invading and occupying Iraq through deception.
Caught in the equation would be Lebanon, and it is upto the new leadership that has emerged from the elections to make the best of the situation. In order to do that, the various political forces of the country have to come together on a common platform, and that is the most daunting task awaiting them.
What lies ahead for Lebanon
THE PEOPLE of Lebanon, the Arabs at large and the international community are fascinated by the fast pace of events in Lebanon that has taken everyone by surprise since the Feb.14 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al Hariri. Many analysts tend to describe the developments in Lebanon as the "cedar revolution."
Syria has been forced to withdraw its military from Lebanon — thus ending nearly three decades of its absolute dominance of its neighbour. The country held parliamentary elections that saw the anti-Syrian opposition securing an eight-seat majority in the 129-member assembly.
And the Lebanese are set to embark on a new era in their modern history, but they have to deal with numerous wild cards that could spring surprises, writes PV Vivekanand.
With the bloc led by Saadeddine Al Hariri, son of the slain prime minister, sweeping the polls on an anti-Syrian reform ticket plus of course the sympathy factor, the stage is set for the next but crucial phase of Lebanese politics. No matter what the perspective, reshaping Lebanon's relations with Syria is one of the top priorities of the new government and that is where it might run into serious problems.
Those problems will stem from the differing priorities of the various groups that make up Lebanon's political mosaic.
According to election returns and party affiliations, the "Lebanese national opposition," a coalition led by Saadeddine Al Hariri, won 72 seats, enabling to form the next government. Hariri's coalition includes the Progressive Socialist Party of Walid Junblatt with 14 seats, the Lebanese Forces Party of jailed Samir Geagea with six seats and the Qornet Shehwan grouping with six seats.
The Shiite Hizbollah and its ally Amal won a total of 35 seats. Former general Michael Aoun, who returned from exile in May, won 21 seats after he made an alliance with pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud when he found himself without any allies.
All groupings have differing and conflicting priorities and these could emerge with force once a government is installed, most probably with Saadeddine Al Hariri as prime minister and Junblatt as well as Geagea's wife and the widow of slain president Bashir Germayel assuming key positions.
According to analyst Dr. Walid Phares, a professor of Middle East Studies and senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the new political map is:
Hariri, a Sunni who is backed by Saudi Arabia and the US, tops the list. He is supported by Junblatt, who, according to Phares, is anti-American. The two of them "control the legislature with backing from a smaller number of Christian legislators who are historically anti-Syrian but have joined the alliance to achieve interim or tactical agendas," says the analyst.
Hizbollah and Amal stand second, and with them the remnants of the pro-Syrian regime. They will ally themselves to any government that will protect them from the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which calls forr their disarmament.
Aoun, with the largest bloc of the Christian MPs, is third and has begun from a position of weakness, but perhaps he will emerge as the loudest voice, Phares predicts.
Aoun backs the call for Hizbollah to be disarmed but considers the confrontation with Syria over.
The Hariri camp wants to take Lebanon totally away from the Syrian orbit and set it on a course of its own while maintaining Beirut-Damascus relationship in a tight frame. It will be a delicate rope-trick since the Syrians will be closely watching every Lebanese move for signs that Beirut is succumbing to American pressure to cut a seperate peace deal with Israel without Syria having any say.
Few politicians and commentators have bothered to recall that the US had given an implicit green signal to Syria in 1990 to have its way in Lebanon in return for Damascus joining the coalition which evicted Iraq from Kuwait through war in early 1991. The US maintained that position until it became clear that Syria would not sign on the Israeli-dotted lines in a peace agreement. Syria's opposition to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 sealed the course of the American action against Damascus. Indeed, it could even be argued that Syria did not respect its side of the 1990 bargain by opposing the Iraq war of 2003.
Today, the US backs the Hariri camp as well as all other forces opposed to Syria, and there are strong indications that Washington would seek to cut Lebanon out of the overall Arab-Israeli equation and work out such a separate Lebanese-Israeli deal. Whether a Hariri-led government would be amenable to that remains to be seen.
In principle, Lebanon does not have any territorial dispute with Israel after the UN Security Council ruled last year that the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms area belongs to Syria and not to Lebanon.
Israel occupied the area from Syria in the 1967 war, but Damascus had since then argued that it belonged to Lebanon. That was seen as a ploy to keep Lebanon engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict since groups like Hizbollah could wage continued resistance against the Jewish state even after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 1999.
The US-engineered resolution adopted by the UN Security Council did away with that.
An Israeli-Lebanese peace agreement would leave Syria on its own to deal with the Jewish state's occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, and Damascus could be expected to fight that eventuality with tooth and nail. And here would be the key role of groups like the Shiite Hizbollah and Amal, which will block such moves.
At the same time, they would also have to withstand pressure for them to be disarmed, and the Hariri bloc seems have given them some assurance that this would not be done. However, the next item on the American agenda in Lebanon is disarming Hizbollah and Palestinian groups in camps in the south of the country. This was affirmed by US Assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney during a meeting with Arab journalists this week.
Therefore, the tacit, temporary alliance that the Hariri camp had with Hizbollah mediated by Druze leader Junblatt will be put to test sooner than later.
In the meantime, Syria also expect increased American pressure.
That was made clear when Washington accused Syria of being behind the killing of George Hawi, former chief of Lebanon's Communist Party and a harsh critic of Syria,. It is the third prominent assassination of an anti-Syrian Lebanese figure. The first two were Hariri, who was killed in a bomb blast on Feb.14, and journalist Samir Kassis, a bitter critic of Syria, who died in a bombing this month.
While the immediate conclusion is that Syria was behind the three killings, a quick scrutiny of the realities on the ground would indicate that there is something wrong in following conventional thinking to decide that the Syrians are eliminating anti-Syrian voices in Lebanon.
In fact, Damascus and its allies in Lebanon lost a lot as a result of the killings and stand to lose much more in the days ahead.
We have seen the Syrians being forced to end its nearly 30 years of dominance in Lebanon following the Hariri assassination and international pressure mounting on Damascus to stay away from Lebanese affairs.
We know that the Syrians are not stupid or naive enough to think that they could get aay with killing people like Hariri and Kassis. They would know that the first accusing figure would be levelled against them. They would know that the US is waiting to grab any opportunity that came along to step up pressure against Syria. They would know that such assassinations would only bring immense strains on Syrian-Lebanese relations. They would also know that they would be the end losers in Lebanon.
Who benefited indirectly from the killings? Whover hated Syria's role in Lebanon and wanted to end it.
This would mean a majority of the people of Lebanon and Israel.
Are there people capable of carrying out such precision assassinations present in Lebanon? Yes, the pro-Syrian Lebanese secutity agencies.
Will they do that, knowing well that Syria will have to pay the price? No.
Then who could have done it? Anyone who has a state intelligence aparata and strong intelligence presence in Lebanon.
Who would that be? None other than Israel.
Israel got rid of Syria from Lebanon. Now, it could seek to deal directly with Lebanon away from Syrian influence and strike an agreement that removes Lebanon from the overall Arab-Israeli equation. That would also leave Syria as the last holdout against signing peace with Israel.
The killing of Hawi was strange. He was not a real threat to the pro-Syrian government; nor was he a danger to Syria itself. Lebanese media have noted that Hawi was not engaged in remarkable or delicate political activities and his ideas did not affect anybody, even if he was close to the opposition against Syrian tutelage.
"Just as Kassir's assassination took place soon after the first round of the parliamentary elections in Beirut, Hawi's assassination came after the wrap-up of the final round of parliamentary elections, as if Lebanon is destined to walk through a minefield before reaching the safe shores of freedom," wrote Beirut's Daily Star newspaper.
"All the politicians who condemned Hawi's assassination unanimously agreed the country is not secure — with or without international fostering; with the presence of a government fully subject to Syria's influence or one independent and free of Syria's hegemony," wrote the paper.
Security Forces have arrested five Syrian nationals shortly after the murder of Hawi in a car bomb. They were to be hiding on the roof of a nearby building, but nothing else was reported about them beyond that.
Junblatt, who says he fears that Syria is tageting him, asserted that "The one who doesn't want Lebanon to gain its independence and freedom and wants chaos to prevail is the one behind murdering Hawi."
President Lahoud rejected charges that he was somehow involved in the killing. He vowed to uncover those responsible for this "barbaric crime," saying all state capacities would be mobilied to achieve this goal.
"Every time Lebanon advances new steps to keep law and order, evil hands destabilise the situation again," said Lahoud.
"With regard to the persistent suggestion that the president is linked to the so-called security state, everyone knows that he does not directly supervise the security agencies," he pointed out.
What happens next in Lebanon?
There is indeed fear that any politician could be killed at any juncture and this would figure as a key consideration for any political move in the country in the days ahead. While the obvious "beneficiary" from such a state of fear is Syria — as most anti-Syrians argue — it has to be remembered that Israel, which is indeed enthusiastic that it could now play its own game in Lebanon — stands to gain the most.
In the meantime, it is highly unlikely that an objective and realistic investigation into the Hariri, Kassis and Hrawi killings would produce irrefutable evidence as to who the perpetrators were. The assassinations were professional, indicating the involvement of a state-run intelligence network; and Israel's Mossad has the best expertise and indeed experience in carrying out such actions and leaving no trace of its involvement. Regardless of whether Syria had anything to do with any or all of the killings, Damascus is targeted for American action. And we could expect the determined American action taking its course just as we saw Washington bulldozing its way into invading and occupying Iraq through deception.
Caught in the equation would be Lebanon, and it is upto the new leadership that has emerged from the elections to make the best of the situation. In order to do that, the various political forces of the country have to come together on a common platform, and that is the most daunting task awaiting them.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Rice and Arab democracy
IT WAS indeed an "important" speech that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made in Cairo on Monday emphasising the need for democratic reforms in the Middle East. But it only served to emphasise the selective American vision as to who should do what and how in the region and the double standards that the US has always followed when dealing with this region.
Rice told the region's leaders not to fear their people's free choice — a great idea and concept of course. But she also used the forum to single out Egypt, Syria and Iran as countries which should transform themselves.
We all know that there are major shortcomings in the Egyptian political system, and it would take time before politicians entrenched in the corridors of power would accept the inevitability of change. There would a lot of political fireworks before the system would be open for circles other than the ruling party. The Egyptians are dealing with it, and, sooner or later, there will be changes in Egypt, but the US would not be able to impose them except in a peripheral context. The Egyptians themselves will have to take care of them.
In Syria, we have seen that the regime of Bashar Al Assad has taken serious steps towards reforms.
Assad is following a skilful political approach: He wants his people to see tangible and positive changes in their daily life in terms of living standards and, more importantly perhaps, the basic freedom of choice. He has lifted scores of restrictions that were solid features of life for the Syrians for decades. He has also initiated a series of economic reforms that would hopefully lead to better opportunities for his people.
Assad has charted a course starting with ensuring that his reforms do make a positive impact on people's life and then going on to introduce political reforms. He wants to prove it to his people that he could deliver what he promises. He has realised that only then he could hope for an absolute and unquestionable popular endorsement as the political leader of the country.
The US should accept the sequence and pace of events rather than trying to demand an overnight transformation of a political system that has existed for decades. What is it that the US wants in Syria? A French-style revolution?
Iran is a different kettle of fish altogether. For a majority of Iranians — Shiites — politics and religion go together and thus the Iranian political system does not conform to what Washington might see as ideal. The US is barking up the wrong tree by insisting on Iran having democracy of a style and shape that is acceptable to Washington. What the US wants in Iran is a sweeping change in a belief and conviction based on faith. How could that be acceptable to the Iranians? There might or might not be problems with the Iranian-style of democracy and governance, but it is the Iranians to decide what reforms they would like to accept. The US, or anyone else for that matter, has no business to dictate terms for change in any society except of course the Americans themselves (Let us not forget the resounding allegations within the US that the last presidential elections were rigged in some states. We don't recollect Rice talking about that either. Can't she do something about addressing those charges?).
Rice spoke about the people's freedom of choice. Surely, such a noble approach should be welcome to forces which are seeking changes in the Arab World.
However, we see a paradox here.
For starters, let us see how many opposition leaders — wherever they have been clearly identified — opted to join their voices to the American effort. Well, practically none.
Egypt's powerful Muslim Brotherhood, which could easily win elections if it is allowed to run as a political party and field candidates — hit the nail on the head by dismissing Rice's visit.
"We know that the US administration is not a benevolent organisation or a charity," said Mohammed Habib of the Brotherhood. "Its interests and agenda are not those of the Egyptian people."
Even the Kefaya (Enough) movement, the most active group in Egypt seeking reforms, turned down an invitation to meet Rice.
In principle, few in the Arab World dispute that the region needs reform. The Arabs agree with the US that ordinary people should have a direct role and say in the running of their affairs, but that is where the agreement stops. The Arabs are suspicious of the American agenda in the Middle East. They are aware of the American record while dealing with human rights and democracy. They know that democracy means little to the US when compared with what it considers as its strategic interests. That the US is driving for reforms in certain countries in itself is suspect because it is no coincidence that those countries happen to be hurdles in the American quest to achieve its strategic goals and serve its priorities where a genuine desire for democracy is far down the list.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
American hypocrisy
Some of the scenes from Abu Ghraib.
June 11 2005
American hypocrisy
AMONG THE conditions that the US has cited for not to withhold payments to the UN is a demand that the world body bar countries that violated human rights from UN human rights organisations. Well, if we go by what the London-based Amnesty International has to say about it, then the first country that should be kept away from UN human rights organisations is none other than the United States of America itself, followed by some of its closest allies.
The US demand is yet another milestone in the hypocritical policies adopted by the Bush administration. The world needs no pointed presentation of the systematic violations of human rights by the US.
Of course, Washington would reject the accusations and call them absurd. Perhaps, the only point, if you will, in its favour is that the rights of American citizens are not violated except those of American Muslims, particularly if they are of Arab origin.
Amnesty has recorded violations of the human rights by American soldiers, intelligence operatives, interrogators and officials. In sum, these records fully support Amnesty's description that the American detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cub, is a modern "gulag" — Stalinist-period labour camps and jails in the Soviet Union.
In addition are the findings that the US maintains secret detention facilities in "friendly" countries where the Central Intelligence Agency and its affiliated agencies and groups have a free hand in subjecting the detainees to any form of humiliation, torture and punishment that they deem fit.
Accodding to Amnesty Director William Shultz, "the United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared, held in indefinite, incommunicado detention without access to lawyers or a judicial system, or to their families, and in some cases at least we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed. And those are similar at least in character, if not in size, to what happened in the Gulag."
The US demand that the UN "reform" itself came last week with a congressional committee narrowly approving legislation. The bill says that the US would withhold half of its annual $500 million contribution unless the world body tstreamlined its bureaucracy, barred countries that violated human rights from UN human rights bodies and created an independent oversight board and ethics office.
The effort to get the bill approved was led by Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives international relations committee.
He argued that the bill was the only way to force the UN to adopt reforms. “You can't have reform if you don't withhold dues," he said.
The Bush administration has said it does not approve of the legislation. However, it is not seen as resisting it either.
The Senate could take up the issue and adopt a similar move. After all, there are many US senators who are gunning for the UN, among them Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who has led an investigation into the UN's role in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.
With John Bolton, a bitter critic of the UN who reportedly does not believe in the world body, poised to be approved as US ambassador to the organisation, the ground seems to be set for a battle over reforms.
There are critics who think the legislation on UN funding is linked to Bolton's nomination, which has been opposed by many members of the US Congress. They believe that the Bush administration prompted Republican members of Congress to get the bill approved in order to show that one of Bolton's prime tasks at the UN will be reform.
The US withheld dues to the UN for more than 10 years before settling it in September 2003.
Few doubt that the UN needs reform in its bureaucracy and financial administration as well as dispensation of services.
Beyond that, however, is the need for the world body to be re-established as the sole authority that not only upholds international law but also enforces it. It should have enough clout and teeth to supercede violating governments and apply world conventions and laws without discrimination and away from the threat of being undermined by actions of individual governments.
A cursory review of the UN's record will demonstrate without ambiguity that the US is in the forefront of countries which always used the UN Charter to their convenience. And now the US wants the world body to adopt American-designed reforms in return for funding.
The irony and paradox is clear even in a hypothesis. If the UN were to adopt the US demand for barring member states that violated human rights from UN human rights organisations, then the first to qualify for the punitive measure — apart from the US itself — would be some of the closest allies of the US, starting with Israel. Not very likely. So what is the purpose of the whole exercise? To selectively target countries which do not toe the American line?
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Getting away with murder
June 7 2005
Getting away with murder
THE FIRST time Israel got away with murder of Americans was in 1967 when unmarked Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats launched a vicious attack on the USS Liberty, killing 34 US sailors and wounding 171.
As survivors of the June 8 attack prepare to mark its anniversary this week, reminders are stark of a series of incidents since then which have shown that American administrations, whether Republican or Democrat, have not been able to withstand Israel's influence in the corridors of power in Washington that has allowed the Jewish state to exploit the "strategic relationship" it has with the US for the last four decades.
These included theft and resale of American technology to rivals of the US, spying in America and using the information to benefit Israel as American expense and steering American policies in a direction that has worked against American interests and made enemies for the US as well as undertaking false flag operations designed to trigger American actions against Arabs and Muslims.
There are strong indications that Israel also played a key role in the Sept.11, 2001 attacks that were blamed on Osama Bin Laden and acted as a catalyst for American military action against Iraq and Afghanistan, with signs emerging of action being planned against Iran and Syria. All these actions have benefited and will benefit Israel at the expense of American-Arab/Muslim relations.
If no one in American politics is not talking about it, it is simply because of the immense clout Israel wields in the US. It is not an exaggeration to state that Israeli intelligence agencies possess enough and more information on American politicians that could be used anytime to pressure the victims into seeing things the Israeli way. In addition are the big shots in American economy who directly or indirectly control the US banking and media industries.
It has been well established that Israel had carried out the attack on the USS Liberty with a view to tricking the US into war with Egypt. No American was supposed to have survived the bombing of the communications and spying ship in the Red Sea.
It clearly fitted in with the Israeli motto: "By Way Of Deception Thou Shalt Do War."
There are many indications that Israel applied pressure in Washington in order to mask the truth in the Liberty episode. This started with the recall of two rescue teams of aircraft dispatched from the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga to aid the USS Liberty. Both were ordered to return to base before reaching the Liberty on direct orders of from the Lyndon B Johnson administration.
Congress has never launched an investigation into the attack and a military inquiry was told by the Johnson administration to conclude that it was a case of "mistaken identity" — never mind that the Liberty flew a huge stars and stripes on its deck and the ship was bristling with communication antennas, clearly indicating that it could not be an Arab vessel since no Arab country possessed such a ship.
So much for the Israeli argument that the attack was an accident and that the assailants thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse carrier ship. Never mind that horse carrier ships do not fly the US flag and have dish antennas all over them. Never mind that the attacks came after clearly marked Israeli aircraft flew over the ship several times to identify it before unmarked boats and planes attacked it. , Never mind why Israel used unmarked aircraft if it really thought the ship was Egyptian and a legitimate target in a situation of war.
American analysts have for long concluded that the use of unmarked boats and planes established that Israel intended to frame Egypt for the sinking to drag the US into the war on Israel's side.
More importantly, some of the Israelis who took part in the attack have told survivors years after the incident that they knew they were attacking an American ship.
In 1982, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and revealed that he had recognised the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.
Even today, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is refusing to release the daily briefings of Johnson at the time.
Legal motions and sworn declarations filed in federal court this week have refuted Bush administration claims that the CIA can never release the daily briefs given to Johnson in the 1960s because that would damage national security and violate presidential privilege. The fate of the case remain uncertain.
The CIA has filed a sworn declaration with the court claiming that every single word of the two specific briefs had to be kept secret because release would contribute to a "mosaic" of knowledge about sources and methods and violate presidential privilege. But it does not explain why 30 briefs or excerpts of briefs of the same period already have been publicly released without any harm.
The facts of the Liberty case are clear:
In 1967, Liberty was the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering ship of the US.
On June 8, at the height of the Arab-Israeli war, Liberty was in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula when it was attacked without warning by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats.
At 8am, eight Israeli reconnaissance flights flew over the ship, which was flying a large American flag. Six hours later, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks concentrated on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The Liberty was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.
Twenty-five minutes later, , three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking and burning the ship. A torpedo hit the Liberty midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.
When crewmen lowered life rafts to rescue personnel and in preparation for abandoning ship if necessary, the torpedo boats machine-gunned the life rafts and crewmen.
The attacks lasted a little over two hours. During that time, Liberty's calls for help reached the US Sixth Fleet, despite Israeli jamming efforts, and the carriers Saratoga and America launched aircraft to assist the beleaguered vessel. But that help never arrived. The aircraft were recalled on direct orders from the White House.
Liberty was crippled, but it limped it to a neutral port, with 34 of its sailors dead and another 171, including its captain wounded.
Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a "tragic error" and claimed it had mistaken the Liberty for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. However, the then US secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink the Liberty. Three different reports drawn up by the Central Intelligence Agency said that the then Israeli defence minister, Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.
However, the White House overrode all such assertions and reports.
The Liberty's surviving crew members were told to remain silent about the attack and were warned that they could be court-martialled if they talked. They were not called to testify in a navy court of inquiry, and the US Congress never convened an investigation of the incident.
McGonagle, captain of the Liberty, was quietly awarded the Medal of Honour for his and his men's heroism, but it was not presented by the president at the White House — as was the custom — but at an obscure ceremony at a naval yard. The graves of the Liberty's crew member's were inscribed "Died in the Eastern Mediterranean" with no reference that they had given their lives in hostile action.
Why did the Israelis attack the ship?
Apart from its desire to involve the American in a war against Egypt, Israel had several other reasons to stage the attack. These included a fear that the US ship was intercepting Israeli military communications that indicated plans to seize and occupy the Golan Heights and also showed that Israeli agents were masquerading over the radio as Arab military commanders, including the late King Hussein of Jordan, and giving misleading instructions to their units.
Washington had warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Israel's offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when the Liberty appeared off Sinai, but the planned action that led to the seizure of the Golan was carried out once the US ship was put out of action. Israel's claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by the Liberty, which could also have shown that Israel had exploited Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai.
Why did Washington opted to cover up the incident, which is described as "America's worst shameful secret"?
Some say that Johnson preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party.
A member of the Johnson White House has said he believed that Johnson offered Jewish liberals unconditional backing of Israel, and a cover-up of the Liberty attack in exchange for the liberals toning down their strident criticism of his policies in the then raging Vietnam War.
But the issue is not dead. Survivors of the Israeli attack are striving to keep the flame alive, and, perhaps, at some point, it might come out without ambiguity that the US administration chose to stand by Israel than its own soldiers. However, the Liberty attack fades in signifiance when seen against what Israel had been doing with the US since then. Today, isn't it clear that the thousands of American soldiers who were killed and maimed in action in Iraq went down fighting a proxyy war for Israel?
And the US administration is continuing to cover up.
Getting away with murder
THE FIRST time Israel got away with murder of Americans was in 1967 when unmarked Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats launched a vicious attack on the USS Liberty, killing 34 US sailors and wounding 171.
As survivors of the June 8 attack prepare to mark its anniversary this week, reminders are stark of a series of incidents since then which have shown that American administrations, whether Republican or Democrat, have not been able to withstand Israel's influence in the corridors of power in Washington that has allowed the Jewish state to exploit the "strategic relationship" it has with the US for the last four decades.
These included theft and resale of American technology to rivals of the US, spying in America and using the information to benefit Israel as American expense and steering American policies in a direction that has worked against American interests and made enemies for the US as well as undertaking false flag operations designed to trigger American actions against Arabs and Muslims.
There are strong indications that Israel also played a key role in the Sept.11, 2001 attacks that were blamed on Osama Bin Laden and acted as a catalyst for American military action against Iraq and Afghanistan, with signs emerging of action being planned against Iran and Syria. All these actions have benefited and will benefit Israel at the expense of American-Arab/Muslim relations.
If no one in American politics is not talking about it, it is simply because of the immense clout Israel wields in the US. It is not an exaggeration to state that Israeli intelligence agencies possess enough and more information on American politicians that could be used anytime to pressure the victims into seeing things the Israeli way. In addition are the big shots in American economy who directly or indirectly control the US banking and media industries.
It has been well established that Israel had carried out the attack on the USS Liberty with a view to tricking the US into war with Egypt. No American was supposed to have survived the bombing of the communications and spying ship in the Red Sea.
It clearly fitted in with the Israeli motto: "By Way Of Deception Thou Shalt Do War."
There are many indications that Israel applied pressure in Washington in order to mask the truth in the Liberty episode. This started with the recall of two rescue teams of aircraft dispatched from the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga to aid the USS Liberty. Both were ordered to return to base before reaching the Liberty on direct orders of from the Lyndon B Johnson administration.
Congress has never launched an investigation into the attack and a military inquiry was told by the Johnson administration to conclude that it was a case of "mistaken identity" — never mind that the Liberty flew a huge stars and stripes on its deck and the ship was bristling with communication antennas, clearly indicating that it could not be an Arab vessel since no Arab country possessed such a ship.
So much for the Israeli argument that the attack was an accident and that the assailants thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse carrier ship. Never mind that horse carrier ships do not fly the US flag and have dish antennas all over them. Never mind that the attacks came after clearly marked Israeli aircraft flew over the ship several times to identify it before unmarked boats and planes attacked it. , Never mind why Israel used unmarked aircraft if it really thought the ship was Egyptian and a legitimate target in a situation of war.
American analysts have for long concluded that the use of unmarked boats and planes established that Israel intended to frame Egypt for the sinking to drag the US into the war on Israel's side.
More importantly, some of the Israelis who took part in the attack have told survivors years after the incident that they knew they were attacking an American ship.
In 1982, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and revealed that he had recognised the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.
Even today, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is refusing to release the daily briefings of Johnson at the time.
Legal motions and sworn declarations filed in federal court this week have refuted Bush administration claims that the CIA can never release the daily briefs given to Johnson in the 1960s because that would damage national security and violate presidential privilege. The fate of the case remain uncertain.
The CIA has filed a sworn declaration with the court claiming that every single word of the two specific briefs had to be kept secret because release would contribute to a "mosaic" of knowledge about sources and methods and violate presidential privilege. But it does not explain why 30 briefs or excerpts of briefs of the same period already have been publicly released without any harm.
The facts of the Liberty case are clear:
In 1967, Liberty was the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering ship of the US.
On June 8, at the height of the Arab-Israeli war, Liberty was in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula when it was attacked without warning by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats.
At 8am, eight Israeli reconnaissance flights flew over the ship, which was flying a large American flag. Six hours later, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks concentrated on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The Liberty was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.
Twenty-five minutes later, , three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking and burning the ship. A torpedo hit the Liberty midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.
When crewmen lowered life rafts to rescue personnel and in preparation for abandoning ship if necessary, the torpedo boats machine-gunned the life rafts and crewmen.
The attacks lasted a little over two hours. During that time, Liberty's calls for help reached the US Sixth Fleet, despite Israeli jamming efforts, and the carriers Saratoga and America launched aircraft to assist the beleaguered vessel. But that help never arrived. The aircraft were recalled on direct orders from the White House.
Liberty was crippled, but it limped it to a neutral port, with 34 of its sailors dead and another 171, including its captain wounded.
Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a "tragic error" and claimed it had mistaken the Liberty for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. However, the then US secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink the Liberty. Three different reports drawn up by the Central Intelligence Agency said that the then Israeli defence minister, Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.
However, the White House overrode all such assertions and reports.
The Liberty's surviving crew members were told to remain silent about the attack and were warned that they could be court-martialled if they talked. They were not called to testify in a navy court of inquiry, and the US Congress never convened an investigation of the incident.
McGonagle, captain of the Liberty, was quietly awarded the Medal of Honour for his and his men's heroism, but it was not presented by the president at the White House — as was the custom — but at an obscure ceremony at a naval yard. The graves of the Liberty's crew member's were inscribed "Died in the Eastern Mediterranean" with no reference that they had given their lives in hostile action.
Why did the Israelis attack the ship?
Apart from its desire to involve the American in a war against Egypt, Israel had several other reasons to stage the attack. These included a fear that the US ship was intercepting Israeli military communications that indicated plans to seize and occupy the Golan Heights and also showed that Israeli agents were masquerading over the radio as Arab military commanders, including the late King Hussein of Jordan, and giving misleading instructions to their units.
Washington had warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Israel's offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when the Liberty appeared off Sinai, but the planned action that led to the seizure of the Golan was carried out once the US ship was put out of action. Israel's claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by the Liberty, which could also have shown that Israel had exploited Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai.
Why did Washington opted to cover up the incident, which is described as "America's worst shameful secret"?
Some say that Johnson preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party.
A member of the Johnson White House has said he believed that Johnson offered Jewish liberals unconditional backing of Israel, and a cover-up of the Liberty attack in exchange for the liberals toning down their strident criticism of his policies in the then raging Vietnam War.
But the issue is not dead. Survivors of the Israeli attack are striving to keep the flame alive, and, perhaps, at some point, it might come out without ambiguity that the US administration chose to stand by Israel than its own soldiers. However, the Liberty attack fades in signifiance when seen against what Israel had been doing with the US since then. Today, isn't it clear that the thousands of American soldiers who were killed and maimed in action in Iraq went down fighting a proxyy war for Israel?
And the US administration is continuing to cover up.
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}