News, 8-14/12/01 (1)

The most important item this week might be the ^ÌStop Press¹, undermining the
Mohammad Atta meets Iraqi agent in Prague story (apparently the flights from
the US are accounted for by another - Pakistani - Mohammad Atta). But we¹ve
had disapppointments on this one before. Triumph after triumph in
Afghanistan has left the US government feeling they can do whatever they
like (and perhaps they can). There has been a US delegation, with Turks in
tow, to the Kurdish autonomous zone; and the US have transferred the
Headquarters of their military operations in the Middle East and Central
Asia to Kuwait. The Kuwaitis don¹t seem to mind despite some small pretense
of opposition to the Afghan war.

STOP PRESS

* Czech paper casts doubt on suicide bomber's meeting with Iraqi agent [If
this is true, and it hasn¹t yet turned up in any of the usual sources, the
Czechs are reverting to their first story, that Mohamed Atta only spent one
night in Prague and they don¹t know what he did]

FINGER POINTING AT IRAQ

* Annan warns US against carrying terror war to Iraq
* US Policy Toward Iraq [Lengthy account of bland address by US Ambassador
David Mack to the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Includes a list
of nice things the Iraqis could expect if (somehow) they could acquire ^Ìa
new leadership¹. They would for example, be allowed to eat. And to look
after their sick.]
* Bush points to Iraq as his next target
* Cheney: Iraq Still a Threat
* Iraqi opposition needs unified US policy [From the Lebanese Star.
advocating US intervention in Iraq. Does this mean that they Syrians favour
US intervention in Iraq. Or that the Syrians permit - um - freedom of speech
in the Lebanon. the article includes the following very remarkable statement
I haven¹t seen anywhere else: ^ÌDonald Rumsfeld questioned the efficacy of
the arms inspection regime by saying on Dec. 2 that 'we sent arms inspectors
into Iraq for years, but they never found anything important.' Rumsfeld went
on to say that the only way the West knew of the extent of Iraq's weapons
programs was through Iraqi defectors.¹]
* Resist the Urge to Attack Iraq [by Said Aburish, President Hussein¹s
biographer. He thinks that the US should in principle overthrow President
Hussein, but not now. The Iraqi opposition is hopeless and contains criminal
elements. Arab opinion would be against it. Unfortunately the triumph in
Afghanistan, not to mention Kosovo, suggests that hopeless, criminal
oppositions do OK when helped by massive American bombing, and that
Arab/Muslim opinion is easily divided and will bow before the wind of stern
US resolve. Once the right to overthrow governments at will is conceded, the
practical objections, given the overwhelming nature of US firepower and the
total brutality with which it is used, do not count for very much]
* Attack on Iraq? [A symposium of Nobel Peace laureates says don¹t go after
Iraq]
* House committee gives Iraq 'one last chance' [US House of Representatives
International Relations Committee. Note the dissent of the One Just Man (Rep
Ron Paul from Texas, a Republican)]

URL ONLY:
http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/14/int16.htm
* Bush has no strong case to attack Iraq
by Henri J. Barkey
Dawn (apparently from Washington Post), 14th December
Despite the headline the article in principle supports an invasion but
thinks the INC is too divided and weak to play the role of Northern Alliance
(which was also supposed to be pretty divided and weak). We learn, or I
learn since I didn¹t know it, that Chalabi is a Shia.

NEW WORLD ORDER

* 12 Americans Win Judgment Against Iraq Over Captivity [US judge awards
$309 million damages against Iraq because of the harm done by the Iraqis to
US citizens. Adolf Hitler is considering launching a similar plaint against
the World Jewish Congress.]
* Is the Ugly American Back? [Anxiety that if Somalia is a target, Kenya
might be one too]
* Terror hit list drawn up by US [Indonesia, Yemen, Somalia. Oh and Iraq.]
* Bush weighs options beyond Afghanistan [Large amounts of money going to
various countries, including Philippines, Uzbekistan and Turkey, for
^Ìcounterterrorism¹ ie purchase of weapons of mass destruction?]
* U.S. needs a PR offensive to win the war of ideas [Suggestions for
persuading the world that Americans are really good people and only do
things that are noble and just. The suggestions include ^ÌFill foreign media
with American views and voices¹ and ^ÌDevelop message campaigns with
Hollywood, Madison Avenue¹. The article comes to you embellished with some
remarks of my own about the various misapprehensions about US policy that
still exist in the world]
* Can mass murderers make peace? [Ranging over Israel/Palestine, Iraq and
Afghanistan. By Mahir Ali who appears to be a rather good, punchy writer]


AND, IN NEWS, 8-14/12/01 (2)

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

* US holds up biological weapons control, despite anthrax attacks [We had
this news last week but it can¹t be repeated too often. The US have refused
to a system of inspecting biological weapons everyone else, including Iraq,
was willing to adopt on the grounds that they have to protect the commercial
secrets of private companies]
* U.S. Scuttles Germ War Conference
* German suspected of dabbling in Iraq weapons trade
* Iraqi Defector Warns Congress of Saddam's Weapons {Hamza talking to the
^Ìbicameral, bipartisan task force on non-proliferation¹.]

IRAQI/MIDDLE EASTERN-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS

* Jordan seeks bids for oil pipeline from Iraq
* Pentagon switch in Gulf heralds wider war [You learn something every day.
I hadn¹t realised that the HQ of US military operations in the Middle East
and Central Asia was in Georgia. Georgia, readers may remember, was once the
only member of the CIS that didn¹t have a former Soviet apparatchik for a
President - until he was ousted by Edvard Chevardnaze. He who liked, while
still Foreign Secretary of the USSR, to be photographed out fishing with
G.Bush Sr ...]
* Kuwait: U.S. move not linked to Iraq
* Woolsey's admittance insufficient: Daily [It seems that James Woolsey has
been in Iran where he said that the US had been wrong to back Saddam during
the Iran/Iraq war. Meaning, presumably, that they should have let Ayatollah
Khomeini take Iraq? And, as this Iranian article argues, should they not now
accept responsibility for President Hussein¹s use of chemical weapons
against the Iranians (which, unlike the Kurdish incident, is rarely
mentioned because it is a crime in which he US is deeply implicated)?]
* Turkey to drill for oil in Kurdish-held northern Iraq
* $3.68bn of contractual agreements for Egyptian companies in Iraq
* USD 14 billion the volume of Iraqi trade exchange with Arab states

GULF WAR SYNDROME

* Decade after gulf war, GI illnesses tied to Lou Gehrig's disease

SOUTHERN KURDISTAN/NORTHERN IRAQ

* A High Level U.S. Delegation Visits Southern (Iraqi) Kurdistan
[supposedly to bring about reconciliation between the KDP and the PUK. Who
are, we are always being told, reconciled]
* USA delegation to Kurdistan to renew USA commitment to protect Kurds
[Little detail that the US delegation includes a Turkish contingent]
* Kurds wary of Turkish troop movements

REFUGEES

* Smuggler of Iraqis sent home [Saudi trying to help three Iraqi women to
enter New Zealand.]
* Between sky and earth [Depressing tale of the fate of refugees in
Australia]

INSIDE IRAQ

* Cancer disaster in Iraq


STOP PRESS

NO URL. Communicated by Colin Rowat

* CZECH PAPER CASTS DOUBT ON SUICIDE BOMBER'S MEETING WITH IRAQI AGENT
[Source: EUP20011214000125 Prague CTK in English, 13th December]

Prague, 13 December: The theory about a connection between the terrorists
from 11 September in the USA and the Iraqi embassy in Prague, which has
served as the chief evidence against Iraq, is crumbling, the daily Mlada
fronta Dnes writes today. Egyptian Mohammed Ata, who blew up a New York
skyscraper, had only been in the Czech Republic twice. His alleged meeting
with an Iraqi diplomat has not been confirmed.

All information about his other stays in the Czech Republic checked by the
Czech intelligence and police have proved unsubstantiated in the past
days... The "Prague trace" and especially the meeting with the Iraqi spy
were the only clue for Americans which suggested a connection of the
al-Qa'idah members with Saddam Husayn's regime. "I can confirm that
documents only prove two stays," police chief Jiri Kolar said last night.

Mohammed Ata visited Prague last May, when he landed at the Ruzyne airport.
Since he did not have visa, he was not allowed to leave the transit room.
This was his first stay. He returned to Germany and a few weeks later he
returned to Prague by bus. This was his second stay. "He spent here a
single night in June and the second day he boarded a plane bound for the
USA. Unfortunately, we have not ascertained where he was during the night,"
an intelligence officer told the daily.

According to the original information, Ata had come by plane twice. However,
the police now found that the other Mohammed Ata was a man from Pakistan and
only had his name in common with the terrorist. "His identification number
was different, there was a big difference in their age and even nationality.
Simply everything was different. It was someone else," an Interior Ministry
official told the daily.

Without presenting any evidence, Prime Minister Milos Zeman told CNN in
mid-November that Ata and an Iraqi consul al-Ani had at their meeting
planned a terrorist attack on Radio Free Europe, which is based in Prague's
centre. Zeman later said that this was just one of the hypotheses. The
information was later denied unofficially by the Czech secret service and
President Vaclav Havel did so officially last week.


FINGER POINTING AT IRAQ

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1006955620

* ANNAN WARNS US AGAINST CARRYING TERROR WAR TO IRAQ
Times of India, 10th December

SLO (AFP): UN Secretary General Kofi Annan cautioned the United States on
Sunday not to expand its war on terrorism to Iraq as that war would be lost
unless waged by all countries acting in concert.

Annan applauded Washington's renewed engagement in the Middle East where he
said the Israelis and the Palestinians now desperately needed help from the
rest of the world to put an end to their bloody conflict.

Speaking at a news conference on the eve of a formal ceremony where he will
receive the Nobel Peace Prize, the 63-year-old UN secretary general said US
military action against Iraq could dramatically inflame violence in the
Middle East.

"Any attempt or any decision to attack Iraq today will be unwise and could
lead to a major escalation in the region," Annan said. "I hope that it will
not be the case."

Such a move would also need to be debated by the UN Security Council and the
recent UN resolution on fighting terrorism did not endorse use of force
beyond Afghanistan to bring terrorists to justice, he said.

[.....]

"We are all confronted with a struggle against terrorism," he said, adding:
"We win the fight by cooperation among nations or we don't win it at all."

[.....]


http://www.mees.com/news/a44n50d02.htmVOL. XLIV

* US POLICY TOWARD IRAQ
Middle East Economic Survey, No 50, 10th December

The following is based on remarks delivered by US Ambassador David Mack on 8
November 2001 at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA),
Chatham House, London, a revised version of which will appear in the January
edition of RIIA¹s The World Today magazine. Mr Mack, a former Deputy US
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, is the Vice President
of the Middle East Institute, Washington, DC.

At issue now is the likely development of US policy toward Iraq. Will we
take reckless measures? Or by failure to act forcefully as well as
prudently, will we do something reckless by omission? 

In my view, the criteria for judging US policy remain the same as they have
been since the summer of 1991, when the government of Saddam Husain failed
to comply promptly with United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR)
687:

1. Protect Iraq¹s neighborhood and the wider international community from a
vengeful Iraqi regime armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 

2. Meet the urgent human needs of the Iraqi people.

3. Provide hope for reintegrating Iraq into the international community as a
law-abiding member serving the needs of its people rather than regime
survival.

The circumstances have become more difficult with time, but the fundamental
policies adopted by the UN in 1991 and subsequent years were sound in
principle. They could have worked and did to some degree, but only when
Saddam Husain believed that we were able and had the will to use
regime-threatening force if he did not comply. This perception on his part
ceased to be true in the mid-1990s.

In effect, today we have the tattered remnants of a containment policy,
which worked reasonably well for a few years. It met the first test
protecting the outside world although from 1995 on the UN Special
Commission (UNSCOM) was increasingly trying to catch up with the Iraqi
strategy of initial denial, deception, concealment, threats and partial
confession when exposure seemed inevitable. While inspection and monitoring
continued in some form until 1998, they had ceased to be meaningful. Two
years ago, Washington eventually accepted the greatly modified system of
sanctions and inspections set forth in UNSCR 1284, as drafted by the
governments of the UK and the Netherlands, persuaded that this would be
critical to maintaining coalition solidarity. The US government did so
despite the concerns of some US officials that this could have led in fairly
short order to the arrival of UN monitors under terms far weaker than the
strong UNSCOM mandate. After a brief interval, these critics predicted, we
would have had the illusion of arms control cloaking the reality of covert
Iraqi WMD programs, the suspension of all controls on revenues from Iraq¹s
oil exports and, shortly thereafter, the end to all sanctions. With the
erosion of support for the no-fly zones and with Saddam Husain receiving
some $20bn annually in oil revenues, containment would have ended. It would
have been replaced at best by a watered down deterrence based on the threat
to renew hostilities of some kind if it were found that Iraq had secretly
developed proscribed weapons. You will find few in Washington prepared to
run the risks implied in such a strategy of deterrence. In the end,
encouraged by the ambiguous positions of France and Russia, Baghdad rejected
efforts to implement UNSCR 1284.  It did so with impunity.  The official
position described to me is that the US Government is still prepared to see
implementation of UNSCR 1284 but will reject any efforts to weaken it even
further by negotiations with Baghdad.

Moving to the second criteria for judging US policy, the latest UN figures
for movements of commodities into Iraq indicate the so-called oil for food
program of UNSCR 986 is doing a better job of meeting basic human needs. 
Moreover, it is permitting a wide range of economic imports essential for
economic reconstruction going well beyond strictly humanitarian
requirements. Washington and London have lifted all but a small number of
holds on suspected dual use items. After Baghdad delayed its acceptance of
the oil for food program for five years, until December 1996, and after
roughly two years of a jerky start to getting commodities down the pipeline
into Iraqi homes and hospitals, great damage had been done to the health of
millions of Iraqis. While the Iraqi regime is largely responsible for this
suffering, in some cases, the US must bear the onus for shortsighted and
non-essential delays in approving commodity imports. Moreover, as the regime
has learned how to manipulate the procedures of UNSCR 986, it has
strengthened its grip on most Iraqis under its sway while building new
relations with foreign sanctions busters. All the while, it has continued
mostly bogus appeals to international public opinion. It has clearly gained
in the battle of perceptions. Nonetheless, it is important to note that such
basic indicators of well being such as infant mortality have greatlyimproved
since 1990 in the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq where the UN, rather than
the Iraqi central authorities, has the dominant role in administering UNSCR
986. At a minimum, it must be said that the current system, while full of
defects, has the virtue of requiring Saddam Husain to spend the greatest
portion of Iraq¹s oil revenues on economic programs rather than for some
other purposes.

There is no obvious end game for Iraq. US containment policy has failed to
meet my third test to provide a way to reintegrate Iraq into the
international community, while benefiting regional stability and the Iraqi
people. The conspiracy theory prevalent in the Arab world and among Iraqis
everywhere is that the real US goal is to keep Iraq weak and the Arab world
divided. To accomplish this, it is useful to keep Saddam Husain in power.
The theory concludes that this allows Israel to pursue its objectives
without interference, while it enables US arms suppliers to grow rich on
sales to the Middle East. It is slight comfort to my Iraqi emigre friends
for me to point out that many Cuban Americans make similar arguments about
the even greater durability of the Castro regime, and that Havana is much
more vulnerable to US economic and military power than Baghdad. The hard
truth is that even for the ³sole super power² there are real limitations to
the ability to force the pace of political change in a despotic regime.

The case for bolstering containment by adopting a new UN resolution
so-called smart sanctions has an appeal in the near term. It is designed
to end sanctions on Iraqi non military imports without the need for
cooperation by the Iraqi Government. It might very well assist efforts to
improve economic life for many Iraqis and change international public
opinion. In the long term, I fear that smart sanctions will be a loser
unless combined with or followed by other measures. The pending draft
resolution would not return UN weapons inspectors to Iraq or otherwise
contain potential Iraqi power to develop and use WMD. 

Moreover, Saddam Husain has a history of supporting terrorism with a global
reach from bombs in downtown Damascus to assassinations in 'Amman, Abu
Dhabi and London. Such terrorism linked with WMD is the ultimate nightmare.
Make no mistake, this Iraqi regime harbors a desire for revenge against at
least Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the US and the UK. As a hawkish senior advisor
to US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld remarked to me just three days ago, ³Saddam
will get us if we don¹t get him first.²

To believe that you do not have to believe that Saddam Husain was connected
to the events of 11 September or the anthrax laden letters.  Personally, I
do not subscribe to the view that he is behind everything bad, including the
earlier bombing of the World Trade Center and pattern balding among aging
male diplomats!  But I have no doubt that he retains both the desire and the
potential ability to do us grave harm. 

The current Washington debate does not include the option of giving in to
the Iraqi Government. Instead, the debate is between restored containment
and regime change. A few weeks ago two of the featured speakers at the
Middle East Institute annual conference were Sharif 'Ali bin Al Hussein of
the Iraqi National Congress and former US Assistant Secretary of State
Robert Pelletreau. The latter made a strong argument for strengthening
containment restoring a UN Security Council consensus, passing a smart
sanctions resolution and, as a second step, implementing UNSCR 1284 and
establishing a modicum of arms control. In the often simplistic media
coverage of Iraq policy, such views are identified with those of the State
Department and Secretary of State Colin Powell. 

Sharif 'Ali, giving eloquent voice to the feelings of many if not most
Iraqis, called for promotion of regime change and international support for
establishing a democratic regime in Baghdad. His view appeals to many of the
³hawks² in Washington. Some of these critics of Powell make this task sound
relatively easy, reflecting a real or willful ignorance of the situation on
the ground and in the region. 

Put me down as a hawk at heart but a skeptic in my head. Actually, I believe
that most, if not all of the top members of the Bush Administration reflect
the same skeptical anti Saddam approach. In the end, given a plausible plan
for regime change, Colin Powell would be a ruthless hawk. Conversely, Vice
President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are not men
given to rash actions. 

The tragic events of 11 September changed much in Washington. The debate on
US policy toward Iraq was about to be joined at the highest levels of the
Administration.  The destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on
the Pentagon raised the intensity level of arguments both for seeking a
military confrontation with Iraq and for building an international
coalition, which would work with the US to deal with the potential threat of
WMD in the hands of terrorists. Coalition partners already either opposed to
US policy toward Iraq or growing weary with its demands are now essential
either to the war effort in Afghanistan or to dealing in an effective and
pro-active manner with the terrorist cells and money conduits elsewhere in
the world.

For now, at least, President Bush has established the clear priority of the
war against Usama bin Ladin, al-Qa'ida and the Taliban leadership which has
chosen to ally itself with them in Afghanistan. This could change if a clear
connection of al-Qa'ida to Baghdad were to emerge. Even then, under pressure
from US public opinion to take effective action, I believe that President
Bush would insist upon a plausible plan to deal forcefully with Iraq. I also
believe that the President would want to work with key members of the
coalition if at all possible. 

The US Government is taking steps during this interim period to increase
pressure on Baghdad, and more can be done. Where current policy has
manifestly failed is in the projection of a positive future for Iraq, a
vision which is both anti-Saddam but also pro-Iraq. It is necessary to give
Iraqis, both inside the country and in exile, a clear sense that conditions
would improve greatly after Saddam Husain and his henchmen are no longer in
power. This would be an advance commitment, that once Iraq has a new
leadership abiding by the relevant UN resolutions, including compliance with
the terms of UNSCR 1284 and cooperation with the UN weapons monitors, bold
and generous actions would follow. These ideas do not originate with me but
emerge from over two years of meetings at the Middle East Institute among
exiled Iraqi economists, political leaders, scholars and military officers
who have advanced plans for a post-Saddam Husain Iraq.

To get this process underway, I propose a declaration of the top leaders in
Washington, London, Riyadh and Kuwait, to be joined by as many other
governments as would subscribe to it, which would include the following
elements: 

The end to all economic sanctions.

Suspension of war reparations payments with a commitment to end all
remaining reparations unless the UN Security Council agrees that there is an
overriding humanitarian case.

Forgiveness of debt or, at least, suspension of debt repayments and
negotiation of deferred terms for repayment. 

Encouragement of direct foreign private investment in the Iraqi oil
industry and other economic sectors, provided the new Iraqi Government
establishes an internationally competitive investment climate.

Support for UN programs of technical assistance to rebuild Iraq¹s public
health and educational systems.

Eventual consideration by the UN Security Council of licensing limited
military exports to Iraq to provide the essential defense requirements for a
reformed and much smaller armed forces operating within the constraints of
the UN prohibitions on WMD and longer-range ground to ground missiles. (One
example discussed by a recent working group of Iraqi military defectors
would be the replacement of tank transporters and other military systems
providing force projection outside of Iraq¹s borders by an improved rail
system extending to border areas which would facilitate movements of armor
to deter potential foreign threats.)

A combination of a small number of trials of the top leaders of the
current regime for crimes against humanity together with a broad process of
amnesty and truth and national reconciliation.

The Middle East can greatly benefit from the re-entry of Iraq into the
international community under a new leadership. The US should take the lead
in making this happen.


http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/12/wnext12.x
ml&sSheet=/news/2001/12/12/ixhome.html

* BUSH POINTS TO IRAQ AS HIS NEXT TARGET
by Toby Harnden
Daily Telegraph, 12th December

PRESIDENT BUSH gave warning yesterday that "rogue states" with weapons of
mass destruction would be his next priority in the war against terrorism, in
a signal that Iraq could soon be targeted.

His speech came as a US team arrived in northern Iraq to help to unify
opposition groups, a first step towards creating a springboard for any
offensive against President Saddam Hussein.

Mr Bush said: "America's next priority in the war on terrorism is to protect
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to
deliver them."

"Every nation now knows that we cannot accept and we will not accept states
that harbour, finance, train or equip the agents of terror.

"Those nations that violate this principle will be regarded as hostile
regimes," he added. "They have been warned. They are being watched, and they
will be held to account."

In Afghanistan, America used local opposition groups to bring down the
Taliban. The State Department delegation at present in northern Iraq will
seek to foster co-operation between Kurdish and other anti-Saddam forces.
Headed by Ryan Crocker, a senior State Department official, it is the first
mission to northern Iraq for almost a year.

[.....]


http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=CF0F3729-814C-41DF
A23F983722EAE131&Title=Cheney%3A%20Iraq%20Still%20a%20Threat&CatOID=45C9C78D
-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C

* CHENEY: IRAQ STILL A THREAT
Voice of America, 12th December

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney says Iraq remains a concern as the United
States pursues its war on terrorism.

In a U.S. television interview, Mr. Cheney declined to say whether Iraq
might be a future target. But the vice-president said that if he were Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, he would - in his words - "be thinking very
carefully about the future" and "looking very closely to see what happened
to the Taleban in Afghanistan."

Mr. Cheney said the United States is concerned because the Iraqi leader "has
tried aggressively to develop weapons of mass destruction" in the past and
is "even trying again now."


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/12_12_01/art25.htm

* IRAQI OPPOSITION NEEDS UNIFIED US POLICY
by Ghassan al-Atiyyah
Daily Star (Lebanon), 12th December

LONDON: While almost all Iraqis of whatever social background and
ideological persuasion unanimously endorse change in their country, the
supposed vehicle for this change the Iraqi opposition is too weak to do
the job on its own: it still needs outside backing.

A glance at Iraq's modern history shows, in fact, that all political
upheavals and military coups (whether successful or failed) that took place
in the country since 1958 were supported in one way or another by external
Arab or foreign circles.

Iraqis had a chance to effect change in their country after the resounding
defeat suffered by the Saddam Hussein regime in the 1991 Gulf war. The Iraqi
people rose against the regime, and 14 of the 18 Iraqi provinces fell to the
insurgents. But the US, influenced by its regional allies, saw fit to
contain the regime rather than topple it; Washington thus made sure that
Baghdad could use its helicopter gunships and special forces to suppress the
revolt.

Washington thus wasted a rare opportunity to effect democratic change in
Iraq. In fact, some of those 'allies' were hotbeds of the religious
fundamentalism that subsequently spawned Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

It might have been understandable, perhaps even excusable, for the Americans
to have used anti-communism as the only yardstick by which to judge their
friends in the Middle East in the Cold War era. But after the collapse of
the Soviet Union, many believed that Washington would adopt democracy as a
yardstick. Unfortunately, that was not to be: Washington preferred to
maintain the status quo with all its deficiencies.

Thanks to Sept. 11 and the subsequent American declaration of 'war on
terror,' Iraq is once again in the limelight.

During the Clinton presidency, the Iraqi opposition became a pawn in the
political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, which,
in 1998, passed the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) designed to topple Saddam. The
opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC) was named as his successor, and a
budget was earmarked for the operation.

Bill Clinton, then reeling from a series of personal scandals, was forced to
endorse the ILA under pressure from Congress. Yet the former president never
did want to involve himself in a potentially messy change in Baghdad,
preferring a policy of containment. Thus even as he signed the ILA, Clinton
was scheming to undermine it. This he did by restricting expenditure of the
ILA budget to propaganda and bureaucratic purposes only a fact that was
exploited to besmirch the reputation of the opposition as a bunch of
mercenaries, which in turn contributed to its divisions, dented its
credibility, and led to its losing support.

When the file on Iraq was reopened after Sept. 11, two main currents came to
the fore in Washington:

The first, represented mainly by the State Department, calls for continuing
with the policies of the past. Advocates of this line of thinking call for
utilizing the global coalition against terror to achieve the goals previous
administrations failed to realize namely, the return of UN arms inspectors
to Baghdad.

This current doesn't believe that the Iraqi opposition can form a credible
alternative to the Saddam Hussein regime. General Anthony Zinni, now a
prominent State Department official, said back in 1999 (when he commanded US
forces in the Middle East) that an effectively contained Iraq under Saddam
Hussein is infinitely less of a threat than the confusion of a divided
post-Saddam Iraq.

This current also sees the Iraqi opposition purely as a means of pressure,
and has made its support of the opposition conditional upon the latter's
commitment not to provoke Baghdad by mounting operations inside Iraq.

Such a formula suited the two main Kurdish parties the Kurdistan
Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) as they
are outside Baghdad's control anyway. For its part, the Iraqi regime didn't
really mind the KDP and PUK having relations with Washington so long as they
were committed not to provoke Baghdad. This state of affairs created a
political agenda specific for the Kurds which is different to that of the
other factions making up the Iraqi opposition. While the Kurds can coexist
with the status quo, the rest of the opposition believes that the
continuation of the current situation will spell their doom. This caused the
non-Kurdish pro-American opposition factions to doubt Washington's motives.

The current espoused by the State Department also gives priority to the
international anti Iraq coalition. Yet in the absence of any serious
prospects for Saddam's ouster, many countries (regional countries
especially) succumbed to the lures of economic cooperation with Baghdad.
This included countries that were once considered hostile to Iraq, such as
Syria, further enhancing the regime's prospects for survival as well as
reflecting negatively on the status of the Iraqi opposition in those
countries.

This current also uses Saddam's alleged military strength as a further
excuse against direct US involvement. When the situation in Iraq is compared
to that in Afghanistan, advocates of the State Department line retort that
the Iraqi opposition is far from being the Northern Alliance, and that
Saddam's forces are much stronger than the Taleban. Therefore, they say,
containment with the return of UN weapons inspectors is the best option.

But what if Saddam Hussein continues to shut out the arms inspectors? US
President George W. Bush says, 'he^Òll find out.' If Bush meant delivering a
blow that would overthrow the regime, then it would only be logical that
Washington changes the way it deals with the Iraqi opposition, and prepare
it to take over in Baghdad once Saddam is overthrown.

Yet statements made by Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed that the
president hasn't yet made up his mind over Iraq, which means that Bush
doesn't know what he wants to do. So how can he expect Saddam to know? There
is a second current on Iraq in Washington. This current can be divided into
two wings: the first, represented by the Defense Department, believes that
the destruction of Saddam must be the prime objective. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld questioned the efficacy of the arms inspection regime by
saying on Dec. 2 that 'we sent arms inspectors into Iraq for years, but they
never found anything important.' Rumsfeld went on to say that the only way
the West knew of the extent of Iraq's weapons programs was through Iraqi
defectors.

But relations between this wing and the Iraqi opposition are limited,
because (1) relations with the opposition are handled by the State
Department, and (2) American military commanders have never been keen
supporters of the Iraqi opposition anyway.

Yet civilian officials at the Pentagon, like Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul
Wolfowitz, are very keen on helping the Iraqi opposition and deposing
Saddam.

Those hawks in Congress who put together the ILA represent the other wing of
this line of thought. On Dec. 5, nine congressmen (including former
presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, former vice-presidential candidate
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Jesse Helms, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, House
International Relations Committee chairman Henry J. Hyde and the ranking
Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard C. Shelby) wrote to
Bush asking him to name Iraq as the next US target in the war on terror.
Iraq, they wrote, is still making weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them. Sanctions have shown themselves to be useless in isolating
the regime, and therefore Saddam has to be removed sooner rather than later.

The congressmen's letter urged the president to make use of the Afghan
experience by cooperating with the Iraqi opposition 'in order to minimize
(US) casualties and shorten the conflict.' The letter went on to say:
'Again, we can learn from our experience in Afghanistan. We cannot be drawn
into the ethnic politics of any particular nation, but should find a way to
work with all the opposition in a united framework. The Iraqi National
Congress is the only umbrella organization comprising all elements of the
Iraqi opposition. No one group is excluded, and no one group is favored ^Å
Let us maximize the likelihood of a rapid victory by beginning immediately
to assist the Iraqi opposition on the ground inside Iraq by providing them
with money and assistance already authorized and appropriated.'

In order to fulfill what the signatories of the letter called for 'no one
group is excluded, and no one group is favored' full use must be made of
the lessons of Afghanistan, especially that of the Bonn conference.

Iraqi opposition forces which believe in the necessity of cooperation with
the United States not only to overthrow Saddam, but also to help defend a
post-Saddam Iraq and restore the country to economic health, want the
Americans to adopt a unified position. The US must stop using the Iraqi
opposition as a pawn in partisan politics. But this will not be possible
unless and until Bush makes up his mind on what to do about Iraq.

Ghassan al-Atiyyah is the Iraqi editor of the London-based Malaf Al-Iraqi
(or Iraqi File, iraqifile@aol.com)


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la
000098622dec12.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dopinions

* Resist the Urge to Attack Iraq
by SAID K. ABURISH
Los Angeles Times, 12th December

Said K. Aburish is the author of "Saddam Hussein, the Politics of Revenge"
(Bloomsbury, 2000) and "The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of The House of
Saud" (St. Martin's, 1995)

The Middle East is where the United States does the right thing for the
wrong reason with disturbing consistency. The developing confrontation
between the Bush administration and Iraq represents a radical expansion of
this maxim and threatens to produce the Muslim West conflict that Osama bin
Laden wants.

The reason for confronting Saddam Hussein--ostensibly his unconventional
weapons development program and the threat it implies--has been with us for
more than two decades.

That Hussein still harbors ambitions to build weapons of mass destruction
undoubtedly is true. But it also is true that he was allowed to get away
with his actions for so long--even triumphing over United Nations weapons
inspections--because the United Stateswanted to keep a lid on the price of
oil.

What we are seeing now is a re-energized attempt to rid the world of
Hussein.

We are back to the end of the Gulf War.

Whatever reasons the United States had 10 years ago for stopping short of
attacking Iraq directly on land collapsed Sept. 11.

Yet if the reasons for overthrowing Hussein are emotional, then the reasons
for not doing it now are overwhelmingly practical. They are Iraqi, Arab,
Muslim and Western reasons. They have to do with timing, morality--was
Hussein involved in the Sept. 11 attacks?- acceptability and consequences.

A war against Hussein at this juncture would be disastrous on a practical
level. Justifying it would destroy all hopes for understanding between East
and West.

In judging Iraq, one has to think not only of the ineffectiveness of
Hussein's opposition but also of the inevitable involvement and greed of
Iraq's Arab neighbors and Iran and Turkey.

The Iraqi opposition is divided. The Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and
Jalal Talabani cannot agree on who and how to lead their people. The
chairman of the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi, is more
at home in Washington than in Baghdad.

The opposition's also-rans include Saudi-and Kuwaiti-sponsored groups with
no Iraqi following. The Shia religious groups Al Dawaa and Supreme Assembly
for the Islamic Revolution are not acceptable to Washington and others
because they preach Muslim fundamentalism. Former army officers in the
opposition participated in Hussein's crimes in the 1970s and '80s.

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Egypt fear
that Hussein's end might dismember Iraq and destabilize the whole region.
All believe that an attack now would be seen as an attack on fellow Muslims
and Arabs and thus endanger their shaky regimes.

Arab and Muslim peoples would support Hussein against the "Great Satan." To
them, Hussein is the only head of an Arab Muslim government who has
challenged the West and survived. They have no objection to Iraq's
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction because Israel has nuclear
weapons.

Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's staunchest ally in the
war against terror, sought to draw a demarcation line between Bin Laden and
Iraq. Responding to what he heard from pro-West Arab leaders, Blair has
tried since October to stop the drift toward a confrontation with Iraq.
Blair appears to see no direct Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

More practically, Hussein's army is no ramshackle Taliban. Not only would
invading Iraq be costly, but the chaos that would follow Hussein's overthrow
could lead to dismemberment of the country into three smaller states--a
Kurdish north, Sunni middle and Shia south--each with its oil reserves. This
would put greater financial pressure on the oil-producing countries.

And there is no guarantee that an Iraq without Hussein would destroy its
weapons of mass destruction.

Europe will not support getting rid of Saddam Hussein now.

It would have been different in March 1991, when the Iraqi people rose
against him and the memories of his Gulf War and chemical atrocities were
fresh.

Moving on Iraq now would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason.


http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/dec/12/12122001ed.htm#A2

* ATTACK ON IRAQ?
Bangadeshi Independent, 12th December

[.....]

The Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Gunner Berge told a
symposium of Nobel Peace Laureates on the occasion of the 100th anniversary
of the Nobel Prize, that the moral force of the global war against terrorism
could be lost in defeat "if we respond in the language and the means of the
terrorist." The Nobel peace laureates were united in urging the USA not to
expand its anti-terror military action against Iraq and other countries on
mere suspicion.

US military intervention "hailed as success" in Afghanistan must not be "an
encouragement to continue" with similar attacks on countries like Somalia,
Sudan, Yemen and Iraq. Expanding campaign against international terrorism to
attack Iraq or other suspect states could be a recipe for disaster. Indeed,
such action would be stretching the right of self defence too far. The Arab
states in particular have been vocal against the hawks in America who are
advocating that the US war machine should be used to attack Iraq and finish
off Saddam Hosain now.

It would destabilise the entire region, they warned. UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan, this year¹s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has also
cautioned against attack on Iraq before UN investigation of charges against
it. Former UN arms inspector Ritter told BBC that charges against Iraq of
either contact with September 11 terrorist team or about secret manufacture
of weapons of mass destruction have little validity. In fact, the biggest
casualty of such impulsive act of war would be international law and UN
covenants.


http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/12/iraq.us.congress.reut/index.htm
l

* HOUSE COMMITTEE GIVES IRAQ 'ONE LAST CHANCE'
CNN, 13th December

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A House of Representatives panel on Wednesday
endorsed a resolution that declares Iraq's refusal to allow the unrestricted
return of U.N. weapons inspectors a mounting threat to the United States and
the world.

With congressional sentiment growing to make Iraq the next target of the
U.S. war on terrorism, the House International Relations Committee voted
32-1 for a scaled-back, non binding resolution that supporters said would
send a signal to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that U.S. patience with his
regime was at an end.

"This resolution says, in effect, that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to
do what he was supposed to have done more than a decade ago," said Rep. Tom
Lantos of California, ranking Democrat on the panel.

But lawmakers agreed on a voice vote to tone down the resolution's wording
from an earlier version that declared any refusal to admit weapons
inspectors by Baghdad to be an "act of aggression" against the United
States.

They said they did not want the resolution to be confused with an
authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in the event that
weapons inspectors remained barred from the country.

The final version says Iraq should allow the immediate return of U.N.
weapons inspectors, and any refusal by Baghdad should be considered a
"mounting threat to the United States, its allies, and international peace
and security."

Supporters said the continued lack of access to Iraq's program for weapons
of mass destruction should be strongly protested by the United States and
United Nations, and the issue should become a priority.

"Saddam Hussein has a record of developing such weapons, and of using them
not only against his enemies but against his own people," said Chairman
Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican and co-sponsor of the measure.

The vote on the resolution, which could still be considered by the full
House before Congress adjourns for the Christmas holidays, is the latest in
a string of calls for a renewed concentration on Iraq and President Saddam
Hussein once the military campaign in Afghanistan ends.

President George W. Bush recently demanded that Saddam allow weapons
inspections to resume, saying he would "find out" the consequences if he
refused.

Ten leading members of Congress sent a letter to Bush last week urging him
to make Iraq the next target in the U.S. war on terrorism, saying it has
reinvigorated its weapons programs in the three years since U.N. inspectors
left.

"As we work to clean up Afghanistan, it is imperative that we plan to
eliminate the threat from Iraq," said the letter, signed by Hyde, Senate
Republican Leader Trent Lott, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Jesse Helms, former presidential candidate Sen. John
McCain and former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman
among others.

The lawmakers said international sanctions levied against Iraq are riddled
with loopholes and illegal oil sales could not be contained by the
administration.

"Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue
apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status," the letter said, adding: "We
believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later."

Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, said during debate on the
resolution that the time for measured, predictable responses to threats
against the United States was over.

"We have entered a new war on terrorism that no longer accepts measured,
limited responses," Issa said.

Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who cast the lone vote against the
resolution, said the original version was "really dangerous and outlandish"
while the toned-down wording was merely "jingoistic" and confrontational.

"To me, it invites conflict," he said.


NEW WORLD ORDER

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10965-2001Dec7.html

* 12 AMERICANS WIN JUDGMENT AGAINST IRAQ OVER CAPTIVITY
by Neely Tucker
Washington Post, 8th December

A dozen American nationals used as human shields or otherwise held by Iraq
at the start of the Persian Gulf War won a $309 million judgment against
that nation in U.S. District Court, but collection may be years away.

The judgment, of which $9 million is compensatory damages and the rest
punitive, was handed down Thursday by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the
first segment of a case that includes 172 American plaintiffs who were
detained in Iraq or Kuwait. The rest of the cases will follow, with damages
to be determined on an individual basis.

Despite the administration's tough talk about seizing assets of state
sponsors of terrorism and making them pay, those assets have remained almost
entirely off limits to Americans who have won judgments as victims of
terrorist acts.

The issue of such damages is being fought in the courts and in Congress. In
only a few cases have former hostages or the relatives of people killed by
terrorists collected damages. In those cases, such as that of former hostage
Terry Anderson, who was held in Lebanon but said his captivity was
engineered by Iran, legislation allowed them to collect as much as $400
million against the balance of a defunct program of military sales to Iran.

It remains unclear if the Bush administration will press Iran to repay those
settlements.

"If you were on the list of cases, like Terry Anderson's case, you're
covered, and if not, you're out in the cold," said Daniel Wolf, an attorney
in the Iraq case. "We'll have to pursue payment through Congress."

The awards handed down Thursday demonstrated the range of Americans who
lived in, or were passing through, Iraq and Kuwait.

Penelope Nabakov was a 10-year-old from California traveling to see her
mother in India when her British Airways flight made a scheduled stop in
Kuwait. The plane landed shortly after Iraqi troops invaded and was not
allowed to leave. Nabakov was held in Kuwait City for six days, taken by
train to Baghdad and allowed to leave by road. She was awarded the smallest
amount, $138,000.

The largest award, $1.75 million, was to Jack Frazier, a Montana native who
was working as a field superintendent at an Iraqi oil refinery. Then 53, he
was held and denied insulin for his diabetic condition for nearly two
months, which left him permanently disabled.


http://allafrica.com/stories/200112090025.html

* IS THE UGLY AMERICAN BACK?
by Magesha Ngwiri
The Nation (Nairobi), 9thDecember

[.....]

Just recently, there were reports that the US was contemplating hitting
targets in Somalia, allegedly for harbouring terrorist groups. While it is
not easy to know the truth in a country without a real government, any
activity of that nature in Somalia would raise more questions than it
answered.

It is possible that groups with links to Osama's Al Qaeda organisation do
operate in Somalia. But by the same token, the organisation must still have
a few cells in Kenya and Tanzania. It cannot be forgotten that the fellows
who bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi and Dar-es-salaam had lived in both
countries for years. If the US now wants to hurl missiles at specific
targets in that country, why would it not do the same thing in Kenya?
Indeed, why single out Somalia if Osama's organisation, by the US's own
reckoning, is active in 60 countries. Could it possibly have something to do
with the fact that Somali militants humiliated the US in an ambush during
which 18 American troops were killed in the early 1990s?

A revenge mission could be extremely risky, and, although it is not clear
what the official Government reaction to this proposal is, it is one option
Kenya should vehemently oppose. After all, anything happening to Somalia
would have grave implications for our country which is already harbouring
far too many Somali refugees as it is.

No, this growing American military adventurism bodes ill for too many
countries and should be abruptly checked. The US has no business in Somalia
until it determines that such terror organisations do, indeed, exist in that
country, in which case it should target those specific organisations.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,616219,00.html

* TERROR HIT LIST DRAWN UP BY US
by Matthew Engel
The Guardian, 10th December

[.....]

US intelligence officials appear to have drawn up a detailed target list of
terror bases across the globe. They are urgently assessing the risks posed
by facilities in the Aceh region of Indonesia (a secessionist part of
Sumatra), the Hadramawt region of Yemen, and Ras Komboni in southern
Somalia, near the Kenyan border. The sites have been identified from
documents and confessions from captured fighters.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times which details the possible
targets, Somalia, where central government hardly exists, is causing
increasing concern in Washington. Walter Kansteiner, the secretary of state
for African affairs, claimed on Friday that people with ties to Osama bin
Laden were involved in the transitional regime trying to take power in
Mogadishu.

Somali officials admit there was a base at Ras Komboni, but they and aid
agency workers say it has long been abandoned. The newspaper also says US
special forces have launched discreet raids against al-Qaida cells in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and taken more than a dozen suspects prisoner.

[.....]

Domestic pressure on the White House remains centred on attacking Iraq, and
Mr Cheney did little to cool public ardour.

Making a rare foray from his "secure location" into a TV studio, he said
evidence of Iraq harbouring terrorists was "pretty conclusive" and that
President Saddam had a robust programme of building chemical and biological
weapons which he had proved he was willing to use.

[.....]


http://dawn.com/fixed/subs/dinasub.htm

* BUSH WEIGHS OPTIONS BEYOND AFGHANISTAN
by Ann Scott Tyson
Dawn (Pakistan from Christian Science Monitor), 10th December

[.....]

In a related effort, the Pentagon is also seeking to expand or reestablish
military-to-military ties with countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia,
viewed as crucial allies in combating terrorism.

Next, the Bush administration is gauging the need for US forces to intervene
against terrorists in countries such as Sudan and Yemen, whose willingness
or ability to root out the networks is still in question.

Since Sept 11, four of the seven states listed by the State Department as
terrorism sponsors - Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Iran - have taken steps to
help the US-led counterterror dragnet, such as making arrests, sharing
intelligence, and offering military support.

Finally, Washington is pointedly keeping open the option of military action
against hostile regimes that continue to harbour terrorists and/or weapons
of mass destruction (WMD), such as Somalia and Iraq, defence officials say.
North Korea is also under close scrutiny as a potential exporter of WMD to
terrorists, they add.

In the short term, one possibility is for US forces to launch quick,
targeted strikes against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that the
Pentagon says are hiding in Somalia. Some defence officials consider Somalia
much like Afghanistan - a weak, lawless nation infested with terrorists.

[.....]

Washington is beefing up military counterterrorism assistance for several
far-flung countries. More than $140 million has already been pledged to the
Philippines, Uzbekistan, and Turkey. Secretary of State Colin Powell will
allocate millions more once Congress passes the 2002 foreign operations
bill, according to State Department officials. Following are examples of the
military-aid packages being put together for countries:

Uzbekistan was recently granted $25 million for counterterrorism in the form
of foreign military financing (FMF) - for weapons and other military
purchases.

Turkey, another US ally in Afghanistan, was allocated $20 million in
military financing for counterterrorism under th the emergency bill,
according to the State Department. Turkey would be a vital ally in any US
campaign against Iraq, Pentagon officials say.

The Philippines last month won a grant of $92.3 millionColumbia is seeking
more than $700 million for military assistance. Yemen is discussing a $400
million aid package from the US Dawn/LATS Service (c) Christian Science
Monitor.


http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal
op.ideas11dec11.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines

* U.S. NEEDS A PR OFFENSIVE TO WIN THE WAR OF IDEAS
by Antony J. Blinken
Baltimore Sun, 11th December

WASHINGTON - America's success in Afghanistan will count for little if we
lose the global war of ideas.

That war has produced a growing gap between how much of the world sees
America and how America sees itself. If this gap persists, it will erode
American influence. The partners we need to advance our interests will
abandon us. The few real enemies we face will find it easier to avoid
sanction and make converts among the world's silent majority.

In the war of ideas, facts have been losing ground to fiction. Many Muslims
consider the United States hostile to Islam and to Arab interests. In fact,
America saved tens of thousands of Muslims in the Persian Gulf [! - PB],
Somalia [!! - PB], Bosnia [The major Serb massacres of Muslims in Bosnia,
except for Srebrenica which the US didn¹t exactly prevent, had occurred long
before the US decided to intervene. The decisive event which brought about
the Dayton accord was the expulsion of the Serbs from the Krajina, by the
Croats. Admittedly this, the largest single piece of ethnic cleansing in the
whole war was conducted with US aid - PB] and Kosovo [where it was rpecisely
the US intervention that brought about the expulsion and massacre of the
Albanian Muslims PB]. Washington brokered a peace offer from Israel that
would have given Palestinians 95 percent of the West Bank and Gaza and
dominion over East Jerusalem [provided the Palestinian leadership renounce
all the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in exile PB].

American troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia at that country's request to
protect its people and Islam's holy sites from Iraq. The United Nations, not
the United States, imposed sanctions against Iraq [! By ^Ìthe United Nations¹
he of course means the Security Council which was in the US¹s pocket. Even
most of the Security Council now want to lift or dramatically reduce
sanction but are prevented by the US, supported by its everfaithful Tonto
PB]. Saddam Hussein, not America, has denied his people readily available
food and medicine [an outright lie PB]. The Taliban killed far more
Muslims intentionally than America's bombing campaign did accidentally; its
demise will save many Muslim lives [He might just have got away with this if
he had specified ^ÌMuslim civilians¹. As it stands the sentence includes many
thousands of young men of fighting age who had nothing whatsoever to do with
the September 11 sattack but who were certainly blown to piecesdeliberately
and with a great deal of self satisfied gloating PB].

Europeans complain about a growing values gap with America. They see a
country enamored of the death penalty, obsessed with guns and violence and
beholden to unchecked capitalism. In fact, Americans are questioning, not
embracing, the death penalty [many years after the European countries have
given it up some Americans are still, ineffectually, questioning it PB];
violent crime is at a 30-year low [by American standards PB]; large
majorities favor stricter gun control [but aren¹t likely to get it PB];
the poverty rate is at its lowest level in 22 years [by American standards
PB].

To correct these misperceptions, we must rebuild the power to persuade.
Public diplomacy was an effective Cold War weapon. With the ideological war
won, the resources and energy devoted to shaping America's image abroad fell
into dramatic decline.

Yet the success of our foreign policy is inexorably linked to America's
ability to understand, inform and influence foreign publics. President Bush
should order a crash program to build weapons of mass communication.

Such a program would:

Put public diplomacy officials in meetings where policy is made to explain
the likely impact on foreign opinion.
Strengthen foreign public opinion research so we know what others are
thinking.
Develop rapid response capabilities to answer false charges about our
policies.
Empower foreign service officers with media training and better language
skills.
Fill foreign media with American views and voices.
Build up government broadcasting and Internet programs.
Use those with more credibility than government officials - prominent
personalities, ethnic Americans and foreign opinion leaders - to make
America's case.
Bolster foreign exchange programs.
Develop message campaigns with Hollywood, Madison Avenue and
nongovernmental organizations.

Led by Charlotte Bears - the new undersecretary of state for public
diplomacy, who has a strong advertising background - the Bush administration
has done a good job building a 24 hour-a-day crisis response team to fight
the short-term information war in Afghanistan.

The real test will be whether the administration supports a permanent public
diplomacy campaign after our troops return home. That will require not only
more money, but also a cultural change in government that elevates the role
and value of public diplomacy in our foreign policy.

Winning the war of ideas also requires remaking the marketplace of ideas.
Anti Americanism often is the product of limits on free speech, education
systems that promote bias and the practice of some foreign leaders to say
one thing abroad and the opposite at home. Washington should tell
governments in control of their media and education systems that printing
lies and teaching intolerance will have consequences in terms of foreign
assistance, political support and military aid. We should re-target
assistance away from double-talking governments and toward independent [!
Like Al-Jazeera, targeted by American bombing just before the fall of Kabul?
PB] media and education reform programs.

Finally, we must recognize the downside of our superpower standing: People
frustrated with the status quo take out their anger on its primary symbol.
We face criticism from those whose culture is being strip-mauled out of
existence, frustration from the economically and politically disenfranchised
and hatred from a small number of fanatics.

Defeating the haters will be easier if America works to co-opt the critics
and win over the frustrated. We should act more humble, as if it we have
less power than we do, by building coalitions, sustaining alliances and
forging compromises. We should do more to fill the fault lines of
globalization like poverty, disease, access to education and bad governance.

The war of ideas will help determine whether the new century, like its
predecessor, is an American century. America brings powerful weapons to the
battlefield: freedom, opportunity and tolerance. The haters can counter only
with repression, regression and fanaticism. The critics have useful
corrections, but no alternative system of values and practices that offers
as much progress and possibility as our own.

The war of ideas is America's to win. It is time that we take it seriously.

Antony J. Blinken, a member of the National Security Council staff from 1994
to 2001, is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington.


http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/12/op.htm#4

* CAN MASS MURDERERS MAKE PEACE?
by Mahir Ali
Dawn, 12th December

The suicide bombings in Israel and their harsh aftermath may have won Saddam
Hussein a breathing space. With the endgame being played out in Afghanistan,
there have been several indications that the United States is keen to pick a
new venue for its favourite form of fireworks.

The difficulties involved in justifying an all-out assault against Iraq as
part of the so-called war against terrorism are not insurmountable, if only
because the US does not expect anyone to contradict its arguments, no matter
how convoluted they may be. It was ever thus, but the tendency has acquired
alarming proportions in the wake of September 11.

It is possible, of course, that for several months Iraq would anyway have
been subjected to nothing deadlier than belligerent rhetoric from the likes
of Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. But if there were any plans to follow
up one ill-advised adventure almost immediately with another, they may have
to be put off as Washington9s closest ally in the Middle East pursues a
mindless vendetta of its own.

There can be little question that the targeting of Israeli civilians by
Hamas suicide bombers deserves unequivocal condemnation. These may be acts
of desperation, but they are also acts of blind hatred and serve to
perpetuate a cycle of bloodshed.

Their retaliatory aspect cannot serve as justification for murder. It hardly
needs to be pointed out that the same goes for Israeli military strikes,
regardless of whether they are indiscriminate or aimed at individuals. In
fact, it is not entirely surprising that there is a sort of synergy between
fanatics on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, given that they
have a mutual interest in scuttling the possibility of peaceful coexistence
- as well as in making untenable the position of Yasser Arafat.

There are significant differences too. Zealots who are prepared to blow
themselves up in the pursuit of what they may perceive to be a liberation
struggle constitute a minority among Palestinians. The Israelis who react
ruthlessly to each provocation by bombarding Palestinian areas are their
nations elected representatives. There is thus a yawning gap between the
respective levels of irresponsibility.

On a broader level, about the only weapon the foot soldiers of the intifeda
have access to is stones. The Israeli authorities are armed to the hilt with
the latest weaponry, most of it acquired courtesy the US. This stupendous
disparity apparently means little to Israel's chief provider. President Bush
is reported to have requested Prime Minister Ariel Sharon not to target
Arafat directly, but beyond that, Western pressure following the latest
confrontation has been aimed more or less exclusively at the Palestinian
side.

This is tantamount to echoing Sharons ridiculous stance that Arafat is in a
position to halt all acts of anti-Israeli violence, should he so desire.
Following the Oslo accords, Arafat has bent over backwards to accommodate
Israeli and American concerns. However, he has stopped short of
precipitating a civil war among Palestinians, as well as of squandering all
his credibility. In the present context, it is also worth recalling that it
was not Arafat but the Israeli intelligence service that sponsored Hamas as
a counterweight to the secular Fatah movement.

It is hard to miss the parallel between this irony and the CIA's role in
bolstering Osama bin Laden. The fact remains that the chief obstacle to the
resumption of meaningful negotiations between the Palestinians and the
Israelis is not Arafat, nor even Hamas, but Sharon. Israeli voters have
erred profoundly in electing a war criminal as their head of government
under the false impression that he would at least be able to deliver
security, if not peace. It may be some time before the majority of them
realize that the only guarantee of security lies in a just settlement that
includes the establishment of a viable and independent Palestinian state. A
bunch of bantustans existing solely at Israel's pleasure simply won't do.

At the moment even that option isn't on the table, while Mr Bush and Tony
Blair appear to have suspended their post-September 11 strategy of
advocating for a Palestinian state. To their slight discomfiture, Sharon had
lost no time in leaping on to the "anti-terror" bandwagon; now he appears to
be driving it.

Israel may be the only Middle Eastern state with an elected government by
western standards, but Sharon is hardly a great advertisement for democracy.
Israelis do, of course, have the option of voting him out at the next
available opportunity. Let's hope it's an option they will have the good
sense to exercise - even though by then it will probably be too late to
pretend that the peace process, for what it's worth, can still be rescued.

Now to another strategy that has fallen by the wayside. When efforts to
insinuate some nebulous link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda - based on nothing
more substantial than an alleged meeting in Prague between an Iraqi diplomat
and the reputed ring-leader of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta -
faltered and the equally baseless suggestion that the Saddam regime was
somehow responsible for a spate of anthrax-poisoned mail in the US also
could not be sustained, the old weapons inspection ruse was dusted off for a
replay. For want of anything more damning, it'll probably be brought into
service as the primary justification for an attempt to topple the government
in Baghdad - once things cool down somewhat in the occupied territories,
that is.

Although Sharon would probably like nothing better than an immediate allied
military campaign in Iraq to distract international attention from his
passion for atrocities, the US may just have the sense to realize that
simultaneous wars against Iraqis and the Palestinians could completely
alienate the Arab and Muslim worlds for decades to come. Of course, the
campaign in Iraq will be hard to justify whenever it takes place - not least
because it is bound to involve a great deal of gratuitous killing.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that its European allies will be able to
dissuade the US from blundering into Babylon. It remains to be seen whether
some sort of Kurdish force will be chosen for the role thrust upon the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Such a step would not go down well with
Turkey, a NATO member whose violently exclusionist stance towards the Kurds
seldom invites the opprobrium it deserves from the West.

In the short run, Iraq appears destined for a fate worse than Saddam. Given
his record, that's saying a lot. But worse still, there are few grounds for
faith in better days to come, even in the longer run. If brokering a deal
for the control of Kabul was tough, a similar exercise vis-a-vis Baghdad
will prove even harder.

Yet even Afghanistan, as things stand, offers little ground for complacency,
let alone triumphant crowing. Amid disinformation about the scale of the
carnage, emerging evidence of debilitating rifts within the Northern
Alliance and little proof thus far that the interim Hamid Karzai
administration forged in Bonn will be able to exercise its authority
effectively, predictions of a rosy future are premature.

One must hope, of course, that peace and good governance can somehow be
entrenched: few other nations deserve them as dearly as Afghanistan. But the
havoc wreaked by the Anglo American bombardment considerably complicates
matters and, quite apart from the level of direct casualties, Afghans could
be paying the price for generations to come in terms of the environmental
damage their land has sustained.

Meanwhile, the fate of poor Robert Fisk suggests that Afghans are not quite
embracing representatives of the West as their liberators. If beating him to
within an inch of death was indeed an expression of anger, they couldn't
have chosen a worse target: not only has Mr Fisk vociferously opposed the
war, he has for many years been a principled and articulate advocate of the
Palestinian cause.

The journalist kept his wits about him even as he was fighting for his life,
and later said that he understood perfectly well why he was targeted by the
refugees near Quetta. But might he have been mistaken? Independent and
fearless journalists who refuse to toe the official line do often make
powerful enemies. Could someone have put his attackers up to it? The Baloch
and federal authorities should thoroughly investigate the incident.