Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Blow to confidence - Indonesia blast
TUESDAY's massive bombing at Jakarta's JW Marriott Hotel has dealt a serious blow to a growing belief that the crackdown across South-East Asia against hardline groups has been bearing fruit.
With dozens of suspected Jemaah Islamiyeh (JI) members under detention in Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore, the governments were hoping that they had squashed the head of extremism in the region.
The hopes were dashed on Tuesday, and so was the American assertion that the US-led war against terror had scored remarkable success in pre-empting extremist attacks.
It had not been lost on Indonesia or the world that the bombing came in the same week as the first verdict was due in the trials of the alleged perpetrators of the previous attack - last October's Bali bombing.
During their trials, the defendants had repeatedly said they were seeking to strike at western interests and inflict as many casualties as possible in Bali, and were certain their colleagues at large would continue the campaign.
Authorities from Indonesia and its neighbours have been warning that the movement is still active despite the detention of more than 100 alleged members in the past two years, and preparing to mount another major operation.
.According to Indonesian police, security forces had come across documents last month showing extremists were planning to target the area around Marriott hotel, where the blast had killed 15 people and wounded over 150 others.
The documents were seized in a raid that netted seven alleged members of the JI, the regional militant group accused of carrying out last year's Bali nightclub bombings.
The revelation came as Indonesian and Australian authorities warned that more terror strikes were possible in Indonesia in the coming days.
Unusual claim
A man, claiming to speak for JI was quoted as saying by Singapore's Straits Times on Wednesday: "This is a message for ... all our enemies that, if they execute any of our Muslim brothers, we will continue this campaign of terror in Indonesia and the region."
It was the first known claim of responsibility issued by JI and drew scepticism.
The Marriott, Jakarta's newest upmarket hotel, is regularly used for functions by American and other Western diplomats. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, stayed there last year, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard in February. The hotel, near the business and diplomatic district, was the venue for the US embassy's July 4 celebrations.
The Marriott is considered to have the best security in Jakarta. Cars are checked before allowing entry, and people have to pass through a metal detector to get into the lobby. But the heightened security measures, introduced across Jakarta to protect Western targets, failed to prevent a suicide bomber driving up to the entrance in an Indonesian-made Kijang van on Tuesday.
Police pointed to similarities with the Bali attacks— including the apparent use of a mobile-phone to detonate the bomb.
After the document’s discovery in the central Java town of Semarang, Indonesian police had increased security patrols in the Marriott area.
Obviously the security alert was not enough to pre-empt the attack, which came two days before a verdict in the trial of a key suspect in the Bali attacks, Amrozi Bin Nurhasyim.
More attacks feared
It is now widely believed that the ongoing court cases against JI suspects would lead to more bombings in Indonesia.
Predictably, Amrozi reacted with joy over the Jakarta bombing as he testified at another JI suspect's trial in Bali.
Asked about the blast, he grinned and yelled out, "Bomb!" After testifying at the same trial, the alleged mastermind of the Bali blasts, Imam Samudra, shouted, "Thank God, I am thankful" about Tuesday's bombing.
The largest political groups in Indonesia — Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah — condemned the bombing and offered condolences to the victims.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer had spoken of intelligence in the hours after the bombing that there could be more militant attacks in Indonesia in the coming days. He did not say what the intelligence was.
The explosion followed repeated warnings by Western embassies in recent weeks that JI — which is said to have links with the Al Qaeda network — was planning further attacks in Indonesia.
Last month police claimed they had uncovered a group plotting strikes in the capital and seized a tonne of explosives in Samarang. But they said two bombs shipped to Jakarta were still missing.
The US embassy renewed its warning to exercise rigorous security precautions, and avoid "soft" targets such as hotels, clubs, schools, restaurants and shopping centres where Westerners congregate. Since the Bali bombing, most Western countries have advised their nationals to avoid non-essential travel to Indonesia.
While bombings are a regular occurrence in Indonesia, which is wracked by political and nationalist tensions, most cause only minor damage. Only JI is thought to have the training and capability to stage such large-scale attacks.
Indonesian police have rounded up scores of JI operatives since the Bali bombing, which killed 202 people. The authorities in Malaysia and Singapore have also made numerous arrests. But intelligence agencies are uncertain about the size of the group. And it was not clear — until Tuesday — whether it remained an effective force.
Officials believe dozens of operatives have attended militant training camps in remote parts of Indonesia, particularly on Sulawesi island, and in the southern Philippines.
One of JI's notorious bombers, an Indonesian national, Fathur Rohman Al Ghozi, walked out of one of the Philippines' most secure prisons three weeks ago. His whereabouts are unknown, and no one is sure whether he was involved in Tuesday's attack.
Internal preoccupation
Some say the government's preoccupation with a separatist rebellion in Aceh province and presidential elections scheduled for next year have diverted attention away from the need to root out militancy.
Indonesian police have earned considerable praise for their efficient investigation into the Bali attacks and for the arrests of at least three dozen suspects.
The Bali bombings caused a sharp downturn in the number of visitors to the island which accounts for about half of the $4.5 billion the country earns annually from tourism.
But its effects on other sectors of the economy — particularly the dominant energy and manufacturing areas — proved negligible.
"The recovery after the Bali bomb was faster than expected, showing our economy's resilience," says Dorodjatun Kuntjoro-Jakti, Indonesia's top economics minister. He predicted that the attack in Jakarta would not affect economic prospects for this year.
Still, the country's hopes of regaining the high growth rates of past decades, necessary to keep up with a burgeoning population, will almost certainly suffer.
Political fallout
The political fallout will be more difficult to gauge.
Analysts say that while police were focusing on the JI, the attention of the military is now on the campaign to crush the 25-year rebellion in Aceh.
The government had pinned two recent attacks — a pipe bomb that exploded in front of the parliament building in July and another at the Jakarta airport in April — on Acehnese rebels, despite the fact that there was little or no evidence to back the claim.
The latest bombing could contribute to the growing disenchantment with President Megawati Sukarnoputri.
This could boost the electoral chances of presidential candidates such as General Wiranto, a former armed forces commander and protégé of the country's longtime ruler Suharto.
Wiranto is campaigning for the nomination of the Golkar Party, Suharto's political party during his 32-year rule.
He is said to enjoy considerable popularity among Indonesia's 210 million people, many of whom still respect Suharto for the economic progress he brought to the country before his ouster in 1998.
One thing is clear: The blast in Jakarta was not aimed at Indonesians as much as the West, particularly the US.
And that brings attention to the relevance of comments that Libya's Muammar Qadhafi made last week.
Qadhafi said on American television that the US-led war on terror has strengthened Al Qaeda — and, by extension, similar groups, including JI — because Muslims have perceived the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as aggression against Islam and attempts to spread American influence.
While affirming that Libya is co-operating with the US to fight terrorism and describing Al Qaeda as the "common enemy" and as "crazy and insensible people," he asserted that
America's war against Osama Bin Laden has transformed him into "a symbol for defending the Islamic world." Al Qaeda members have committed attacks on America, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and other countries, "so all these countries are fighting one common enemy," he said.
No doubt, Qadhafi's words would find resonance with what many are convinced in the Arab and Muslim worlds, particularly his assertion that the US "sacrificed its own interests with the Arabs for the sake of the Jews."
Qadhafi singled out Washington's foreign policy for criticism. He called it colonialist and controlled by Jewish group and said:
"As long as America (is) approaching (the war on terror) in such a method ... together with the Israelis ... the more they do that, the more they create an environment or atmosphere for the development of A1 Qaeda,."
Compiled from news agencies
Thursday, July 24, 2003
What after Uday and Qusai?
Uday, the eldest son of Iraq's toppled leader Saddam Hussein, leaves a hospital in Baghdad on June 9 1997 following his recovery from an assassination attempt. His younger brother Qusay is seen walking beside him.
PV Vivekanand
THE BIGGEST question being asked after the US confirmed the death of Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Uday and Qusay, as well as Uday’s 14-year son on Wednesday is: Does this mean security and stability in the country and an end to the mounting daily attacks – an average of – against US soldiers occupying the country?
Hardly likely.
Indeed, the departure from the scene of Uday and Qusay might result in a slight scaling down of attacks, if only because the Saddam loyalist groups that stuck with the family after the Saddam regime was toppled in April might find themselves without a cause.
However, Saddam loyalists are not the sole or even major source of Iraqi resistance attacks. Those who insist otherwise and say the deaths of Uday and Qusai meant the beginning of the end of Iraqi resisance might learn if they look closely at the post-war scene in Iraq that the Iraqis do not really need Saddam as the rallying figure.
Many of them – suffering from the chaos, threat to life, and lack of water, food and power as well as steady jobs -- have more than enough reasons to be hostile to the American forces and this hostility is turning to attacks against US soldiers in the country.
Most are motivated by nationalistic pride while others could be fuelled by an urge to retaliate for what they see as an open American hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.
The cycle of violence is only likely to exacerbate and strengthen the resolve on the two sides and it is more likely that it would soon be an intense war of attrition between Iraqi guerrillas and American soldiers.
Quite simpy, Saddam and his loyalists are not the the only enemy the Americans face in Iraq face and .there was no evidence the brothers were directly guiding the guerrilla war.
Even if few heed Saddam's call to arms, aired in a tape apparently recorded before Uday and "crown prince" Qusay went down fighting US forces, analysts doubt that he and his sons alone have been behind all the guerrilla attacks that claimed two more American lives on Wednesday.
Grievances over the US invasion could fuel low-level warfare for some time.
"Is the resistance only coming from Saddam loyalists? No," said Hafez Alwan Humadi, assistant dean of the political science department at Baghdad University.
Many Iraqis with no love for Saddam or wish to see him back have been angered by the US occupation, including those who have lost family, property or privilege through the war, he said.
Saddam's supporters, on the other hand, seem to be a rapidly diminishing band, reducing his prospects of emulating Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and eluding US capture or a bullet.
However, there are indeed those who feel bitterly indignant about the US presence in the country and the way the occupation authorities deal with the situation.
"They (Oday and Qusay) are Iraqi people," said Waad Hamadi, 43. "We would not have told the Americans (about their whereabouts)."
Hamadi called the man who is believed to have led the Americans to the hideout of Saddam’s two sons in Mosul "a traitor."
Seed Badr, 50, a gray-bearded taxi driver wearing a blue Arab robe, cursed the Americans. "This is terrorism. They are killers."
Indeed, there were many who said they would have preferred to see Uday and Qusay captured alive and put on trial.
Uday and QusaY seemed to have been sold out by a once trusted associate for big dollar rewards. Even if Saddam, with a $25 million price on his head, is far away from the northern city of Mosul where they died, his time may be running out.
"The net is closing around Saddam," said Frank Umbach, security analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations.
"Iraq is different from Afghanistan where the opportunities to escape and hide are much greater...Saddam Hussein is also hated by much of his own population."
Larry Korb, a former assistant US defence secretary now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said the example of the informer in Mosul could sway more Iraqis behind the US troops, creating a domino effect of tips.
"People have been hedging their bets. Now, they're liable to come over to our side," he said. "If this guy who supposedly gave the intelligence (on the sons) gets the money -- and stays alive -- it could encourage other people to turn in Saddam.
"Somebody is going to know where he is."
Many Iraqis, whether out of a desire to be sure he is truly gone or to see him humiliated and brought to justice, would like to see Saddam taken alive. But the man born into poverty who revelled in the gun culture that cost the lives of so many Iraqi leaders before him is unlikely to give them satisfaction.
"We want to have a trial so he can pay for his crimes and we want him to be humiliated as he humiliated us," Humadi said. "(But) he will not surrender. Maybe he will commit suicide."
His sons and teenage grandson took on a huge US force including rocket-firing helicopters. Some analysts suspect Washington would rather not have to deal with the complications of capturing Saddam and holding him in captivity.
Yet even with Saddam eliminated, US troops face problems.
"I do not think that Saddam and his two sons are a very important part of the resistance," said Wamidh Nazmi, a politics professor at Baghdad University. "If they have any role it is a minimal one."
"Yes, you had many people in the Republican Guard, the army, the security forces who did better under Saddam," said British journalist and Saddam biographer Patrick Cockburn. "But they may not have been fighting to get Saddam back. They may have been fighting for other reasons: nationalism, Islamic fervour and local friction with the Americans or with those co-operating with the Americans."
Various groups, including at least one claiming affiliation to Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network have made claims of responsibility for attacks.
Western security experts also doubt that the deposed ruling clan and its shattered Baath party power structure has been capable of organising a co-ordinated resistance campaign from their -- probably -- scattered places of refuge.
That means what has been happening so far may not be greatly affected by the deaths of Uday and Qusai.
Most analysts do not think there would be any major impact from the deaths of Uday and Qusai.
US officials have concede there could even be "revenge attacks." A group of masked men appeared on an Arab television channel on Wednesday vowing retaliation.
But many doubt Saddam has sufficient followers left or the resources to mount any credible threat in Iraq or abroad.
At the same time, the possibility remains high that Saddam might stage a spectacular "last" attack to inflict maximum damage to the US occupation forces
Some American soldiers hope that resistance attacks may be stemmed if only because the deaths reduce the morale of the people who are attacking.
But others believe that while some people will be demoralised, others will be emboldened and take more drastic measures
However, the world leaders who voiced hopes that the death of Uday and Qusai would bring security and stability to Iraq would have known within themselves that it was wishful thinking. The crisis in Iraq could be loosely attributed to Saddam’s autocratic and oppressive rule but it would not end with even Saddam’s demise.
Moscow stood out among world capitals when it said only the development was still no guarantee for the future security and reconstruction of Iraq and "the restoration of the very basic needs of the Iraqi people."
"We judge any set of events first of all by how they affect the actual situation," said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov.
"The regime in Iraq has changed and the main efforts must now be focused on the process of reconstruction, an end to crime, the formation of state authorities, and the restoration of the very basic needs of the Iraqi people."
But Fedotov added in reference to the sons' death: "It is difficult for me to say how this fact can affect the future situation in Iraq."
The killing was also seen as showing the desperate measures US forces were resorting to as they grapple with anarchy in post-war Iraq.
PV Vivekanand
THE BIGGEST question being asked after the US confirmed the death of Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Uday and Qusay, as well as Uday’s 14-year son on Wednesday is: Does this mean security and stability in the country and an end to the mounting daily attacks – an average of – against US soldiers occupying the country?
Hardly likely.
Indeed, the departure from the scene of Uday and Qusay might result in a slight scaling down of attacks, if only because the Saddam loyalist groups that stuck with the family after the Saddam regime was toppled in April might find themselves without a cause.
However, Saddam loyalists are not the sole or even major source of Iraqi resistance attacks. Those who insist otherwise and say the deaths of Uday and Qusai meant the beginning of the end of Iraqi resisance might learn if they look closely at the post-war scene in Iraq that the Iraqis do not really need Saddam as the rallying figure.
Many of them – suffering from the chaos, threat to life, and lack of water, food and power as well as steady jobs -- have more than enough reasons to be hostile to the American forces and this hostility is turning to attacks against US soldiers in the country.
Most are motivated by nationalistic pride while others could be fuelled by an urge to retaliate for what they see as an open American hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.
The cycle of violence is only likely to exacerbate and strengthen the resolve on the two sides and it is more likely that it would soon be an intense war of attrition between Iraqi guerrillas and American soldiers.
Quite simpy, Saddam and his loyalists are not the the only enemy the Americans face in Iraq face and .there was no evidence the brothers were directly guiding the guerrilla war.
Even if few heed Saddam's call to arms, aired in a tape apparently recorded before Uday and "crown prince" Qusay went down fighting US forces, analysts doubt that he and his sons alone have been behind all the guerrilla attacks that claimed two more American lives on Wednesday.
Grievances over the US invasion could fuel low-level warfare for some time.
"Is the resistance only coming from Saddam loyalists? No," said Hafez Alwan Humadi, assistant dean of the political science department at Baghdad University.
Many Iraqis with no love for Saddam or wish to see him back have been angered by the US occupation, including those who have lost family, property or privilege through the war, he said.
Saddam's supporters, on the other hand, seem to be a rapidly diminishing band, reducing his prospects of emulating Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and eluding US capture or a bullet.
However, there are indeed those who feel bitterly indignant about the US presence in the country and the way the occupation authorities deal with the situation.
"They (Oday and Qusay) are Iraqi people," said Waad Hamadi, 43. "We would not have told the Americans (about their whereabouts)."
Hamadi called the man who is believed to have led the Americans to the hideout of Saddam’s two sons in Mosul "a traitor."
Seed Badr, 50, a gray-bearded taxi driver wearing a blue Arab robe, cursed the Americans. "This is terrorism. They are killers."
Indeed, there were many who said they would have preferred to see Uday and Qusay captured alive and put on trial.
Uday and QusaY seemed to have been sold out by a once trusted associate for big dollar rewards. Even if Saddam, with a $25 million price on his head, is far away from the northern city of Mosul where they died, his time may be running out.
"The net is closing around Saddam," said Frank Umbach, security analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations.
"Iraq is different from Afghanistan where the opportunities to escape and hide are much greater...Saddam Hussein is also hated by much of his own population."
Larry Korb, a former assistant US defence secretary now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said the example of the informer in Mosul could sway more Iraqis behind the US troops, creating a domino effect of tips.
"People have been hedging their bets. Now, they're liable to come over to our side," he said. "If this guy who supposedly gave the intelligence (on the sons) gets the money -- and stays alive -- it could encourage other people to turn in Saddam.
"Somebody is going to know where he is."
Many Iraqis, whether out of a desire to be sure he is truly gone or to see him humiliated and brought to justice, would like to see Saddam taken alive. But the man born into poverty who revelled in the gun culture that cost the lives of so many Iraqi leaders before him is unlikely to give them satisfaction.
"We want to have a trial so he can pay for his crimes and we want him to be humiliated as he humiliated us," Humadi said. "(But) he will not surrender. Maybe he will commit suicide."
His sons and teenage grandson took on a huge US force including rocket-firing helicopters. Some analysts suspect Washington would rather not have to deal with the complications of capturing Saddam and holding him in captivity.
Yet even with Saddam eliminated, US troops face problems.
"I do not think that Saddam and his two sons are a very important part of the resistance," said Wamidh Nazmi, a politics professor at Baghdad University. "If they have any role it is a minimal one."
"Yes, you had many people in the Republican Guard, the army, the security forces who did better under Saddam," said British journalist and Saddam biographer Patrick Cockburn. "But they may not have been fighting to get Saddam back. They may have been fighting for other reasons: nationalism, Islamic fervour and local friction with the Americans or with those co-operating with the Americans."
Various groups, including at least one claiming affiliation to Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network have made claims of responsibility for attacks.
Western security experts also doubt that the deposed ruling clan and its shattered Baath party power structure has been capable of organising a co-ordinated resistance campaign from their -- probably -- scattered places of refuge.
That means what has been happening so far may not be greatly affected by the deaths of Uday and Qusai.
Most analysts do not think there would be any major impact from the deaths of Uday and Qusai.
US officials have concede there could even be "revenge attacks." A group of masked men appeared on an Arab television channel on Wednesday vowing retaliation.
But many doubt Saddam has sufficient followers left or the resources to mount any credible threat in Iraq or abroad.
At the same time, the possibility remains high that Saddam might stage a spectacular "last" attack to inflict maximum damage to the US occupation forces
Some American soldiers hope that resistance attacks may be stemmed if only because the deaths reduce the morale of the people who are attacking.
But others believe that while some people will be demoralised, others will be emboldened and take more drastic measures
However, the world leaders who voiced hopes that the death of Uday and Qusai would bring security and stability to Iraq would have known within themselves that it was wishful thinking. The crisis in Iraq could be loosely attributed to Saddam’s autocratic and oppressive rule but it would not end with even Saddam’s demise.
Moscow stood out among world capitals when it said only the development was still no guarantee for the future security and reconstruction of Iraq and "the restoration of the very basic needs of the Iraqi people."
"We judge any set of events first of all by how they affect the actual situation," said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov.
"The regime in Iraq has changed and the main efforts must now be focused on the process of reconstruction, an end to crime, the formation of state authorities, and the restoration of the very basic needs of the Iraqi people."
But Fedotov added in reference to the sons' death: "It is difficult for me to say how this fact can affect the future situation in Iraq."
The killing was also seen as showing the desperate measures US forces were resorting to as they grapple with anarchy in post-war Iraq.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Million-dollar Iraq scam
July 22 2003
Million-dollar Iraq scam
PV Vivekanand
AFTER Nigeria and several other African countries, it is now the turn of Iraq to be the staging ground for scams involving "millions of dollars" purportedly belonging to the ousted Saddam Russian regime.
A series of email messages have started surfacing, with the sender claiming to be in control of millions of dollars representing amounts stashed away by officials of the former Iraqi regime. The message suggests that the receiver make arrangements to receive the millions in his or her account and collect up to 20 to 30 per cent as commission and expenses.
There is little doubt that the message is similar to the scam as the so-called "Advance Fee Fraud," or "419 Fraud" (Four-One-Nine) named after the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Nigeria.
The scam is simple: the target receives an unsolicited fax, email, or letter containing either a money laundering or other illegal proposal. Sometimes it might even be very legal looking business proposal by normal means.
Common variations on the scam include "overinvoiced" or "double invoiced" oil or other supply and service contracts where corrupt officials want to get out of the country; crude oil and other commodity deals; a "bequest" left in a will; "money cleaning" where the corrupt official has a lot of currency that needs to be "chemically cleaned" before it can be used and he needs the cost of the chemicals; and "paying" for a purchase with a check larger than the amount required and asking for change to be advanced. The variations are very creative and virtually endless.
The resemblance between the Iraqi and Nigerian scam messages is unmistakable, particularly the way they build up an explanation as how to the millions came into the possession of the sender, how desparate the situation is and how easy the whole process of transfering the funds to the account of the receiver.
One such message, purportedly sent by Ali Abu Ibrahim -- "an aide in Saddam Hussein's presidential palace in Tikrit" -- offers $20 million, with "commission" for those who help him to secure the funds working out to $6 million.
Written in first person, Abu Ibrahim says he "managed to escape" with five metal boxes containing $20 million "to a neighbouring country which I shall disclose to you later because of the fear that I might be arrested by the new leadership."
The message says in part:
"These funds (were) since depostied with a security company in Europe which I shall disclose to you later, I've been living since then as a political refugee. I am seeking a reliable person who can assist me in moving this money out for safe banking and profitable investment.
"Honesty, I contacted you because I do not want to invest this money in Iraq and and due to my staus here as a politial refugee, I cannot think of such investment. Moreover, I would not want to take risk because this money is all I was able to take away and I am depending on this money. No body knows about th existence of this money, which is why I decided that investing this money abroad should be best for me.
"I will be honoured if I can be given the privilege of investing thie money with help. In view of this plight, I expect you to be trustworthy and kind enough to response to distress call to save my life and that of my relatives who are dependent on me and from a hopless future.
"If you agree, I hereby agree to compensate your sicnere and candid effort in this regard 20 per cent of the total money and annual five per cent of the after-tax returns for the first three years. Thereafter the term shall be varied: five per cent for expenses which may arise during the transaction, and phone bills inclusive.
"When the money is moved into your discreet account, you will be allowed to draw 20 per cent in your favour, with the remaining 70 per cent will be invested meaningfully for our future if possible in your area of busienss and different sectors of the economy in your country which are dividend-yielding.
"Whatever your decision," concludes the message, "please reach me immediately through my private phone and keep this letter tight secret for the interest of my family."
Million-dollar Iraq scam
PV Vivekanand
AFTER Nigeria and several other African countries, it is now the turn of Iraq to be the staging ground for scams involving "millions of dollars" purportedly belonging to the ousted Saddam Russian regime.
A series of email messages have started surfacing, with the sender claiming to be in control of millions of dollars representing amounts stashed away by officials of the former Iraqi regime. The message suggests that the receiver make arrangements to receive the millions in his or her account and collect up to 20 to 30 per cent as commission and expenses.
There is little doubt that the message is similar to the scam as the so-called "Advance Fee Fraud," or "419 Fraud" (Four-One-Nine) named after the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Nigeria.
The scam is simple: the target receives an unsolicited fax, email, or letter containing either a money laundering or other illegal proposal. Sometimes it might even be very legal looking business proposal by normal means.
Common variations on the scam include "overinvoiced" or "double invoiced" oil or other supply and service contracts where corrupt officials want to get out of the country; crude oil and other commodity deals; a "bequest" left in a will; "money cleaning" where the corrupt official has a lot of currency that needs to be "chemically cleaned" before it can be used and he needs the cost of the chemicals; and "paying" for a purchase with a check larger than the amount required and asking for change to be advanced. The variations are very creative and virtually endless.
The resemblance between the Iraqi and Nigerian scam messages is unmistakable, particularly the way they build up an explanation as how to the millions came into the possession of the sender, how desparate the situation is and how easy the whole process of transfering the funds to the account of the receiver.
One such message, purportedly sent by Ali Abu Ibrahim -- "an aide in Saddam Hussein's presidential palace in Tikrit" -- offers $20 million, with "commission" for those who help him to secure the funds working out to $6 million.
Written in first person, Abu Ibrahim says he "managed to escape" with five metal boxes containing $20 million "to a neighbouring country which I shall disclose to you later because of the fear that I might be arrested by the new leadership."
The message says in part:
"These funds (were) since depostied with a security company in Europe which I shall disclose to you later, I've been living since then as a political refugee. I am seeking a reliable person who can assist me in moving this money out for safe banking and profitable investment.
"Honesty, I contacted you because I do not want to invest this money in Iraq and and due to my staus here as a politial refugee, I cannot think of such investment. Moreover, I would not want to take risk because this money is all I was able to take away and I am depending on this money. No body knows about th existence of this money, which is why I decided that investing this money abroad should be best for me.
"I will be honoured if I can be given the privilege of investing thie money with help. In view of this plight, I expect you to be trustworthy and kind enough to response to distress call to save my life and that of my relatives who are dependent on me and from a hopless future.
"If you agree, I hereby agree to compensate your sicnere and candid effort in this regard 20 per cent of the total money and annual five per cent of the after-tax returns for the first three years. Thereafter the term shall be varied: five per cent for expenses which may arise during the transaction, and phone bills inclusive.
"When the money is moved into your discreet account, you will be allowed to draw 20 per cent in your favour, with the remaining 70 per cent will be invested meaningfully for our future if possible in your area of busienss and different sectors of the economy in your country which are dividend-yielding.
"Whatever your decision," concludes the message, "please reach me immediately through my private phone and keep this letter tight secret for the interest of my family."
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Iraq resistance is growing
Iraqi resistance is growing
PV Vivekanand
THREE months have passed since Baghdad fell to the American and British military and the Saddam Hussein regime was ousted from power. The coalition forces seem set for a long haul in occupying the country and Iraqi resistance against them seems to be mounting. The success or failure of the occupation will be determined by the pace with which the US-led authority restores normalcy to the cities and towns of the beleaguered country.
IT IS uncertain at this point in time where the US occupation of Iraq would end up and whether it would produce a regime that would be accepted as legitimate by a majority of the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab World, but one thing is clear: Attacks against the US military are unlikely to pressure Washington into withdrawing its forces from the war-shattered country.
For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis in southern and central Iraq, the immediate priority is restoration of law and order that would afford them the security conducive to making a living, and availability of basic services like water and power. In the north, which had been away from the control of the toppled regime even before the war, things are relatively better, with Kurdish groups maintaining law and order.
The risk that the Americans run elsewhere in Iraq is growing resentment over their failure to provide these basic essentials and the slow pace of reconstruction of the country.
Running contrary to Iraqis' hopes for a speedy return to normalcy is the steady incidents of resistance attacks and American preoccupation with eliminating the sources of resistance.
At least 29 American soldiers have been killed by hostile fire since US President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1. Dozens have been wounded.
Also targeted are Iraqis co-operating with the occupation; seven recruits to an Iraqi police force were killed by a remote controlled bomb in the town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, last week.
Some experts believe that the US military, equipped with the most advanced surveillance equipment and aggressive weapons, would eventually root out Iraqi resistance through an iron-fist, scorched-earth approach. The US forces would narrow down the sources of resistance and hit them hard, and corner those who are staging almost daily attacks.
The experts also note that the US has announced a reward of $2,500 for information leading to the arrest of assailants who kill a US soldier or Iraqi policeman.
The US has already offered a $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Saddam or proof that he is dead and a $15 million price for similar information on his sons, Uday and Qusai.
The prediction of these experts that the US would eventually overpower Iraqi challengers is based on the apparent absence of a centralised resistance movement, notwithstanding the audio-tapes containing purported calls by Saddam for stepped-up attacks against the US forces in the country.
Those who forsee in this course of events argue that the 10 or so average daily "encounters" between Iraqi guerrillas and American soldiers do not account for a massive resistance movement and discount the theory that Iraq could prove to be "another Vietnam" for the Americans.
However, others argue that growing signs of organised resistance are emerging and the ranks of the resistance could swell if tens of thousands of desparate soldiers who became unemployed with the disbanding of the army opt to join in.
Plans announced this week call for a 25,000-strong army in about one year. That has little room for the 350,000 to 400,000 former soldiers.
Desparation over the lack of security and stability, basic services and jobs could also prompt others to seek to get rid of the Americans, according to observers who follow this school of thinking.
Iraqis who are prompted by personal, ideological and nationalistic reasons are also seen prone to be waging resistance. However, there is little sign of any co-ordination among the groups and there does not seem to be a central command which organises resistance attacks.
However, over the last two weeks, assailants have been using rocket-propelled grenades and mortars -- and remote controlled bombs as the case was in Ramadai -- in a sign of stepped up resistance.
As such, it remains open to conjecture whether the US would be able to cope with the increasing intensity of resistance while it seems to be continuing to alienate Iraqis by not moving fast enough to restore normal life in the country.
Southerners biding for time
The majority Shiites in the south are refraining themselves from ared resistance. Obviously, their leaders, despite internal differences, are hoping that they would get a larger share of power as and when the US fulfills its promise to rebuild and democratise the country.
The Shiites -- who make up to 60 per cent of the 24-million Iraqi population, would challenge the US in the short term only when their interests are questioned, and American strategists are careful not to antagonise them.
In the meantime, the Shiites are resorting to peaceful protest marches and demonstrations against what they see as decisions that undermine their drive to maintain domination of the area. They have made no secret of their desire to the see the back of the Americans at the earliest.
Americans are mindful that Iraqi Shiites could be used by Iran to counter Washington's moves in southern Iraq and broader political moves involving political power in Iraq. Bush administration officials have accused Tehran of meddling in Iraq's internal affairs through Shiite groups in southern Iraq, a charge Iran has denied.
The US has retained its option of using the Iranian dissident group, Mujahedeen e-Khalq, which has a sizeable presence in Iraq, to destablise Iran through cross-border action and propaganda beamed through radio and television.
It would probably be a re-enactment of the Saddam era scenario where Baghdad backed the Mujahedeen to counter Iran's backing for the Iraqi Shiite opposition group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Today, the Americans have the Mujahedeen as a card against Iran and Tehran has pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite groups in southern Iraq that it could use against the US if it suits Iranian interests.
However, it is highly unlikely that Iran would encourage its sympathisers in Iraq to resort to military resistance against the Americans. Washington has already piled pressure on Iran citing Tehran's nuclear programmes, and the theocratic regime there would do without having an open confrontation with the Americans.
The US civil administrator, Paul Bremer, might have sent a wrong signal to the religious leaders of the south when he avoided contact with them during a visit he made to Najaf on Wednesday.
Bremer staying away from tAyatollah Ali Sistani, leader of the Hawza theological institution and one of the most powerful and respected Shiite leaders, would have been seen as an affront to the community.
Sistani has accused the Americans of ignoring the Hawza and issued a religious order that only Iraqis should appoint those who would write a new constitution. That meant a direct challenge to American plans.
The northern equation
The Kurds in the north -- about 18 to 20 per cent of the populaton -- are busy laying the groundwork for the independent state that they dream of.
They are aligned with the US and the alliance is being cemented as an apparent American-Turkish rift is growing over Washington's rejection of Ankara's moves in northern Iraq to counter the emergence of an independent Kurdish state there. That rift was all the more visible last week when US forces detained 11 soldiers from Turkish special forcesin a raid on charges that they were trying to destablise the region by killing the US-installed mayor of Kirkuk. The soldiers were released after three days following top-level Ankara-Washington contacts, but the incident sent messages both ways: Turkey would not be dissuaded from pursuing action to pre-empt the emergence of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and Washington would not allow Turkey to sow instability in the region.
At the same time, the US also reserves the option to back the Kurdish cause and thus keep the Islamist government in Ankara under pressure.
Whatever the course of events in the north, the Kurds would be the last to take up arms against the US military, and that effectively takes them out of the current military equation facing the US forces in the country.
Ankara could encourage the estimated two million Turkomen -- people of Turkish origin who remained in northern Iraq following the collapse of the Ottoman empire in the early 1900s -- to make trouble for the Americans and Kurds.
Reports indicate that Ankara is active among the Turkomen with a drive to resettle them in areas from where they were ousted during the Saddam regime's "ethnic cleansing drive" but is maintaining a low profile.
The US-Turkish proxy tug-of-war would have to emerge into the open since the stakes are too high for all sides involved. But that would not be an immediate factor in US considerations unless Ankara forces the American hand.
The main resistance threatre
Most of the anti-US attacks have occurred in the predominantly Sunni belt in the northeast of Baghdad and this have given rise to the theory that Saddam Hussein, who is allegedly flush with cash of more than $1.2 billion that he took from the central bank in the final days of the war that toppled him from power, is financing resistance and offering bounties to those who succeed in killing American soldiers.
In the hypothesis that this is true, then the question that comes up is: How long could Saddam continue to finance attacks as the US steps up the intensity of its actions against suspected resistance activists?
Indeed, $1.2 billion (provided that the Saddam-central bank story is true) would go a long way but not enough to wear out the Americans.
Cocnerns were raised last week that those who wage armed resistance could expand their effort to include Western civilians when a British television cameraman was shot dead at point-blank range.
Similar attacks have not been repeated, but that has done little to scale down apprehension that Western officials and businessmen visiting Iraq could be targeted.
Bid for legitimacy
Several countries, most of them from Europe and the former Soviet bloc, have joined the American forces in Iraq as peace-keeping troops or have agreed to send tropps there amid arguments in Washington for and against a dramatic increase in the number of American soldiers deployed there.
Some of those countries were seen as friends of Iraq during the Saddam era, but this perception could change if the Iraqis start seeing them as part of the US-led occupation force.
Obviously, the American objective in inviting other countries to join the Iraq operation is double-fold: It could reduce the pressure against American soldiers put up by the resistance and would also add an element of legitimacy to the occupation, given that the United Nations has refused to endorse a force that would serve under American command.
Pakistan's government has said that it might send troops to Iraq but that no decision would be taken without taking parliament into confidence.
The Indianb government, according to informed sources, has taken a decision in principle to accept an American request for troops and has notifed Washington of the decision. But the government faces strong opposition to the move. Observers believe that the government might simply assign a military unit before July 21, before parliament starts a regular session, hoping that it would be able with withstand opposition criticism in the legislature with a fait accompli.
Seven Iraqi exile groups which hope to make up a governing council in co-ordination with the US occupation authority have proposed that an Iraqi security force be deployed in cities to tackle crime.
Deployment of Iraqis familar with the territory and local norms could take care of internal security in the cities and also counter attacks against the foreign forces.
There was no reported American response to the proposal, which was formulated at a meeting this week in northern Iraq of the seven groups.
Political moves
Respected Iraqi politician Adnan Pachachi has said the seven groups would also take part in the governing council but that they would have executive authority and would not serve in an advisory capacity to the US authority in Iraq,
US administrator Paul Bremer has apparently accepted the demand and the council is expected to be announced in the next two weeks.
Shiites would be given more than 50 per cent of the 25 seats in the council and the rest would be divided among Sunnis and Kurds, according to sources quoted by news agencies.
The seven groups include the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, the Shi'ite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Al Da'wa Party and two Kurdish political parties.
The council, the first step towards setting up an American-promised Iraqi administration of Iraq, should ideally be in control of most internal affairs, but it is clear that it faces several hurdles:
Iraqis have openly said they resent being ruled by exiles who remained out of the country for decades. However, not many Iraqis could be identified with leadership qualities at this point in time other than those who served under Saddam and they are not acceptable to both the US and most Iraqis.
For the moment, the exile groups are holding together despite their differing ideologies (or the lack of ideology) and agendas in the country.
The best and largest organised group among them is SCIRI, but the US treats the group at arms length in view of its close links with Iran.
The Kurdish groups are more focused in the north, and their priorities are different from those of other Iraqi groups - they want to advance their cause for independence.
Thrown into the equation are efforts to revive the Hashemite monarchy. Sharif Ali Bin Al Hussein, a London-based banker, has returned to Iraq and his supporters are calling for a constitutional monarchy. A rival group supports another Hashemite figure who lives in Jordan - Raad Bin Zeid.
The two groups have not come to grips with each other except through the media.
Do the Iraqis want a revived monarchy?
Some say that a monarchy could serve as a rallying point and unifying factor for the diverse Iraqi communities and tribes. Other say that democracy is the best option.
But the people of the war-shattered country is too far from any serious contemplation of such ideas. They want security, water, food, power and steady employment, and their resistance against anyone seen blocking the way would grow as every day passes without these demands being met -- and their first logical target is the coalition forces.
PV Vivekanand
THREE months have passed since Baghdad fell to the American and British military and the Saddam Hussein regime was ousted from power. The coalition forces seem set for a long haul in occupying the country and Iraqi resistance against them seems to be mounting. The success or failure of the occupation will be determined by the pace with which the US-led authority restores normalcy to the cities and towns of the beleaguered country.
IT IS uncertain at this point in time where the US occupation of Iraq would end up and whether it would produce a regime that would be accepted as legitimate by a majority of the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab World, but one thing is clear: Attacks against the US military are unlikely to pressure Washington into withdrawing its forces from the war-shattered country.
For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis in southern and central Iraq, the immediate priority is restoration of law and order that would afford them the security conducive to making a living, and availability of basic services like water and power. In the north, which had been away from the control of the toppled regime even before the war, things are relatively better, with Kurdish groups maintaining law and order.
The risk that the Americans run elsewhere in Iraq is growing resentment over their failure to provide these basic essentials and the slow pace of reconstruction of the country.
Running contrary to Iraqis' hopes for a speedy return to normalcy is the steady incidents of resistance attacks and American preoccupation with eliminating the sources of resistance.
At least 29 American soldiers have been killed by hostile fire since US President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1. Dozens have been wounded.
Also targeted are Iraqis co-operating with the occupation; seven recruits to an Iraqi police force were killed by a remote controlled bomb in the town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, last week.
Some experts believe that the US military, equipped with the most advanced surveillance equipment and aggressive weapons, would eventually root out Iraqi resistance through an iron-fist, scorched-earth approach. The US forces would narrow down the sources of resistance and hit them hard, and corner those who are staging almost daily attacks.
The experts also note that the US has announced a reward of $2,500 for information leading to the arrest of assailants who kill a US soldier or Iraqi policeman.
The US has already offered a $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Saddam or proof that he is dead and a $15 million price for similar information on his sons, Uday and Qusai.
The prediction of these experts that the US would eventually overpower Iraqi challengers is based on the apparent absence of a centralised resistance movement, notwithstanding the audio-tapes containing purported calls by Saddam for stepped-up attacks against the US forces in the country.
Those who forsee in this course of events argue that the 10 or so average daily "encounters" between Iraqi guerrillas and American soldiers do not account for a massive resistance movement and discount the theory that Iraq could prove to be "another Vietnam" for the Americans.
However, others argue that growing signs of organised resistance are emerging and the ranks of the resistance could swell if tens of thousands of desparate soldiers who became unemployed with the disbanding of the army opt to join in.
Plans announced this week call for a 25,000-strong army in about one year. That has little room for the 350,000 to 400,000 former soldiers.
Desparation over the lack of security and stability, basic services and jobs could also prompt others to seek to get rid of the Americans, according to observers who follow this school of thinking.
Iraqis who are prompted by personal, ideological and nationalistic reasons are also seen prone to be waging resistance. However, there is little sign of any co-ordination among the groups and there does not seem to be a central command which organises resistance attacks.
However, over the last two weeks, assailants have been using rocket-propelled grenades and mortars -- and remote controlled bombs as the case was in Ramadai -- in a sign of stepped up resistance.
As such, it remains open to conjecture whether the US would be able to cope with the increasing intensity of resistance while it seems to be continuing to alienate Iraqis by not moving fast enough to restore normal life in the country.
Southerners biding for time
The majority Shiites in the south are refraining themselves from ared resistance. Obviously, their leaders, despite internal differences, are hoping that they would get a larger share of power as and when the US fulfills its promise to rebuild and democratise the country.
The Shiites -- who make up to 60 per cent of the 24-million Iraqi population, would challenge the US in the short term only when their interests are questioned, and American strategists are careful not to antagonise them.
In the meantime, the Shiites are resorting to peaceful protest marches and demonstrations against what they see as decisions that undermine their drive to maintain domination of the area. They have made no secret of their desire to the see the back of the Americans at the earliest.
Americans are mindful that Iraqi Shiites could be used by Iran to counter Washington's moves in southern Iraq and broader political moves involving political power in Iraq. Bush administration officials have accused Tehran of meddling in Iraq's internal affairs through Shiite groups in southern Iraq, a charge Iran has denied.
The US has retained its option of using the Iranian dissident group, Mujahedeen e-Khalq, which has a sizeable presence in Iraq, to destablise Iran through cross-border action and propaganda beamed through radio and television.
It would probably be a re-enactment of the Saddam era scenario where Baghdad backed the Mujahedeen to counter Iran's backing for the Iraqi Shiite opposition group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Today, the Americans have the Mujahedeen as a card against Iran and Tehran has pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite groups in southern Iraq that it could use against the US if it suits Iranian interests.
However, it is highly unlikely that Iran would encourage its sympathisers in Iraq to resort to military resistance against the Americans. Washington has already piled pressure on Iran citing Tehran's nuclear programmes, and the theocratic regime there would do without having an open confrontation with the Americans.
The US civil administrator, Paul Bremer, might have sent a wrong signal to the religious leaders of the south when he avoided contact with them during a visit he made to Najaf on Wednesday.
Bremer staying away from tAyatollah Ali Sistani, leader of the Hawza theological institution and one of the most powerful and respected Shiite leaders, would have been seen as an affront to the community.
Sistani has accused the Americans of ignoring the Hawza and issued a religious order that only Iraqis should appoint those who would write a new constitution. That meant a direct challenge to American plans.
The northern equation
The Kurds in the north -- about 18 to 20 per cent of the populaton -- are busy laying the groundwork for the independent state that they dream of.
They are aligned with the US and the alliance is being cemented as an apparent American-Turkish rift is growing over Washington's rejection of Ankara's moves in northern Iraq to counter the emergence of an independent Kurdish state there. That rift was all the more visible last week when US forces detained 11 soldiers from Turkish special forcesin a raid on charges that they were trying to destablise the region by killing the US-installed mayor of Kirkuk. The soldiers were released after three days following top-level Ankara-Washington contacts, but the incident sent messages both ways: Turkey would not be dissuaded from pursuing action to pre-empt the emergence of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and Washington would not allow Turkey to sow instability in the region.
At the same time, the US also reserves the option to back the Kurdish cause and thus keep the Islamist government in Ankara under pressure.
Whatever the course of events in the north, the Kurds would be the last to take up arms against the US military, and that effectively takes them out of the current military equation facing the US forces in the country.
Ankara could encourage the estimated two million Turkomen -- people of Turkish origin who remained in northern Iraq following the collapse of the Ottoman empire in the early 1900s -- to make trouble for the Americans and Kurds.
Reports indicate that Ankara is active among the Turkomen with a drive to resettle them in areas from where they were ousted during the Saddam regime's "ethnic cleansing drive" but is maintaining a low profile.
The US-Turkish proxy tug-of-war would have to emerge into the open since the stakes are too high for all sides involved. But that would not be an immediate factor in US considerations unless Ankara forces the American hand.
The main resistance threatre
Most of the anti-US attacks have occurred in the predominantly Sunni belt in the northeast of Baghdad and this have given rise to the theory that Saddam Hussein, who is allegedly flush with cash of more than $1.2 billion that he took from the central bank in the final days of the war that toppled him from power, is financing resistance and offering bounties to those who succeed in killing American soldiers.
In the hypothesis that this is true, then the question that comes up is: How long could Saddam continue to finance attacks as the US steps up the intensity of its actions against suspected resistance activists?
Indeed, $1.2 billion (provided that the Saddam-central bank story is true) would go a long way but not enough to wear out the Americans.
Cocnerns were raised last week that those who wage armed resistance could expand their effort to include Western civilians when a British television cameraman was shot dead at point-blank range.
Similar attacks have not been repeated, but that has done little to scale down apprehension that Western officials and businessmen visiting Iraq could be targeted.
Bid for legitimacy
Several countries, most of them from Europe and the former Soviet bloc, have joined the American forces in Iraq as peace-keeping troops or have agreed to send tropps there amid arguments in Washington for and against a dramatic increase in the number of American soldiers deployed there.
Some of those countries were seen as friends of Iraq during the Saddam era, but this perception could change if the Iraqis start seeing them as part of the US-led occupation force.
Obviously, the American objective in inviting other countries to join the Iraq operation is double-fold: It could reduce the pressure against American soldiers put up by the resistance and would also add an element of legitimacy to the occupation, given that the United Nations has refused to endorse a force that would serve under American command.
Pakistan's government has said that it might send troops to Iraq but that no decision would be taken without taking parliament into confidence.
The Indianb government, according to informed sources, has taken a decision in principle to accept an American request for troops and has notifed Washington of the decision. But the government faces strong opposition to the move. Observers believe that the government might simply assign a military unit before July 21, before parliament starts a regular session, hoping that it would be able with withstand opposition criticism in the legislature with a fait accompli.
Seven Iraqi exile groups which hope to make up a governing council in co-ordination with the US occupation authority have proposed that an Iraqi security force be deployed in cities to tackle crime.
Deployment of Iraqis familar with the territory and local norms could take care of internal security in the cities and also counter attacks against the foreign forces.
There was no reported American response to the proposal, which was formulated at a meeting this week in northern Iraq of the seven groups.
Political moves
Respected Iraqi politician Adnan Pachachi has said the seven groups would also take part in the governing council but that they would have executive authority and would not serve in an advisory capacity to the US authority in Iraq,
US administrator Paul Bremer has apparently accepted the demand and the council is expected to be announced in the next two weeks.
Shiites would be given more than 50 per cent of the 25 seats in the council and the rest would be divided among Sunnis and Kurds, according to sources quoted by news agencies.
The seven groups include the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, the Shi'ite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Al Da'wa Party and two Kurdish political parties.
The council, the first step towards setting up an American-promised Iraqi administration of Iraq, should ideally be in control of most internal affairs, but it is clear that it faces several hurdles:
Iraqis have openly said they resent being ruled by exiles who remained out of the country for decades. However, not many Iraqis could be identified with leadership qualities at this point in time other than those who served under Saddam and they are not acceptable to both the US and most Iraqis.
For the moment, the exile groups are holding together despite their differing ideologies (or the lack of ideology) and agendas in the country.
The best and largest organised group among them is SCIRI, but the US treats the group at arms length in view of its close links with Iran.
The Kurdish groups are more focused in the north, and their priorities are different from those of other Iraqi groups - they want to advance their cause for independence.
Thrown into the equation are efforts to revive the Hashemite monarchy. Sharif Ali Bin Al Hussein, a London-based banker, has returned to Iraq and his supporters are calling for a constitutional monarchy. A rival group supports another Hashemite figure who lives in Jordan - Raad Bin Zeid.
The two groups have not come to grips with each other except through the media.
Do the Iraqis want a revived monarchy?
Some say that a monarchy could serve as a rallying point and unifying factor for the diverse Iraqi communities and tribes. Other say that democracy is the best option.
But the people of the war-shattered country is too far from any serious contemplation of such ideas. They want security, water, food, power and steady employment, and their resistance against anyone seen blocking the way would grow as every day passes without these demands being met -- and their first logical target is the coalition forces.
Friday, July 04, 2003
US going wrong in Iraq
By PV Vivekanand
THE US went wrong from the word go when it gave more weight to its military might than a pacifist approach of political persuasion in post-war Iraq, and it faces a deep quagmire in the country unless it moves fast against lost time to stabilise the Iraqis' most basic needs -- personal safety, electricity, water, health care, job security and regular salaries. This is the finding of international and regional experts who are alarmed over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, where the US military is getting more aggressive every day in the face of mounting resistance attacks.
Had the US tried a different approach, then it would not have been facing the quagmire that it is slowly slipping into in Iraq, say the experts.
The American military action freed the Iraqis from the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein but pushed them into a much worse situation that the Saddam days in terms of daily life. The US forces gave prime consideration to securing oilfields and installations and ignored - and thereby seen as having encouraged - widespread looting, robberies rape and murder throughout the country. In fact, accusasions that the invading force was more interested Iraq's oil than the welfare of the Iraqis were heard even on April 9, the day Baghdad fell to the US force.
The American actions since then have convinced a majority of Iraqis that the US was not their liberator beyond the point of removing the Saddam regime to serve American interests that have little to do with caring for the people of Iraq or respecting their rights.
In Baghdad and other Iraqi towns male members of families keep watch with guns and take shifts to sleep, fearing armed robbers. Without their guns they feel naked, but the US forces insist that everyone surrender their weapons; not many have met a US-set deadline for giving up their guns.
It is indeed a festering sore. The US forces is not only offering safety and protection to the people of Iraq but is also seeking to deprive Iraqis of the means to protect themselves.
Power and water supplies are erratic; cost of living is shooting up and there is no regular pay, and many families are worse off than the Saddam days when the regime used to supply monthly rations.
Telecommunications are almost non-existent; the sense of normality offered by radio and television is lacking in view of the frequent outages.
If there was any inkling of an American inclination to look at ways to address the situation, that is fast disappearing with the US force's preoccupation dealing with Iraqi resistance; and if the situation continues, the vicious circle would only intensify and the US "administration" of Iraq would prove to be catastrophic for all.
The declared American drive to set up an interim Iraqi committee to help govern the country has been a source of consolation for many Iraqis who welcomed the involvement of their own people in running the country. But, the emerging undercurrents in the intense jockeying for power based on ethnic considerations and diverse ideologies have convinced them that having an effective Iraqi say in Iraqi affairs is not seen anywhere in the near future.
The absence of a central authority to address their problems has fuelled Iraqi anger and despair, say the experts in a report prepared by the International Criis Group.
"Ensconced in one of Saddam Hussein's vast palaces in Baghdad, (US) officials are not allowed to leave the palace grounds without military escort," it says. "They venture out infrequently and know little of Iraq and Iraqis. In turn, Iraqis have no venue, such as walk-in centres, where they can go to air problems, register complaints or hear first-hand from (US) officials," it adds.
The Iraqi frustration is also fuelled by the focus given to American corporates in reconstruction of their country. The Iraqis might not have adequate commercial foundations and equipment to undertake the job, but they are incensed by the feeling that Americans are fleecing their country and their resources and keeping out all others. Even at that, there is little to show on the ground that any reconstruction worth the name is under way.
The ICG underlines what the group sees as the mistakes that the American committed and are continuing to commit in post-war Iraq.
Among the many reasons for the instability in Iraq was the summary disbandment of the Baathist Party overlooking the three distinct kinds of Baathists -- diehard Saddam loyalists, those who joined the party out of expediency, and ideological followers, says the group.
According to the ICG, the vast majority of civil servants, police, judges, engineers and others belong to the second category and have the skills to make the country run again, but they are being sidelines and indeed taken to task for their past affiliation with the party.
"By banning all of them without distinction," the US rulers of Iraq have "ostracised a vital group - and may even end up uniting opposition to the occupation rather than alienating the Saddam loyalists," says the report.
It calls on the US to "seriously reconsider this order and return qualified senior managers to their positions if they do not have a proven record of corruption or abuse."
The ICG report says that there is also growing resentment among Iraqis who aspire to political power. "Even those who came from overseas feel that they are being offered far less than the Iraqi-run interim government that they thought the United States had agreed to before the war," it says. "The closest they are likely to get in the short to medium term is an interim council of 25 to 30 appointed by L. Paul Bremer, the chief US administrator in Iraq, without serious decision-making powers."
Disbanding the Iraqi military without offering its personnel alternative means to make a living was another major mistake of the Americans, according to the ICG. As a result, tens of thousands of young men were turned into the streets without employment, leaving them the option of a life of crime or joining resistance groups which give them something to do rather than wander around in search of non-existent jobs.
The disbandment of the army "has put hundreds of thousands of young men on the streets without serious prospects of work or compensation," says the IGC. "It is feared that many will join the gangs of thieves who roam the streets, or form the core of future armed resistance to the occupation. Some of these men were on the streets last week — demonstrating against the US and demanding a fairer deal. Shooting at them — as the US forces did - is not the answer to these mens' problems."
"What is puzzling is that so little advance preparation appears to have been made for dealing with the problems that have arisen in Baghdad," says Hilterman. "Many if not most of them should have been anticipated based on years of experience with post-conflict transitions elsewhere.
"The Iraqis' faith in their new rulers is being undermined by ad hoc decision making, lack of cultural sensitivity and apparent neglect of the problems that rile them most. Urgent and focused action is needed if this discontent is not to be transformed into widespread and active opposition in the coming months," warns Hilterman.
THE US went wrong from the word go when it gave more weight to its military might than a pacifist approach of political persuasion in post-war Iraq, and it faces a deep quagmire in the country unless it moves fast against lost time to stabilise the Iraqis' most basic needs -- personal safety, electricity, water, health care, job security and regular salaries. This is the finding of international and regional experts who are alarmed over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, where the US military is getting more aggressive every day in the face of mounting resistance attacks.
Had the US tried a different approach, then it would not have been facing the quagmire that it is slowly slipping into in Iraq, say the experts.
The American military action freed the Iraqis from the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein but pushed them into a much worse situation that the Saddam days in terms of daily life. The US forces gave prime consideration to securing oilfields and installations and ignored - and thereby seen as having encouraged - widespread looting, robberies rape and murder throughout the country. In fact, accusasions that the invading force was more interested Iraq's oil than the welfare of the Iraqis were heard even on April 9, the day Baghdad fell to the US force.
The American actions since then have convinced a majority of Iraqis that the US was not their liberator beyond the point of removing the Saddam regime to serve American interests that have little to do with caring for the people of Iraq or respecting their rights.
In Baghdad and other Iraqi towns male members of families keep watch with guns and take shifts to sleep, fearing armed robbers. Without their guns they feel naked, but the US forces insist that everyone surrender their weapons; not many have met a US-set deadline for giving up their guns.
It is indeed a festering sore. The US forces is not only offering safety and protection to the people of Iraq but is also seeking to deprive Iraqis of the means to protect themselves.
Power and water supplies are erratic; cost of living is shooting up and there is no regular pay, and many families are worse off than the Saddam days when the regime used to supply monthly rations.
Telecommunications are almost non-existent; the sense of normality offered by radio and television is lacking in view of the frequent outages.
If there was any inkling of an American inclination to look at ways to address the situation, that is fast disappearing with the US force's preoccupation dealing with Iraqi resistance; and if the situation continues, the vicious circle would only intensify and the US "administration" of Iraq would prove to be catastrophic for all.
The declared American drive to set up an interim Iraqi committee to help govern the country has been a source of consolation for many Iraqis who welcomed the involvement of their own people in running the country. But, the emerging undercurrents in the intense jockeying for power based on ethnic considerations and diverse ideologies have convinced them that having an effective Iraqi say in Iraqi affairs is not seen anywhere in the near future.
The absence of a central authority to address their problems has fuelled Iraqi anger and despair, say the experts in a report prepared by the International Criis Group.
"Ensconced in one of Saddam Hussein's vast palaces in Baghdad, (US) officials are not allowed to leave the palace grounds without military escort," it says. "They venture out infrequently and know little of Iraq and Iraqis. In turn, Iraqis have no venue, such as walk-in centres, where they can go to air problems, register complaints or hear first-hand from (US) officials," it adds.
The Iraqi frustration is also fuelled by the focus given to American corporates in reconstruction of their country. The Iraqis might not have adequate commercial foundations and equipment to undertake the job, but they are incensed by the feeling that Americans are fleecing their country and their resources and keeping out all others. Even at that, there is little to show on the ground that any reconstruction worth the name is under way.
The ICG underlines what the group sees as the mistakes that the American committed and are continuing to commit in post-war Iraq.
Among the many reasons for the instability in Iraq was the summary disbandment of the Baathist Party overlooking the three distinct kinds of Baathists -- diehard Saddam loyalists, those who joined the party out of expediency, and ideological followers, says the group.
According to the ICG, the vast majority of civil servants, police, judges, engineers and others belong to the second category and have the skills to make the country run again, but they are being sidelines and indeed taken to task for their past affiliation with the party.
"By banning all of them without distinction," the US rulers of Iraq have "ostracised a vital group - and may even end up uniting opposition to the occupation rather than alienating the Saddam loyalists," says the report.
It calls on the US to "seriously reconsider this order and return qualified senior managers to their positions if they do not have a proven record of corruption or abuse."
The ICG report says that there is also growing resentment among Iraqis who aspire to political power. "Even those who came from overseas feel that they are being offered far less than the Iraqi-run interim government that they thought the United States had agreed to before the war," it says. "The closest they are likely to get in the short to medium term is an interim council of 25 to 30 appointed by L. Paul Bremer, the chief US administrator in Iraq, without serious decision-making powers."
Disbanding the Iraqi military without offering its personnel alternative means to make a living was another major mistake of the Americans, according to the ICG. As a result, tens of thousands of young men were turned into the streets without employment, leaving them the option of a life of crime or joining resistance groups which give them something to do rather than wander around in search of non-existent jobs.
The disbandment of the army "has put hundreds of thousands of young men on the streets without serious prospects of work or compensation," says the IGC. "It is feared that many will join the gangs of thieves who roam the streets, or form the core of future armed resistance to the occupation. Some of these men were on the streets last week — demonstrating against the US and demanding a fairer deal. Shooting at them — as the US forces did - is not the answer to these mens' problems."
"What is puzzling is that so little advance preparation appears to have been made for dealing with the problems that have arisen in Baghdad," says Hilterman. "Many if not most of them should have been anticipated based on years of experience with post-conflict transitions elsewhere.
"The Iraqis' faith in their new rulers is being undermined by ad hoc decision making, lack of cultural sensitivity and apparent neglect of the problems that rile them most. Urgent and focused action is needed if this discontent is not to be transformed into widespread and active opposition in the coming months," warns Hilterman.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
US counts dud cards in Iran
PV Vivekanand
THE failure of the clerical regime in Tehran to
address the bread-and-butter issues of their people
and overzealous imposition of religious restrictions
that stifled personal freedoms are the best bet the US
has in its bid for regime change in the Islamic
republic.
The American charges that Iran is seeking nuclear
weapons and is harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists are
cosmetic as far as the people of Iran are concerned.
They see those charges as simialr to the American
build-up against Iraq, and, if anything, they would
stand behind the regime against external meddling in
their internal affairs.
But the US-inspired slogans against "oppression,
denial of jusitce, disrespect for human rights" might
work to incite Iranians into demonstrating against the
regime since such is the track record of the
theocratic governance of Iran since the ouster of the
shah in 1979.
Contrary to the Iranian people's expectations of a
liberal democracy, public freedoms and economic
opportunities, the post-shah regime headed by the late
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini tightened the norms of
life in the society and focused on fighting a running
conflict with the US.
Indeed, Khomeini, who died in 1989, was successful of
freeing his country from US domination, but he scored
little else to serve his people's needs of better
living standards, employment and political freedoms.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini, did no
better.
Throughout the period since the 1979 upheaval that
saw the ouster of the shah, the theocrats in Iran
dominated governance as well in line with the Shiite
ideology where the religious leadership also maintains
political leadership. Therefore, the president and his
cabiinet were also tied down to the decisions of the
religious establishment under the Vilayet-e-Faqih
system adopted by the Shiites.
On the economic front, the religious esatablishment
created organisations beyond the control of the
government to supervise the elected branches and in
direct control of the armed forces, the judiciary and
the wealthy charitable foundations that account for
nearly half of all economic activities in the country;
hence the tight-fisted rule of the theocrats also
meant that Iranians were never offered the right
economic opportunities that their oil-rich country
should have offered them.
Khamenei exercises absolute power and his hardline
camp dominates the Council of Guardians, which has the
final say in any government move, and the Expediency
Council, headed by former president Ali Akbar
Rafsanjani, a relative moderate but whose voice is
drowned by the hardliners.
Khamenei serves as the ideologue of the conservative
camp and Rafsanjani, as head of the Experiency
Council, acts as the link between the relgiious
establishment and elected bodies.
Any move towards fundamental reforms made by the
current regime of Mohammed Khatami is vetoed by the
hardliners, and the ineffective resistance of the
government against such domination has even alienated
it from the public.
It was with great hope that the Iranians voted in
Khatami as president in 1997, but it soon became
apparent that the religious leaders had no intention
to let him carry out reform. They fought him every
step of the way, with the net result that the people
of Iran gave up any hope for positive change in their
life.
The voters had hoped that Khatami would reinvigorate
the Islamic revolution and prompote freedom of
thought, speech, dress, and social interaction;
education, housing, healthcare and employment. Between
1997 and 2000, the conservatives who had a majority in
parliament kept Khatami's reforms at arms distance. In
2000, the Khatami camp won majority control of the
Majlis, but the conservatives continued to block him
through the Guardians Council. Dozens of eformists
were jailed, nearly 100 reform newspapers were closed
down and popular protests were put down violently by
harcord supporters of the clerical establishment.
What we see today in Iran is a reflection of the
mounting frustrations of the Iranian people. The daily
protests in the last 10 days in Tehran and other
cities of the country are indeed encouraged and even
incited by the US and its Iranian agents, most of whom
are based outside the country but have connections
inside. Supporting the US campaign to stir internal
trouble that Washington hopes would eventually lead to
a movement strong enough to topple the Khamenei regime
are the successors of the shah as well as leaders of
the Iranian Jewish community in the US.
What are Iran's options today to successfully fight
off the American pressure?
There are no overnight solutions that would make the
people of Iran immune to external incitement to rise
up against the regime. Even if there were, the
religious establishment could not be expected to
embrace them since they involve cornerstones of what
the Khamenei camp believes as the foundations of the
Islamic republic.
However, the survival of the regime depends on how it
goes about handling the ongoing protests on the
internal front and warding off American threats citing
the country's alleged nuclear programmes, meddling in
Iraq's internal affairs, aiding "international
terrorism," and supporting "terorrist organisations"
such as the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups
and Lebanon's Hizbollah.
When university students started protests at night
against what was rumoured to be government plans to
privatise universities, a few non-student activists
took to the streets and expressed backing for the
students by honking their vehicle's horns.
Hardline supporters of the clerical establishment hit
back by storming university dorms and assaulting
students. The government intervened and ordered the
arrest of those who attacked students.
Then it was the turn of the religious establishment to
take the next step. It seemed to have realised that
extending a hand of protection to the hardliners might
be counterproductive; therefore it decided not to
muscle the government to release those arrested. That
could indeed be a starting point for the hardline camp
to let loosen their grip on life in Iran and the
faster they do it the better for themselves and their
people.
That is the status quo in Tehran today. But the
protests are far from over, with the US engaged in a
multi-pronged effort to discredit the Khamenei camp
and oust the Khatami regime. It has not reached the
military point yet. The US seems to be marking time to
the point that the internal protests gather enough
moementum and strength before moving in with military
might to back the protesters. The countdown has
started, as far as American strategists are concerned.
But they might be in for a surprise since the Iranians
have an excellent record of uniting against common
threats.... and that might be America's undoing in
Iran.
THE failure of the clerical regime in Tehran to
address the bread-and-butter issues of their people
and overzealous imposition of religious restrictions
that stifled personal freedoms are the best bet the US
has in its bid for regime change in the Islamic
republic.
The American charges that Iran is seeking nuclear
weapons and is harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists are
cosmetic as far as the people of Iran are concerned.
They see those charges as simialr to the American
build-up against Iraq, and, if anything, they would
stand behind the regime against external meddling in
their internal affairs.
But the US-inspired slogans against "oppression,
denial of jusitce, disrespect for human rights" might
work to incite Iranians into demonstrating against the
regime since such is the track record of the
theocratic governance of Iran since the ouster of the
shah in 1979.
Contrary to the Iranian people's expectations of a
liberal democracy, public freedoms and economic
opportunities, the post-shah regime headed by the late
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini tightened the norms of
life in the society and focused on fighting a running
conflict with the US.
Indeed, Khomeini, who died in 1989, was successful of
freeing his country from US domination, but he scored
little else to serve his people's needs of better
living standards, employment and political freedoms.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini, did no
better.
Throughout the period since the 1979 upheaval that
saw the ouster of the shah, the theocrats in Iran
dominated governance as well in line with the Shiite
ideology where the religious leadership also maintains
political leadership. Therefore, the president and his
cabiinet were also tied down to the decisions of the
religious establishment under the Vilayet-e-Faqih
system adopted by the Shiites.
On the economic front, the religious esatablishment
created organisations beyond the control of the
government to supervise the elected branches and in
direct control of the armed forces, the judiciary and
the wealthy charitable foundations that account for
nearly half of all economic activities in the country;
hence the tight-fisted rule of the theocrats also
meant that Iranians were never offered the right
economic opportunities that their oil-rich country
should have offered them.
Khamenei exercises absolute power and his hardline
camp dominates the Council of Guardians, which has the
final say in any government move, and the Expediency
Council, headed by former president Ali Akbar
Rafsanjani, a relative moderate but whose voice is
drowned by the hardliners.
Khamenei serves as the ideologue of the conservative
camp and Rafsanjani, as head of the Experiency
Council, acts as the link between the relgiious
establishment and elected bodies.
Any move towards fundamental reforms made by the
current regime of Mohammed Khatami is vetoed by the
hardliners, and the ineffective resistance of the
government against such domination has even alienated
it from the public.
It was with great hope that the Iranians voted in
Khatami as president in 1997, but it soon became
apparent that the religious leaders had no intention
to let him carry out reform. They fought him every
step of the way, with the net result that the people
of Iran gave up any hope for positive change in their
life.
The voters had hoped that Khatami would reinvigorate
the Islamic revolution and prompote freedom of
thought, speech, dress, and social interaction;
education, housing, healthcare and employment. Between
1997 and 2000, the conservatives who had a majority in
parliament kept Khatami's reforms at arms distance. In
2000, the Khatami camp won majority control of the
Majlis, but the conservatives continued to block him
through the Guardians Council. Dozens of eformists
were jailed, nearly 100 reform newspapers were closed
down and popular protests were put down violently by
harcord supporters of the clerical establishment.
What we see today in Iran is a reflection of the
mounting frustrations of the Iranian people. The daily
protests in the last 10 days in Tehran and other
cities of the country are indeed encouraged and even
incited by the US and its Iranian agents, most of whom
are based outside the country but have connections
inside. Supporting the US campaign to stir internal
trouble that Washington hopes would eventually lead to
a movement strong enough to topple the Khamenei regime
are the successors of the shah as well as leaders of
the Iranian Jewish community in the US.
What are Iran's options today to successfully fight
off the American pressure?
There are no overnight solutions that would make the
people of Iran immune to external incitement to rise
up against the regime. Even if there were, the
religious establishment could not be expected to
embrace them since they involve cornerstones of what
the Khamenei camp believes as the foundations of the
Islamic republic.
However, the survival of the regime depends on how it
goes about handling the ongoing protests on the
internal front and warding off American threats citing
the country's alleged nuclear programmes, meddling in
Iraq's internal affairs, aiding "international
terrorism," and supporting "terorrist organisations"
such as the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups
and Lebanon's Hizbollah.
When university students started protests at night
against what was rumoured to be government plans to
privatise universities, a few non-student activists
took to the streets and expressed backing for the
students by honking their vehicle's horns.
Hardline supporters of the clerical establishment hit
back by storming university dorms and assaulting
students. The government intervened and ordered the
arrest of those who attacked students.
Then it was the turn of the religious establishment to
take the next step. It seemed to have realised that
extending a hand of protection to the hardliners might
be counterproductive; therefore it decided not to
muscle the government to release those arrested. That
could indeed be a starting point for the hardline camp
to let loosen their grip on life in Iran and the
faster they do it the better for themselves and their
people.
That is the status quo in Tehran today. But the
protests are far from over, with the US engaged in a
multi-pronged effort to discredit the Khamenei camp
and oust the Khatami regime. It has not reached the
military point yet. The US seems to be marking time to
the point that the internal protests gather enough
moementum and strength before moving in with military
might to back the protesters. The countdown has
started, as far as American strategists are concerned.
But they might be in for a surprise since the Iranians
have an excellent record of uniting against common
threats.... and that might be America's undoing in
Iran.
Friday, June 13, 2003
Rantisi killing changes little
PV Vivekanand
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has unleashed a fresh wave of bloodshed by launching an assassination attempt against Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi, a solid symbol of Palestinian resistance. Seen against the simple logic that Sharon knew well that an attack against Rantisi would spark of massive Hamas retaliation that would wreck the Palestinian leadership's efforts to create an atmosphere conducive to implementing the "roadmap" for peace, all bets are off for the hopes that were stoked by the newfound American interest in Palestine.
HOPES, faint as indeed they were, of a breakthrough for peace in Palestine sparked by the June 4 summit in Aqaba lay shattered in the wreckage of a car that was repeatedly struck by Israeli missiles in the Gaza Strip less than a week later. It was no coincidence that the vehicle was carrying prominent Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi, who miraculously survived the assault. But the momentum for peace that the Aqaba summit offered did not survive the missiles that could not have but been deliberately delivered to quash any moves stemming from the Aqaba promises.
As we saw on Wednesday, Hamas struck back immediately and claimed at least 16 people in a suicide attack in an Israeli bus, and Israel retaliated with more missiles at Gaza and took at least seven more Palestinain lives.
This cycle of attacks and retaliation has become a pattern in Palestine, with no one being able to come up with a solution.
And the latest spurt of bloodshed clearly established that there is little hope of peace as long as Ariel Sharon and like-minded people remain at the helm of power in Israel.
Nothing is enough to convince them that Israel's military might is not the answer to its "security" concerns but acceptance of the inevitability of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people as the basis for a peace agreement.
Sharon's attack on Rantisi exposed his insincerity in living up to the commitments he made at the much-touted Aqaba summit.
With US President George W Bush as witness, Sharon had undertaken to suspend all targeted killings of Palestinian leaders as one of the prime conditions for creating an atmosphere conducive to implementing the "roadmap" for peace.
He violated that pledge with Tuesday's helicopter attack and made things impossible for Bush as well as Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in creating an atmosphere suitable for a negotiated peace process.
Sharon is not naive to have expected Hamas to let the attack on their leader go by without retaliation; that meant he did not really care about the impact of his order to kill Rantisi on the prospects for negotiations with the Palestinian leadership.
Given that Hamas has rejected the process that was launched at the Aqaba summit and vowed to continue armed struggle for liberation of Palestine, its continued actions of armed resistance fall within the context of the right of the occupied to resist the occupier with whatever means at their disposal.
In a looser framework, the group's stance could be equated with the rejection of the "roadmap" process by armed settlers who reign supreme in the West Bank since armed resistance poses the same problem for the Palestinian leadership as the settlers pose for the Israeli regime.
Sharon refraining from military operations against the Palestinians is a basic prerequisite for Abbas in his efforts to convince groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others to give the "roadmap" a chance, if only perhaps to call Sharon's bluff. Indeed, that bluff has already been called with the attack on Rantisi and it was nothing but a sneaky effort that laid bare the truth that Sharon is following his own agenda in Palestine, notwithstanding the commitments and pledges he made that had even raised doubts in his worst-foes that he might after all be ready to meet the requirements of peace.
A flash of hope has come with Bush's criticism of the assault and his comment that he was "deeply troubled" by it since it undermines Abbas' efforts to contain armed resistance.
Like any US president in the last five decades, Bush should have known that he could not trust Sharon to keep good faith and that loftly declarations th hawkish former general made at Aqaba had more to do with placating the US than sincere commitments or genuine understanding that there could be no real peace in the Middle East without respecting and accepting that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
We can only hope that the American president's pointed reference that actions such as Tuesday's assault do not "contribute to the security of Israel" reflects a mood towards adopting practical action to apply pressure on Sharon when pressure is needed. That is the only means of hope to see the Palestinian problem resolved in a just and fair manner.
That Hamas would strike back with intensity was made clear by the group's founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, when he visited Rantisi in hospital.
"Israel said it wanted to send a message to Hamas through this cowardly attempt on the life of my brother Dr Rantisi. I would tell Israel that Hamas has in fact received the message and will send the response soon," he said.
He also declared that Hamas would no longer distinguish between Israeli soldiers and civilians when it stage resistance attacks.
The attack on Rantisiu was seen by many Palestinian officials as a severe blow to the efforts of Abbas to reach a ceasefire and move onward to the implementation of the roadmap.
Ismail Haniyyeh, one of Hamas leaders in Gaza, and other like him are now urging Abbas to cut off all dialogue and talks with Israel. "It is clear that the Israeli commitment to the roadmap is fake," sasid Haniyyey. "We thank God for the failure of the assassination attempt. The Zionist enemy sustained a serious defeat. The resistance, however, won and obtained further support as scores of Palestinians rallied behind Hamas and its leaders," he said.
According to Hanniyeh, the roadmap that Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) said they would implement soon "was obviously based on more assassinations, more house demolitions and more incursions by the Israeli army."
Haniyyeh said that Abu Mazen and his government should abandon talks with Israel and resume resistance to the Israeli occupation. The attempt on Rantisi's life was a clear declaration by Israel that it wanted to liquidate all voices of moderation aired by Abbas in the Aqaba summit, he said.
It is indeed a sentiment shared by a majority of the Palestinains.
Israel maintained that Rantisi was responsible for a series of attacks on Israel. A statement distributed by the Israeli government press office said that Rantisi was "among the most extremist leaders of the criminal Hamas organization in Gaza. He has preached and directed murder, sabotage, terror and incitement for many years."
The statement said that since the Aqaba summit, Rantisi "has stepped up his murderous activities, both openly and covertly and the Israeli government has every reason to assume that Rantisi's criminal activities will increase."
Those explanations would find favour only with those who are anxious to receive such assertions and who want to overlook that it is the right of every Palestinian to use whatever means available to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestiniaan land.
Indeed the Aqaba summit heard Sharon saying he was ready to accept an independent Palestinian entity alongside Israel, but he seemed to have made those pledges and lofty statements a knowing well that he would never be held to account for them.
Sharon's "dismantling" of "illegal" Jewish outposts in the West Bank is nothing but a sham and an insult to international intelligence.
The media are highlighting a dozen or so of "illegal" Israeli outposts in the West Bank. In reality, it costs Sharon nothing to remove them since all these outposts are made up of condemned vehicles and trailers and no one lived them in any case.
Sharon need to remove such outposts because of the "security" problems it poses for him. He has to deploy army soldiers to protect the maverick settlers living in the outposts and requires expensive logistical support.
There are some 102 such outposts accommodating about 1,000 settlers in the West Bank. These are not counted among the 150 settlements that Israel considers as legal and they hold about 220,000 settlers, It is from the 102 that the Israeli army has singled out 14 for removal. That in itself exposes the cosmetic nature of Sharon's moves in this context since the real problem is posed by the proper concrete apartment buildings that are build inside Palestinian towns or in areas adjoining densely populated Palestinian centres.
The "illegal" outposts do not really make any difference to his designs to continue to retain Israel's stranglehold on the Palestinian land through the settlers and settlements. The colonies have "strategic" importance for Sharon in terms of maintaining a Jewish presence in key areas of the West Bank that would deny the territorial "contiguity" that Bush promised the Palestinian entity proposed by the "road map."
The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) has condemned Israel's assassination attempt against Rantisi and cautioned against Sharon's efforts to sabotage Abbas's efforts for peace. The attack came "at a time when international efforts, particularly those of the US and President George W. Bush personally, are focused on establishing calm in the region and resuming Palestinian-Israeli peace talks," said the centre.
It added that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "is a grave violation of international law, and a direct blow to any efforts for peace. It constitutes a great danger for the prospects of the roadmap and threatens to provoke more violence and fuel an already volatile situation."
And that is what we saw on Wednesday and would continue to see for some time to come.
Additional reporting by Elias Zananiri from occupied Jerusalem
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has unleashed a fresh wave of bloodshed by launching an assassination attempt against Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi, a solid symbol of Palestinian resistance. Seen against the simple logic that Sharon knew well that an attack against Rantisi would spark of massive Hamas retaliation that would wreck the Palestinian leadership's efforts to create an atmosphere conducive to implementing the "roadmap" for peace, all bets are off for the hopes that were stoked by the newfound American interest in Palestine.
HOPES, faint as indeed they were, of a breakthrough for peace in Palestine sparked by the June 4 summit in Aqaba lay shattered in the wreckage of a car that was repeatedly struck by Israeli missiles in the Gaza Strip less than a week later. It was no coincidence that the vehicle was carrying prominent Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi, who miraculously survived the assault. But the momentum for peace that the Aqaba summit offered did not survive the missiles that could not have but been deliberately delivered to quash any moves stemming from the Aqaba promises.
As we saw on Wednesday, Hamas struck back immediately and claimed at least 16 people in a suicide attack in an Israeli bus, and Israel retaliated with more missiles at Gaza and took at least seven more Palestinain lives.
This cycle of attacks and retaliation has become a pattern in Palestine, with no one being able to come up with a solution.
And the latest spurt of bloodshed clearly established that there is little hope of peace as long as Ariel Sharon and like-minded people remain at the helm of power in Israel.
Nothing is enough to convince them that Israel's military might is not the answer to its "security" concerns but acceptance of the inevitability of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people as the basis for a peace agreement.
Sharon's attack on Rantisi exposed his insincerity in living up to the commitments he made at the much-touted Aqaba summit.
With US President George W Bush as witness, Sharon had undertaken to suspend all targeted killings of Palestinian leaders as one of the prime conditions for creating an atmosphere conducive to implementing the "roadmap" for peace.
He violated that pledge with Tuesday's helicopter attack and made things impossible for Bush as well as Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in creating an atmosphere suitable for a negotiated peace process.
Sharon is not naive to have expected Hamas to let the attack on their leader go by without retaliation; that meant he did not really care about the impact of his order to kill Rantisi on the prospects for negotiations with the Palestinian leadership.
Given that Hamas has rejected the process that was launched at the Aqaba summit and vowed to continue armed struggle for liberation of Palestine, its continued actions of armed resistance fall within the context of the right of the occupied to resist the occupier with whatever means at their disposal.
In a looser framework, the group's stance could be equated with the rejection of the "roadmap" process by armed settlers who reign supreme in the West Bank since armed resistance poses the same problem for the Palestinian leadership as the settlers pose for the Israeli regime.
Sharon refraining from military operations against the Palestinians is a basic prerequisite for Abbas in his efforts to convince groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others to give the "roadmap" a chance, if only perhaps to call Sharon's bluff. Indeed, that bluff has already been called with the attack on Rantisi and it was nothing but a sneaky effort that laid bare the truth that Sharon is following his own agenda in Palestine, notwithstanding the commitments and pledges he made that had even raised doubts in his worst-foes that he might after all be ready to meet the requirements of peace.
A flash of hope has come with Bush's criticism of the assault and his comment that he was "deeply troubled" by it since it undermines Abbas' efforts to contain armed resistance.
Like any US president in the last five decades, Bush should have known that he could not trust Sharon to keep good faith and that loftly declarations th hawkish former general made at Aqaba had more to do with placating the US than sincere commitments or genuine understanding that there could be no real peace in the Middle East without respecting and accepting that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
We can only hope that the American president's pointed reference that actions such as Tuesday's assault do not "contribute to the security of Israel" reflects a mood towards adopting practical action to apply pressure on Sharon when pressure is needed. That is the only means of hope to see the Palestinian problem resolved in a just and fair manner.
That Hamas would strike back with intensity was made clear by the group's founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, when he visited Rantisi in hospital.
"Israel said it wanted to send a message to Hamas through this cowardly attempt on the life of my brother Dr Rantisi. I would tell Israel that Hamas has in fact received the message and will send the response soon," he said.
He also declared that Hamas would no longer distinguish between Israeli soldiers and civilians when it stage resistance attacks.
The attack on Rantisiu was seen by many Palestinian officials as a severe blow to the efforts of Abbas to reach a ceasefire and move onward to the implementation of the roadmap.
Ismail Haniyyeh, one of Hamas leaders in Gaza, and other like him are now urging Abbas to cut off all dialogue and talks with Israel. "It is clear that the Israeli commitment to the roadmap is fake," sasid Haniyyey. "We thank God for the failure of the assassination attempt. The Zionist enemy sustained a serious defeat. The resistance, however, won and obtained further support as scores of Palestinians rallied behind Hamas and its leaders," he said.
According to Hanniyeh, the roadmap that Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) said they would implement soon "was obviously based on more assassinations, more house demolitions and more incursions by the Israeli army."
Haniyyeh said that Abu Mazen and his government should abandon talks with Israel and resume resistance to the Israeli occupation. The attempt on Rantisi's life was a clear declaration by Israel that it wanted to liquidate all voices of moderation aired by Abbas in the Aqaba summit, he said.
It is indeed a sentiment shared by a majority of the Palestinains.
Israel maintained that Rantisi was responsible for a series of attacks on Israel. A statement distributed by the Israeli government press office said that Rantisi was "among the most extremist leaders of the criminal Hamas organization in Gaza. He has preached and directed murder, sabotage, terror and incitement for many years."
The statement said that since the Aqaba summit, Rantisi "has stepped up his murderous activities, both openly and covertly and the Israeli government has every reason to assume that Rantisi's criminal activities will increase."
Those explanations would find favour only with those who are anxious to receive such assertions and who want to overlook that it is the right of every Palestinian to use whatever means available to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestiniaan land.
Indeed the Aqaba summit heard Sharon saying he was ready to accept an independent Palestinian entity alongside Israel, but he seemed to have made those pledges and lofty statements a knowing well that he would never be held to account for them.
Sharon's "dismantling" of "illegal" Jewish outposts in the West Bank is nothing but a sham and an insult to international intelligence.
The media are highlighting a dozen or so of "illegal" Israeli outposts in the West Bank. In reality, it costs Sharon nothing to remove them since all these outposts are made up of condemned vehicles and trailers and no one lived them in any case.
Sharon need to remove such outposts because of the "security" problems it poses for him. He has to deploy army soldiers to protect the maverick settlers living in the outposts and requires expensive logistical support.
There are some 102 such outposts accommodating about 1,000 settlers in the West Bank. These are not counted among the 150 settlements that Israel considers as legal and they hold about 220,000 settlers, It is from the 102 that the Israeli army has singled out 14 for removal. That in itself exposes the cosmetic nature of Sharon's moves in this context since the real problem is posed by the proper concrete apartment buildings that are build inside Palestinian towns or in areas adjoining densely populated Palestinian centres.
The "illegal" outposts do not really make any difference to his designs to continue to retain Israel's stranglehold on the Palestinian land through the settlers and settlements. The colonies have "strategic" importance for Sharon in terms of maintaining a Jewish presence in key areas of the West Bank that would deny the territorial "contiguity" that Bush promised the Palestinian entity proposed by the "road map."
The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) has condemned Israel's assassination attempt against Rantisi and cautioned against Sharon's efforts to sabotage Abbas's efforts for peace. The attack came "at a time when international efforts, particularly those of the US and President George W. Bush personally, are focused on establishing calm in the region and resuming Palestinian-Israeli peace talks," said the centre.
It added that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "is a grave violation of international law, and a direct blow to any efforts for peace. It constitutes a great danger for the prospects of the roadmap and threatens to provoke more violence and fuel an already volatile situation."
And that is what we saw on Wednesday and would continue to see for some time to come.
Additional reporting by Elias Zananiri from occupied Jerusalem
Thursday, June 12, 2003
Sharon's folly
PV Vivekanand
PEOPLE LIKE Ariel Sharon would never realise that there is a legitimate cause behind the Palestinian struggle and that without addressing this cause no Israeli would ever be able to sleep in peace. They believe that the Palestinians should never demand anything and should accept what Israel says at face value and simply fall in line with whatever the occupiers of their land have in mind for them. There is no other go, and Sharon is determined to force them into that situation by hook or crook.
He would resort to lies and blatant deception if that is what would serve his purpose of subjugating the Palestinians into swallowing whatever conditions Israel attaches to "allowing" them to live in their ancestral land.
That is the picture that emerged this week after Sharon deliberately touched off a fierce wave of Palestinian resistance attacks by ordering an attempt to assassianate a prominent leader of the Hamas movement, Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi.
Sharon, who, only less than a week earlier, had proclaimed that he was ready to do what it takes to make peace and urged his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas to do the same, showed that his words were hollow by ordering the attack in violation of the pledge he made not to continue "targeted killings" of Palestinian activists.
Surely, Sharon would have known that the attack on Rantisi would seriously set back Abbas's efforts to arrange a suspension of armed resistance attacks by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Sharon was actually sending a message to all Palestinians that he had no intention of making peace through dialogue and negotiations and would only want to choke the Palestinians into swallowing his version of Palestinian-Israeli co-existence in the land of Palestine.
Emotions and fury are running high in Palestine, wiping out all hopes for an early advance for a negotiated peace process. But then that is what Sharon wanted, and it is high time the world, particularly the US, realised the truth and behaved forcefully and with determination to ensure that the Palestinians are not denied justice. This would need unprecedented American pressure on Israel, and if Washington is not ready to apply that pressure then it should let the rest of the world do so.
PEOPLE LIKE Ariel Sharon would never realise that there is a legitimate cause behind the Palestinian struggle and that without addressing this cause no Israeli would ever be able to sleep in peace. They believe that the Palestinians should never demand anything and should accept what Israel says at face value and simply fall in line with whatever the occupiers of their land have in mind for them. There is no other go, and Sharon is determined to force them into that situation by hook or crook.
He would resort to lies and blatant deception if that is what would serve his purpose of subjugating the Palestinians into swallowing whatever conditions Israel attaches to "allowing" them to live in their ancestral land.
That is the picture that emerged this week after Sharon deliberately touched off a fierce wave of Palestinian resistance attacks by ordering an attempt to assassianate a prominent leader of the Hamas movement, Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi.
Sharon, who, only less than a week earlier, had proclaimed that he was ready to do what it takes to make peace and urged his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas to do the same, showed that his words were hollow by ordering the attack in violation of the pledge he made not to continue "targeted killings" of Palestinian activists.
Surely, Sharon would have known that the attack on Rantisi would seriously set back Abbas's efforts to arrange a suspension of armed resistance attacks by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Sharon was actually sending a message to all Palestinians that he had no intention of making peace through dialogue and negotiations and would only want to choke the Palestinians into swallowing his version of Palestinian-Israeli co-existence in the land of Palestine.
Emotions and fury are running high in Palestine, wiping out all hopes for an early advance for a negotiated peace process. But then that is what Sharon wanted, and it is high time the world, particularly the US, realised the truth and behaved forcefully and with determination to ensure that the Palestinians are not denied justice. This would need unprecedented American pressure on Israel, and if Washington is not ready to apply that pressure then it should let the rest of the world do so.
Monday, June 02, 2003
Afront to the world
by pv vivekanand
BRITISH officials are claiming that there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq possessed a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction although no trace of such armament has been found in post-war Iraq.
It is an affront to the international community to be continued to be fed such contentions without substantiation. Granted that the ouster of Saddam Hussein and American-British occupation of Iraq have become fait accompli and, in real terms, it does not matter whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction since it would not change the reality on the ground in Iraq today.
But the British claims sound hollow and the mounting world feeling today is that Washington and London knew from day one that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction of any size that would have posed a threat to its neighbours or any other country. Iraq's alleged possesion of such weapons was indeed one of the main reasons cited by the American-British alliance to justify the invasion and occupation that country.
Even if we were to accept the theory that the ouster of Saddam was a blessing to the long-suffering people of Iraq, there is nothing that would prompt us to digest the American and British postures and claims in the name the threat that his alleged weapons posed to world security.
If anything, countering the claims are fresh reports that Washington and London had doctored intelligence findings -- and indeed produced academic studies labelled as information gained through spying -- to convince their public that Saddam's alleged weapons posed the most severe terrorist threat the world ever faced after the Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Adding more to the growing belief that the US and UK took the world for a ride with their claims about Iraq's weapons are reports that French intelligence had established in early December that the transatlantic alliance had made up its mind to wage against Iraq no matter what.
That French finding, confirmed by the Paris government, was said to have been behind France's firm and persistent stand against the war on Iraq and block American-British moves to have the UN Security Council adopt a new resolution that would have legitmised the war against Iraq and occupation of that country. Obviously, Paris knew that Washington and London were not acting in good faith to secure UN endorsement of the war but were engaged in first-degree deception to legitimise military action against Iraq.
As such, the impression one gets is simple: The war against Iraq was a dead certainty and Washington and London were only interested in producing what they claimed to be evidence that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. That they would have gone to any extent to produce such "evidence" was established when the so-called intelligence findings they cited were proved to be unfounded and fabricated.
The impression one gets from Washington today is that the Bush administration could not care less if it was true that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld suggests that Iraq could have destroyed the alleged weapons before the war started; but the fundamental flaw in that assertion is that Saddam had known without any doubt that his country would be targeted for war and he needed every weapon he could muster to counter the invaders. There was never any realistic question of Saddam being caught alive and put on trial where the purported weapons of mass destruction seized by the invaders and produced in a international court as evidence against him. So why should Saddam destroy any weapon when he needed all the military power he could muster in order to inflict as much damage as possible to the invaders?
That the course of the war went in a surprisingly different direction as a result of American deals with Saddam's military generals who opted to take the easy way is a different story,
In event, the picture emerging from Washington on the issue is one that says that why should the world worry whether Saddam possessed such weapons or otherwise, and, after all, hasn't the war toppled a dictatorial regime and "liberated" the Iraqis? If anything, the US is suggesting, the international community should be glad and thankful to the US for having led the effort to topple Saddam and never mind what weapons he had.
That attitude fits in with the Bush administration's approach that the world should not question its actions anywhere in the world and take if for granted that whatever it does would be aimed at serving mankind. Indeed, there are questions heard here and there in the US Congress that the administration was not exactly very honest when it pumped home into the American heart that Saddam represented the largest single threat to the security of every American. However, those questions are not really bothering the administration since no mainstream American politician would dare raise touch upon an issue that has a highly pronounced Israeli angle.
But the Labour government of Britain led by Tony Blair does not have that leeway in London. The British democracy works differently and British politicians and media would not simply be silenced by whatever is being said in the name of "nationalism" and "security priorities" that are being touted by the Bush administration to ward off criticism from within.
Blair today faces the key question: He had insisted throughout that he had information that proved Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he could not have revealed that information before or during the war since it would have compromised intelligence sources. Now that the war is over, Saddam is gone and Iraq is occupied, what is preventing Blair from revealing the information he had?
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw cut and others justifying the war and Blair's decision to join the American camp cut a sorry figure when they try to borrow a leaf from the American book and argue now that producing physical evidence was not important then the perception that Saddam posed a threat to the world.
"What we did say was, this is a sufficient threat, that if we continue to sit on our hands, the threat will get worse and there'll come a moment where for sure Saddam will use these weapons against his own people and against
his neighbours, and will not only be a threat to international peace and security, but directly and very sinisterly affect international peace and security." said Straw.
What is even more pathetic than such a summary assertion that overlooks logic and even ridicules basic intelligence is that the British officials are citing a UN weapons inspection report of March 7, 2003 which said a dozen empty shells with traces of chemicals were found in Iraq and again a post-war report which said two vehicles could have been mobile laboratories to develop chemical weapons.
Under no circumstances could such claims be deemed as genuine, given that the American-British alliance had said Iraq had tens of thousands of litres of chemical weapons ready for use, and that Saddam had prepared them to be deployed and used at 45 minutes' notice. That assumption has also been dismissed as having come from a doctored document disguised as an intelligence finding, which has been disowned by Britain's prime spying agencies.
The entire episode not only leaves a sour taste but also a humiliating feeling that the world has been conned and that the powers that be are trying to force down their justifications and reasons down the throat of the international community; and, to make it worse, they are smirking to themselves knowing well that their "revelations" make little sense to themselves.
BRITISH officials are claiming that there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq possessed a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction although no trace of such armament has been found in post-war Iraq.
It is an affront to the international community to be continued to be fed such contentions without substantiation. Granted that the ouster of Saddam Hussein and American-British occupation of Iraq have become fait accompli and, in real terms, it does not matter whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction since it would not change the reality on the ground in Iraq today.
But the British claims sound hollow and the mounting world feeling today is that Washington and London knew from day one that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction of any size that would have posed a threat to its neighbours or any other country. Iraq's alleged possesion of such weapons was indeed one of the main reasons cited by the American-British alliance to justify the invasion and occupation that country.
Even if we were to accept the theory that the ouster of Saddam was a blessing to the long-suffering people of Iraq, there is nothing that would prompt us to digest the American and British postures and claims in the name the threat that his alleged weapons posed to world security.
If anything, countering the claims are fresh reports that Washington and London had doctored intelligence findings -- and indeed produced academic studies labelled as information gained through spying -- to convince their public that Saddam's alleged weapons posed the most severe terrorist threat the world ever faced after the Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Adding more to the growing belief that the US and UK took the world for a ride with their claims about Iraq's weapons are reports that French intelligence had established in early December that the transatlantic alliance had made up its mind to wage against Iraq no matter what.
That French finding, confirmed by the Paris government, was said to have been behind France's firm and persistent stand against the war on Iraq and block American-British moves to have the UN Security Council adopt a new resolution that would have legitmised the war against Iraq and occupation of that country. Obviously, Paris knew that Washington and London were not acting in good faith to secure UN endorsement of the war but were engaged in first-degree deception to legitimise military action against Iraq.
As such, the impression one gets is simple: The war against Iraq was a dead certainty and Washington and London were only interested in producing what they claimed to be evidence that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. That they would have gone to any extent to produce such "evidence" was established when the so-called intelligence findings they cited were proved to be unfounded and fabricated.
The impression one gets from Washington today is that the Bush administration could not care less if it was true that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld suggests that Iraq could have destroyed the alleged weapons before the war started; but the fundamental flaw in that assertion is that Saddam had known without any doubt that his country would be targeted for war and he needed every weapon he could muster to counter the invaders. There was never any realistic question of Saddam being caught alive and put on trial where the purported weapons of mass destruction seized by the invaders and produced in a international court as evidence against him. So why should Saddam destroy any weapon when he needed all the military power he could muster in order to inflict as much damage as possible to the invaders?
That the course of the war went in a surprisingly different direction as a result of American deals with Saddam's military generals who opted to take the easy way is a different story,
In event, the picture emerging from Washington on the issue is one that says that why should the world worry whether Saddam possessed such weapons or otherwise, and, after all, hasn't the war toppled a dictatorial regime and "liberated" the Iraqis? If anything, the US is suggesting, the international community should be glad and thankful to the US for having led the effort to topple Saddam and never mind what weapons he had.
That attitude fits in with the Bush administration's approach that the world should not question its actions anywhere in the world and take if for granted that whatever it does would be aimed at serving mankind. Indeed, there are questions heard here and there in the US Congress that the administration was not exactly very honest when it pumped home into the American heart that Saddam represented the largest single threat to the security of every American. However, those questions are not really bothering the administration since no mainstream American politician would dare raise touch upon an issue that has a highly pronounced Israeli angle.
But the Labour government of Britain led by Tony Blair does not have that leeway in London. The British democracy works differently and British politicians and media would not simply be silenced by whatever is being said in the name of "nationalism" and "security priorities" that are being touted by the Bush administration to ward off criticism from within.
Blair today faces the key question: He had insisted throughout that he had information that proved Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he could not have revealed that information before or during the war since it would have compromised intelligence sources. Now that the war is over, Saddam is gone and Iraq is occupied, what is preventing Blair from revealing the information he had?
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw cut and others justifying the war and Blair's decision to join the American camp cut a sorry figure when they try to borrow a leaf from the American book and argue now that producing physical evidence was not important then the perception that Saddam posed a threat to the world.
"What we did say was, this is a sufficient threat, that if we continue to sit on our hands, the threat will get worse and there'll come a moment where for sure Saddam will use these weapons against his own people and against
his neighbours, and will not only be a threat to international peace and security, but directly and very sinisterly affect international peace and security." said Straw.
What is even more pathetic than such a summary assertion that overlooks logic and even ridicules basic intelligence is that the British officials are citing a UN weapons inspection report of March 7, 2003 which said a dozen empty shells with traces of chemicals were found in Iraq and again a post-war report which said two vehicles could have been mobile laboratories to develop chemical weapons.
Under no circumstances could such claims be deemed as genuine, given that the American-British alliance had said Iraq had tens of thousands of litres of chemical weapons ready for use, and that Saddam had prepared them to be deployed and used at 45 minutes' notice. That assumption has also been dismissed as having come from a doctored document disguised as an intelligence finding, which has been disowned by Britain's prime spying agencies.
The entire episode not only leaves a sour taste but also a humiliating feeling that the world has been conned and that the powers that be are trying to force down their justifications and reasons down the throat of the international community; and, to make it worse, they are smirking to themselves knowing well that their "revelations" make little sense to themselves.
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Preplanned resistance?
THE resistance that the US is facing in post-war Iraq
was planned even before the war and is many folds
stronger than American military strategists and
officials care to admit in public. The mounting
attacks on the American and British occupiers of Iraq
are orchestrated not by a single group but several
factions, the strongest among them being the
intelligence network of the ousted Saddam Hussein
regime. The dreaded intelligence agency, mukabarat,
had drawn up a strategy to make Iraq "as unfriendly as
possible" for the Americans even before the first shot
was fired in the war, according to Arab intelligence
experts.
The experts also say that American and British
journalists are "as good or as bad" as intelligence
agents in post-war Iraq. "Everyone is nosing around,
desperately trying to get information that rival don't
have and they are fertile ground for intelligence
agencies to manipulate through different tactics to
flush out more information," said an expert. "That
accounts for the differing and often startling reports
whose authenticity is often put under question marks."
The experts confirmed the authenticity of an Iraqi
mukabarat document unearthed by the occupying forces
in Iraq. The document, drawn up in January, was based
on a potential fall of the regime leading to American
occupation of the country and detailed a series of
actions against the occupiers.
These included attacks of American military personnel
and installations causing optimum casualties, sabotage
oil and pipelines and infrastructure like power
generators and distribution and incite Iraqis to take
up arms against the occupying forces.
The document was discovered shortly after the US
forces overran Baghdad in early April, but the Arab
sources who spoke to Malayalamanorama affirmed that
they had known about the Iraqi intelligence agency's
plans much earlier through their contacts in Iraq.
While Arab intelligence agencies were wondering how
far the Iraqi Mukabarat would be effective in carrying
out its plans, their American and British counterparts
were sceptical about the authenticity of the document.
"There is no longer any scepticism since what is
happening on the ground is an almost exact match of
what the document called for," said one Arab source.
"It is not a Galloway document," commented a source,
referring to papers that British papers cited as
establishing that MP George Galloway took millions of
dollars from Saddam Hussein. When put to chemical
tests, it was found that these papers, purportedly
dating back to the 90s, were written in the last few
months.
Arab intelligence has found "several concentrations"
of Iraqi groups waging resistance against the
occupiers. "Some of them are well funded, probably
from the coffers of the former regime, while others
have taken up arms because of their nationalist and
patriotic spirits," said the source. "There are also
groups whose leaders believe they would be better off
ensuring the safety and security of their families
without the Americans, who have shown little interest
in even stabilising basic services in the country."
The sources also said US military and intelligence
agencies are following a strategy of maintaining a
tight lid on information provided by members of the
ousted Saddam Hussein regime while planting selected
"leaks" in the media that are often misleading.
The experts say that such "leaks," carried mostly by
American and British media, aim at offering
justifications for failures and shortcomings of the
US-led occupying forces in Iraq and strengthening the
"evil" image of the toppled regime.
The experts do not dispute that the Saddam regime as
one of the worst oppressive in the world. If anything,
they have in their possession evidence that would put
the American intelligence findings to shame in
exposing the excesses of Saddam, his family members
and his regime.
Arab intelligence agencies have moved in with ease
into post-Saddam Iraq to strengthen their presence and
networks in the country. Some of them do share their
findings with American and Western counterparts in a
reciprocal arrangement. But in the case of Iraq, no
such co-operation has been forthcoming from the
Americans, they say.
They are convinced that the US has not gained any clue
to establishing that Saddam had a large cache of
weapons of mass destruction.
The US forces have captured 35 of 55 "most wanted"
figures of the ousted regime, but none of them has
yielded any information that would strengthen the
American and British justification for the war --
Saddam's alleged arsenal of unconventional weapons.
was planned even before the war and is many folds
stronger than American military strategists and
officials care to admit in public. The mounting
attacks on the American and British occupiers of Iraq
are orchestrated not by a single group but several
factions, the strongest among them being the
intelligence network of the ousted Saddam Hussein
regime. The dreaded intelligence agency, mukabarat,
had drawn up a strategy to make Iraq "as unfriendly as
possible" for the Americans even before the first shot
was fired in the war, according to Arab intelligence
experts.
The experts also say that American and British
journalists are "as good or as bad" as intelligence
agents in post-war Iraq. "Everyone is nosing around,
desperately trying to get information that rival don't
have and they are fertile ground for intelligence
agencies to manipulate through different tactics to
flush out more information," said an expert. "That
accounts for the differing and often startling reports
whose authenticity is often put under question marks."
The experts confirmed the authenticity of an Iraqi
mukabarat document unearthed by the occupying forces
in Iraq. The document, drawn up in January, was based
on a potential fall of the regime leading to American
occupation of the country and detailed a series of
actions against the occupiers.
These included attacks of American military personnel
and installations causing optimum casualties, sabotage
oil and pipelines and infrastructure like power
generators and distribution and incite Iraqis to take
up arms against the occupying forces.
The document was discovered shortly after the US
forces overran Baghdad in early April, but the Arab
sources who spoke to Malayalamanorama affirmed that
they had known about the Iraqi intelligence agency's
plans much earlier through their contacts in Iraq.
While Arab intelligence agencies were wondering how
far the Iraqi Mukabarat would be effective in carrying
out its plans, their American and British counterparts
were sceptical about the authenticity of the document.
"There is no longer any scepticism since what is
happening on the ground is an almost exact match of
what the document called for," said one Arab source.
"It is not a Galloway document," commented a source,
referring to papers that British papers cited as
establishing that MP George Galloway took millions of
dollars from Saddam Hussein. When put to chemical
tests, it was found that these papers, purportedly
dating back to the 90s, were written in the last few
months.
Arab intelligence has found "several concentrations"
of Iraqi groups waging resistance against the
occupiers. "Some of them are well funded, probably
from the coffers of the former regime, while others
have taken up arms because of their nationalist and
patriotic spirits," said the source. "There are also
groups whose leaders believe they would be better off
ensuring the safety and security of their families
without the Americans, who have shown little interest
in even stabilising basic services in the country."
The sources also said US military and intelligence
agencies are following a strategy of maintaining a
tight lid on information provided by members of the
ousted Saddam Hussein regime while planting selected
"leaks" in the media that are often misleading.
The experts say that such "leaks," carried mostly by
American and British media, aim at offering
justifications for failures and shortcomings of the
US-led occupying forces in Iraq and strengthening the
"evil" image of the toppled regime.
The experts do not dispute that the Saddam regime as
one of the worst oppressive in the world. If anything,
they have in their possession evidence that would put
the American intelligence findings to shame in
exposing the excesses of Saddam, his family members
and his regime.
Arab intelligence agencies have moved in with ease
into post-Saddam Iraq to strengthen their presence and
networks in the country. Some of them do share their
findings with American and Western counterparts in a
reciprocal arrangement. But in the case of Iraq, no
such co-operation has been forthcoming from the
Americans, they say.
They are convinced that the US has not gained any clue
to establishing that Saddam had a large cache of
weapons of mass destruction.
The US forces have captured 35 of 55 "most wanted"
figures of the ousted regime, but none of them has
yielded any information that would strengthen the
American and British justification for the war --
Saddam's alleged arsenal of unconventional weapons.
Saturday, May 31, 2003
US seeks India-Israel axis
THE BUSH administration is keen on building a
triangular "strategic" relationship with India and
Israel since Washington has found these two countries
as the most reliable allies in the ongoing war against
terror, diplomatic sources and analysts say.
India joining such a relationship would not be taken
lightly by the Arab and Muslim world, given that the
alliance would be deemed as designed to counter the
resurgence of Islam in the wake of the American
response to the Sept.11 attacks, the US-led invasion
and occupationof Iraq and Washington's support for
Israel and implicit endorsement of its occupation of
Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territories.
Pakistan will definitely seize upon the "anti-Muslim"
nature of an American-Israeli-Indian alliance to lobby
its Arab and Muslim friends against Indian interests,
but the effect of such a campaign remains to be seen
since most of the Arab and Muslim countries could not
afford to step out of line with the Americans in the
post-Iraq war era.
At the same time, the sting of the Arab and Muslim
reaction to India getting involved in a US-centred
alliance, with Israel playing an equally if not more
important role, could be weakened if Washington is
successful in pushing for an Israeli-Palestinian peace
agreement that would also open the door for peace
between Israel and Syria.
The so-called neoconservatives -- most of them Jews
and known to be heavily pro-Israeli -- who are guiding
American foreign policy are the main force behind
Washington's drive to seal an alliance with Delhi.
Signs of a new warmth in US-Indian relationship have
emerged in recent months. In late May, Indian Prime
MInister AB Vajapyee's National Security Adviser
Brajesh Mishra attended a dinner hosted by the annual
convention of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). He
declared that the United States, India, and Israel
''have to jointly face the same ugly face of
modern-day terrorism."
''Such an alliance," he said, "would have the
political will and moral authority to take bold
decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation."
Emphasising the institutionalised democracies in the
US, Israel and India, Mishra said the three countries'
''vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal
opportunity..." would naturally lead to ''stronger
India-US relations and India-Israel relations."
Washington's interest in developing a strategic
alliance grouping India and israel has manifested
itself in several areas:
Washington has approved an Israeli sale of its
advanced Phalcon air-borne reconnaissance system to
India in a deal worth about $1billion and is poised to
approve another deal involving the most expensive sale
of Israel's Arrow anti-missile system developed
jointly with the US.
The Arrow missiles could counter incoming missile and
neutralise nuclear warheads and could be counted as
India's most effective defence against threats posed
by Pakistan's nuclear missiles.
The Phalcon deal was supposed to have been put on hold
until definite signs have emerged of peace between
India and Pakistan and its approval now, even before
India agreed to enter talks with Pakistan, is seen as
the neo-conservatives' desire to take a clear position
on Delhi's side, analysts say.
The newly established US-India Institute for Strategic
Policy will be the focal point in
American-Israeli-Indian military co-ordination.
India counts among one of the largest buyers of
Israeli military equipment. Its arms purchases from
Israel and military service contracts given to Israel
were said to be worth about $1.8 billion in 2002.
Washington has invited India to take part in
"peacekeeping" operations in post-war Iraq. However,
India, obviously mindful of the pitfall that it would
be seen as not only backing the American-British
invasion and occupation of Iraq but also becoming part
of the occupation force, has not committed itself to
the invitation.
Riding on the American invitation is the attraction of
lucrative sub-contracts in reconstruction of Iraq and
a share of trade with that American-controlled
country.
The Israeli angle to the triangular relationship is
expected to be given more shape when Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon visits India this year, by which
time the American Jewish Committee would have opened
an office in Delhi.
The Israeli interest in ties with India revolves
around what Israel sees as the reliability of a
democratic non-Muslim country in the Jewish fight
against Muslim militants. The US approach is based on
Washington's need to develop India as a strong ally in
the sub-continent against China before Delhi is drawn
into the emerging Chinese-Russian axis.
Israelis interests come first for the
neoconvervatives, who are believed to have been the
main force that nudged President George W Bush into
waging war against Iraq, and the most the campaign
focusing on India is orchestrated by hawks like
Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith.
Feith had been instrumental in setting up the
US-India Institute for Strategic Policy, which
includes, among others, the head of the
Washington-based Center for Security Policy, Frank
Gaffney, and a founder of the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs, Michael Ledeen. Both of
them are avowed opponents of any American military
relationship with Pakistan outside the immediate
context of Washington's need to have help from
Islambad until the situation in Afghanistan settles
down.
triangular "strategic" relationship with India and
Israel since Washington has found these two countries
as the most reliable allies in the ongoing war against
terror, diplomatic sources and analysts say.
India joining such a relationship would not be taken
lightly by the Arab and Muslim world, given that the
alliance would be deemed as designed to counter the
resurgence of Islam in the wake of the American
response to the Sept.11 attacks, the US-led invasion
and occupationof Iraq and Washington's support for
Israel and implicit endorsement of its occupation of
Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territories.
Pakistan will definitely seize upon the "anti-Muslim"
nature of an American-Israeli-Indian alliance to lobby
its Arab and Muslim friends against Indian interests,
but the effect of such a campaign remains to be seen
since most of the Arab and Muslim countries could not
afford to step out of line with the Americans in the
post-Iraq war era.
At the same time, the sting of the Arab and Muslim
reaction to India getting involved in a US-centred
alliance, with Israel playing an equally if not more
important role, could be weakened if Washington is
successful in pushing for an Israeli-Palestinian peace
agreement that would also open the door for peace
between Israel and Syria.
The so-called neoconservatives -- most of them Jews
and known to be heavily pro-Israeli -- who are guiding
American foreign policy are the main force behind
Washington's drive to seal an alliance with Delhi.
Signs of a new warmth in US-Indian relationship have
emerged in recent months. In late May, Indian Prime
MInister AB Vajapyee's National Security Adviser
Brajesh Mishra attended a dinner hosted by the annual
convention of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). He
declared that the United States, India, and Israel
''have to jointly face the same ugly face of
modern-day terrorism."
''Such an alliance," he said, "would have the
political will and moral authority to take bold
decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation."
Emphasising the institutionalised democracies in the
US, Israel and India, Mishra said the three countries'
''vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal
opportunity..." would naturally lead to ''stronger
India-US relations and India-Israel relations."
Washington's interest in developing a strategic
alliance grouping India and israel has manifested
itself in several areas:
Washington has approved an Israeli sale of its
advanced Phalcon air-borne reconnaissance system to
India in a deal worth about $1billion and is poised to
approve another deal involving the most expensive sale
of Israel's Arrow anti-missile system developed
jointly with the US.
The Arrow missiles could counter incoming missile and
neutralise nuclear warheads and could be counted as
India's most effective defence against threats posed
by Pakistan's nuclear missiles.
The Phalcon deal was supposed to have been put on hold
until definite signs have emerged of peace between
India and Pakistan and its approval now, even before
India agreed to enter talks with Pakistan, is seen as
the neo-conservatives' desire to take a clear position
on Delhi's side, analysts say.
The newly established US-India Institute for Strategic
Policy will be the focal point in
American-Israeli-Indian military co-ordination.
India counts among one of the largest buyers of
Israeli military equipment. Its arms purchases from
Israel and military service contracts given to Israel
were said to be worth about $1.8 billion in 2002.
Washington has invited India to take part in
"peacekeeping" operations in post-war Iraq. However,
India, obviously mindful of the pitfall that it would
be seen as not only backing the American-British
invasion and occupation of Iraq but also becoming part
of the occupation force, has not committed itself to
the invitation.
Riding on the American invitation is the attraction of
lucrative sub-contracts in reconstruction of Iraq and
a share of trade with that American-controlled
country.
The Israeli angle to the triangular relationship is
expected to be given more shape when Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon visits India this year, by which
time the American Jewish Committee would have opened
an office in Delhi.
The Israeli interest in ties with India revolves
around what Israel sees as the reliability of a
democratic non-Muslim country in the Jewish fight
against Muslim militants. The US approach is based on
Washington's need to develop India as a strong ally in
the sub-continent against China before Delhi is drawn
into the emerging Chinese-Russian axis.
Israelis interests come first for the
neoconvervatives, who are believed to have been the
main force that nudged President George W Bush into
waging war against Iraq, and the most the campaign
focusing on India is orchestrated by hawks like
Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith.
Feith had been instrumental in setting up the
US-India Institute for Strategic Policy, which
includes, among others, the head of the
Washington-based Center for Security Policy, Frank
Gaffney, and a founder of the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs, Michael Ledeen. Both of
them are avowed opponents of any American military
relationship with Pakistan outside the immediate
context of Washington's need to have help from
Islambad until the situation in Afghanistan settles
down.
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Where the US went wrong
THE US went wrong from the word go when it gave more
weight to its military might than a pacifist approach
of political persuasion in post-war Iraq. Today, it
faces a deep quagmire unless it moves fast against
lost time to stabilise the Iraqis' most basic needs --
personal safety, electricity, water, health care, job
security and regular salaries.
This is the finding of international and regional
experts who are alarmed over the deteriorating
situation in Iraq, where the US military is getting
more aggressive every day in the face of mounting
resistance attacks.
The American military action freed the Iraqis from the
oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein but pushed them into
a much worse situation that the Saddam days in terms
of daily life. The US forces gave prime consideration
to securing oilfields and installations and ignored -
and thereby seen as having encouraged - widespread
looting, robberies rape and murder throughout the
country. In fact, accusasions that the invading force
was more interested Iraq's oil than the welfare of the
Iraqis were heard even on April 9, the day Baghdad
fell to the US force.
The American actions since then have convinced a
majority of Iraqis that the US was not their liberator
beyond the point of removing the Saddam regime to
serve American interests that have little to do with
caring for the people of Iraq or respecting their
rights.
In Baghdad and other Iraqi towns male members of
families keep watch with guns and take shifts to
sleep, fearing armed robbers. Without their guns they
feel naked, but the US forces insist that everyone
surrender their weapons; not many have met a US-set
deadline for giving up their guns.
It is indeed a festering sore. The US forces is not
only offering safety and protection to the people of
Iraq but is also seeking to deprive Iraqis of the
means to protect themselves.
Power and water supplies are erratic; cost of living
is shooting up and there is no regular pay, and many
families are worse off than the Saddam days when the
regime used to supply monthly rations.
If there was any inkling of an American inclination to
look at ways to address the situation, that is fast
disappearing with the US force's preoccupation dealing
with Iraqi resistance; and if the situation continues,
the vicious circle would only intensify and the US
"administration" of Iraq would prove to be
catastrophic for all.
The declared American drive to set up an interim Iraqi
committee to help govern the country has been a source
of consolation for many Iraqis who welcomed the
involvement of their own people in running the
country. But, the emerging undercurrents in the
intense jockeying for power based on ethnic
considerations and diverse ideologies have convinced
them that having an effective Iraqi say in Iraqi
affairs is not seen anywhere in the near future.
Telecommunications are almost non-existent; the sense
of normality offered by radio and television is
lacking in view of the frequent outages.
The Iraqi frustration is also fuelled by the focus
given to American corporates in reconstruction of
their country. They might not have adequate commercial
foundations and equipment to undertake the job, but
they are incensed by the feeling that Americans are
fleecing their country and their resources and keeping
out all others. Even at that, there is little to show
on the ground that any reconstruction worth the name
is under way.
A recent report prepared by Joost Hiltermann of the
International Crisis Group underlines the mistakes
that the American committed and are continuing to
commit in post-war Iraq.
One of the highlights of the report is the summary
disbandment of the Baathist Party overlooking the
three distinct kinds of Baathists -- diehard Saddam
loyalists, those who joined the party out of
expediency, and ideological followers.
According to the ICG, the vast majority of civil
servants, police, judges, engineers and others belong
to the second category and have the skills to make the
country run again, but they are being sidelines and
indeed taken to task for their past affiliation with
the party.
"By banning all of them without distinction," the US
rulers of Iraq have "ostracised a vital group - and
may even end up uniting opposition to the occupation
rather than alienating the Saddam loyalists," says the
report.
It calls on the US to "seriously reconsider this
order and return qualified senior managers to their
positions if they do not have a proven record of
corruption or abuse."
Disbanding the Iraqi military without offering its
personnel alternative means to make a living was
another major mistake of the Americans, according to
the ICG. As a result, tens of thousands of young men
were turned into the streets without employment,
leaving them the option of a life of crime or joining
resistance groups which give them something to do
rather than wander around in search of non-existent
jobs.
"What is puzzling is that so little advance
preparation appears to have been made for dealing with
the problems that have arisen in Baghdad," says
Hilterman. "Many if not most of them should have been
anticipated based on years of experience with
post-conflict transitions elsewhere.
"The Iraqis' faith in their new rulers is being
undermined by ad hoc decision making, lack of cultural
sensitivity and apparent neglect of the problems that
rile them most. Urgent and focused action is needed if
this discontent is not to be transformed into
widespread and active opposition in the coming
months," warns Hilterman.
weight to its military might than a pacifist approach
of political persuasion in post-war Iraq. Today, it
faces a deep quagmire unless it moves fast against
lost time to stabilise the Iraqis' most basic needs --
personal safety, electricity, water, health care, job
security and regular salaries.
This is the finding of international and regional
experts who are alarmed over the deteriorating
situation in Iraq, where the US military is getting
more aggressive every day in the face of mounting
resistance attacks.
The American military action freed the Iraqis from the
oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein but pushed them into
a much worse situation that the Saddam days in terms
of daily life. The US forces gave prime consideration
to securing oilfields and installations and ignored -
and thereby seen as having encouraged - widespread
looting, robberies rape and murder throughout the
country. In fact, accusasions that the invading force
was more interested Iraq's oil than the welfare of the
Iraqis were heard even on April 9, the day Baghdad
fell to the US force.
The American actions since then have convinced a
majority of Iraqis that the US was not their liberator
beyond the point of removing the Saddam regime to
serve American interests that have little to do with
caring for the people of Iraq or respecting their
rights.
In Baghdad and other Iraqi towns male members of
families keep watch with guns and take shifts to
sleep, fearing armed robbers. Without their guns they
feel naked, but the US forces insist that everyone
surrender their weapons; not many have met a US-set
deadline for giving up their guns.
It is indeed a festering sore. The US forces is not
only offering safety and protection to the people of
Iraq but is also seeking to deprive Iraqis of the
means to protect themselves.
Power and water supplies are erratic; cost of living
is shooting up and there is no regular pay, and many
families are worse off than the Saddam days when the
regime used to supply monthly rations.
If there was any inkling of an American inclination to
look at ways to address the situation, that is fast
disappearing with the US force's preoccupation dealing
with Iraqi resistance; and if the situation continues,
the vicious circle would only intensify and the US
"administration" of Iraq would prove to be
catastrophic for all.
The declared American drive to set up an interim Iraqi
committee to help govern the country has been a source
of consolation for many Iraqis who welcomed the
involvement of their own people in running the
country. But, the emerging undercurrents in the
intense jockeying for power based on ethnic
considerations and diverse ideologies have convinced
them that having an effective Iraqi say in Iraqi
affairs is not seen anywhere in the near future.
Telecommunications are almost non-existent; the sense
of normality offered by radio and television is
lacking in view of the frequent outages.
The Iraqi frustration is also fuelled by the focus
given to American corporates in reconstruction of
their country. They might not have adequate commercial
foundations and equipment to undertake the job, but
they are incensed by the feeling that Americans are
fleecing their country and their resources and keeping
out all others. Even at that, there is little to show
on the ground that any reconstruction worth the name
is under way.
A recent report prepared by Joost Hiltermann of the
International Crisis Group underlines the mistakes
that the American committed and are continuing to
commit in post-war Iraq.
One of the highlights of the report is the summary
disbandment of the Baathist Party overlooking the
three distinct kinds of Baathists -- diehard Saddam
loyalists, those who joined the party out of
expediency, and ideological followers.
According to the ICG, the vast majority of civil
servants, police, judges, engineers and others belong
to the second category and have the skills to make the
country run again, but they are being sidelines and
indeed taken to task for their past affiliation with
the party.
"By banning all of them without distinction," the US
rulers of Iraq have "ostracised a vital group - and
may even end up uniting opposition to the occupation
rather than alienating the Saddam loyalists," says the
report.
It calls on the US to "seriously reconsider this
order and return qualified senior managers to their
positions if they do not have a proven record of
corruption or abuse."
Disbanding the Iraqi military without offering its
personnel alternative means to make a living was
another major mistake of the Americans, according to
the ICG. As a result, tens of thousands of young men
were turned into the streets without employment,
leaving them the option of a life of crime or joining
resistance groups which give them something to do
rather than wander around in search of non-existent
jobs.
"What is puzzling is that so little advance
preparation appears to have been made for dealing with
the problems that have arisen in Baghdad," says
Hilterman. "Many if not most of them should have been
anticipated based on years of experience with
post-conflict transitions elsewhere.
"The Iraqis' faith in their new rulers is being
undermined by ad hoc decision making, lack of cultural
sensitivity and apparent neglect of the problems that
rile them most. Urgent and focused action is needed if
this discontent is not to be transformed into
widespread and active opposition in the coming
months," warns Hilterman.
Saturday, May 24, 2003
Twist of American justice
IN a strange twist of American justice, a federal
judge in New York has found Iraq partly responsible
for the Sept. 11 attacks and awarded over $100 million
to the families of two people who died in the aerial
assault against the World Trade Center towers.
However, and despite contradictions, the ruling could
be used by successive US administrations to keep Iraq
under indefinite pressure if the current process in
post-Saddam Hussein Iraq leads to a dilution of the
American grip on the country.
The verdict is expected to trigger hundreds of claims
to be filed with US lawcourts claiming compensation
from Iraq for victims of the attacks, and that would
essentially mean that the Bush administration caught
in its own trap of charges it made implicating Iraq
and Saddam Hussein as sources of international
terrorism with little substantiation.
The ruling was strange because the evidence cited by
lawyers for the families of George Smith andTimothy
Soulas, two of the nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks
in New York and Washington, was based on public
statements made by senior US officials. These
officials included former CIA director James Woolsey
and from author Laurie Mylroie who have claimed that
Iraq "provided material support" to the Al Qaeda
network of Osama Bin Laden. Also cited was a statement
by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN where
he asserted that Iraq supported "Islamist
terrorism."
The lawyers conceded that the evidence "barely"
established a link
between Al Qaeda and Iraq was enough for a "reasonable
jury," according to a report in the USA Today
newspaper.
The whole episode has an air of superficiality when
seen against the track record of the American
judiciary.
Despite the public claims made by American officials,
no tangible evidence has been found to establish a
link between Al Qaeda and Iraq except unsubstatiated
reports that a senior Iraqi intelligence official had
met with the purported leader of the Sept.11 assault
team, Mohammed Atta, in Eastern Europe in April 2001,
and a claim that was later found to be hollow by an
Iraqi defector that Osama Bin Laden had visited
Baghdad in 1998.
Documents said to have been found in the office of the
Iraqi intelligence ministry in post-war Baghdad
indicated that an unidentified Al Qaeda operative had
visited the Iraqi capital in early 1998, but that
could be hardly be evidence -- in any sense of the
word in a court of law -- that Saddam Hussein had any
role in the attacks in the US that occurred more than
three years later.
Indeed, intelligence findings deliberately suppressed
by the American and British government say that there
could not have been any link between Saddam and Bin
Laden if only because of their ideological
differences.
Bin Laden, who followed a puritanical form of Islam,
has never concealed his distaste for Saddam, whom he
had accused of using the faith for political purposes
and consolidate his grip on power. Bin Laden also
publicly blamed Saddam for having given the Americans
a pretext to military intervene in the Gulf and stay
on in the region by invading Kuwait in 1991.
And, indeed, if Al Qaedd is behind the post-war
bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, then one could
bet that they were carried out not because of any
sense for revenge for Saddam's ouster but in
retaliation for the overall American approach to the
Middle East and what many perceive as American
hostility towards Islam.
However, that does not change the reality that the
ruling has been made by a US court implicating Iraq in
the attacks and Iraq is hardly in a position to defend
itself.
The ruling also found Afghanistan's ousted Taliban
regime partly responsible for the attacks -- again a
case where no defence could be put up.
The verdict has to be seen against the backdrop of a
heavy dose of what could be nothing but American spin
that has led to more than half of Americans believing
that Saddam was behind the Sept.11 attacks as
indicated in opinion polls prior to the US war that
toppled him in April this year.
While the American judicial system could not accused
of being politically influenced, the court ruling
strengthens the argument that George W Bush is bent
upon somehow proving to American voters ahead of 2004
elections that he was right in invading Iraq and
toppling Saddam. The argument gathers more
credibility, given that the US occupiers of Iraq have
yet to produce any evidence that Saddam possessed
weapons of mass destruction -- the prime reason that
Bush cited for his decision to wage war against Iraq
and oust the Saddam regime from power.
How are the families which have been awarded the claim
going to collect?
That may yet prove to be another landmark turning.
Bush has at his disposal billions of dollars in frozen
Iraqi assets transferred to him, but the funds are
earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction. The US president
could hardly be expected to permit those funds to be
used to settle the claims, particularly that hundreds
of similar lawsuits are being prepared and sent to US
lawcourts.
Ironically, Bush would have gladly used the funds to
settle the claims had the verdict came before he
launched the war and ousted Saddam. Now he and his
people could be expected to fight tooth and nail
against any attempt to touch the booty assigned to
rebuild Iraq as a matter of American priority.
Could the US-endorsed regime that would take power in
Iraq be expected to be held responsible for settling
the claim?
Again the answer could not but be no. Washington has a
vested interest in protecting the regime it would
install in post-war Iraq and it is hardly likely that
Bush would allow it to be exposed to a torrent of
claims that could run into tens of billions of
dollars.
If anything, the US is pressing other countries to
write off even the legitimate debts that Iraq incurred
during the Saddam regime's existence in power. Against
that backdrop, the question could all but be ruled out
whether Washington would care much for Sept.11
compensation since it should know well that Saddam
could not have had any role in the attacks.
Indeed, the Bush administration has left a vulnerable
flank in its haste to implicate Iraq in the attacks
when it set up a separate fund for compensation for
Sept.11 attacks and allowed recipients to file claims
against Al Qaeda as well as Iraq.
One of the obvious explanations of the scenario after
the court verdict is that the US administration could
use the Sept.11-linked claims on Iraq as potential
leverage and pressure on the country for decades,
given that at some point Washington would have to
loosen its military grip on Iraqis.
judge in New York has found Iraq partly responsible
for the Sept. 11 attacks and awarded over $100 million
to the families of two people who died in the aerial
assault against the World Trade Center towers.
However, and despite contradictions, the ruling could
be used by successive US administrations to keep Iraq
under indefinite pressure if the current process in
post-Saddam Hussein Iraq leads to a dilution of the
American grip on the country.
The verdict is expected to trigger hundreds of claims
to be filed with US lawcourts claiming compensation
from Iraq for victims of the attacks, and that would
essentially mean that the Bush administration caught
in its own trap of charges it made implicating Iraq
and Saddam Hussein as sources of international
terrorism with little substantiation.
The ruling was strange because the evidence cited by
lawyers for the families of George Smith andTimothy
Soulas, two of the nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks
in New York and Washington, was based on public
statements made by senior US officials. These
officials included former CIA director James Woolsey
and from author Laurie Mylroie who have claimed that
Iraq "provided material support" to the Al Qaeda
network of Osama Bin Laden. Also cited was a statement
by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN where
he asserted that Iraq supported "Islamist
terrorism."
The lawyers conceded that the evidence "barely"
established a link
between Al Qaeda and Iraq was enough for a "reasonable
jury," according to a report in the USA Today
newspaper.
The whole episode has an air of superficiality when
seen against the track record of the American
judiciary.
Despite the public claims made by American officials,
no tangible evidence has been found to establish a
link between Al Qaeda and Iraq except unsubstatiated
reports that a senior Iraqi intelligence official had
met with the purported leader of the Sept.11 assault
team, Mohammed Atta, in Eastern Europe in April 2001,
and a claim that was later found to be hollow by an
Iraqi defector that Osama Bin Laden had visited
Baghdad in 1998.
Documents said to have been found in the office of the
Iraqi intelligence ministry in post-war Baghdad
indicated that an unidentified Al Qaeda operative had
visited the Iraqi capital in early 1998, but that
could be hardly be evidence -- in any sense of the
word in a court of law -- that Saddam Hussein had any
role in the attacks in the US that occurred more than
three years later.
Indeed, intelligence findings deliberately suppressed
by the American and British government say that there
could not have been any link between Saddam and Bin
Laden if only because of their ideological
differences.
Bin Laden, who followed a puritanical form of Islam,
has never concealed his distaste for Saddam, whom he
had accused of using the faith for political purposes
and consolidate his grip on power. Bin Laden also
publicly blamed Saddam for having given the Americans
a pretext to military intervene in the Gulf and stay
on in the region by invading Kuwait in 1991.
And, indeed, if Al Qaedd is behind the post-war
bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, then one could
bet that they were carried out not because of any
sense for revenge for Saddam's ouster but in
retaliation for the overall American approach to the
Middle East and what many perceive as American
hostility towards Islam.
However, that does not change the reality that the
ruling has been made by a US court implicating Iraq in
the attacks and Iraq is hardly in a position to defend
itself.
The ruling also found Afghanistan's ousted Taliban
regime partly responsible for the attacks -- again a
case where no defence could be put up.
The verdict has to be seen against the backdrop of a
heavy dose of what could be nothing but American spin
that has led to more than half of Americans believing
that Saddam was behind the Sept.11 attacks as
indicated in opinion polls prior to the US war that
toppled him in April this year.
While the American judicial system could not accused
of being politically influenced, the court ruling
strengthens the argument that George W Bush is bent
upon somehow proving to American voters ahead of 2004
elections that he was right in invading Iraq and
toppling Saddam. The argument gathers more
credibility, given that the US occupiers of Iraq have
yet to produce any evidence that Saddam possessed
weapons of mass destruction -- the prime reason that
Bush cited for his decision to wage war against Iraq
and oust the Saddam regime from power.
How are the families which have been awarded the claim
going to collect?
That may yet prove to be another landmark turning.
Bush has at his disposal billions of dollars in frozen
Iraqi assets transferred to him, but the funds are
earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction. The US president
could hardly be expected to permit those funds to be
used to settle the claims, particularly that hundreds
of similar lawsuits are being prepared and sent to US
lawcourts.
Ironically, Bush would have gladly used the funds to
settle the claims had the verdict came before he
launched the war and ousted Saddam. Now he and his
people could be expected to fight tooth and nail
against any attempt to touch the booty assigned to
rebuild Iraq as a matter of American priority.
Could the US-endorsed regime that would take power in
Iraq be expected to be held responsible for settling
the claim?
Again the answer could not but be no. Washington has a
vested interest in protecting the regime it would
install in post-war Iraq and it is hardly likely that
Bush would allow it to be exposed to a torrent of
claims that could run into tens of billions of
dollars.
If anything, the US is pressing other countries to
write off even the legitimate debts that Iraq incurred
during the Saddam regime's existence in power. Against
that backdrop, the question could all but be ruled out
whether Washington would care much for Sept.11
compensation since it should know well that Saddam
could not have had any role in the attacks.
Indeed, the Bush administration has left a vulnerable
flank in its haste to implicate Iraq in the attacks
when it set up a separate fund for compensation for
Sept.11 attacks and allowed recipients to file claims
against Al Qaeda as well as Iraq.
One of the obvious explanations of the scenario after
the court verdict is that the US administration could
use the Sept.11-linked claims on Iraq as potential
leverage and pressure on the country for decades,
given that at some point Washington would have to
loosen its military grip on Iraqis.
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Verdict Iraq and 9/11
PV Vivekanand
IN a strange twist of American justice, a federal judge in New York has found Iraq partly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and awarded over $100 million to the families of two people who died in the aerial assault against the World Trade Center towers.
However, and despite contradictions, the ruling could be used by successive US administrations to keep Iraq under indefinite pressure if the current process in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq leads to a dilution of the American grip on the country.
The verdict is expected to trigger hundreds of claims to be filed with US lawcourts claiming compensation from Iraq for victims of the attacks, and that would essentially mean that the Bush administration caught in its own trap of charges it made implicating Iraq and Saddam Hussein as sources of international terrorism with little substantiation.
The ruling was strange because the evidence cited by lawyers for the families of George Smith andTimothy Soulas, two of the nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks in New York and Washington, was based on public statements made by senior US officials. These officials included former CIA director James Woolsey and from author Laurie Mylroie who have claimed that Iraq "provided material support" to the Al Qaeda network of Osama Bin Laden. Also cited was a statement by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN where he asserted that Iraq supported "Islamist terrorism."
The lawyers conceded that the evidence "barely" established a link
between Al Qaeda and Iraq was enough for a "reasonable jury," according to a report in the USA Today newspaper.
The whole episode has an air of superficiality when seen against the track record of the American judiciary.
Despite the public claims made by American officials, no tangible evidence has been found to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq except unsubstatiated reports that a senior Iraqi intelligence official had met with the purported leader of the Sept.11 assault team, Mohammed Atta, in Eastern Europe in April 2001, and a claim that was later found to be hollow by an Iraqi defector that Osama Bin Laden had visited Baghdad in 1998.
Documents said to have been found in the office of the Iraqi intelligence ministry in post-war Baghdad indicated that an unidentified Al Qaeda operative had visited the Iraqi capital in early 1998, but that could be hardly be evidence -- in any sense of the word in a court of law -- that Saddam Hussein had any role in the attacks in the US that occurred more than three years later.
Indeed, intelligence findings deliberately suppressed by the American and British government say that there could not have been any link between Saddam and Bin Laden if only because of their ideological differences.
Bin Laden, who followed a puritanical form of Islam, has never concealed his distaste for Saddam, whom he had accused of using the faith for political purposes and consolidate his grip on power. Bin Laden also publicly blamed Saddam for having given the Americans a pretext to military intervene in the Gulf and stay on in the region by invading Kuwait in 1991.
And, indeed, if Al Qaedd is behind the post-war bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, then one could bet that they were carried out not because of any sense for revenge for Saddam's ouster but in retaliation for the overall American approach to the Middle East and what many perceive as American hostility towards Islam.
However, that does not change the reality that the ruling has been made by a US court implicating Iraq in the attacks and Iraq is hardly in a position to defend itself.
The ruling also found Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime partly responsible for the attacks -- again a case where no defence could be put up.
The verdict has to be seen against the backdrop of a heavy dose of what could be nothing but American spin that has led to more than half of Americans believing that Saddam was behind the Sept.11 attacks as indicated in opinion polls prior to the US war that toppled him in April this year.
While the American judicial system could not accused of being politically influenced, the court ruling strengthens the argument that George W Bush is bent upon somehow proving to American voters ahead of 2004 elections that he was right in invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. The argument gathers more credibility, given that the US occupiers of Iraq have yet to produce any evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction -- the prime reason that Bush cited for his decision to wage war against Iraq and oust the Saddam regime from power.
How are the families which have been awarded the claim going to collect?
That may yet prove to be another landmark turning.
Bush has at his disposal billions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets transferred to him, but the funds are earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction. The US president could hardly be expected to permit those funds to be used to settle the claims, particularly that hundreds of similar lawsuits are being prepared and sent to US lawcourts.
Ironically, Bush would have gladly used the funds to settle the claims had the verdict came before he launched the war and ousted Saddam. Now he and his people could be expected to fight tooth and nail against any attempt to touch the booty assigned to rebuild Iraq as a matter of American priority.
Could the US-endorsed regime that would take power in Iraq be expected to be held responsible for settling the claim?
Again the answer could not but be no. Washington has a vested interest in protecting the regime it would install in post-war Iraq and it is hardly likely that Bush would allow it to be exposed to a torrent of claims that could run into tens of billions of dollars.
If anything, the US is pressing other countries to write off even the legitimate debts that Iraq incurred during the Saddam regime's existence in power. Against that backdrop, the question could all but be ruled out whether Washington would care much for Sept.11 compensation since it should know well that Saddam could not have had any role in the attacks.
Indeed, the Bush administration has left a vulnerable flank in its haste to implicate Iraq in the attacks when it set up a separate fund for compensation for Sept.11 attacks and allowed recipients to file claims against Al Qaeda as well as Iraq.
One of the obvious explanations of the scenario after the court verdict is that the US administration could use the Sept.11-linked claims on Iraq as potential leverage and pressure on the country for decades, given that at some point Washington would have to loosen its military grip on Iraqis.
IN a strange twist of American justice, a federal judge in New York has found Iraq partly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and awarded over $100 million to the families of two people who died in the aerial assault against the World Trade Center towers.
However, and despite contradictions, the ruling could be used by successive US administrations to keep Iraq under indefinite pressure if the current process in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq leads to a dilution of the American grip on the country.
The verdict is expected to trigger hundreds of claims to be filed with US lawcourts claiming compensation from Iraq for victims of the attacks, and that would essentially mean that the Bush administration caught in its own trap of charges it made implicating Iraq and Saddam Hussein as sources of international terrorism with little substantiation.
The ruling was strange because the evidence cited by lawyers for the families of George Smith andTimothy Soulas, two of the nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks in New York and Washington, was based on public statements made by senior US officials. These officials included former CIA director James Woolsey and from author Laurie Mylroie who have claimed that Iraq "provided material support" to the Al Qaeda network of Osama Bin Laden. Also cited was a statement by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN where he asserted that Iraq supported "Islamist terrorism."
The lawyers conceded that the evidence "barely" established a link
between Al Qaeda and Iraq was enough for a "reasonable jury," according to a report in the USA Today newspaper.
The whole episode has an air of superficiality when seen against the track record of the American judiciary.
Despite the public claims made by American officials, no tangible evidence has been found to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq except unsubstatiated reports that a senior Iraqi intelligence official had met with the purported leader of the Sept.11 assault team, Mohammed Atta, in Eastern Europe in April 2001, and a claim that was later found to be hollow by an Iraqi defector that Osama Bin Laden had visited Baghdad in 1998.
Documents said to have been found in the office of the Iraqi intelligence ministry in post-war Baghdad indicated that an unidentified Al Qaeda operative had visited the Iraqi capital in early 1998, but that could be hardly be evidence -- in any sense of the word in a court of law -- that Saddam Hussein had any role in the attacks in the US that occurred more than three years later.
Indeed, intelligence findings deliberately suppressed by the American and British government say that there could not have been any link between Saddam and Bin Laden if only because of their ideological differences.
Bin Laden, who followed a puritanical form of Islam, has never concealed his distaste for Saddam, whom he had accused of using the faith for political purposes and consolidate his grip on power. Bin Laden also publicly blamed Saddam for having given the Americans a pretext to military intervene in the Gulf and stay on in the region by invading Kuwait in 1991.
And, indeed, if Al Qaedd is behind the post-war bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, then one could bet that they were carried out not because of any sense for revenge for Saddam's ouster but in retaliation for the overall American approach to the Middle East and what many perceive as American hostility towards Islam.
However, that does not change the reality that the ruling has been made by a US court implicating Iraq in the attacks and Iraq is hardly in a position to defend itself.
The ruling also found Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime partly responsible for the attacks -- again a case where no defence could be put up.
The verdict has to be seen against the backdrop of a heavy dose of what could be nothing but American spin that has led to more than half of Americans believing that Saddam was behind the Sept.11 attacks as indicated in opinion polls prior to the US war that toppled him in April this year.
While the American judicial system could not accused of being politically influenced, the court ruling strengthens the argument that George W Bush is bent upon somehow proving to American voters ahead of 2004 elections that he was right in invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. The argument gathers more credibility, given that the US occupiers of Iraq have yet to produce any evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction -- the prime reason that Bush cited for his decision to wage war against Iraq and oust the Saddam regime from power.
How are the families which have been awarded the claim going to collect?
That may yet prove to be another landmark turning.
Bush has at his disposal billions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets transferred to him, but the funds are earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction. The US president could hardly be expected to permit those funds to be used to settle the claims, particularly that hundreds of similar lawsuits are being prepared and sent to US lawcourts.
Ironically, Bush would have gladly used the funds to settle the claims had the verdict came before he launched the war and ousted Saddam. Now he and his people could be expected to fight tooth and nail against any attempt to touch the booty assigned to rebuild Iraq as a matter of American priority.
Could the US-endorsed regime that would take power in Iraq be expected to be held responsible for settling the claim?
Again the answer could not but be no. Washington has a vested interest in protecting the regime it would install in post-war Iraq and it is hardly likely that Bush would allow it to be exposed to a torrent of claims that could run into tens of billions of dollars.
If anything, the US is pressing other countries to write off even the legitimate debts that Iraq incurred during the Saddam regime's existence in power. Against that backdrop, the question could all but be ruled out whether Washington would care much for Sept.11 compensation since it should know well that Saddam could not have had any role in the attacks.
Indeed, the Bush administration has left a vulnerable flank in its haste to implicate Iraq in the attacks when it set up a separate fund for compensation for Sept.11 attacks and allowed recipients to file claims against Al Qaeda as well as Iraq.
One of the obvious explanations of the scenario after the court verdict is that the US administration could use the Sept.11-linked claims on Iraq as potential leverage and pressure on the country for decades, given that at some point Washington would have to loosen its military grip on Iraqis.
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}