June 29, 2006
WARNINGS after warnings are being issued that the situation in Palestine will spin out of control if the two sides involved do not exercise restraint in the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on an Israeli border post and capture of an Israeli soldier. Facts on the ground clearly show that the situation is already out of control.
Israel's arrest of eight ministers ofthe Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet and 20 members of the Palestinian parliament, and the Israeli seige of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure there that has heralded a humanitarian crisis are bad enough. Add to that Israel's
threat to kill Hamas leaders living in exile and "punish" Syria for harbouring them and the Israeli military flights over the home of the Syrian president coupled with a warning that any cross-border attack by Lebanon's Hizbollah would trigger military action against Syria. The sole world power which could make a real difference contends that Israel is only exercising its right to self-defence — meaning a carte blanche endorsement of whatever Israel finds fit to do. (Well, it should not be surprising since the US itself claims that the war it wages in Iraq is in exercise of its right to self-defence, although it beats common sense to figure out how Iraq posed a threat to the US in the first place).
On the other side, captors of an Israeli settler have already killed him. and those who have captured the Israeli soldier on Sunday are refusing to release him without Israel freeing Palestinian women and children in detention in return. Indeed, the decision is no longer in the hands of the captors because the families of the 8,000 plus Palestinian prisoners in Israel insist on their loved ones being freed in return for the Israeli soldier, a demand the Jewish state is highly unlikely to meet, particularly now that it has eight Hamas ministers in its custody who could be used as bargaining chips (not to mention the others detained in Thursday's sweep).
And we are still told the situation in Palestine "could spin out of control."
Whatever the explanation, the fear is high that Israel has found the conditions right to create a situation where it could dictate terms with help from the US. It seems a certainty that it would use this opportunity to corner the Palestinian and Arab side with a view to weakening resistance to its hegemony and military ambitions and imposing its will not only on the Palestinians but on the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. If that is indeed the case, then any solution to the crisis triggered by the capture of the Israeli soldier would only serve Israeli interests and objectives.
The need of the hour is for the Arabs to put their heads together and come up with a collective strategy aimed at dealing with Israel's broader agenda. Condemnations of Israel are not enough. Emergency meetings have to be called and urgent and sound decisions have to be taken. That is the real challenge facing the Arabs today.
Friday, July 21, 2006
'Moderates' into 'militants'
June 28, 2006
ISRAEL, a country which rates itself among the top 10 military powers in the world, is reacting in an unprecedented manner to the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on a border post and abduction of an Israeli army soldier.
The massive military blockade of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure in the coastal territory coupled with threats that no one is immune to Israeli action — a minister has said even Palestinian ministers could be taken hostage — underlines an apparent determination to use the opportunity to deal a severe blow to Palestinian armed resistance.
More infrastructure would be destroyed as a message to everyone in Gaza that backing armed groups means severe hardships in daily life. There would be summary arrests of "suspects" who would be hauled off to Israeli prisons. Homes would be demolished and enough damage would be inflicted that Israel would want to use as a warning to the people against supporting armed resistance. Simply put, the message is: Ordinary people would suffer if they support groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions which are waging armed resistance.
Such an approach could be expected in view of Israel's record of using collective punishment against the Palestinians under occupation.
Yet another reason for the high intensity of the Israeli action is the way Sunday's Palestinian attack was staged. The Israeli military's "pride" that it is as good as invincible was deeply hurt by revelations that the Palestinian assailants had dug a tunnel and used it successfully to carry out the attack. It meant serious breaches of Israel's security arrangements and this is something that the Jewish state's military psyche could not absorb. The Israeli military wants to hit back with utmost intensity and put up a massive show of power with a vengeance.
Indeed, Israel is pulling all the plugs. It has also threatened to kill Hamas leaders living in exile in Arab countries such as Syria.
Palestinians have responded to the Israeli moves with defiance, with many of them vowing to fight the Israeli army.
The overall mood among the Palestinians is that the situation could not get any worse and hence their resolve to confront the Israelis head on.
Whatever the outcome of the crisis, it marks a turning point for both sides. Israel would use the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible to Palestinian resistance and Palestinians would respond with whatever they could. However, that is not the end of the story. Israel's incursion into Gaza would turn many "moderate" Palestinians into "militants," and this translates into that many more ready to sacrifice whatever they could to serve the cause of freedom and independence.
ISRAEL, a country which rates itself among the top 10 military powers in the world, is reacting in an unprecedented manner to the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on a border post and abduction of an Israeli army soldier.
The massive military blockade of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure in the coastal territory coupled with threats that no one is immune to Israeli action — a minister has said even Palestinian ministers could be taken hostage — underlines an apparent determination to use the opportunity to deal a severe blow to Palestinian armed resistance.
More infrastructure would be destroyed as a message to everyone in Gaza that backing armed groups means severe hardships in daily life. There would be summary arrests of "suspects" who would be hauled off to Israeli prisons. Homes would be demolished and enough damage would be inflicted that Israel would want to use as a warning to the people against supporting armed resistance. Simply put, the message is: Ordinary people would suffer if they support groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions which are waging armed resistance.
Such an approach could be expected in view of Israel's record of using collective punishment against the Palestinians under occupation.
Yet another reason for the high intensity of the Israeli action is the way Sunday's Palestinian attack was staged. The Israeli military's "pride" that it is as good as invincible was deeply hurt by revelations that the Palestinian assailants had dug a tunnel and used it successfully to carry out the attack. It meant serious breaches of Israel's security arrangements and this is something that the Jewish state's military psyche could not absorb. The Israeli military wants to hit back with utmost intensity and put up a massive show of power with a vengeance.
Indeed, Israel is pulling all the plugs. It has also threatened to kill Hamas leaders living in exile in Arab countries such as Syria.
Palestinians have responded to the Israeli moves with defiance, with many of them vowing to fight the Israeli army.
The overall mood among the Palestinians is that the situation could not get any worse and hence their resolve to confront the Israelis head on.
Whatever the outcome of the crisis, it marks a turning point for both sides. Israel would use the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible to Palestinian resistance and Palestinians would respond with whatever they could. However, that is not the end of the story. Israel's incursion into Gaza would turn many "moderate" Palestinians into "militants," and this translates into that many more ready to sacrifice whatever they could to serve the cause of freedom and independence.
The real challenge
June 21, 2006
The real challenge
ANYWHERE else in the world, a gathering of Nobel laureates and celebrities discussing ways of transforming the world's "challenges into opportunities" would be expected to make a real difference to efforts to solve regional conflicts. Such hopes are also attached to this week's conference in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra attended by some 25 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economics, literature, medicine and peace along with 30 celebrities. They will seek, organisers say, to deal with some of the world's most intractable problems.
"In the 21st Century, humankind must find new ways of dealing with emerging threats and develop a deeper understanding about the connections between them," says a statement from the organisers.
"Petra II: A World in Danger, provides a forum to reflect on both old and new problems, and propose novel strategies for transforming challenges into opportunities," it says.
Participants will focus on non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, education, health and poverty, and economic empowerment — key issues that are plaguing the Middle East region. Had the region's governments and people been unpreoccupied with fears and problems to security, then these issues would not have festered. The governments would have had the time and resources to launch projects and schemes designed to address and rectify problems in the education and health sectors and to uplift people living in poverty.
Instead, time and money are spent on security-related issues. Countries are being forced to spend billions on military equipment that are unlikely to be used at all, but are deemed to be — and portrayed as — a necessary part of national defence by those who peddle them around.
Such diversions owe their origins to the festering conflicts in the region being waged, at least in party, to serve vested interests. Therefore, any effort should take into consideration the root causes of insecurity and instability in the region, and one does not have to look far to identify them as Israel and its US-supported quest for regional domination and elimination of all challenges at whatever cost.
However, realism dictates that what the Nobel laureates and celebrities have to say about the Middle Eastern conflicts is not going to count much in practical terms if only because the players involved in the conflicts are very much a closed club, with little room for additional entrants.
The gathering is expected to host the first, albeit not very formal, meeting of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert under an initiative undertaken by King Abdullah II of Jordan. There is little at this point in time to give anyone any hope that the Abbas-Olmert meeting would lead to anything concrete in terms of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The best persuasive skills of the Nobel laureates and celebrities are not enough to make a difference, if only because the political imperatives deprive Olmert of a choice to embrace a just and fair option to end the conflict with the Palestinians, regardless of whether Abbas's Fatah or Hamas is in power.
Apart from Palestine, where hopes for peace is are all but disappeared, the Iraqi crisis is spinning out of control, regardless of whether the US and the US-backed government in Baghdad admit it.
We in this region are watching with trepidation the unfolding scenario in Iraq that is definitely pointing in the direction of disintegration of that country as it existed pre-March 2003. We had warned it would happen, but our words were summarily brushed aside. Indeed, what we are witnessing today in Iraq is the result of powers that matter ignoring the region's warnings.
Those participating in the Petra forum might not be directly affected by happenings in the Middle East, but they should be naive not to realise that the region's problems are not created by the region's players alone. External medding in their affairs is one of the key reasons for the region's current state of insecurity, instability and apprehension over the uncertainty of what lies ahead.
The gathering in Petra should serve as an eyeopener to the realities of the conflicts in the Middle East. It is not Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel or renounce armed resistance that has stalled efforts for peace. The root causes is Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and refusal to return them to the Palestinians.
It is not the presence of "international jihadists" in Iraq that is worsening the crisis in that country. It is Iraqi resistance to foreign domination and the US refusal to give up its quest for indirect but absolute control of that country against the backdrop of Washington's biased policies that is behind the crisis.
It is not fears of Iranian threats to the US that is behind Washington's drive against Tehran. It is concerns that Iran might acquire a deterrent against the nuclear supremacy of Israel in the region and Iran's refusal to toe the American line that has sparked the crisis.
No doubt, the organisers of the forum are aware of the limitations. However, that has not dissuaded them from setting goals high.
They are calling on international community "to work in unison to counter mounting threats to peace and stability" — a reference the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
They are calling on the forum's participants to explore ways to develop education across the globe as "a tool in the fight against intolerance and hatred," and to improve the quality of education for boys and girls alike.
They are urging governments enhacing access to information via the Internet as part of efforts to close the knowledge gap between developed and developing countries and prepare students to compete in the modern world.
The forum is called upon to devise ways "to deal with global health pandemics caused by HIV/AIDS and the avian flu," and to ensure that the most vulnerable, namely children and women, are provided with adequate health care.
Participants also face the task of coming with realistic measn to alleviate the global scourge of poverty, which organisers say "is a source of instability, creating breeding grounds for fanaticism, radicalism and terrorism."
Simply put, the challenges facing the Petra conference are more complex that those facing the key players in regional conflicts around the world. That in itself should be an incentive to the intellectuals and celebrities gathered in the Nabataeen rose-red city of Petra to rake their brains and come up with recommendations addressed to world governments.
After all, international efforts have to be launched at some point towards at least understanding the real roots of the problems before attempting to solve them.
Hopefully, that is the best purpose that the Petra gathering would serve.
The real challenge
ANYWHERE else in the world, a gathering of Nobel laureates and celebrities discussing ways of transforming the world's "challenges into opportunities" would be expected to make a real difference to efforts to solve regional conflicts. Such hopes are also attached to this week's conference in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra attended by some 25 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economics, literature, medicine and peace along with 30 celebrities. They will seek, organisers say, to deal with some of the world's most intractable problems.
"In the 21st Century, humankind must find new ways of dealing with emerging threats and develop a deeper understanding about the connections between them," says a statement from the organisers.
"Petra II: A World in Danger, provides a forum to reflect on both old and new problems, and propose novel strategies for transforming challenges into opportunities," it says.
Participants will focus on non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, education, health and poverty, and economic empowerment — key issues that are plaguing the Middle East region. Had the region's governments and people been unpreoccupied with fears and problems to security, then these issues would not have festered. The governments would have had the time and resources to launch projects and schemes designed to address and rectify problems in the education and health sectors and to uplift people living in poverty.
Instead, time and money are spent on security-related issues. Countries are being forced to spend billions on military equipment that are unlikely to be used at all, but are deemed to be — and portrayed as — a necessary part of national defence by those who peddle them around.
Such diversions owe their origins to the festering conflicts in the region being waged, at least in party, to serve vested interests. Therefore, any effort should take into consideration the root causes of insecurity and instability in the region, and one does not have to look far to identify them as Israel and its US-supported quest for regional domination and elimination of all challenges at whatever cost.
However, realism dictates that what the Nobel laureates and celebrities have to say about the Middle Eastern conflicts is not going to count much in practical terms if only because the players involved in the conflicts are very much a closed club, with little room for additional entrants.
The gathering is expected to host the first, albeit not very formal, meeting of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert under an initiative undertaken by King Abdullah II of Jordan. There is little at this point in time to give anyone any hope that the Abbas-Olmert meeting would lead to anything concrete in terms of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The best persuasive skills of the Nobel laureates and celebrities are not enough to make a difference, if only because the political imperatives deprive Olmert of a choice to embrace a just and fair option to end the conflict with the Palestinians, regardless of whether Abbas's Fatah or Hamas is in power.
Apart from Palestine, where hopes for peace is are all but disappeared, the Iraqi crisis is spinning out of control, regardless of whether the US and the US-backed government in Baghdad admit it.
We in this region are watching with trepidation the unfolding scenario in Iraq that is definitely pointing in the direction of disintegration of that country as it existed pre-March 2003. We had warned it would happen, but our words were summarily brushed aside. Indeed, what we are witnessing today in Iraq is the result of powers that matter ignoring the region's warnings.
Those participating in the Petra forum might not be directly affected by happenings in the Middle East, but they should be naive not to realise that the region's problems are not created by the region's players alone. External medding in their affairs is one of the key reasons for the region's current state of insecurity, instability and apprehension over the uncertainty of what lies ahead.
The gathering in Petra should serve as an eyeopener to the realities of the conflicts in the Middle East. It is not Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel or renounce armed resistance that has stalled efforts for peace. The root causes is Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and refusal to return them to the Palestinians.
It is not the presence of "international jihadists" in Iraq that is worsening the crisis in that country. It is Iraqi resistance to foreign domination and the US refusal to give up its quest for indirect but absolute control of that country against the backdrop of Washington's biased policies that is behind the crisis.
It is not fears of Iranian threats to the US that is behind Washington's drive against Tehran. It is concerns that Iran might acquire a deterrent against the nuclear supremacy of Israel in the region and Iran's refusal to toe the American line that has sparked the crisis.
No doubt, the organisers of the forum are aware of the limitations. However, that has not dissuaded them from setting goals high.
They are calling on international community "to work in unison to counter mounting threats to peace and stability" — a reference the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
They are calling on the forum's participants to explore ways to develop education across the globe as "a tool in the fight against intolerance and hatred," and to improve the quality of education for boys and girls alike.
They are urging governments enhacing access to information via the Internet as part of efforts to close the knowledge gap between developed and developing countries and prepare students to compete in the modern world.
The forum is called upon to devise ways "to deal with global health pandemics caused by HIV/AIDS and the avian flu," and to ensure that the most vulnerable, namely children and women, are provided with adequate health care.
Participants also face the task of coming with realistic measn to alleviate the global scourge of poverty, which organisers say "is a source of instability, creating breeding grounds for fanaticism, radicalism and terrorism."
Simply put, the challenges facing the Petra conference are more complex that those facing the key players in regional conflicts around the world. That in itself should be an incentive to the intellectuals and celebrities gathered in the Nabataeen rose-red city of Petra to rake their brains and come up with recommendations addressed to world governments.
After all, international efforts have to be launched at some point towards at least understanding the real roots of the problems before attempting to solve them.
Hopefully, that is the best purpose that the Petra gathering would serve.
Smoke in Somalia, fire will follow
July 21, 2006
IT IS as if the Arab World did not have enough crises that the situation in Somalia is moving towards a military confrontation between the country's Islamist forces and the Ethiopian armed forces. Ethiopia has moved an unknown number of soldiers across the border into the town of Baidoa ostensibly to protect the weak interim goverment based there against the Islamist forces, which have taken control over much of southern Somalia after trouncing warlords.
For the Islamists, the Ethiopian move represents a challenge to their drive to spread their influence throughout the country. For Ethiopia, it is imperative that the interim government, which is endorsed by the United Nations, survive the Islamist challenge. Indeed, one could see a hidden external hand in the Ethiopian move. The US has made no secret of its hostility towards the Islamists, who Washington fears will enforce a Taliban-style rule in Somalia and turn the country into a haven for anti-US militants from around the world.
One could cite many reasons why exteral forces should or should not intervene in Somalia depending on contrasting perceptions. But there are certain constants. There is not much love lost in the Arab World or outside for the warlords and gunmen of Somalia who obey no law and opt to live by their own rules that have no human consideration.
The rampaging pirates off the coast of Somalia, intercepting commercial vessels and holding their crew for ransom are only one of the many examples of the chaos that have resulted from the power vacuum in the Horn of Africa country. Anyone who happens to be unfortunate enough to come across Somali gunmen on land or sea is fair game. If one is lucky of evade capture and kidnap by one group in one area of Somalia, then a similar group is waiting in the next area. Gunmen even demand "tax" from international and regional agencies seeking to offer relief to the suffering people of Somalia and the "collection" used to end up in the warlords' pockets, according to reports reaching the outside world. The situation had reached such a low point that trucks carrying relief supplies to distribution centres were intercepted and ordered to pay a "fee" for being allowed to proceed when the Islamists made their move.
When signs emerged a few weeks ago that the Islamist forces were gaining on the US-backed warlords, many heaved a sigh of relief with the belief that the Islamists, who were put together as a militia by the Islamic courts of the country, would be able to enforce law and order in the country. The people of Somalia were willing to overlook — at this point in time at least — that the Islamists had their own agenda as long as they were able to stabilise the country. That is the point of desperation of the people of Somalia. Since they captured the capital and trounced the warlords, the Islamists have been showing their real colour by imposing their own version of strict Sharia on the law. Their decision to stone to death five people if convicted of rape is only one example of their sense of justice.
It could not be predicted at this point who would have the edge if it comes to a military conflict between the Islamists and Ethiopian forces.
Ethiopia appeared to have sent the forces to Somalia reportedly in response to a specific request from the interim government. They have taken up positions in Baidoa and have secured the town's air strip. However, Addis Ababa has denied that its forces are present in Somali territory.
The Islamist forces were said to be some 20 kilometres away from Baidoa and moving ahead with an apparent view to challenging the interim government, but they pulled back on Thursday. Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi accused them of plotting to attack Baidoa and the transitional government in violation of a truce and mutual recognition deal.
Ethiopia has said it will defend the transitional government from attack by the Islamists
The Islamists are playing to the masses by highlighting that Addis Ababa had refused to help the Somalis when the country was being ravaged by warlords, who divided the country into unruly fiefdoms based on tribes and clans. The head of the he executive committee of the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS), Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has vowed that "Somali people are ready to defend themselves from the acts of aggression by Ethiopia."
Well, as the Arab World grapples with the crises in Palestine and Lebanon, there might not be much the Arabs could do to check the situation in Somalia, which remains a member of the Arab League, from sliping to another round of violence and bloodshed, and there is no guarantee that any such effort would succeed either, given the record of Somalis' behaviour. Perhaps that might indeed be an added incentive to those who want to challenge and trounce the Islamists.
Haven't the people of Somalia suffered enough? Isn't there any compassion among the various parties involved, up in the front and those pulling the strings from behind the scene, to recognise the "red lines" in human suffering caused by political agendas?
IT IS as if the Arab World did not have enough crises that the situation in Somalia is moving towards a military confrontation between the country's Islamist forces and the Ethiopian armed forces. Ethiopia has moved an unknown number of soldiers across the border into the town of Baidoa ostensibly to protect the weak interim goverment based there against the Islamist forces, which have taken control over much of southern Somalia after trouncing warlords.
For the Islamists, the Ethiopian move represents a challenge to their drive to spread their influence throughout the country. For Ethiopia, it is imperative that the interim government, which is endorsed by the United Nations, survive the Islamist challenge. Indeed, one could see a hidden external hand in the Ethiopian move. The US has made no secret of its hostility towards the Islamists, who Washington fears will enforce a Taliban-style rule in Somalia and turn the country into a haven for anti-US militants from around the world.
One could cite many reasons why exteral forces should or should not intervene in Somalia depending on contrasting perceptions. But there are certain constants. There is not much love lost in the Arab World or outside for the warlords and gunmen of Somalia who obey no law and opt to live by their own rules that have no human consideration.
The rampaging pirates off the coast of Somalia, intercepting commercial vessels and holding their crew for ransom are only one of the many examples of the chaos that have resulted from the power vacuum in the Horn of Africa country. Anyone who happens to be unfortunate enough to come across Somali gunmen on land or sea is fair game. If one is lucky of evade capture and kidnap by one group in one area of Somalia, then a similar group is waiting in the next area. Gunmen even demand "tax" from international and regional agencies seeking to offer relief to the suffering people of Somalia and the "collection" used to end up in the warlords' pockets, according to reports reaching the outside world. The situation had reached such a low point that trucks carrying relief supplies to distribution centres were intercepted and ordered to pay a "fee" for being allowed to proceed when the Islamists made their move.
When signs emerged a few weeks ago that the Islamist forces were gaining on the US-backed warlords, many heaved a sigh of relief with the belief that the Islamists, who were put together as a militia by the Islamic courts of the country, would be able to enforce law and order in the country. The people of Somalia were willing to overlook — at this point in time at least — that the Islamists had their own agenda as long as they were able to stabilise the country. That is the point of desperation of the people of Somalia. Since they captured the capital and trounced the warlords, the Islamists have been showing their real colour by imposing their own version of strict Sharia on the law. Their decision to stone to death five people if convicted of rape is only one example of their sense of justice.
It could not be predicted at this point who would have the edge if it comes to a military conflict between the Islamists and Ethiopian forces.
Ethiopia appeared to have sent the forces to Somalia reportedly in response to a specific request from the interim government. They have taken up positions in Baidoa and have secured the town's air strip. However, Addis Ababa has denied that its forces are present in Somali territory.
The Islamist forces were said to be some 20 kilometres away from Baidoa and moving ahead with an apparent view to challenging the interim government, but they pulled back on Thursday. Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi accused them of plotting to attack Baidoa and the transitional government in violation of a truce and mutual recognition deal.
Ethiopia has said it will defend the transitional government from attack by the Islamists
The Islamists are playing to the masses by highlighting that Addis Ababa had refused to help the Somalis when the country was being ravaged by warlords, who divided the country into unruly fiefdoms based on tribes and clans. The head of the he executive committee of the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS), Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has vowed that "Somali people are ready to defend themselves from the acts of aggression by Ethiopia."
Well, as the Arab World grapples with the crises in Palestine and Lebanon, there might not be much the Arabs could do to check the situation in Somalia, which remains a member of the Arab League, from sliping to another round of violence and bloodshed, and there is no guarantee that any such effort would succeed either, given the record of Somalis' behaviour. Perhaps that might indeed be an added incentive to those who want to challenge and trounce the Islamists.
Haven't the people of Somalia suffered enough? Isn't there any compassion among the various parties involved, up in the front and those pulling the strings from behind the scene, to recognise the "red lines" in human suffering caused by political agendas?
As fake as a $3 bill
July 20, 2006
As fake as a $3 bill
AS is usual, the US is playing with words and acting naive when it says it has nothing to do with the Israeli military offensive in Lebanon and that it sees Israel as exercising its right to defend itself when Israeli artillery and warplanes are pounding civilian targets in its northern neighbour, inflicting death, injuries and devastation.
However, the US position would have a long-lasting impact on the Middle East by creating more of the kind of people that Washington varyingly describes as militants, extremists and terrorists who pose direct and indirect threats to American interests everywhere. That is and will indeed be one of the direct results of the misguided American approach.
While no one is accusing the US of playing a direct role in the Israeli aggression, Washington finds it fit to defend itself against a perceived charge that it is directing Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
On Thursday, White House press secretary Tony Snow denied the Bush administration is co-ordinating with Israel or "sitting around at the war map saying 'Do this, this and this'."
"We're not colluding, we're not co-operating, we're not conspiring, we're not doing any of that," said Snow. "The Israelis are doing what they think is necessary to protect their borders."
Well, we've heard the argument many times. It has become a catch phrase in Washington jargon when it comes to Israeli military actions directed against the Arabs.
We are aware that it is definitely not in US interests to allow the flare-up in Lebanon to spill over and drag in other countries like Syria and Iran, at least not at this point in time. The US military must be painfully aware that any Syrian involvement in the conflict would pull in Iran into the equation, and this means — among many other potential consequences — danger for the 130,000 and plus American soldiers deployed in Iraq and the 18,000 stationed in Afghanistan in the name of hunting Osama Bin Laden and Taliban leaders and ranks in the countryside.
One thing is clear: Whatever the US says and uses to justify its position — like citing Israel's right to defend itself — it is only deepening and widening the chasm between Washington and the Arabs and swelling the ranks of people ready to explode themselves if that serves their goal exacting revenge from the US and advance what they see as their cause.
There was some optimism a few weeks ago that the Bush administration had learnt its lesson from the insurgency in Iraq and realised that, in principle, its policy in the Middle East dictated by pro-Israeli forces is behind the troubles it has been and is continuing to face in the region. That realisation, many in the region hoped, would lead to a better balanced American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed, no US administration, least of all the present one, would ever accept in public that its pro-Israeli policies and actions are behind its problems in the Arab and Muslim world. Even to say it in private is risky for administration officials since they would run afoul of the pro-Israeli forces and that means the end of their career sooner than later.
But the US, by maintaining its stand that it is up to Israel to do what it deems fit to defend itself, is only reaping more Arab and Muslim hostility — if indeed there is anymore room in that department.
The key flaw in the US argument is very visible: Had it not been for the almost unlimited US support in all aspects, Israel would not have come this far and be fortified with the military capability and political-diplomatic protection and immunity against international action to do what it is doing today in Lebanon and Palestine.
The US have very little credibility worth the description in the Middle East. It started losing it in the early 70s, and every action it took in the region further eroded its standing among the Arab and Muslim masses since then. Administration officials and spin-masters should know within themselves that they are kidding only themselves — and a diminishing number of American citizens — when they talk about their desire and commitment to see just, fair, honorable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. The region's people know that the kind of peace that the US would like to see is the kind of peace Israel wants to have and impose on the Arabs and Palestinians. It has nothing to do with justice, fairness, honour and comprehensiveness, but simply based on Israel's military might which its leaders believe is the answer to all problems in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course, many of the present administration officials would say so once they are out of office, but, today, that is not going to help anyone.
With the latest crisis in the Middle East, the US has clearly signalled that it is firmly entrenched on the Israeli side of the fence and helping the Jewish state achieve its strategic objectives (not that it needed any affirmation, but Washington did so by not only condoning the Israeli offensive but also preventing everyone else from doing anything to end the suffering of the victims of the Jewish state).
Again, the US is kidding only itself if it believes that things would be back to "normal" and it would be business as usual once the present crises in Palestine and Lebanon are settled (in Israel's favour of course).
No argument is going to help assuage the grief, fury and frustration of the people who lost their loved ones and suffered themselves and found their life shattered beyond repair as a result of Israeli action. For many, it might not even make anymore sense in continuing to live and they represent an ideal breeding and recruiting ground for extremists waging an all-out international war against the US.
It is not an exclusive American problem. The US might (or might not) be able to protect itself in its territory, but not only the Middle East but also the rest of the world will have to pay for fallout of extremism fuelled by American actions.
That is where the US has a responsibility towards the international community to do what it could to put an immediate end to the Israeli offensive. But that is not an end in itself. Washington also has the responsibility and obligation to the world community to launch an all-out, no-holds-barred effort to work out a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It would be yet another grave mistake on the part of Washington if it continues to ignore the realities and truth and to feign positions that are as fake as a $3 bill.
As fake as a $3 bill
AS is usual, the US is playing with words and acting naive when it says it has nothing to do with the Israeli military offensive in Lebanon and that it sees Israel as exercising its right to defend itself when Israeli artillery and warplanes are pounding civilian targets in its northern neighbour, inflicting death, injuries and devastation.
However, the US position would have a long-lasting impact on the Middle East by creating more of the kind of people that Washington varyingly describes as militants, extremists and terrorists who pose direct and indirect threats to American interests everywhere. That is and will indeed be one of the direct results of the misguided American approach.
While no one is accusing the US of playing a direct role in the Israeli aggression, Washington finds it fit to defend itself against a perceived charge that it is directing Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
On Thursday, White House press secretary Tony Snow denied the Bush administration is co-ordinating with Israel or "sitting around at the war map saying 'Do this, this and this'."
"We're not colluding, we're not co-operating, we're not conspiring, we're not doing any of that," said Snow. "The Israelis are doing what they think is necessary to protect their borders."
Well, we've heard the argument many times. It has become a catch phrase in Washington jargon when it comes to Israeli military actions directed against the Arabs.
We are aware that it is definitely not in US interests to allow the flare-up in Lebanon to spill over and drag in other countries like Syria and Iran, at least not at this point in time. The US military must be painfully aware that any Syrian involvement in the conflict would pull in Iran into the equation, and this means — among many other potential consequences — danger for the 130,000 and plus American soldiers deployed in Iraq and the 18,000 stationed in Afghanistan in the name of hunting Osama Bin Laden and Taliban leaders and ranks in the countryside.
One thing is clear: Whatever the US says and uses to justify its position — like citing Israel's right to defend itself — it is only deepening and widening the chasm between Washington and the Arabs and swelling the ranks of people ready to explode themselves if that serves their goal exacting revenge from the US and advance what they see as their cause.
There was some optimism a few weeks ago that the Bush administration had learnt its lesson from the insurgency in Iraq and realised that, in principle, its policy in the Middle East dictated by pro-Israeli forces is behind the troubles it has been and is continuing to face in the region. That realisation, many in the region hoped, would lead to a better balanced American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed, no US administration, least of all the present one, would ever accept in public that its pro-Israeli policies and actions are behind its problems in the Arab and Muslim world. Even to say it in private is risky for administration officials since they would run afoul of the pro-Israeli forces and that means the end of their career sooner than later.
But the US, by maintaining its stand that it is up to Israel to do what it deems fit to defend itself, is only reaping more Arab and Muslim hostility — if indeed there is anymore room in that department.
The key flaw in the US argument is very visible: Had it not been for the almost unlimited US support in all aspects, Israel would not have come this far and be fortified with the military capability and political-diplomatic protection and immunity against international action to do what it is doing today in Lebanon and Palestine.
The US have very little credibility worth the description in the Middle East. It started losing it in the early 70s, and every action it took in the region further eroded its standing among the Arab and Muslim masses since then. Administration officials and spin-masters should know within themselves that they are kidding only themselves — and a diminishing number of American citizens — when they talk about their desire and commitment to see just, fair, honorable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. The region's people know that the kind of peace that the US would like to see is the kind of peace Israel wants to have and impose on the Arabs and Palestinians. It has nothing to do with justice, fairness, honour and comprehensiveness, but simply based on Israel's military might which its leaders believe is the answer to all problems in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course, many of the present administration officials would say so once they are out of office, but, today, that is not going to help anyone.
With the latest crisis in the Middle East, the US has clearly signalled that it is firmly entrenched on the Israeli side of the fence and helping the Jewish state achieve its strategic objectives (not that it needed any affirmation, but Washington did so by not only condoning the Israeli offensive but also preventing everyone else from doing anything to end the suffering of the victims of the Jewish state).
Again, the US is kidding only itself if it believes that things would be back to "normal" and it would be business as usual once the present crises in Palestine and Lebanon are settled (in Israel's favour of course).
No argument is going to help assuage the grief, fury and frustration of the people who lost their loved ones and suffered themselves and found their life shattered beyond repair as a result of Israeli action. For many, it might not even make anymore sense in continuing to live and they represent an ideal breeding and recruiting ground for extremists waging an all-out international war against the US.
It is not an exclusive American problem. The US might (or might not) be able to protect itself in its territory, but not only the Middle East but also the rest of the world will have to pay for fallout of extremism fuelled by American actions.
That is where the US has a responsibility towards the international community to do what it could to put an immediate end to the Israeli offensive. But that is not an end in itself. Washington also has the responsibility and obligation to the world community to launch an all-out, no-holds-barred effort to work out a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It would be yet another grave mistake on the part of Washington if it continues to ignore the realities and truth and to feign positions that are as fake as a $3 bill.
Manipulated, yet again!!
July 19 2006
THE UN is said to propose deployment of Lebanese army soldiers and enlargement of an international force in southern Lebanon as the way to end the Israeli-Hizbollah fighting. Obviously, the idea represents the world body's effort to shift itself away from the real responsibility it faces in the crises — that is working towards a real solution to the root conflict of the crises in the region today.
Indeed, the idea is simple as simple could be. Under all normal circumstances, the authorised security forces of a country should indeed be in charge of the country's borders. Therefore suggesting that the Lebanese military should be in charge of Lebanon's borders is very much within the international norms.
But then, we know that international norms are selectively applied, particularly in the Middle East, with the UN being often turned into an unwitting pawn in the hands of big powers. And that is what we are witnessing today. That the situation in Lebanon has no comparison anywhere makes it all the more imperative that any proposal to address the crisis there should include a well-thoughtout strategy to pre-empt similar crises.
Whoever has thought of the idea of sending the Lebanese army to take charge of the country's borders should realise that it would only inflame the situaiton instead of calming it.
In political terms, critics are bound to describe the plan as the US way to have Lebanese soldiers protect Israeli borders and prevent cross-border attacks by Hizbollah. In simple terms, if the proposal is accepted and implemented, the Lebanese army would be actually replacing the now-defunct South Lebanon Army (SLA), which acted as a shield for Israel in southern Lebanon.
At this point in time, it cannot be denied that there is some form of co-ordination and understanding between Hizbollah and the Lebanese army. It is this relationship that is being targeted by the UN proposal (or whoever thought of it and cooked it). The moment the Lebanese army is deployed as a buffer between Hizbollah positions and the Israeli border, it would be branded as a traitor to the Arab cause. The army would become the target of attacks by Hizbollah, which has undertaken the self-assumed task of turning the situation into a make-or-break point in Arab resistance against Israel.
The UN is also suggesting that the existing UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) be expanded and given an expanded mandate — meaning authority to open fire as UNIFIL commanders deem fit and as situations warrant. Well, that is also a non-starter since there are many limitations on a UN peacekeeping force when it comes to military action. UNIFIL's history is particularly sad. A look at the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and what followed in the more than two decades since then would clearly indicate the ineffectiveness of UN peacekeepers in situations of actual armed conflict.
It is not difficult to envisage the situation on the Lebanese-Israeli border if the UN proposal is adopted (and indeed if Hizbollah agrees to accept and abide by it). The Lebanese army would be in frontline positions on the border, followed by the UN force whose task would be to prevent Hizbollah fighters from reaching the frontline positions.
Of course, there could be many different scenarios on the ground, but there is little doubt that the UN is being manipulated, yet again.
The very fact that the mighty Security Council discussed the crisis in Lebanon for three days without issuing a statement speaks volumes of the politics at play in the corridors of the UN. Does it take any deliberation to call for an immediate end to military action that is targeting civilians on either side? Or is it that a UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire does not suit Israeli interests?
No one could be blamed for assuming that the big powers want to give Israel enough time to achieve its goal of destroying Hizbollah by wreaking havoc in Lebanon, killing people at will and demolishing infrastructure to the point — as Israel hopes — that Lebanese would start denouncing the Shiite group and distance themselves away from it.
We don't know what kind of support the reported UN proposal for Lebanon has in the Security Council or when it could come up for serious discussions and perhaps even adoption by the big powers. Indeed, it might not be adopted at all. However, what we do know is that the timing of debate on the proposal — or the absence of debate in itself — would be made suitable to give Israel enough leeway to accomplish whatever it seeks to accomplish in Lebanon. It is a different matter whether the realities on the ground in Lebanon would help Israel along the way.
THE UN is said to propose deployment of Lebanese army soldiers and enlargement of an international force in southern Lebanon as the way to end the Israeli-Hizbollah fighting. Obviously, the idea represents the world body's effort to shift itself away from the real responsibility it faces in the crises — that is working towards a real solution to the root conflict of the crises in the region today.
Indeed, the idea is simple as simple could be. Under all normal circumstances, the authorised security forces of a country should indeed be in charge of the country's borders. Therefore suggesting that the Lebanese military should be in charge of Lebanon's borders is very much within the international norms.
But then, we know that international norms are selectively applied, particularly in the Middle East, with the UN being often turned into an unwitting pawn in the hands of big powers. And that is what we are witnessing today. That the situation in Lebanon has no comparison anywhere makes it all the more imperative that any proposal to address the crisis there should include a well-thoughtout strategy to pre-empt similar crises.
Whoever has thought of the idea of sending the Lebanese army to take charge of the country's borders should realise that it would only inflame the situaiton instead of calming it.
In political terms, critics are bound to describe the plan as the US way to have Lebanese soldiers protect Israeli borders and prevent cross-border attacks by Hizbollah. In simple terms, if the proposal is accepted and implemented, the Lebanese army would be actually replacing the now-defunct South Lebanon Army (SLA), which acted as a shield for Israel in southern Lebanon.
At this point in time, it cannot be denied that there is some form of co-ordination and understanding between Hizbollah and the Lebanese army. It is this relationship that is being targeted by the UN proposal (or whoever thought of it and cooked it). The moment the Lebanese army is deployed as a buffer between Hizbollah positions and the Israeli border, it would be branded as a traitor to the Arab cause. The army would become the target of attacks by Hizbollah, which has undertaken the self-assumed task of turning the situation into a make-or-break point in Arab resistance against Israel.
The UN is also suggesting that the existing UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) be expanded and given an expanded mandate — meaning authority to open fire as UNIFIL commanders deem fit and as situations warrant. Well, that is also a non-starter since there are many limitations on a UN peacekeeping force when it comes to military action. UNIFIL's history is particularly sad. A look at the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and what followed in the more than two decades since then would clearly indicate the ineffectiveness of UN peacekeepers in situations of actual armed conflict.
It is not difficult to envisage the situation on the Lebanese-Israeli border if the UN proposal is adopted (and indeed if Hizbollah agrees to accept and abide by it). The Lebanese army would be in frontline positions on the border, followed by the UN force whose task would be to prevent Hizbollah fighters from reaching the frontline positions.
Of course, there could be many different scenarios on the ground, but there is little doubt that the UN is being manipulated, yet again.
The very fact that the mighty Security Council discussed the crisis in Lebanon for three days without issuing a statement speaks volumes of the politics at play in the corridors of the UN. Does it take any deliberation to call for an immediate end to military action that is targeting civilians on either side? Or is it that a UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire does not suit Israeli interests?
No one could be blamed for assuming that the big powers want to give Israel enough time to achieve its goal of destroying Hizbollah by wreaking havoc in Lebanon, killing people at will and demolishing infrastructure to the point — as Israel hopes — that Lebanese would start denouncing the Shiite group and distance themselves away from it.
We don't know what kind of support the reported UN proposal for Lebanon has in the Security Council or when it could come up for serious discussions and perhaps even adoption by the big powers. Indeed, it might not be adopted at all. However, what we do know is that the timing of debate on the proposal — or the absence of debate in itself — would be made suitable to give Israel enough leeway to accomplish whatever it seeks to accomplish in Lebanon. It is a different matter whether the realities on the ground in Lebanon would help Israel along the way.
Neocons fading out?
June 19, 2006
"The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of. It's not inconceivable that, with a run of sheer good luck, we might yet escape without too much egg on our faces, but it's not likely."
That is how John Derbyshire, a one-time neoconservative who ardently pushed for the war against Iraq, presents a reformed view of the administration's approach to Iraq.
Derbyshire's description of the key players — Powell is out of the game though — apart, the summary he presented in a article in National Review accurately reflects the crisis that the US faces in Iraq.
It is not Derbyshire alone from the neocons who feels that way. Several others have spoken up before him and have quit the neocon camp, perhaps because they want to put as much distance as possible between them and the warmongers who they believe could be held to account at some point, sooner than later, for nudging their country to the abyss that is today's Iraq.
An overview of the neocon camp show that either they believe they have done completed their mission — US domination of Iraq — and are disbanding, or they are deserting the ship ahead of stormy waters. These are two theories attributed to the apparent inactivity of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the core neoconservative group that planned, plotted and persuaded the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq as the first phase of a grandoise Israel-centric plan for the Middle East..
The PNAC was founded in 1997. The list of its founders and members reads like a "who's who in Washington" under the Bush administration. They could be better described as — in the words of Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service — aggressive nationalists, Christian Zionists of the religious right, and Israel-centred neoconservatives.
The list includes William Kristol, Gary Schmitt, Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz; Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad; Peter Rodman, Richard Perle and Jeb Bush.
In 1998, members of the PNAC, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, wrote to then president Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the (1991) Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argued that an Iraq war would be justified by Saddam's defiance of the UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
In 2000, the group drew up a report — "America's Defences" — which said in part that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification (for US military presence), the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
The war campaigners had to wait until 2001 — when George W Bush took over the White House — in order to set in motion the plan that they had drawn up: Invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein, instal a US-friendly regime in Baghdad that would take care of the people of Iraq, launch action — political, diplmatic and limited military strikes — against Iran, bring about "regime change" in Tehran, and consolidate American military presence in the Gulf in order to call the shots in the region.
In a letter sent to Bush on Sept.20, 2001, nine days after the aerial attacks in New York and Washington, called for the ouster of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and elimination of Al Qaeda as well as waging a broader "war on terrorism" targeting the Palestinian liberation movement led by Yasser Arafat, destroying Lebanon's Hizbollah, bringing Syria and Iran to heel, and, most importantly, ousting Saddam regardless of whether he had any ties with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Sept.11 attacks.
"Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an important part of our victory," the letter stated. "For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."
The letter was signed by Kristol, Kagan, Perle, Woolsey and Eliot Cohen, Centre for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, former education secretary William Bennett, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Foundation for the Defence of Democracies director Clifford May among others.
While these planned moves were projected as aimed at strengthening American supremacy of the globe, the PNAC was mainly seeking to serve Israel's quest for domination of the Middle East by removing the Jewish state's strongest Arab and Muslim challengers.
Even those neocons who have jumped ship are steering clear of mentioning the Israeli element in the agenda for war against Iraq and Iran. Obviously, they are aware that running foul of Israel means ruining themselves. They have seen it inevitably happening to anyone and everyone of value in US politics.
The PNAC went on a decline when it became clear that its "recommendation" had placed the US is a precarious position: It was being sucked deeper into the Iraqi embroglio, with American casualties rising every day, and it was also rendered in a position not to advance the neocon plans for Iran.
Infighting started in the PNAC, with one group targeting Rumsfeld for bitter criticism for not having sent enough forces to Iraq to pre-empt the insurgency and for having placed too much faith in Iraqi exiles who had claimed they would have whole-hearted and unreserved support of the Iraqis in post-Saddam Iraq.
The internal fueds led to a debate on the group's future. Some argued that its "mission" was accomplished and therefore it is desired that the group is closed down, particularly in view of the fallout among its members.
According to reports in the US press, including the Washington Post, the PNAC has issued any official announcement since late last year. There is no one to answer the PNAC telephones in Washington since January.
The Post quoted one unidentified source as saying that the group was "heading towards closing" with the feeling of "goal accomplished."
"The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of. It's not inconceivable that, with a run of sheer good luck, we might yet escape without too much egg on our faces, but it's not likely."
That is how John Derbyshire, a one-time neoconservative who ardently pushed for the war against Iraq, presents a reformed view of the administration's approach to Iraq.
Derbyshire's description of the key players — Powell is out of the game though — apart, the summary he presented in a article in National Review accurately reflects the crisis that the US faces in Iraq.
It is not Derbyshire alone from the neocons who feels that way. Several others have spoken up before him and have quit the neocon camp, perhaps because they want to put as much distance as possible between them and the warmongers who they believe could be held to account at some point, sooner than later, for nudging their country to the abyss that is today's Iraq.
An overview of the neocon camp show that either they believe they have done completed their mission — US domination of Iraq — and are disbanding, or they are deserting the ship ahead of stormy waters. These are two theories attributed to the apparent inactivity of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the core neoconservative group that planned, plotted and persuaded the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq as the first phase of a grandoise Israel-centric plan for the Middle East..
The PNAC was founded in 1997. The list of its founders and members reads like a "who's who in Washington" under the Bush administration. They could be better described as — in the words of Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service — aggressive nationalists, Christian Zionists of the religious right, and Israel-centred neoconservatives.
The list includes William Kristol, Gary Schmitt, Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz; Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad; Peter Rodman, Richard Perle and Jeb Bush.
In 1998, members of the PNAC, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, wrote to then president Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the (1991) Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argued that an Iraq war would be justified by Saddam's defiance of the UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
In 2000, the group drew up a report — "America's Defences" — which said in part that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification (for US military presence), the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
The war campaigners had to wait until 2001 — when George W Bush took over the White House — in order to set in motion the plan that they had drawn up: Invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein, instal a US-friendly regime in Baghdad that would take care of the people of Iraq, launch action — political, diplmatic and limited military strikes — against Iran, bring about "regime change" in Tehran, and consolidate American military presence in the Gulf in order to call the shots in the region.
In a letter sent to Bush on Sept.20, 2001, nine days after the aerial attacks in New York and Washington, called for the ouster of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and elimination of Al Qaeda as well as waging a broader "war on terrorism" targeting the Palestinian liberation movement led by Yasser Arafat, destroying Lebanon's Hizbollah, bringing Syria and Iran to heel, and, most importantly, ousting Saddam regardless of whether he had any ties with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Sept.11 attacks.
"Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an important part of our victory," the letter stated. "For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."
The letter was signed by Kristol, Kagan, Perle, Woolsey and Eliot Cohen, Centre for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, former education secretary William Bennett, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Foundation for the Defence of Democracies director Clifford May among others.
While these planned moves were projected as aimed at strengthening American supremacy of the globe, the PNAC was mainly seeking to serve Israel's quest for domination of the Middle East by removing the Jewish state's strongest Arab and Muslim challengers.
Even those neocons who have jumped ship are steering clear of mentioning the Israeli element in the agenda for war against Iraq and Iran. Obviously, they are aware that running foul of Israel means ruining themselves. They have seen it inevitably happening to anyone and everyone of value in US politics.
The PNAC went on a decline when it became clear that its "recommendation" had placed the US is a precarious position: It was being sucked deeper into the Iraqi embroglio, with American casualties rising every day, and it was also rendered in a position not to advance the neocon plans for Iran.
Infighting started in the PNAC, with one group targeting Rumsfeld for bitter criticism for not having sent enough forces to Iraq to pre-empt the insurgency and for having placed too much faith in Iraqi exiles who had claimed they would have whole-hearted and unreserved support of the Iraqis in post-Saddam Iraq.
The internal fueds led to a debate on the group's future. Some argued that its "mission" was accomplished and therefore it is desired that the group is closed down, particularly in view of the fallout among its members.
According to reports in the US press, including the Washington Post, the PNAC has issued any official announcement since late last year. There is no one to answer the PNAC telephones in Washington since January.
The Post quoted one unidentified source as saying that the group was "heading towards closing" with the feeling of "goal accomplished."
The reality that US wants to shroud
June 18, 2006
THE US contends that foreign extremists are waging a hatred-based blind war against it in Iraq. It deliberately underplays the reality that it is the American and allied foreign military presence there is the main cause for the insecurity and instability that have become part of life in the beleaguered country.
Iraq did not go to the US. The US came to Iraq on its free will and now finds itself having caught a tiger by the tail. Washington is now hoping that something dramatic could happen that would ease the pressure it is finding itself under in Iraq. In the meantime, it continues to argue that international terrorists bent upon inflicting as much damage to the US for the sake of doing it are behind the insurgency in Iraq.
The US military has never released an accurate account of the insurgents killed and detained in the more than three-year guerrilla war, but experts accounts say that less than 10 per cent of them were non-Iraqi. That would clearly establish that it is a home-grown insurgency that is raging in Iraq against foreign presence.
Washington would never accept it. It would never agree that the people of Iraq no longer see the US forces there as liberators and are anxious to see the back of foreign soldiers. Instead, it would continue to insist that battling the insurgency is central to the US-led international war against terror and turning away from it would mean giving ground to terrorists.
Never mind that Iraq was never or is a breeding ground for terrorists going around the world staging or even threatening to carry out terror attacks.
Never mind that a large number of Iraqis resent the "jihadist" presence among them as much as they resent the foreign military presence in their country.
Never mind that the people of post-war Iraq have seen and are living through worse atrocities than they suffered under the Baathist regime.
Never mind that the people of Iraq are living in perpetual terror, and are scraping through adverse living conditions — minimal supplies of water, food and power — and with little employment opportunities except in the security forces (with all the dangers the job carries).
Never mind that the people of Iraq could not step out of their homes without fear of getting shot or arrested for whatever reason, and they could not have peace at home since a military or extremist knock could come anytime. Their homes could be stormed anytime by gunmen in government uniforms, with men being taken away, only to be discovered tortured and murdered the next day in the streets The average for May was 45). They could even be shot to death for simply being Iraqis (as we have seen in Haditha, Ishaqi and other towns) or be hauled away and tortured under detention (as we have seen in Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons in post-war Iraq).
Washington continues to argue that freeing Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003 and installing an elected government there more than three years later was the best thing that could ever happen to the people of Iraq and they should remain eternally grateful to the US; and they should also accep that whatever the US does is for their good, democracy, freedom, dignity and human rights — in whatever order Washington finds fit.
However, ending the US-led foreign presence at this point in time would only herald massive bloodshed and loss of life among the people of Iraq because rival groups would immediately engage each other in open warfare in a bitter battle for supremacy.
What impact did the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi have on the situation on the ground in Iraq?
Well, for one thing, experts agree, it is a relief for Iraqis since Zarqawi's departure from the scene could result in a scaling down of "jihadist" attacks targeting Iraqis. Most of Zarqawi-engineered attacks had targeted Iraqis. The number of Iraqis killed in the suicide bombings attributed to Zarqawi is at least 25 to 30 times more than the number of American soldiers who died in Zarqawi's operations.
However, hospital figures show that there has been no let-up in the number of dead bodies reaching them on a daily basis. Nor is there a decline in suicide bombings and ambushes.
As reports from Iraq indicate, Sunni groups are hoping that Zarqawi's elimination would expose to the world that the insurgency was limited to Al Qaeda.
The US, and indeed the Arab World and the broader world community find themselves in a catch-22 situation:
As long as the US military presence continues in Iraq, there would not be an end to the insurgency directed at creating instability and making the country ungovernable for the US-backed Shiite-majority government (The results of any election would not be much different to make a real difference than those of the polls held in December). And if the US quits Iraq (which is highly unlikely), then there would be open civil war in the country pitting the 17-to-20 per cent Sunnis against the 58-per-cent-to-60-per-cent Shiites, with external forces from within the region and afar seeking to exploit the chaos.
What is going on Iraq now is a civil war indeed but by any other name, given the number of daily deaths and frequency of attacks even in the face of a massive security crackdown launched last week. The US military presence is perhaps even a check against the situation degenerating into a free-for-all settling of scores in the streets, a definite possiblity if American and other foreign soldiers start leaving the country without firming up a popular system of governance and a strong security system with enough force to back up the system (Indeed, that is one of the justifications and reasons cited by the US to explain its continued presence in the country).
On the surface and under the geopolitical imperatives, there does not seem to be any way out except that dictated by the US at whatever cost to itself and the people of Iraq. However, ways could present themselves if there is a political will in Washington to accept without reservation that the neoconservative designs for Iraq have gone dreadfully wrong and that the US has to make compromises over its pre-war objectives in Iraq. More importantly, the US will have to agree to be transparent in all its future dealing with the crisis and accept a prominent role for the regional and international community in working out a solution. Simply put, the US has to let go of Iraq as a strategic prize and let the world take the lead in trying to solve the crisis in the interest of peace and stability not only in Iraq but in the region at large, and Washington should be ready to pay the costs of repairing the damage it did when it ordered its military into Iraq.
It is wishful thinking. The US will never be amenable to any such idea simply because the US believes in itself too much. However, that should not be a dampner for the rest of the world to come up with ideas — unprecedented and dramatic as they might be because the situation in Iraq is also unprecedented and dramatic — and go public with them so that no one could argue they were not told there were ways out of the quagmire.
THE US contends that foreign extremists are waging a hatred-based blind war against it in Iraq. It deliberately underplays the reality that it is the American and allied foreign military presence there is the main cause for the insecurity and instability that have become part of life in the beleaguered country.
Iraq did not go to the US. The US came to Iraq on its free will and now finds itself having caught a tiger by the tail. Washington is now hoping that something dramatic could happen that would ease the pressure it is finding itself under in Iraq. In the meantime, it continues to argue that international terrorists bent upon inflicting as much damage to the US for the sake of doing it are behind the insurgency in Iraq.
The US military has never released an accurate account of the insurgents killed and detained in the more than three-year guerrilla war, but experts accounts say that less than 10 per cent of them were non-Iraqi. That would clearly establish that it is a home-grown insurgency that is raging in Iraq against foreign presence.
Washington would never accept it. It would never agree that the people of Iraq no longer see the US forces there as liberators and are anxious to see the back of foreign soldiers. Instead, it would continue to insist that battling the insurgency is central to the US-led international war against terror and turning away from it would mean giving ground to terrorists.
Never mind that Iraq was never or is a breeding ground for terrorists going around the world staging or even threatening to carry out terror attacks.
Never mind that a large number of Iraqis resent the "jihadist" presence among them as much as they resent the foreign military presence in their country.
Never mind that the people of post-war Iraq have seen and are living through worse atrocities than they suffered under the Baathist regime.
Never mind that the people of Iraq are living in perpetual terror, and are scraping through adverse living conditions — minimal supplies of water, food and power — and with little employment opportunities except in the security forces (with all the dangers the job carries).
Never mind that the people of Iraq could not step out of their homes without fear of getting shot or arrested for whatever reason, and they could not have peace at home since a military or extremist knock could come anytime. Their homes could be stormed anytime by gunmen in government uniforms, with men being taken away, only to be discovered tortured and murdered the next day in the streets The average for May was 45). They could even be shot to death for simply being Iraqis (as we have seen in Haditha, Ishaqi and other towns) or be hauled away and tortured under detention (as we have seen in Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons in post-war Iraq).
Washington continues to argue that freeing Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003 and installing an elected government there more than three years later was the best thing that could ever happen to the people of Iraq and they should remain eternally grateful to the US; and they should also accep that whatever the US does is for their good, democracy, freedom, dignity and human rights — in whatever order Washington finds fit.
However, ending the US-led foreign presence at this point in time would only herald massive bloodshed and loss of life among the people of Iraq because rival groups would immediately engage each other in open warfare in a bitter battle for supremacy.
What impact did the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi have on the situation on the ground in Iraq?
Well, for one thing, experts agree, it is a relief for Iraqis since Zarqawi's departure from the scene could result in a scaling down of "jihadist" attacks targeting Iraqis. Most of Zarqawi-engineered attacks had targeted Iraqis. The number of Iraqis killed in the suicide bombings attributed to Zarqawi is at least 25 to 30 times more than the number of American soldiers who died in Zarqawi's operations.
However, hospital figures show that there has been no let-up in the number of dead bodies reaching them on a daily basis. Nor is there a decline in suicide bombings and ambushes.
As reports from Iraq indicate, Sunni groups are hoping that Zarqawi's elimination would expose to the world that the insurgency was limited to Al Qaeda.
The US, and indeed the Arab World and the broader world community find themselves in a catch-22 situation:
As long as the US military presence continues in Iraq, there would not be an end to the insurgency directed at creating instability and making the country ungovernable for the US-backed Shiite-majority government (The results of any election would not be much different to make a real difference than those of the polls held in December). And if the US quits Iraq (which is highly unlikely), then there would be open civil war in the country pitting the 17-to-20 per cent Sunnis against the 58-per-cent-to-60-per-cent Shiites, with external forces from within the region and afar seeking to exploit the chaos.
What is going on Iraq now is a civil war indeed but by any other name, given the number of daily deaths and frequency of attacks even in the face of a massive security crackdown launched last week. The US military presence is perhaps even a check against the situation degenerating into a free-for-all settling of scores in the streets, a definite possiblity if American and other foreign soldiers start leaving the country without firming up a popular system of governance and a strong security system with enough force to back up the system (Indeed, that is one of the justifications and reasons cited by the US to explain its continued presence in the country).
On the surface and under the geopolitical imperatives, there does not seem to be any way out except that dictated by the US at whatever cost to itself and the people of Iraq. However, ways could present themselves if there is a political will in Washington to accept without reservation that the neoconservative designs for Iraq have gone dreadfully wrong and that the US has to make compromises over its pre-war objectives in Iraq. More importantly, the US will have to agree to be transparent in all its future dealing with the crisis and accept a prominent role for the regional and international community in working out a solution. Simply put, the US has to let go of Iraq as a strategic prize and let the world take the lead in trying to solve the crisis in the interest of peace and stability not only in Iraq but in the region at large, and Washington should be ready to pay the costs of repairing the damage it did when it ordered its military into Iraq.
It is wishful thinking. The US will never be amenable to any such idea simply because the US believes in itself too much. However, that should not be a dampner for the rest of the world to come up with ideas — unprecedented and dramatic as they might be because the situation in Iraq is also unprecedented and dramatic — and go public with them so that no one could argue they were not told there were ways out of the quagmire.
Leave the Somalis alone
June 17 2006
NOTWITHSTANDING all the reservations that are coupled with any group reported to be religiously overzealous, the consolidation of territorial control of Somalia by an Islamist group could be the next-to-best thing that could have happened to the Horn of Africa country in more than 15 years.
For the first time since 1991, a single group has gained control of most the country, with warlords supposedly backed by the US having fled for their life after several weeks of fighting that killed more tha 350. Two of the warlords are said to have been picked up by a waiting US military ship, and this strengthens the claim by the victorious Union of Islamic Courts that their groups were funded and supported by Washington.
Be that as it may, the Islamist forces seem to be proceeding with determination to restore calm and order to the country for the first time after the ouster of dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991.
Lawlessness is the worst curse that Somalia is going through.
The country does have an interim government, which had to position itself in the town of Baidoa, some 150 kilometres from the capital Mogadishu, in view of its lack of muscle power to enforce its decisions.
Although the Union of Islamist Courts — which transcends tribalism and clan politics, the root cause for instability in the country — has imposed Islamic Sharia law in areas that fell into its control, it has said that it does not want to set up a government of its own and is open to work out an alliance with the UN-supported interim government.
They have declared that they are capable of securing Mogadishu to host the government but opposes its plan to deploy foreign peacekeepers in the country. They have called on the United Nations and African Union to let Somalis settle the situation themselves.
An indication of the group's confidence came in the form of an invitation to foreign journalists to visit Mogadishu for the first time since the Islamists trounced the so-called secular warlords.
The Islamists have also reached out to the diplomatic community after taking control in an obvious bid to allay fears that they harbour extremists — a charge levelled by the US administration.
They have announced plans to set up a police force, an authority to demobilise militias and a new administration "effective and accountable to its people."
These are positive indications of a turnaround in the country regardless of whatever ideology the Islamists profess.
The people of Somalia have paid a high price for their tribal politics which, more often than not, turns violent at the proverbial drop of a hat. Hopefully, the ascendence of the Islamists will herald an end to their suffering. In the meantime, foreign powers with their own agenda in the country should stay out and let the Somalis handle their affairs by themselves.
NOTWITHSTANDING all the reservations that are coupled with any group reported to be religiously overzealous, the consolidation of territorial control of Somalia by an Islamist group could be the next-to-best thing that could have happened to the Horn of Africa country in more than 15 years.
For the first time since 1991, a single group has gained control of most the country, with warlords supposedly backed by the US having fled for their life after several weeks of fighting that killed more tha 350. Two of the warlords are said to have been picked up by a waiting US military ship, and this strengthens the claim by the victorious Union of Islamic Courts that their groups were funded and supported by Washington.
Be that as it may, the Islamist forces seem to be proceeding with determination to restore calm and order to the country for the first time after the ouster of dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991.
Lawlessness is the worst curse that Somalia is going through.
The country does have an interim government, which had to position itself in the town of Baidoa, some 150 kilometres from the capital Mogadishu, in view of its lack of muscle power to enforce its decisions.
Although the Union of Islamist Courts — which transcends tribalism and clan politics, the root cause for instability in the country — has imposed Islamic Sharia law in areas that fell into its control, it has said that it does not want to set up a government of its own and is open to work out an alliance with the UN-supported interim government.
They have declared that they are capable of securing Mogadishu to host the government but opposes its plan to deploy foreign peacekeepers in the country. They have called on the United Nations and African Union to let Somalis settle the situation themselves.
An indication of the group's confidence came in the form of an invitation to foreign journalists to visit Mogadishu for the first time since the Islamists trounced the so-called secular warlords.
The Islamists have also reached out to the diplomatic community after taking control in an obvious bid to allay fears that they harbour extremists — a charge levelled by the US administration.
They have announced plans to set up a police force, an authority to demobilise militias and a new administration "effective and accountable to its people."
These are positive indications of a turnaround in the country regardless of whatever ideology the Islamists profess.
The people of Somalia have paid a high price for their tribal politics which, more often than not, turns violent at the proverbial drop of a hat. Hopefully, the ascendence of the Islamists will herald an end to their suffering. In the meantime, foreign powers with their own agenda in the country should stay out and let the Somalis handle their affairs by themselves.
Indians should have the courage
July 13, 2006
Indians should have the courage
IT WAS definitely not any provocation that had triggered the series of bombings in India's commercial capital of Mumbai on Tuesday that killed nearly 200 people and injured over 600. Careful planning had gone into the seven blasts on suburban trains in a 12-minute span during the peak commuter hour. Some pundits suggest that those behind the bombings sought to exploit the unrest sparked by the desecration of a statue of the wife of militant Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray earlier in the week. They suggest that the bombings were aimed not only at sending the government a reminder of dissent among a certain community but also stoking Shiv Sena fury leading to communal riots in the city of more than 16 million people. That has not happened, and, by all accounts, the residents of Mumbai rose up in unity to deal with the aftermath of the bombings.
Thousands came out not only to help rush the victims of the blasts to hospital but also to extend a helping hand to those stranded in the streets as a result of the disruption of the suburban train system — Mumbai's lifeline that is used by more than six million people every day. People were there on the streets with water, refreshments and food for those who were stuck on traffic-clogged roads for hours. That is the greatness of a city like Mumbai where everyone is not only aware that he or she could be caught in a similar or even worse situation anytime but is also compassionate to step in and help each other in times of crisis. Equally importantly, they also realise that they are facing a common enemy who is trying to spark chaos in the society by fuelling communal sentiments. That is not limited to residents of Mumbai either. A majority of the people of India have come to accept that internal as well as external forces are working to undermine their dreams leading of a decent and dignified life if only because that achievement would help unleash the full potential of the country in the regional and international scenes.
Indian security and intelligence agencies have their jobs cut out for them. They might or might not be able to get the facts right and bust the case and bring the perpetrators to book. Terrorism has to be confronted ruthlessly whenever and wherever it occurs. So let them do their job, but we do hope that the end result of their work would not add fuel to the fire by targeting the wrong people.
Parallel to that, the Mumbai bombings must be seen in the wider context of the festering conflicts in the sub-continent.
India, a country of nearly 1.1 billion people which has emerged as a regional powerhouse — in all respects — is indeed a world leader in many aspects. It is a pity — to say the least — that the world's largest democracy has not been able to produce fair and just solutions to problems such as minority conflicts. In the absence of solutions, there are groups continuously plotting attacks and carrying them out whenever they determine that the time is opportune enough to do so. They do not need any specific incident or development to stage attacks.
That is a reality facing the country's leadership regardless of political or religious ideologies of those in legislative and executive power. There is little they could do about stopping militant groups which could spring up in any part of the country at any given point in time and inflict harm on the society as we saw on Tuesday in Mumbai. Those in power and in position of influence have to live with the truth that such attacks could happen anywhere anytime. The only way to counter the perpetual threat is to get to the roots of conflicts and problems that are breeding extremism and address them in a comprehensive and durable manner. Surely, India has enough intelligent and matured politicians and strategists to work out and pursue a course of action away from narrow political interests that block fair and just compromises that serve the broader national interests and help redivert precious human and material resources back into the development process. As long as the mindset to tackle the bull by the horns is missing in the circles that wield power as well as those who oppose them for the sake of opposition in the name of political expediency, they should be mentally prepared to confront repetitions of Tuesday's carnage in Mumbai.
At the same time, it is also our fervent hope that communal interests, from any part of the vast mosaic that is India, would open their eyes and refrain from throwing a spanner in the works of healing rifts and finding permanent solutions to the festering problems, whether in the north, south, east or west of the great nation.
Indians should have the courage
IT WAS definitely not any provocation that had triggered the series of bombings in India's commercial capital of Mumbai on Tuesday that killed nearly 200 people and injured over 600. Careful planning had gone into the seven blasts on suburban trains in a 12-minute span during the peak commuter hour. Some pundits suggest that those behind the bombings sought to exploit the unrest sparked by the desecration of a statue of the wife of militant Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray earlier in the week. They suggest that the bombings were aimed not only at sending the government a reminder of dissent among a certain community but also stoking Shiv Sena fury leading to communal riots in the city of more than 16 million people. That has not happened, and, by all accounts, the residents of Mumbai rose up in unity to deal with the aftermath of the bombings.
Thousands came out not only to help rush the victims of the blasts to hospital but also to extend a helping hand to those stranded in the streets as a result of the disruption of the suburban train system — Mumbai's lifeline that is used by more than six million people every day. People were there on the streets with water, refreshments and food for those who were stuck on traffic-clogged roads for hours. That is the greatness of a city like Mumbai where everyone is not only aware that he or she could be caught in a similar or even worse situation anytime but is also compassionate to step in and help each other in times of crisis. Equally importantly, they also realise that they are facing a common enemy who is trying to spark chaos in the society by fuelling communal sentiments. That is not limited to residents of Mumbai either. A majority of the people of India have come to accept that internal as well as external forces are working to undermine their dreams leading of a decent and dignified life if only because that achievement would help unleash the full potential of the country in the regional and international scenes.
Indian security and intelligence agencies have their jobs cut out for them. They might or might not be able to get the facts right and bust the case and bring the perpetrators to book. Terrorism has to be confronted ruthlessly whenever and wherever it occurs. So let them do their job, but we do hope that the end result of their work would not add fuel to the fire by targeting the wrong people.
Parallel to that, the Mumbai bombings must be seen in the wider context of the festering conflicts in the sub-continent.
India, a country of nearly 1.1 billion people which has emerged as a regional powerhouse — in all respects — is indeed a world leader in many aspects. It is a pity — to say the least — that the world's largest democracy has not been able to produce fair and just solutions to problems such as minority conflicts. In the absence of solutions, there are groups continuously plotting attacks and carrying them out whenever they determine that the time is opportune enough to do so. They do not need any specific incident or development to stage attacks.
That is a reality facing the country's leadership regardless of political or religious ideologies of those in legislative and executive power. There is little they could do about stopping militant groups which could spring up in any part of the country at any given point in time and inflict harm on the society as we saw on Tuesday in Mumbai. Those in power and in position of influence have to live with the truth that such attacks could happen anywhere anytime. The only way to counter the perpetual threat is to get to the roots of conflicts and problems that are breeding extremism and address them in a comprehensive and durable manner. Surely, India has enough intelligent and matured politicians and strategists to work out and pursue a course of action away from narrow political interests that block fair and just compromises that serve the broader national interests and help redivert precious human and material resources back into the development process. As long as the mindset to tackle the bull by the horns is missing in the circles that wield power as well as those who oppose them for the sake of opposition in the name of political expediency, they should be mentally prepared to confront repetitions of Tuesday's carnage in Mumbai.
At the same time, it is also our fervent hope that communal interests, from any part of the vast mosaic that is India, would open their eyes and refrain from throwing a spanner in the works of healing rifts and finding permanent solutions to the festering problems, whether in the north, south, east or west of the great nation.
Conflicting but intentional signals
July 19 2006
ISRAEL is sending conflicting signals about its intentions in Palestine and Hizbollah, but it should not be confusing at all to anyone. Military sources talking about ending the offensive in Lebanon by end of this week as well as reports preparations for a long drawn-out conflict are all deliberately placed with a view to allowing Israel to achieve its objective of demolishing organised resistance to its designs.
The ambiguity about whether US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to the region win order to help find a solution to the crises in Palestine and Lebanon also also seems to be deliberate.
One thing is clear: Israel does not have any plans to reoccupy the Gaza Strip or to set up a military presence in Lebanese territory. On both counts, Israel would be the loser. For many years, successive Israeli government had found it difficult to continue to occupy the Gaza Strip and had wanted to get rid of the territory from its control because of the high cost — in all aspects — of the coastal strip. Having withdrawn from Gaza last year, the Israeli army does not want to do anything with controlling the territory from within.
Similarly, Israel would not want to return to the status quo that prevailed before its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 1999 in the face of fierce and effective resistance from Hizbollah.
Given these realities, Israel's objective is to apply as much pressure as possible with a view to cornering Hizbollah, both politically and militarily, and forcing it to release the two captive Israeli soldiers. The same applies to the Palestinian Hamas group.
However, neither Hizbollah nor Hamas is willing to allow that to happen because they are aware that the outcome of the present conflicts would determine the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is particularly so in the case of Lebanon. A perceived triumph for Hizbollah — Israel agreeing to negotiate a prisoner exchange — would boost Hamas and other Palestinian groups waging armed resistance in Palestine, and this would mean a hardening of positions in any future scenario.
On the other hand, Hizbollah succumbing to Israeli and Western pressure would weaken Palestinian resistance, and that is what the Jewish state is aiming for at this point in time.
Against the backdrop of the declared and perceived objectives of the Israeli offensives in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the civilians are paying a high price in both areas.
The international community — as represented by world governments — is more preoccupied, quite understandably so from an external vantage point, with getting their people out of harm's way in Lebanon than giving prioritty to saving the civilians caught in the crossfire.
All justifications and explanations apart, it is as if the world has given a free hand for Israel to deal with the situation the way it finds fit, and its way is through gunbarrels and missile launchers.
Hizbollah and Hamas — plus of course Syria and Iran — are blamed for provoking the Israelis into military action. That might indeed be a just argument, but that is only a side view. Something had to happen in order to break the stalemate in the Middle East after Hamas came to power through the Palestinian ballot box early this year, and that is what has happened. The free world, which has little option to do what it should be doing in the face of the protective umbrella over Israel, could not be blamed for taking a ringside seat and watching the developments that have followed and are still to come. But the Arab World cannot do that. The Arabs have to take decisive action in order to ensure that the outcome of the ongoing crises would be tailored to suit Israeli interests and would instead lead to a collective international awakening to the reality that enough is enough in the Middle East. The crises may be resolved with short-term agreements — such as a stabilisation force in Lebanon — but that should not be an end in itself. Serious and determined action should be undertaken that would do away with any reason for similar crises to reoccur. The way to that goal is only through a just and fair Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The Arabs, with help from friendly countries, should work towards pressuring the world not only to take first steps on the long way but also to ensure that the international community remains with them all along. The present crises offers an opportunity to do so.
ISRAEL is sending conflicting signals about its intentions in Palestine and Hizbollah, but it should not be confusing at all to anyone. Military sources talking about ending the offensive in Lebanon by end of this week as well as reports preparations for a long drawn-out conflict are all deliberately placed with a view to allowing Israel to achieve its objective of demolishing organised resistance to its designs.
The ambiguity about whether US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to the region win order to help find a solution to the crises in Palestine and Lebanon also also seems to be deliberate.
One thing is clear: Israel does not have any plans to reoccupy the Gaza Strip or to set up a military presence in Lebanese territory. On both counts, Israel would be the loser. For many years, successive Israeli government had found it difficult to continue to occupy the Gaza Strip and had wanted to get rid of the territory from its control because of the high cost — in all aspects — of the coastal strip. Having withdrawn from Gaza last year, the Israeli army does not want to do anything with controlling the territory from within.
Similarly, Israel would not want to return to the status quo that prevailed before its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 1999 in the face of fierce and effective resistance from Hizbollah.
Given these realities, Israel's objective is to apply as much pressure as possible with a view to cornering Hizbollah, both politically and militarily, and forcing it to release the two captive Israeli soldiers. The same applies to the Palestinian Hamas group.
However, neither Hizbollah nor Hamas is willing to allow that to happen because they are aware that the outcome of the present conflicts would determine the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is particularly so in the case of Lebanon. A perceived triumph for Hizbollah — Israel agreeing to negotiate a prisoner exchange — would boost Hamas and other Palestinian groups waging armed resistance in Palestine, and this would mean a hardening of positions in any future scenario.
On the other hand, Hizbollah succumbing to Israeli and Western pressure would weaken Palestinian resistance, and that is what the Jewish state is aiming for at this point in time.
Against the backdrop of the declared and perceived objectives of the Israeli offensives in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the civilians are paying a high price in both areas.
The international community — as represented by world governments — is more preoccupied, quite understandably so from an external vantage point, with getting their people out of harm's way in Lebanon than giving prioritty to saving the civilians caught in the crossfire.
All justifications and explanations apart, it is as if the world has given a free hand for Israel to deal with the situation the way it finds fit, and its way is through gunbarrels and missile launchers.
Hizbollah and Hamas — plus of course Syria and Iran — are blamed for provoking the Israelis into military action. That might indeed be a just argument, but that is only a side view. Something had to happen in order to break the stalemate in the Middle East after Hamas came to power through the Palestinian ballot box early this year, and that is what has happened. The free world, which has little option to do what it should be doing in the face of the protective umbrella over Israel, could not be blamed for taking a ringside seat and watching the developments that have followed and are still to come. But the Arab World cannot do that. The Arabs have to take decisive action in order to ensure that the outcome of the ongoing crises would be tailored to suit Israeli interests and would instead lead to a collective international awakening to the reality that enough is enough in the Middle East. The crises may be resolved with short-term agreements — such as a stabilisation force in Lebanon — but that should not be an end in itself. Serious and determined action should be undertaken that would do away with any reason for similar crises to reoccur. The way to that goal is only through a just and fair Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The Arabs, with help from friendly countries, should work towards pressuring the world not only to take first steps on the long way but also to ensure that the international community remains with them all along. The present crises offers an opportunity to do so.
Monday, July 10, 2006
July 10, 2006
Scepticism overshadows
US reports of terror plots
US SECURITY agencies unveiled two major "terror plots" in the last one month — one that targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago and the other the Holland Tunnel New York City. While the US media as well as international newspapers, radio and television stations gave high prominence to both reports, many also voiced scepticism and implicitly suggested that both were cases where "evidence" was exaggerated for political purposes.
The critics' conclusion is that political hawks who indirectly but effectively control security and intelligence agencies grabbed at the slimmest of suggestions of terror plots against the US and blew them out of proportion with a view to telling the American people that they remained vulnerable to terrorism linked to the Middle East, but the Republican administration is capable of preventing them. The unveiling of the purported plots come ahead of mid-term elections, they point out.
The critics also note that the revelations of the purported plots coincided with a report that Alec Station, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit responsible for tracking Osama Bin Laden since before the Sept.11, 2001 attacks, had been disbanded.
Officials claimed the unit was disbanded in 2005 and therefore there could have been no link between the closure and the revelations of "terror plots." However, members of congress say they were not informed of Alec Station's closure, undermining the official claim that the unit was indeed closed more than one year ago.
"The alleged bomb plot (against the Holland Tunnel), sources suggest, may have been to alleviate Bush administration concerns that the Alec Station story would make them appear to be weak on terror," writes Larisa Alexandrovna on www.rawstory.com.
US security officials say they busted the plot after monitoring Internet chat rooms used by militants who had used coded language to discuss a possible attack. One American official said the members of the group had never met one another.
Critics counter that terrorists do not discuss their plans in public.
'Nothing more than chatter'
Alexandrovna quotes one former intelligence field officer as saying and two other CIA officials as confirming "that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open forum already monitored extensively by the United States government."
"It is not clear this early on, however, how much of a real and immediate threat the bomb plot may have been," Alexandrovna writes.
She quotes Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and contributor to American Conservative magazine, as saying that "the so-called New York tunnel plot was a result of discussions held on an open Jihadi web site.”
Giraldi acknowledges that three suspects who have already been arrested in Lebanon and five others are being hunted elsewhere espouse extremist thinking, but "their on-line chatter is considerably overblown by allegations of an actual plot.'
“They are not professionally trained terrorists, however, and had no resources with which to carry out the operation they discussed," Giraldi says. "Despite press reports that they had asked Abu Musab Zarqawi for assistance, there is no information to confirm that. It is known that the members discussed the possibility of approaching Zarqawi but none of them knew him or had any access to him.”
Assem Hammoud who is also said to have used an alias, Amir Andalousli, is in detention in Lebanon along with two others — one is a Syrian and the other's nationality has not been revealed.
The five suspects at large are said to be a Saudi, a Yemeni, a Jordanian, a Palestinian, and an Iranian Kurd.
Experts also expose a major loophole in the assertion by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that the suspects planned to attack the Holland Tunnel under the Hudson River using suicide bombers and backpack bombs. The alleged plan was to flood lower Manhattan by attacking the tunnels and cripple the heart of the US financial district. Experts point out the tunnel is below the water level and indeed Lower Manhattan, and hence it does not make sense to believe that flooding it would flood Lower Manhattan.
“In sum, the plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street," says Giraldi, the ex-CIA expert. "There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels. As it was being monitored from the beginning of the open discussion, there was little chance anything concrete would have developed."
The alleged plot was said to be in the planning stages, and the suspects had not purchased any explosives or visited the US as part of the scheme.
In the Miami case also, suspects were arrested "before" they collected weapons and finding or even figured out the logistics necessary to carry out their purported plot to bomb the Sears Towers in Chicago.
The suspects did not have written information on how to make explosives, details on the layout of the Sears Tower or any known link to a terrorist group.
'Pre-emptive action'
However, US security officials say that they need to take pre-emptive action.
"We don't wait until someone has lit the fuse to step in," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Friday.
"It is a mistake to assume that the only terrorist that's a serious terrorist is the kind of guy you see on television, that's a kind of James Bond type," he said. "The fact of the matter is mixing a bomb in a bathtub does not take rocket science."
Asserting that someone plotted terror attacks is one thing, but proving it is yet another, legal experts point out.
In any event, scepticism is dominating the air as authorities in Lebanon and Washington reveal more details of the alleged plot, the plotters and their alleged connections with Al Qaeda.
Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond in Virginia who tracks terrorism cases, sums it up.
According to Tobias, quoted by Alexandrovna, the evidence disclosed so far in relation to the ability of the suspects to deliver on their threats has caused him to wonder if politics might be a factor.
He says: "There is some kind of public relations gained by making Americans on the one hand feel concerned that the Sears Tower in Chicago or some tunnel in Manhattan is targeted yet on the other hand feel comforted that the government is on top of it."
Scepticism overshadows
US reports of terror plots
US SECURITY agencies unveiled two major "terror plots" in the last one month — one that targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago and the other the Holland Tunnel New York City. While the US media as well as international newspapers, radio and television stations gave high prominence to both reports, many also voiced scepticism and implicitly suggested that both were cases where "evidence" was exaggerated for political purposes.
The critics' conclusion is that political hawks who indirectly but effectively control security and intelligence agencies grabbed at the slimmest of suggestions of terror plots against the US and blew them out of proportion with a view to telling the American people that they remained vulnerable to terrorism linked to the Middle East, but the Republican administration is capable of preventing them. The unveiling of the purported plots come ahead of mid-term elections, they point out.
The critics also note that the revelations of the purported plots coincided with a report that Alec Station, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit responsible for tracking Osama Bin Laden since before the Sept.11, 2001 attacks, had been disbanded.
Officials claimed the unit was disbanded in 2005 and therefore there could have been no link between the closure and the revelations of "terror plots." However, members of congress say they were not informed of Alec Station's closure, undermining the official claim that the unit was indeed closed more than one year ago.
"The alleged bomb plot (against the Holland Tunnel), sources suggest, may have been to alleviate Bush administration concerns that the Alec Station story would make them appear to be weak on terror," writes Larisa Alexandrovna on www.rawstory.com.
US security officials say they busted the plot after monitoring Internet chat rooms used by militants who had used coded language to discuss a possible attack. One American official said the members of the group had never met one another.
Critics counter that terrorists do not discuss their plans in public.
'Nothing more than chatter'
Alexandrovna quotes one former intelligence field officer as saying and two other CIA officials as confirming "that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open forum already monitored extensively by the United States government."
"It is not clear this early on, however, how much of a real and immediate threat the bomb plot may have been," Alexandrovna writes.
She quotes Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and contributor to American Conservative magazine, as saying that "the so-called New York tunnel plot was a result of discussions held on an open Jihadi web site.”
Giraldi acknowledges that three suspects who have already been arrested in Lebanon and five others are being hunted elsewhere espouse extremist thinking, but "their on-line chatter is considerably overblown by allegations of an actual plot.'
“They are not professionally trained terrorists, however, and had no resources with which to carry out the operation they discussed," Giraldi says. "Despite press reports that they had asked Abu Musab Zarqawi for assistance, there is no information to confirm that. It is known that the members discussed the possibility of approaching Zarqawi but none of them knew him or had any access to him.”
Assem Hammoud who is also said to have used an alias, Amir Andalousli, is in detention in Lebanon along with two others — one is a Syrian and the other's nationality has not been revealed.
The five suspects at large are said to be a Saudi, a Yemeni, a Jordanian, a Palestinian, and an Iranian Kurd.
Experts also expose a major loophole in the assertion by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that the suspects planned to attack the Holland Tunnel under the Hudson River using suicide bombers and backpack bombs. The alleged plan was to flood lower Manhattan by attacking the tunnels and cripple the heart of the US financial district. Experts point out the tunnel is below the water level and indeed Lower Manhattan, and hence it does not make sense to believe that flooding it would flood Lower Manhattan.
“In sum, the plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street," says Giraldi, the ex-CIA expert. "There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels. As it was being monitored from the beginning of the open discussion, there was little chance anything concrete would have developed."
The alleged plot was said to be in the planning stages, and the suspects had not purchased any explosives or visited the US as part of the scheme.
In the Miami case also, suspects were arrested "before" they collected weapons and finding or even figured out the logistics necessary to carry out their purported plot to bomb the Sears Towers in Chicago.
The suspects did not have written information on how to make explosives, details on the layout of the Sears Tower or any known link to a terrorist group.
'Pre-emptive action'
However, US security officials say that they need to take pre-emptive action.
"We don't wait until someone has lit the fuse to step in," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Friday.
"It is a mistake to assume that the only terrorist that's a serious terrorist is the kind of guy you see on television, that's a kind of James Bond type," he said. "The fact of the matter is mixing a bomb in a bathtub does not take rocket science."
Asserting that someone plotted terror attacks is one thing, but proving it is yet another, legal experts point out.
In any event, scepticism is dominating the air as authorities in Lebanon and Washington reveal more details of the alleged plot, the plotters and their alleged connections with Al Qaeda.
Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond in Virginia who tracks terrorism cases, sums it up.
According to Tobias, quoted by Alexandrovna, the evidence disclosed so far in relation to the ability of the suspects to deliver on their threats has caused him to wonder if politics might be a factor.
He says: "There is some kind of public relations gained by making Americans on the one hand feel concerned that the Sears Tower in Chicago or some tunnel in Manhattan is targeted yet on the other hand feel comforted that the government is on top of it."
Saturday, July 08, 2006
What the US does not want you to know
July 8, 2006
What the US does not want you to know
MODERN IRAQ was always known for repression of media freedoms. Permitting media freedoms meant challenges to the regimes (as in many parts of the world), and Iraq, since its creation in its present territorial shape in the 1920s, was no exception. Local papers, radio and television were state-owned and controlled and they sang the praise of the regime day in and day out. Foreign media working in Iraq were kept under tight check and surveillance throughout, and those present in the country often had to pay the price for critical reports that originated outside but carried by the newspapers or channels that they worked for.
The situation became all the more tight during the 1990s and early 2000s, starting with Saddam Hussein's military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and all foreign journalists faced stricter restrictions on their movements in the country. It would not be an exaggeration that they were treated like prisoners, but VIP style.
First of all it was very difficult to obtain a visa to enter Iraq. Then journalists had to wait until the Iraqi consulate in Amman decided that it was time for them to enter Iraq.
They had to travel in a convoy from the Jordanian capital Amman and then escorted by Iraqi information ministry and security officials from the Iraqi border point at Trebil to the one and the only hotel designated for journalists — the famous Al Rashid in Baghdad — and back to the frontier when you leave after the assignment (Other hotels were added to the "approved list" in due course, but the rules of the game remained the same).
It was almost impossible for stray away on the trip up and down even if you tried because the convoy, of say 20-25 vehicles, would have several strategically positioned ministry vehicles just to make sure that no one got "lost" along the eight-hour journey and be in a position to talk to anyone or visit any place away from official sights.
And once you checked into Al Rashid, you could not leave the hotel unless accompanied by a "minder" — an Iraqi information ministry official who would keep a close eye on what you do, who you speak to and, more importantly, what you hear. Any time of day and night, there would be at least a dozen ministry officials hanging around in the Al Rashid lobby to intercept any non-Iraqi leaving the hotel. Half the time, you would be discouraged from going places they did not approve. The other half of the time, it would take up to two hours before the ministry officials "arrange" things. These included getting "clearance" for your foray outside the hotel and ensuring that the vehicle that carried you was an Iraqi taxi with and Iraqi driver (and not the Jordanian-licensed car/driver with which/whom you had entered the country), and that the "minder" was in the taxi before it left the hotel compound.
The presence of "minders" was indeed a reminder to any Iraqi that he/she would be immediately reported to the security authorities if he/she dared to criticise the government or say anything to the media that would indicate that the regime was not the most popular in the world. It was anyone's guess what could have happened to those who were reported.
The arrangement was almost water-tight. A few "minders" tended to be more co-operative — in return for a monetary consideration of course — and they deliberately stayed away from earshot when you asked Iraqis how they felt about the regime and other "sensitive" questions, but those "minders" risked being reported themselves by the taxi driver, who inevitably happened to be an informant.
On the other hand, the "minders" encouraged Iraqis to speak about their suffering under the UN sanctions — that were imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — and lambast the US administration.
Today, the "embedded" American journalists are facing a similar situation. Their freedom of movement is curtailed and they are prevented from reporting actualities from the ground in Iraq; they are denied information that could place the US in bad light, but are encouraged to report what a great job the US military is doing in Iraq.
One such account has come from Rod Nordland of Newsweek in an interview published in Foreign Policy.
According to Nordland, the US military — and by extension the Bush administration — has been largely successful in managing the news “to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made” and revealed that some "embedded" reporters “have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with (their) work.”
Another account has come from Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper's Magazine (http://harpers.org/) and a former reporter of the Los Angeles Times, who says that "there are significant obstacles for even the best and most determined journalists" while working "embedded" with the US military in Iraq.
Silverstein quotes a former senior television producer for Reuters who worked in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 as recounting her experience of being "embedded" with the US military. Her summary statement: "I was a mouthpiece for the American military."
Her account is largely similar to the experience of foreign journalists in Iraq while the Saddam regime was in power — you were allowed to report on what the regime wanted you to and you were denied access to any information that the regime did not want you to have. Mind you, we are talking about an autocratic regime which believed in summary silencing of its people as one of its tools to ensure its survival. Compare its actions with the US, a democratic regime founded on the noblest principles of personal freedoms and the right to know among other things.
Silverstein writes: "When insurgents attacked civilians, she (the Reuters producer) told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.
"When it came to other stories that were clearly sympathetic to the US side, such as funerals for American soldiers killed in combat, the US military was extremely helpful — indeed, encouraging. In such cases, she was granted full access and allowed to film speeches by officials honouring the dead, the posthumous awarding of medals, and other aspects of the ceremony.
"But when this producer wanted to pursue a story that might have cast the war effort in an unfavourable light, the situation was entirely different. Every few days, she said, she would receive a call from the Reuters bureau in Baghdad and discover that reporters there had heard, via local news reports or from the bureau's network of Iraqi sources, about civilians being killed or injured by American troops. But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm such incidents, her requests were invariably turned down."
“Reuters had an armored car,” she told me, “and we wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the PIO (public information officer) for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark — and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said.
No journalist was allowed to pursue any report that was not approved by the US military. "For example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops — because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own. The height of absurdity came when the Tikrit compound came under serious attack one evening and the producer was asked by the Reuters bureau in Baghdad to phone in a report on the situation.
“We couldn't find out anything (from the US military),” she said, so Reuters had to cover the fighting from Baghdad, despite having a television producer and reporter on the ground at the compound in Tikrit.
During her 45 days in Tikrit, she told Silverstein, she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq. “There was no balance,” she said. “What we were doing wasn't real journalism.”
That could indeed not be the basis for a summary assumption for all journalists on assignments in Iraq. We have seen reports filed by "embedded" journalists that truly revealed the ugly face of the war in Iraq. It was a Time magazine report that exposed the November 2005 massacre in Haditha. Seymour Hersh's exposure of the torture and degrading treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was based on confidential reports available in Washington, but it was picked up and supported by most American journalists working in Iraq. There have been hundreds of reports that did fair justice to the profession, but fair justice is not enough when it comes to covering war, and that too as ugly as the one going on in Iraq.
What exactly is that Washington does not want the world to know about Iraq?
An intelligent guess, based on independent reports and bloggings from Iraq, would point to some of them, and these include:
— that demoralisation is slowly but surely creeping into the ranks of the American soldiers in Iraq as the insurgency shows no signs of fading away.
— that the actual figures of casualties among US military personnel, except deaths that could not be concealed, are played down.
— that everyone is an "enemy" in Iraq unless proven otherwise, but the followed policy is "shoot first and ask questions later."
— that women and children are no exception to the policy, and that Iraqis are treated worse than animals.
— that the rules of the game are often bent with implicit/explicit endorsement from the top echelons.
— that the insurgency is rooted among Iraqis rather then "international terrorist jihadists."
— that the people of Iraq resent the American military presence and could not wait to see the back of US soldiers.
— that US corporations are making a killing in billions of dollars in the name of the war in Iraq.
— that friends of the US, primarily Israel, are given a free hand in Iraq to realise their interests in the oil-rich country.
— that the US has no plans to leave Iraq since its presence in the country is part of a broader game plan that is part of Washington's global designs drawn up by hawks who believe in America's supremacy on this planet.
What the US does not want you to know
MODERN IRAQ was always known for repression of media freedoms. Permitting media freedoms meant challenges to the regimes (as in many parts of the world), and Iraq, since its creation in its present territorial shape in the 1920s, was no exception. Local papers, radio and television were state-owned and controlled and they sang the praise of the regime day in and day out. Foreign media working in Iraq were kept under tight check and surveillance throughout, and those present in the country often had to pay the price for critical reports that originated outside but carried by the newspapers or channels that they worked for.
The situation became all the more tight during the 1990s and early 2000s, starting with Saddam Hussein's military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and all foreign journalists faced stricter restrictions on their movements in the country. It would not be an exaggeration that they were treated like prisoners, but VIP style.
First of all it was very difficult to obtain a visa to enter Iraq. Then journalists had to wait until the Iraqi consulate in Amman decided that it was time for them to enter Iraq.
They had to travel in a convoy from the Jordanian capital Amman and then escorted by Iraqi information ministry and security officials from the Iraqi border point at Trebil to the one and the only hotel designated for journalists — the famous Al Rashid in Baghdad — and back to the frontier when you leave after the assignment (Other hotels were added to the "approved list" in due course, but the rules of the game remained the same).
It was almost impossible for stray away on the trip up and down even if you tried because the convoy, of say 20-25 vehicles, would have several strategically positioned ministry vehicles just to make sure that no one got "lost" along the eight-hour journey and be in a position to talk to anyone or visit any place away from official sights.
And once you checked into Al Rashid, you could not leave the hotel unless accompanied by a "minder" — an Iraqi information ministry official who would keep a close eye on what you do, who you speak to and, more importantly, what you hear. Any time of day and night, there would be at least a dozen ministry officials hanging around in the Al Rashid lobby to intercept any non-Iraqi leaving the hotel. Half the time, you would be discouraged from going places they did not approve. The other half of the time, it would take up to two hours before the ministry officials "arrange" things. These included getting "clearance" for your foray outside the hotel and ensuring that the vehicle that carried you was an Iraqi taxi with and Iraqi driver (and not the Jordanian-licensed car/driver with which/whom you had entered the country), and that the "minder" was in the taxi before it left the hotel compound.
The presence of "minders" was indeed a reminder to any Iraqi that he/she would be immediately reported to the security authorities if he/she dared to criticise the government or say anything to the media that would indicate that the regime was not the most popular in the world. It was anyone's guess what could have happened to those who were reported.
The arrangement was almost water-tight. A few "minders" tended to be more co-operative — in return for a monetary consideration of course — and they deliberately stayed away from earshot when you asked Iraqis how they felt about the regime and other "sensitive" questions, but those "minders" risked being reported themselves by the taxi driver, who inevitably happened to be an informant.
On the other hand, the "minders" encouraged Iraqis to speak about their suffering under the UN sanctions — that were imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — and lambast the US administration.
Today, the "embedded" American journalists are facing a similar situation. Their freedom of movement is curtailed and they are prevented from reporting actualities from the ground in Iraq; they are denied information that could place the US in bad light, but are encouraged to report what a great job the US military is doing in Iraq.
One such account has come from Rod Nordland of Newsweek in an interview published in Foreign Policy.
According to Nordland, the US military — and by extension the Bush administration — has been largely successful in managing the news “to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made” and revealed that some "embedded" reporters “have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with (their) work.”
Another account has come from Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper's Magazine (http://harpers.org/) and a former reporter of the Los Angeles Times, who says that "there are significant obstacles for even the best and most determined journalists" while working "embedded" with the US military in Iraq.
Silverstein quotes a former senior television producer for Reuters who worked in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 as recounting her experience of being "embedded" with the US military. Her summary statement: "I was a mouthpiece for the American military."
Her account is largely similar to the experience of foreign journalists in Iraq while the Saddam regime was in power — you were allowed to report on what the regime wanted you to and you were denied access to any information that the regime did not want you to have. Mind you, we are talking about an autocratic regime which believed in summary silencing of its people as one of its tools to ensure its survival. Compare its actions with the US, a democratic regime founded on the noblest principles of personal freedoms and the right to know among other things.
Silverstein writes: "When insurgents attacked civilians, she (the Reuters producer) told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.
"When it came to other stories that were clearly sympathetic to the US side, such as funerals for American soldiers killed in combat, the US military was extremely helpful — indeed, encouraging. In such cases, she was granted full access and allowed to film speeches by officials honouring the dead, the posthumous awarding of medals, and other aspects of the ceremony.
"But when this producer wanted to pursue a story that might have cast the war effort in an unfavourable light, the situation was entirely different. Every few days, she said, she would receive a call from the Reuters bureau in Baghdad and discover that reporters there had heard, via local news reports or from the bureau's network of Iraqi sources, about civilians being killed or injured by American troops. But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm such incidents, her requests were invariably turned down."
“Reuters had an armored car,” she told me, “and we wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the PIO (public information officer) for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark — and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said.
No journalist was allowed to pursue any report that was not approved by the US military. "For example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops — because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own. The height of absurdity came when the Tikrit compound came under serious attack one evening and the producer was asked by the Reuters bureau in Baghdad to phone in a report on the situation.
“We couldn't find out anything (from the US military),” she said, so Reuters had to cover the fighting from Baghdad, despite having a television producer and reporter on the ground at the compound in Tikrit.
During her 45 days in Tikrit, she told Silverstein, she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq. “There was no balance,” she said. “What we were doing wasn't real journalism.”
That could indeed not be the basis for a summary assumption for all journalists on assignments in Iraq. We have seen reports filed by "embedded" journalists that truly revealed the ugly face of the war in Iraq. It was a Time magazine report that exposed the November 2005 massacre in Haditha. Seymour Hersh's exposure of the torture and degrading treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was based on confidential reports available in Washington, but it was picked up and supported by most American journalists working in Iraq. There have been hundreds of reports that did fair justice to the profession, but fair justice is not enough when it comes to covering war, and that too as ugly as the one going on in Iraq.
What exactly is that Washington does not want the world to know about Iraq?
An intelligent guess, based on independent reports and bloggings from Iraq, would point to some of them, and these include:
— that demoralisation is slowly but surely creeping into the ranks of the American soldiers in Iraq as the insurgency shows no signs of fading away.
— that the actual figures of casualties among US military personnel, except deaths that could not be concealed, are played down.
— that everyone is an "enemy" in Iraq unless proven otherwise, but the followed policy is "shoot first and ask questions later."
— that women and children are no exception to the policy, and that Iraqis are treated worse than animals.
— that the rules of the game are often bent with implicit/explicit endorsement from the top echelons.
— that the insurgency is rooted among Iraqis rather then "international terrorist jihadists."
— that the people of Iraq resent the American military presence and could not wait to see the back of US soldiers.
— that US corporations are making a killing in billions of dollars in the name of the war in Iraq.
— that friends of the US, primarily Israel, are given a free hand in Iraq to realise their interests in the oil-rich country.
— that the US has no plans to leave Iraq since its presence in the country is part of a broader game plan that is part of Washington's global designs drawn up by hawks who believe in America's supremacy on this planet.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
A war for corporations?
March 3 2006
THE US has spent at least $250 billion in the invasion and occupation of Iraq since March 2003. This figure does not include about $18 billion allocated for a $35 billion fund for reconstruction of the country. Another $20 billion in proceeds from Iraqi oil sales have also been spent, but with little to show in terms of improvement of basis services for the people of Iraq. Today, the lot of the people of Iraq is much worse than the pre-war conditions. US officials continue to insist that there is indeed tangible improvement in services, but what they actually mean is that some Iraqis get four hours of interrupted power supply (never mind that they had more than interrupted 12 hours of supply prior to the war).
Where did the money that was supposed to have been spent on reconstructing Iraq disappear? No one seems to have a clear answer except that there was a gross misuse of funds and that there is a dark area while determining how much of Iraqi money was "spent" on projects (most of them only on paper) and how much came from US-allocated funds. However, one thing is abundantly clear: American corporates with close links to the powerful politicians in Washington have made a killing in Iraq, not only from American funds but also from Iraqi money. Some of the billion-dollar contracts handed down to US giants are seen tailor-made to suit the contractors' interests, and several instances of overcharging have been reported, but these were only scratches on the surface, given the massive amounts already been handed out.
FIGURES on how much money the US has spent on the Iraq war keep changing. The only figure one could go by is based on recorded allocations that the US Congress has made (these do not include independent Pentagon spending), but the actual costs are deemed to be much higher than the official figures.
In October 2005, a report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that $251 billion had been obligated or appropriated for the Iraq war by March 31, 2006.
Compare that figure with independent estimates that the US would have spent or committed itself to spending about $2 trillion by the end of 2007. This figure includes long-term costs such as insurance and heath-care expenses for wounded veterans.
The $251 billion figure does not include soldiers' regular pay, but combat pay is included.
From the day the US went to war against Iraq in early 2003, critics have been pointing out that the administration of President George W Bush was not only serving the "strategic geopolitical interests" of the US and Israel but also catering to the greedy paws of American corporates, particularly those close to the Republican camp.
Now three years later, it is widely reported that American corporates made and are continuing to make a lot of money from the war, but no one seems to know how much.
By definition and nature, details of defence and military contracts are supposed to be kept confidential and unrestricted access to the figures is limited to a handful of people.
One of the main features of some contracts is that they are negotiated deals, more often than not on the basis of cost plus. This means that the designated contractor supplies the goods and services as requisitioned by the US military and sends an invoice to the Pentagon certifying that the amount involved was the "actual cost" and does not include any "margin" for the contractor.
The Pentagon asks no questions and pays the contractor the invoice amount plus a seven-to-12 per cent, depending on the nature of the goods and services.
An example is the cost of a "regular military meal" supplied to the US soldiers in Iraq. The contractor charges $65 per meal delivered to US military bases in Iraq, and then collects a margin over that amount.
The price goes down to $45 per meal when cooked and supplied within a military camp without involving "transport" costs.
Says investigative journalist Pratap Chatterjee, who keeps a watch on corporate misconduct, around the world: "Private contractors work on what’s known as a 'cost-plus' basis, getting paid for costs plus a small profit. On top of that they can receive a bonus based on a per cent of the contract’s total value. The more a company spends, the more it makes, which creates a natural incentive to overcharge. Private contractors aren’t being held accountable for either their spending or their work quality. They can’t be court-martialed, obviously, nor has any company yet been prosecuted—only a few individuals for really blatant fraud."
As allegations fly that someone, somewhere siphoned off $1 billion that were supposed to have been spent on building Iraq's security forces, the reality is also emerging that someone, someone had also channelled away billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money that should have been spent on rebuilding the shattered country.
As looting erupted in Baghdad and cities and towns elsewhere in the country following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, the favourite term used to describe the looters was "Ali Baba," the Arabian tales character who stole from the loot of a gang of thieves. Few gave a second thought that the name was perhaps misused since Ali Baba could not be described as a thief in a broader sense.
US officials have confirmed that key rebuilding projects in Iraq have ground to a halt because American money is running out and security has diverted funds intended for electricity, water and sanitation.
As a result, according US bureaucrats, projects to rebuild the country's infrastructure have been downsized, postponed or abandoned because the $24 billion budget approved by Congress has been dwarfed by the scale of the task.
The website CorpWatch reported in April 2005 that the US cut the funding for water projects in Iraq from $4.3 billion to $2.3 billion—“with further cuts planned for the future.” Those “further cuts” were another $1.1 billion.
The reconstruction of water facilities is vital in delivering clean water to the 80 per cent of families in rural areas that use unsafe drinking water. The postwar sewage systems must also be reconstructed, which according to a UN report, “seeps to the ground and contaminates drinking water systems.”
The UN development agency conducted a study, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. The study found that 23 percent of children in Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, while nine per cent of Iraqi children experienced diarrhea, a leading “childhood killer,” in the two weeks prior to the survey.
With the insurgency showing all signs of gathering strength, it is apparent that the US has little interest in focusing seriously on rebuilding Iraq since the belief has set in that the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi has already been lost.
The net sum of conclusions emerging from various auditing reports, official and unofficial, about the American funds spent, both for continuing the war and to rebuild Iraq, is that there had been a systematic pattern of spending that benefited none other than private American companies which are given no-bid contracts.
It was reported as far back as October 2003 that basic reconstruction in Iraq would cost less than half the amount requested by the Bush administration from the US Congress.
A joint report prepared by the United Nations and World Bank estimated that $9 billion were needed for reconstruction in Iraq in 2004 where as the amount that the US government had sought from Congress was $18.6 billion.
Beyond that, the Bush administration had estimated that $55 billion will be needed for Iraqi reconstruction between 2004 and 2007. While there was no comparable UN/World Bank estimate, independent think-tanks estimated the requirement at less than half that amount.
Where did the money disappear?
Today, very few people actually seem to know how much was actually spent in reconstructing Iraq although there is little sign of any reconstruction. Iraqis continue to suffer from water and power shortages and there is little in the way of employment opportunities except perhaps in the high-risk security forces.
The pattern of mismanagement of funds was established in the audit reports of the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was disbanded on June 28, 2004.
But that was not American money. It was Iraqi money, and no one seems to be bothered anymore to hold to account those who misappropriated it.
Paul Bremer, who headed the CPA, left behind what turned out to be a gross misuse of proceeds of Iraqi oil exports to benefit American contractors, with the major beneficiary being Halliburton, the company which was once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
There were three sources of funding for the war and occupation of Iraq. The first was $65 billion directly allocated as military spending by the US Congress and administered by the US Defence Department. It was American taxpayer's money.
The second was $18.4 billion, also approved by the US Congress, but administered by the CPA. Again, it was American taxpayer's money and supposed to be spent on reconstruction of Iraq along with $16 billion or so pledged by other countries.
The third was the Development Fund for Iraq, which represented proceeds from Iraq's oil exports and leftover money from the oil-for-food programme that the UN ran in co-ordination with the Saddam Hussein regime. The fund handled about $20 billion by the time the CPA was disbanded when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in June 2004.
The first war chest was further replenished by another $87 billion, but the bulk of it was earmarked for direct military spending.
From the $18.4 billion allocation for reconstructing Iraq, the CPA spent only two per cent since allocating American funds for reconstruction projects in Iraq had many riders and it was easier to dipping into the Development of Iraq Fund — which was strictly Iraqi money.
Halliburton has admitted to overcharging on some of its contracts. It drew up invoices and got paid for meals that were never eaten and never cooked.
According to Time reporter Jyoti Thottam, “Why would a company like Halliburton, which, after all, runs a successful oil-field-services business far removed from Iraq, agree to stay there? Profits. Iraq contracts have added $5.7 billion to Halliburton’s revenues since January 2003, accounting for almost all the company’s growth at a time when it was struggling with $4 billion in asbestos claims. The fact is, war is one of Halliburton’s specialties.”
Halliburton, which already has contracts worth $17 billion in Iraq, is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group vying for contracts in the war-torn country. None of the other companies has been cited in an Iraq scandal yet.
Top among the American companies having Iraq-related contracts are:
Aegis Defence Services, BearingPoint, Inc., Bechtel, BKSH and Associates , CACI International and Titan Corporation, Custer Battles, Halliburton Lockheed Martin, Loral Satellite and Qualcomm
Bechtel has contracts worth about $2 billion in Iraq. They include rehabilitation of Iraq’s power, water and sewage systems that were destroyed in the war, rehabilitation of airports, and the dredging of the Umm Qasr port, repair and reconstruction of hospitals, schools, government buildings and irrigation and transportation systems.
San Francisco-based Bechtel had been given tens of millions to repair Iraq's schools. Yet many schools remain untouched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One "repaired" school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that "the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don't work" — billing the US government for the work (The Centre for Media and Democracy).
"A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq," observes Chris Kromm, publisher of Southern Exposure, a report about war profiteering in Iraq. "The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they're not even doing their jobs."
Halliburton received $1.6 billion in Iraqi oil proceeds under a contract to import fuel and repair oil fields. According to US auditors, Halliburton's overcharges under this contract are more than $218 million.
A security firm, Custer Battles, received over $11 million in Iraqi funds, including over $4 million in cash. The company has been barred from receiving federal contracts and faces a False Claims Act lawsuit for multiple fraudulent billings.
A federal jury on March 9 this year ordered Custer Battles to pay nearly $10 million in damages and penalties for defrauding the government on its work in Iraq.
"Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq," said Alan Grayson, the lead attorney for two whistle-blowers who brought the civil suit on behalf of the government. "Companies like Custer Battles go there with the idea of stuffing their pockets with cash. This jury of eight people heard the evidence and were repelled by it."
Custer Battles was accused used fake invoices, forgery and shell companies in the Cayman Islands to run up millions of dollars in profits.
Another misuse of funds came to light when it was found that over $600 million in cash was shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. An audit of one of the four regions found more than 80 per cent of the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million in cash was missing.
CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries. Auditors have found significant funds paid to "ghost employees" and billion-dollar discrepancies in some expenditures.
"These problems evince a lack of concern for people in Iraq," says Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law. "They and their land are being treated as a profit centre for businesses well-connected to our government."
Transparency International stated in its Global Corruption Report 2005 that foreign contractors should abide by anti-corruption laws and that the revenues streaming in from Iraq oil “needed to be much more transparent and accountable.”
Transparency International’s chairman Peter Eigen said: “Corruption doesn't just line the pockets of political and business elites, it leaves ordinary people without essential services and deprives them of access to sanitation and housing,
Transparency International directly criticised the US for awarding companies contracts in a process that was “secretive and favoured a small number of firms.” As this corruption became more commonplace, the resistance towards the occupation surged.
Remi Kanazi writes on sccop.co.nz:
"Instead of starting a massive campaign to empower and employ the Iraqi people, the Bush administration protected US corporate interests, including close administration allies such as Halliburton and Bechtel. Figures of unemployment in Iraq reach as high as 60 per cent. If the US heavily integrated Iraqi companies and workers from the outset, the reconstruction process would have stimulated the Iraqi economy. Nearly 60 percent of Iraqis rely on food handouts. The average Iraqi income in 2004 was $800 compared with $3,000 in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the UN sanctions severely weakened the Iraqi economy only to then have the US invasion exacerbate the dilemma."
The net picture that emerges from Iraq today is: The US is unwilling to accept it is fighting a war it cannot win and is determined to stay on, and is spending billions of dollars to the benefit of American corporates. Meanwhile, the suffering and uncertainties of the people of Iraq are mounting every day.
With agency and website inputs
THE US has spent at least $250 billion in the invasion and occupation of Iraq since March 2003. This figure does not include about $18 billion allocated for a $35 billion fund for reconstruction of the country. Another $20 billion in proceeds from Iraqi oil sales have also been spent, but with little to show in terms of improvement of basis services for the people of Iraq. Today, the lot of the people of Iraq is much worse than the pre-war conditions. US officials continue to insist that there is indeed tangible improvement in services, but what they actually mean is that some Iraqis get four hours of interrupted power supply (never mind that they had more than interrupted 12 hours of supply prior to the war).
Where did the money that was supposed to have been spent on reconstructing Iraq disappear? No one seems to have a clear answer except that there was a gross misuse of funds and that there is a dark area while determining how much of Iraqi money was "spent" on projects (most of them only on paper) and how much came from US-allocated funds. However, one thing is abundantly clear: American corporates with close links to the powerful politicians in Washington have made a killing in Iraq, not only from American funds but also from Iraqi money. Some of the billion-dollar contracts handed down to US giants are seen tailor-made to suit the contractors' interests, and several instances of overcharging have been reported, but these were only scratches on the surface, given the massive amounts already been handed out.
FIGURES on how much money the US has spent on the Iraq war keep changing. The only figure one could go by is based on recorded allocations that the US Congress has made (these do not include independent Pentagon spending), but the actual costs are deemed to be much higher than the official figures.
In October 2005, a report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that $251 billion had been obligated or appropriated for the Iraq war by March 31, 2006.
Compare that figure with independent estimates that the US would have spent or committed itself to spending about $2 trillion by the end of 2007. This figure includes long-term costs such as insurance and heath-care expenses for wounded veterans.
The $251 billion figure does not include soldiers' regular pay, but combat pay is included.
From the day the US went to war against Iraq in early 2003, critics have been pointing out that the administration of President George W Bush was not only serving the "strategic geopolitical interests" of the US and Israel but also catering to the greedy paws of American corporates, particularly those close to the Republican camp.
Now three years later, it is widely reported that American corporates made and are continuing to make a lot of money from the war, but no one seems to know how much.
By definition and nature, details of defence and military contracts are supposed to be kept confidential and unrestricted access to the figures is limited to a handful of people.
One of the main features of some contracts is that they are negotiated deals, more often than not on the basis of cost plus. This means that the designated contractor supplies the goods and services as requisitioned by the US military and sends an invoice to the Pentagon certifying that the amount involved was the "actual cost" and does not include any "margin" for the contractor.
The Pentagon asks no questions and pays the contractor the invoice amount plus a seven-to-12 per cent, depending on the nature of the goods and services.
An example is the cost of a "regular military meal" supplied to the US soldiers in Iraq. The contractor charges $65 per meal delivered to US military bases in Iraq, and then collects a margin over that amount.
The price goes down to $45 per meal when cooked and supplied within a military camp without involving "transport" costs.
Says investigative journalist Pratap Chatterjee, who keeps a watch on corporate misconduct, around the world: "Private contractors work on what’s known as a 'cost-plus' basis, getting paid for costs plus a small profit. On top of that they can receive a bonus based on a per cent of the contract’s total value. The more a company spends, the more it makes, which creates a natural incentive to overcharge. Private contractors aren’t being held accountable for either their spending or their work quality. They can’t be court-martialed, obviously, nor has any company yet been prosecuted—only a few individuals for really blatant fraud."
As allegations fly that someone, somewhere siphoned off $1 billion that were supposed to have been spent on building Iraq's security forces, the reality is also emerging that someone, someone had also channelled away billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money that should have been spent on rebuilding the shattered country.
As looting erupted in Baghdad and cities and towns elsewhere in the country following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, the favourite term used to describe the looters was "Ali Baba," the Arabian tales character who stole from the loot of a gang of thieves. Few gave a second thought that the name was perhaps misused since Ali Baba could not be described as a thief in a broader sense.
US officials have confirmed that key rebuilding projects in Iraq have ground to a halt because American money is running out and security has diverted funds intended for electricity, water and sanitation.
As a result, according US bureaucrats, projects to rebuild the country's infrastructure have been downsized, postponed or abandoned because the $24 billion budget approved by Congress has been dwarfed by the scale of the task.
The website CorpWatch reported in April 2005 that the US cut the funding for water projects in Iraq from $4.3 billion to $2.3 billion—“with further cuts planned for the future.” Those “further cuts” were another $1.1 billion.
The reconstruction of water facilities is vital in delivering clean water to the 80 per cent of families in rural areas that use unsafe drinking water. The postwar sewage systems must also be reconstructed, which according to a UN report, “seeps to the ground and contaminates drinking water systems.”
The UN development agency conducted a study, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. The study found that 23 percent of children in Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, while nine per cent of Iraqi children experienced diarrhea, a leading “childhood killer,” in the two weeks prior to the survey.
With the insurgency showing all signs of gathering strength, it is apparent that the US has little interest in focusing seriously on rebuilding Iraq since the belief has set in that the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi has already been lost.
The net sum of conclusions emerging from various auditing reports, official and unofficial, about the American funds spent, both for continuing the war and to rebuild Iraq, is that there had been a systematic pattern of spending that benefited none other than private American companies which are given no-bid contracts.
It was reported as far back as October 2003 that basic reconstruction in Iraq would cost less than half the amount requested by the Bush administration from the US Congress.
A joint report prepared by the United Nations and World Bank estimated that $9 billion were needed for reconstruction in Iraq in 2004 where as the amount that the US government had sought from Congress was $18.6 billion.
Beyond that, the Bush administration had estimated that $55 billion will be needed for Iraqi reconstruction between 2004 and 2007. While there was no comparable UN/World Bank estimate, independent think-tanks estimated the requirement at less than half that amount.
Where did the money disappear?
Today, very few people actually seem to know how much was actually spent in reconstructing Iraq although there is little sign of any reconstruction. Iraqis continue to suffer from water and power shortages and there is little in the way of employment opportunities except perhaps in the high-risk security forces.
The pattern of mismanagement of funds was established in the audit reports of the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was disbanded on June 28, 2004.
But that was not American money. It was Iraqi money, and no one seems to be bothered anymore to hold to account those who misappropriated it.
Paul Bremer, who headed the CPA, left behind what turned out to be a gross misuse of proceeds of Iraqi oil exports to benefit American contractors, with the major beneficiary being Halliburton, the company which was once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
There were three sources of funding for the war and occupation of Iraq. The first was $65 billion directly allocated as military spending by the US Congress and administered by the US Defence Department. It was American taxpayer's money.
The second was $18.4 billion, also approved by the US Congress, but administered by the CPA. Again, it was American taxpayer's money and supposed to be spent on reconstruction of Iraq along with $16 billion or so pledged by other countries.
The third was the Development Fund for Iraq, which represented proceeds from Iraq's oil exports and leftover money from the oil-for-food programme that the UN ran in co-ordination with the Saddam Hussein regime. The fund handled about $20 billion by the time the CPA was disbanded when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in June 2004.
The first war chest was further replenished by another $87 billion, but the bulk of it was earmarked for direct military spending.
From the $18.4 billion allocation for reconstructing Iraq, the CPA spent only two per cent since allocating American funds for reconstruction projects in Iraq had many riders and it was easier to dipping into the Development of Iraq Fund — which was strictly Iraqi money.
Halliburton has admitted to overcharging on some of its contracts. It drew up invoices and got paid for meals that were never eaten and never cooked.
According to Time reporter Jyoti Thottam, “Why would a company like Halliburton, which, after all, runs a successful oil-field-services business far removed from Iraq, agree to stay there? Profits. Iraq contracts have added $5.7 billion to Halliburton’s revenues since January 2003, accounting for almost all the company’s growth at a time when it was struggling with $4 billion in asbestos claims. The fact is, war is one of Halliburton’s specialties.”
Halliburton, which already has contracts worth $17 billion in Iraq, is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group vying for contracts in the war-torn country. None of the other companies has been cited in an Iraq scandal yet.
Top among the American companies having Iraq-related contracts are:
Aegis Defence Services, BearingPoint, Inc., Bechtel, BKSH and Associates , CACI International and Titan Corporation, Custer Battles, Halliburton Lockheed Martin, Loral Satellite and Qualcomm
Bechtel has contracts worth about $2 billion in Iraq. They include rehabilitation of Iraq’s power, water and sewage systems that were destroyed in the war, rehabilitation of airports, and the dredging of the Umm Qasr port, repair and reconstruction of hospitals, schools, government buildings and irrigation and transportation systems.
San Francisco-based Bechtel had been given tens of millions to repair Iraq's schools. Yet many schools remain untouched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One "repaired" school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that "the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don't work" — billing the US government for the work (The Centre for Media and Democracy).
"A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq," observes Chris Kromm, publisher of Southern Exposure, a report about war profiteering in Iraq. "The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they're not even doing their jobs."
Halliburton received $1.6 billion in Iraqi oil proceeds under a contract to import fuel and repair oil fields. According to US auditors, Halliburton's overcharges under this contract are more than $218 million.
A security firm, Custer Battles, received over $11 million in Iraqi funds, including over $4 million in cash. The company has been barred from receiving federal contracts and faces a False Claims Act lawsuit for multiple fraudulent billings.
A federal jury on March 9 this year ordered Custer Battles to pay nearly $10 million in damages and penalties for defrauding the government on its work in Iraq.
"Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq," said Alan Grayson, the lead attorney for two whistle-blowers who brought the civil suit on behalf of the government. "Companies like Custer Battles go there with the idea of stuffing their pockets with cash. This jury of eight people heard the evidence and were repelled by it."
Custer Battles was accused used fake invoices, forgery and shell companies in the Cayman Islands to run up millions of dollars in profits.
Another misuse of funds came to light when it was found that over $600 million in cash was shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. An audit of one of the four regions found more than 80 per cent of the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million in cash was missing.
CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries. Auditors have found significant funds paid to "ghost employees" and billion-dollar discrepancies in some expenditures.
"These problems evince a lack of concern for people in Iraq," says Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law. "They and their land are being treated as a profit centre for businesses well-connected to our government."
Transparency International stated in its Global Corruption Report 2005 that foreign contractors should abide by anti-corruption laws and that the revenues streaming in from Iraq oil “needed to be much more transparent and accountable.”
Transparency International’s chairman Peter Eigen said: “Corruption doesn't just line the pockets of political and business elites, it leaves ordinary people without essential services and deprives them of access to sanitation and housing,
Transparency International directly criticised the US for awarding companies contracts in a process that was “secretive and favoured a small number of firms.” As this corruption became more commonplace, the resistance towards the occupation surged.
Remi Kanazi writes on sccop.co.nz:
"Instead of starting a massive campaign to empower and employ the Iraqi people, the Bush administration protected US corporate interests, including close administration allies such as Halliburton and Bechtel. Figures of unemployment in Iraq reach as high as 60 per cent. If the US heavily integrated Iraqi companies and workers from the outset, the reconstruction process would have stimulated the Iraqi economy. Nearly 60 percent of Iraqis rely on food handouts. The average Iraqi income in 2004 was $800 compared with $3,000 in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the UN sanctions severely weakened the Iraqi economy only to then have the US invasion exacerbate the dilemma."
The net picture that emerges from Iraq today is: The US is unwilling to accept it is fighting a war it cannot win and is determined to stay on, and is spending billions of dollars to the benefit of American corporates. Meanwhile, the suffering and uncertainties of the people of Iraq are mounting every day.
With agency and website inputs
Counter-productive to peace
May 6 2006
THE DEMONSTRATIONS in the streets of Palestine to press demands of overdue salaries from the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) are signals of brewing trouble for the Hamas-led Palestinian government. Indeed, the PNA employees are in serious trouble because they have not been paid salaries for March and April, and the economy of the occupied territories are in doldroms not simply because of the cash shortage but as a result of decades of a deliberate Israeli policy of making the people under occupation dependent on the Israeli economy. At the same time, pressuring the Hamas government for political reasons — it was obvious that Fatah was behind the demonstrations — might not be the right approach at this juncture. The world knows that the PNA is facing a cash crisis because of political reasons prompted by Hamas winning elections and assuming power. Those behind the pressure are trying to exploit the situation and force compromises over the Palestinian rights. The strongest among the holdouts against any compromise whatsoever is indeed Hamas.
That should be a key consideration for the same Palestinians who took to the streets on Saturday.
It is highly unlikely that Hamas would bend under pressure because that would go against the Islamist record of remaining firm on their positions. On the other hand, if the group is assured that Israel would recognise and respect the legitimate Palestinians rights, then the day is near when it would accept the demands that it renounce armed resistance as a means for liberation and recognise Israel.
Israel and its backers know this well. However, since Israel has no intention of respecting the Palestinian rights and entering a peace agreement on the basis of these rights, the Hamas position suits it well. In all probability, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might indeed be hoping that Hamas refuses to budge until such time he implements his unilateral plan to draw Israel's final borders without Palestinian agreement.
This is the reality facing the international Quartet, which is meeting on Tuesday to discuss the dealock in Palestine. The group needs no elaborate explanation of the geopolitics behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It the Quartet opts to play by the rules based on publicly stated positions of the two sides — Hamas declining to meet the demands imposed on it and Israel arguing that it does not have a Palestinian negotiating partner — then it does not have do make further move to explain to the world that it is only paying lipservice to the rights of the Palestinians and international legitimacy.
In the meantime, the politicised demonstrations aimed at applying pressure on the Hamas government could be counter-productive to the Palestinian cause. If the Hamas government were to collapse — as some parties might want to see — then Palestinian politics would undergo a dramatic change to the worse, and that would not serve the cause of peace in the Middle East.
THE DEMONSTRATIONS in the streets of Palestine to press demands of overdue salaries from the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) are signals of brewing trouble for the Hamas-led Palestinian government. Indeed, the PNA employees are in serious trouble because they have not been paid salaries for March and April, and the economy of the occupied territories are in doldroms not simply because of the cash shortage but as a result of decades of a deliberate Israeli policy of making the people under occupation dependent on the Israeli economy. At the same time, pressuring the Hamas government for political reasons — it was obvious that Fatah was behind the demonstrations — might not be the right approach at this juncture. The world knows that the PNA is facing a cash crisis because of political reasons prompted by Hamas winning elections and assuming power. Those behind the pressure are trying to exploit the situation and force compromises over the Palestinian rights. The strongest among the holdouts against any compromise whatsoever is indeed Hamas.
That should be a key consideration for the same Palestinians who took to the streets on Saturday.
It is highly unlikely that Hamas would bend under pressure because that would go against the Islamist record of remaining firm on their positions. On the other hand, if the group is assured that Israel would recognise and respect the legitimate Palestinians rights, then the day is near when it would accept the demands that it renounce armed resistance as a means for liberation and recognise Israel.
Israel and its backers know this well. However, since Israel has no intention of respecting the Palestinian rights and entering a peace agreement on the basis of these rights, the Hamas position suits it well. In all probability, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might indeed be hoping that Hamas refuses to budge until such time he implements his unilateral plan to draw Israel's final borders without Palestinian agreement.
This is the reality facing the international Quartet, which is meeting on Tuesday to discuss the dealock in Palestine. The group needs no elaborate explanation of the geopolitics behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It the Quartet opts to play by the rules based on publicly stated positions of the two sides — Hamas declining to meet the demands imposed on it and Israel arguing that it does not have a Palestinian negotiating partner — then it does not have do make further move to explain to the world that it is only paying lipservice to the rights of the Palestinians and international legitimacy.
In the meantime, the politicised demonstrations aimed at applying pressure on the Hamas government could be counter-productive to the Palestinian cause. If the Hamas government were to collapse — as some parties might want to see — then Palestinian politics would undergo a dramatic change to the worse, and that would not serve the cause of peace in the Middle East.
Rhetoric or real intentions?
May 3 2006
DIFFERENTIATING between rhetoric and actual intentions in the US-Iran confrontation over Tehran's nuclear programme has become intensely difficult. On the one hand, Iran has cranked up the intensity of what could be nothing but provocation to the US and Israel. It is as if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, having concluded that Iran is targeted for regime change by the US, is daring the US and Israel to stage military strikes against his country.
If that is indeed the case, then his strategy is based on a conviction that the Iranians, who are in no position to launch a military offensive against the US, could draw the Americans into starting military action. Such action would justify a "defensive" war by Iran into defensive war that could prove catastrophic for the US, given the American military and non-military exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region. American analysts speculate that more US soldiers than those who lost their lives in the invasion and occupation of Iraq so far could die in a matter of weeks if not days as a result of military action against Iran. It does not matter for the Iranian leadership how many Iranians and pro-Iranians could die since the Iranian mindset has an intense focus on martyrdom.
Beyond military casualties, the chain of events sparked by US military action against Iran could shoot up international oil prices through the roof, and this could pull the rug under the feet of the US dollar, the key currency in which oil is traded around the world. If the dollar collapses at this point in time, so does the American economy, throwing chaos in the international scene. Again, that expectation, coupled with the awareness that the US could not but be mindful of the eventuality, could be a central pillar of Ahmedinejad's strategy. If the US pulls back from the brink and puts off military plans against Iran, then it would also be touted as a major victory by the Iranian leadership.
On the other hand, the US, despite having the most advanced and sophisticated spying technology, does not seem to have any clue about Iran's nuclear programmes except what has been reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Veteran members of the US congressional intelligence committees have already admitted that there is no way the US could determine how far the Iranians have gone ahead with their nuclear programme. They have asserted that US intelligence network simply lacks the capability to secure accurate information on Iran's nuclear activities.
The painful and embarrassing truth — which also exposes the gaping shortcomings in US intelligence work — is also prodding Washington into undertaking a military adventure against Iran. At the same time, to propagate that the world is in the dark about Iran's plans also suits the US strategy because it could always cite the benefit of the doubt in favour of action against Iran.
Whatever considerations the US might have, Israel, which is determined not to allow any Middle Eastern power other than itself to have a nuclear programme, is straining to hold back itself from staging a repeat in Iran of the 1981 attack that demolished Iraq's sole nuclear reactor. Israeli lobbyists are hard at work in Washington, hyping up the "Iranian nuclear threat" and lobbying for military action against Iran. Leading and misleading interpretations of Iran's strategy are being sown around in order to create murky waters to exploited to benefit Israel's objective of using the US military to wage war for the sake of the Jewish state.
Against these realities, what is indeed unmistakable is that Iran might be engaging in rhetoric, but the US is not. Washington has made up its mind that Iran should not be allowed any leeway that would permit it to develop an effective nuclear programme. It is only a matter of time and methods to achieve that objective.
DIFFERENTIATING between rhetoric and actual intentions in the US-Iran confrontation over Tehran's nuclear programme has become intensely difficult. On the one hand, Iran has cranked up the intensity of what could be nothing but provocation to the US and Israel. It is as if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, having concluded that Iran is targeted for regime change by the US, is daring the US and Israel to stage military strikes against his country.
If that is indeed the case, then his strategy is based on a conviction that the Iranians, who are in no position to launch a military offensive against the US, could draw the Americans into starting military action. Such action would justify a "defensive" war by Iran into defensive war that could prove catastrophic for the US, given the American military and non-military exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region. American analysts speculate that more US soldiers than those who lost their lives in the invasion and occupation of Iraq so far could die in a matter of weeks if not days as a result of military action against Iran. It does not matter for the Iranian leadership how many Iranians and pro-Iranians could die since the Iranian mindset has an intense focus on martyrdom.
Beyond military casualties, the chain of events sparked by US military action against Iran could shoot up international oil prices through the roof, and this could pull the rug under the feet of the US dollar, the key currency in which oil is traded around the world. If the dollar collapses at this point in time, so does the American economy, throwing chaos in the international scene. Again, that expectation, coupled with the awareness that the US could not but be mindful of the eventuality, could be a central pillar of Ahmedinejad's strategy. If the US pulls back from the brink and puts off military plans against Iran, then it would also be touted as a major victory by the Iranian leadership.
On the other hand, the US, despite having the most advanced and sophisticated spying technology, does not seem to have any clue about Iran's nuclear programmes except what has been reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Veteran members of the US congressional intelligence committees have already admitted that there is no way the US could determine how far the Iranians have gone ahead with their nuclear programme. They have asserted that US intelligence network simply lacks the capability to secure accurate information on Iran's nuclear activities.
The painful and embarrassing truth — which also exposes the gaping shortcomings in US intelligence work — is also prodding Washington into undertaking a military adventure against Iran. At the same time, to propagate that the world is in the dark about Iran's plans also suits the US strategy because it could always cite the benefit of the doubt in favour of action against Iran.
Whatever considerations the US might have, Israel, which is determined not to allow any Middle Eastern power other than itself to have a nuclear programme, is straining to hold back itself from staging a repeat in Iran of the 1981 attack that demolished Iraq's sole nuclear reactor. Israeli lobbyists are hard at work in Washington, hyping up the "Iranian nuclear threat" and lobbying for military action against Iran. Leading and misleading interpretations of Iran's strategy are being sown around in order to create murky waters to exploited to benefit Israel's objective of using the US military to wage war for the sake of the Jewish state.
Against these realities, what is indeed unmistakable is that Iran might be engaging in rhetoric, but the US is not. Washington has made up its mind that Iran should not be allowed any leeway that would permit it to develop an effective nuclear programme. It is only a matter of time and methods to achieve that objective.
Placing priories
April 12 2006
AS IRAN basked in what it considers as the glory in its announcement that it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, the international community is alarmed over the dramatic course of events.
It could not be said that the Iranian announcement shocked everyone because many suspected that something was indeed going on behind the scenes as the nuclear dispute was being debated across continents. However, the Iranian move has indeed dramatically raised tension and apprehension by several notches.
Almost every country in the world has described the Iranian move to enrich uranium as a step in the wrong direction. This iindicates a rare international consensus that would have a strong adverse impact not only on the Middle East but also the rest of the world.
However, the Iranian move has indeed dramatically raised tension and apprehension by several notches, particularly in the Gulf region, where the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) has always made it clear that its members wanted the entire Middle East area to be a nuclear-free zone.
In diplomatic terms, Iran is being urged to call of its nuclear work, but, from judging from Iran's record and behaviour, it is unlikely that Tehran would respond positively to such calls. That leaves the US and its allies — which now include hitherto reluctant Russia and China — with the option of pursuing punitive sanctions against Iran through the UN Security Council.
Indeed, such sanctions were a strong possibility even before Tuesday's Iranian announcement, which in fact gave the additional ammunition that the US wanted in order to ensure UN action against Tehran. Washington and its allies in Europe and elsewhere, including Israel, might have their own agenda to pursue against Iran. That agenda may have to do with what the US and others consider as their strategic geopolitical interests in the Middle East.
In the immediate region, the Gulf countries have more than one reason to worry about. Nuclear activity in Iran, whether for peaceful purposes or otherwise, could have serious unhealthy effects on the region. Any process going wrong in Iran's nuclear work would be catastrophic for its immediate neighbours. Then there are concerns that the Iranian nuclear stand-off with the US and its allies might lead to sanctions against Tehran and the Iranians would retaliate by impeding the flow of oil from the Gulf. Finally, with seemingly credible reports coming from the US that the administration might use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, there is also fear of the consequences of such actions.
To be fair, Iran, like any other country in the world, has the right to pursue nuclear programmes for peaceful purposes under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And Tehran insists that its nuclear work is very much within its rights. Until now, there is no concrete proof that the Iranians are developing nuclear wepons, but many others believe that it is only a matter of time before it becomes clear that they had always sought to have nuclear weapons. Therefore, exercising international rights is indeed one thing, but citing those rights to achieve a different goal is something else. How to tackle both in a balanced and effective way is the dilemma facing the world today.
We could only hope that the Iranians, having achieved their purpose of proving to the world that they could do nuclear work on their own, would seek to check the situation from getting worse. On the other side, the US and allies accept that the only way out is through realistic dialogue.
There are so many ifs and buts in the equation, but the core issue is the mutual distrust between the US and Iran.
Washington sees Iran as a major stumbling block against the strategic interests of not only the UN but also those of Israel — and not necessarily in that order either. The US seems to think that working out a rapproachement with Iran is all but impossible under the present geopolitical givens. And, if one goes by the published comments of many in the US and outside, the administration's ultimate goal is "regime change" in Iran.
Therefore the first step in any move to defuse the situation and ensure that the Middle East is free of nuclear weapons is an iron-clad American assurance — supported and guaranteed by the world — to Iran that it is not targeted for "regime change."
That should, hopefully, break the ice and set the ground for initialising a dialogue that could eventually lead to building trust and confidence between Tehran and Washington. That is a long way ahead and might sound like wishful thinking beyond imagination. If anything, recent strategy papers adopted by the Bush administration classify Iran as the source of the greatest threat to the US. Coupled with reports of planned American military action against Iran, there does not seem to an iota of hope for dialogue.
However, if the US is sincere when it says it is interested only ensuring the security and stability of the Middle East, then it should step forward with transparency, seriousness, determination and commitment and adopt international legitimacy as enshrined in UN decisions and conventions as the basis for any dialogue with Iran.
Simply put, the US should put its American interests first in any consideration, and then it would be crystal clear that Washington has no ground to see anyone in the Middle East an adversary.
Once the US does that, then the rest is easy. But the first step, seen against the realities of today, is all but impossible, and that is where the deadlock is.
AS IRAN basked in what it considers as the glory in its announcement that it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, the international community is alarmed over the dramatic course of events.
It could not be said that the Iranian announcement shocked everyone because many suspected that something was indeed going on behind the scenes as the nuclear dispute was being debated across continents. However, the Iranian move has indeed dramatically raised tension and apprehension by several notches.
Almost every country in the world has described the Iranian move to enrich uranium as a step in the wrong direction. This iindicates a rare international consensus that would have a strong adverse impact not only on the Middle East but also the rest of the world.
However, the Iranian move has indeed dramatically raised tension and apprehension by several notches, particularly in the Gulf region, where the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) has always made it clear that its members wanted the entire Middle East area to be a nuclear-free zone.
In diplomatic terms, Iran is being urged to call of its nuclear work, but, from judging from Iran's record and behaviour, it is unlikely that Tehran would respond positively to such calls. That leaves the US and its allies — which now include hitherto reluctant Russia and China — with the option of pursuing punitive sanctions against Iran through the UN Security Council.
Indeed, such sanctions were a strong possibility even before Tuesday's Iranian announcement, which in fact gave the additional ammunition that the US wanted in order to ensure UN action against Tehran. Washington and its allies in Europe and elsewhere, including Israel, might have their own agenda to pursue against Iran. That agenda may have to do with what the US and others consider as their strategic geopolitical interests in the Middle East.
In the immediate region, the Gulf countries have more than one reason to worry about. Nuclear activity in Iran, whether for peaceful purposes or otherwise, could have serious unhealthy effects on the region. Any process going wrong in Iran's nuclear work would be catastrophic for its immediate neighbours. Then there are concerns that the Iranian nuclear stand-off with the US and its allies might lead to sanctions against Tehran and the Iranians would retaliate by impeding the flow of oil from the Gulf. Finally, with seemingly credible reports coming from the US that the administration might use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, there is also fear of the consequences of such actions.
To be fair, Iran, like any other country in the world, has the right to pursue nuclear programmes for peaceful purposes under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And Tehran insists that its nuclear work is very much within its rights. Until now, there is no concrete proof that the Iranians are developing nuclear wepons, but many others believe that it is only a matter of time before it becomes clear that they had always sought to have nuclear weapons. Therefore, exercising international rights is indeed one thing, but citing those rights to achieve a different goal is something else. How to tackle both in a balanced and effective way is the dilemma facing the world today.
We could only hope that the Iranians, having achieved their purpose of proving to the world that they could do nuclear work on their own, would seek to check the situation from getting worse. On the other side, the US and allies accept that the only way out is through realistic dialogue.
There are so many ifs and buts in the equation, but the core issue is the mutual distrust between the US and Iran.
Washington sees Iran as a major stumbling block against the strategic interests of not only the UN but also those of Israel — and not necessarily in that order either. The US seems to think that working out a rapproachement with Iran is all but impossible under the present geopolitical givens. And, if one goes by the published comments of many in the US and outside, the administration's ultimate goal is "regime change" in Iran.
Therefore the first step in any move to defuse the situation and ensure that the Middle East is free of nuclear weapons is an iron-clad American assurance — supported and guaranteed by the world — to Iran that it is not targeted for "regime change."
That should, hopefully, break the ice and set the ground for initialising a dialogue that could eventually lead to building trust and confidence between Tehran and Washington. That is a long way ahead and might sound like wishful thinking beyond imagination. If anything, recent strategy papers adopted by the Bush administration classify Iran as the source of the greatest threat to the US. Coupled with reports of planned American military action against Iran, there does not seem to an iota of hope for dialogue.
However, if the US is sincere when it says it is interested only ensuring the security and stability of the Middle East, then it should step forward with transparency, seriousness, determination and commitment and adopt international legitimacy as enshrined in UN decisions and conventions as the basis for any dialogue with Iran.
Simply put, the US should put its American interests first in any consideration, and then it would be crystal clear that Washington has no ground to see anyone in the Middle East an adversary.
Once the US does that, then the rest is easy. But the first step, seen against the realities of today, is all but impossible, and that is where the deadlock is.
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}