By Paul Tate
The Christian coalition in the US declared May 6th a ‘national day of prayer for Israel’. The date is the start of a month long rally across the US by evangelical Christian groups and begins at the White House where the bombed-out shell of Israeli bus no. 19 will be displayed for much of the coming month. In the run up to the US elections, the supporters of Israel are making their point loud and clear: hands off!
These groups backed by a whole infrastructure of churches, radio stations, websites and bible colleges teaching ‘Middle East history’ all share a common goal and a number one priority: the survival and expansion of the Jewish state. This is the one issue that unites evangelicals in the US. The welfare of a state 7,000 miles away is for them far more important than traditional domestic issues such as abortion, fornication and school prayer: this begs one question, why?
Well, since the late 19th century an increasing number of fundamentalists Christians have come to believe that the second coming of Christ is bound up with the political geography of Israel. However, in their literalist and selective interpretation of the Bible certain preconditions must be met before Christ will return. The first of these was the establishment of the State of Israel. Also included are Israel’s occupation of the rest of its ‘biblical lands’ and the rebuilding of the third temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
As the story goes, once these events have been completed the legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel leading to the final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will then be given a choice, not much of one but a choice nonetheless: either burn in hell or convert to Christianity. Finally, after all this has taken place the Messiah will return to earth. According to the most influential of the Christian Zionists, Hal Lindsey, the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood and "144,000 Jews would bow down before Jesus and be saved, but the rest of Jewry would perish in the mother of all holocausts".
So what’s in it for the Christian fundamentalists? Well, the true believers (those who ascribe to this lunacy) will be raised to heaven before the final battle commences and get to watch the whole gory spectacle from a seated grandstand at the right hand of the Lord. Sound crazy? But I jest thee not, this is what these people actually believe. What’s more, these are the people who are holding the Middle East peace process to ransom. These are the people who sponsor Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, who demand ever more US support for Israel, not because they love Jews, far from it; the whole drama is rather like ‘a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ The result of this drama is the genocide of the Jews.
Given that the end result of this creed is the end of Judaism and the death of thousands of Jews who refuse to accept Jesus as their saviour, one would think that the ever zealous Jewish lobby would be up in arms. Not a chance. Far from opposing this twisted ideology which legitimises oppression, theft and genocide in the name of religion, the Israeli government and Jewish lobby groups in the US have long since exploited the connections with far-right US Christian groups. Far from being outraged, the Israeli embassy in Washington actually holds weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings – not something they like to shout about for obvious reasons. What’s more, Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, accepts their support, as does AIPAC.
These fundamentalists, for surely if anyone deserves this title these people do, are courted at all levels of the Israeli government and have access to key Israeli politicians. US churches are encouraged to form links with Jewish settlers via email and to support them through fundraising, which they do in abundance. While moderate Christians, such as the Palestinian Bishop of Jerusalem, find it almost impossible to get an audience with Ariel Sharon despite repeated requests, the door is always open to southern Baptists and TV evangelists. Sharon and the beloved Bibi (Netanyahu) are the ‘rock stars’ of this creed. The fundamentalists rightly view the right-wing Likud leaders as their best chance of witnessing Armageddon: they need Israeli warmongers to fulfil their eschatological fantasies. Strange isn’t it? That such an influential bunch of Armageddonite fanatics, who have the ability to determine the fate of the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, are so completely ignored by the mass media. The crazed world of Christian Zionism is unknown to the average man in the street.
Although we may laugh at these people and dismiss them as cranks and fanatics, we should certainly not under-estimate them. For in the US today, there are 45 million evangelicals who believe this nonsense and they represent a crucial block vote for born-again Bush. American Christian Zionists claim they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby. According to the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who claims to speak for them all, “the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s safety belt.” If a significant number of them become sufficiently disillusioned to abstain from voting, it could cost Bush the election. “There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he notes, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.
So for the next month, the inhabitant of the White House will be waking up each morning to the shell of Israeli bus no. 19. And the message will be absolutely clear: if you want to win the election Mr President and get to sit at the right hand of God, you better back Sharon all the way. NOV 2004
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The privatisation of war
By Paul Tate
The abuse of prisoners that took place at Abu Ghraib was shocking. But equally as shocking was the revelation that the interrogation of prisoners had been outsourced to private contractors. The creeping privatisation of this conflict is only just coming to light.
It is estimated that there are now 20,000 plus private ‘enterprise soldiers’ in Iraq – one for every 10 soldiers. Indeed, there are more private military employees on the ground than troops from any one ally, including Britain. Private Military Firms (PMFs) are big business in the new Iraq. According to US army estimates, out of the $87bn that will be spent on US troops, a third of that, nearly $30bn, will be paid to PMFs, which carry out military roles from logistics and local army training to guarding installations and convoys, and as demonstrated by the incidents in Abu Ghraib - interrogating prisoners. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institute scholar and author of Corporate Warrior, aptly refers to the situation in Iraq more as, ‘the coalition of the billing, rather than willing”.
A number of factors have led to the growth of PMFs. The downsizing of the US military in the post cold war world has lead to an urgent need for hired guns for the overstretched US military in the post 9/11 world. Ex-military personnel now find they can earn $100,000 a year doing the same job they once did for peanuts. But the growth of private contractors has also been encouraged at the highest levels of the US administration. Back in 1991, when Vice President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defence for George Bush Sr., he gave Kellogg Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) a contract to advise the US military on how to privatise the army. Since that time there has been a 10-fold increase in the number of private personnel working for the US military and the industry has recorded a staggering $100bn in revenue. The result is that a huge ‘conflict industry’ has grown up around the Pentagon. The proponents of ‘privatised warfare’, including Rumsfeld and Cheney, defend the increased use of PMFs on the grounds that they reduce overheads and therefore save the US government (taxpayer) money – given the number of private contractors now active and the vast sums involved, this argument is extremely debatable. It is true however, that short term contracts mean that mercenaries can be hired and fired at will. They can also be sent to conflict zones around the world at a moments notice and are currently active on all fronts in the ‘war on terror’ including: the hunt for Ben Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the Philippines, Central Asia and what those on the industry now refer to as, ‘the goldmine’ of Iraq.
The use of “hired guns” clearly has many advantages. Private security contractors are not accountable to either military or Iraqi law for their actions. Although one US soldier has been given the maximum one year sentence and another six are facing court-martial for their role in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, employees of CACI International, harshly criticised by Major General Taguba in the military investigation, will face no such fate. This is due to the fact that ‘civilian contractors’ cannot be court-martialled under the military code of conduct. In addition, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued a decree which specifically excluded PMFs from Iraqi law. Neither are they subject to US law given that criminal acts such as those witnessed in Abu Ghraib were committed abroad and in some cases by contractors working for the US military, but not US citizens. Examples of other criminal acts such as the human trafficking and prostitution rackets in Bosnia committed by DynCorp, another security contractor active in Iraq, highlight the dangers. In this case, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, the ‘civilian’ personnel responsible were simply ‘relieved of their duties’ and no criminal charges have been brought.
One can’t help thinking that the increased use of private contractors is rather convenient for US military chiefs attempting to cut corners in the ‘war on terror.’ As Phillip Carter, an ex-military US army officer now at the University of California (UCLA) notes, “the situation is analogues to that other legal grey zone in Guantanamo Bay”. Therefore, the more cynical among us may draw the conclusion that the very fact that these companies are operating in a legal loophole is what makes them such an attractive proposition to strategists in the Pentagon. They can be used to do the dirty work of the military and CIA, while still maintaining relative immunity. This makes them a very useful tool in the ‘war on terror’. The privatisation of US forces not only enables the US to wage wars by proxy using private militias recruited from around the globe, it also, as Peter Singer points out, “allows them to wage these wars without the hindrance of congressional or media oversight”.
Another interesting point is that the pentagon keeps no record concerning the amount of private mercenaries killed in Iraq. According to Singer, It is estimated that 350 mercenaries have been killed in Iraq since the start of the conflict and hundreds more injured. These figures are not included in the regular body count put out by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This is very convenient for a White House increasingly concerned with US body bags in the run up to the elections. In addition, it is no coincidence that by the CPA’s own estimations, the number of private contractors will increase to 30,000 after the ‘handover of sovereignty’ on June 30, largely due to the fact that the Green Zone itself will then be privatised.
As Karim al-Gawahry of al-Akram newspaper has pointed out, “the Bush administration desperately wants to bring at least some of the boys back home during the forthcoming election campaign, hence the increase in private companies”. This will allow the White House to claim that US troops are being pulled out and thus divert media attention from the conflict. The body bags will still be arriving in the middle of the night but the cameras will be focused on the ‘grand homecoming.’
So here we have it, neo-liberal capitalism taken to extremes. What we now have in Iraq is a situation where private companies are operating with impunity – outside the scope of international law. Not only that, these companies are making billions of dollars, are not subject to any chain of command and as long as the money keeps rolling in have little incentive to leave. On the contrary, they have a vested interest in stretching out the conflict as evident by their ‘political activities’ in Washington. In 2002, $32m was spent by these firms on political lobbying and $12m was donated to political parties, with the George Bush’s Republican Party taking the lion’s share of the cake. And guess what? Among the largest donators was Dick Cheney’s old firm – Halliburton.
The abuse of prisoners that took place at Abu Ghraib was shocking. But equally as shocking was the revelation that the interrogation of prisoners had been outsourced to private contractors. The creeping privatisation of this conflict is only just coming to light.
It is estimated that there are now 20,000 plus private ‘enterprise soldiers’ in Iraq – one for every 10 soldiers. Indeed, there are more private military employees on the ground than troops from any one ally, including Britain. Private Military Firms (PMFs) are big business in the new Iraq. According to US army estimates, out of the $87bn that will be spent on US troops, a third of that, nearly $30bn, will be paid to PMFs, which carry out military roles from logistics and local army training to guarding installations and convoys, and as demonstrated by the incidents in Abu Ghraib - interrogating prisoners. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institute scholar and author of Corporate Warrior, aptly refers to the situation in Iraq more as, ‘the coalition of the billing, rather than willing”.
A number of factors have led to the growth of PMFs. The downsizing of the US military in the post cold war world has lead to an urgent need for hired guns for the overstretched US military in the post 9/11 world. Ex-military personnel now find they can earn $100,000 a year doing the same job they once did for peanuts. But the growth of private contractors has also been encouraged at the highest levels of the US administration. Back in 1991, when Vice President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defence for George Bush Sr., he gave Kellogg Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) a contract to advise the US military on how to privatise the army. Since that time there has been a 10-fold increase in the number of private personnel working for the US military and the industry has recorded a staggering $100bn in revenue. The result is that a huge ‘conflict industry’ has grown up around the Pentagon. The proponents of ‘privatised warfare’, including Rumsfeld and Cheney, defend the increased use of PMFs on the grounds that they reduce overheads and therefore save the US government (taxpayer) money – given the number of private contractors now active and the vast sums involved, this argument is extremely debatable. It is true however, that short term contracts mean that mercenaries can be hired and fired at will. They can also be sent to conflict zones around the world at a moments notice and are currently active on all fronts in the ‘war on terror’ including: the hunt for Ben Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the Philippines, Central Asia and what those on the industry now refer to as, ‘the goldmine’ of Iraq.
The use of “hired guns” clearly has many advantages. Private security contractors are not accountable to either military or Iraqi law for their actions. Although one US soldier has been given the maximum one year sentence and another six are facing court-martial for their role in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, employees of CACI International, harshly criticised by Major General Taguba in the military investigation, will face no such fate. This is due to the fact that ‘civilian contractors’ cannot be court-martialled under the military code of conduct. In addition, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued a decree which specifically excluded PMFs from Iraqi law. Neither are they subject to US law given that criminal acts such as those witnessed in Abu Ghraib were committed abroad and in some cases by contractors working for the US military, but not US citizens. Examples of other criminal acts such as the human trafficking and prostitution rackets in Bosnia committed by DynCorp, another security contractor active in Iraq, highlight the dangers. In this case, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, the ‘civilian’ personnel responsible were simply ‘relieved of their duties’ and no criminal charges have been brought.
One can’t help thinking that the increased use of private contractors is rather convenient for US military chiefs attempting to cut corners in the ‘war on terror.’ As Phillip Carter, an ex-military US army officer now at the University of California (UCLA) notes, “the situation is analogues to that other legal grey zone in Guantanamo Bay”. Therefore, the more cynical among us may draw the conclusion that the very fact that these companies are operating in a legal loophole is what makes them such an attractive proposition to strategists in the Pentagon. They can be used to do the dirty work of the military and CIA, while still maintaining relative immunity. This makes them a very useful tool in the ‘war on terror’. The privatisation of US forces not only enables the US to wage wars by proxy using private militias recruited from around the globe, it also, as Peter Singer points out, “allows them to wage these wars without the hindrance of congressional or media oversight”.
Another interesting point is that the pentagon keeps no record concerning the amount of private mercenaries killed in Iraq. According to Singer, It is estimated that 350 mercenaries have been killed in Iraq since the start of the conflict and hundreds more injured. These figures are not included in the regular body count put out by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This is very convenient for a White House increasingly concerned with US body bags in the run up to the elections. In addition, it is no coincidence that by the CPA’s own estimations, the number of private contractors will increase to 30,000 after the ‘handover of sovereignty’ on June 30, largely due to the fact that the Green Zone itself will then be privatised.
As Karim al-Gawahry of al-Akram newspaper has pointed out, “the Bush administration desperately wants to bring at least some of the boys back home during the forthcoming election campaign, hence the increase in private companies”. This will allow the White House to claim that US troops are being pulled out and thus divert media attention from the conflict. The body bags will still be arriving in the middle of the night but the cameras will be focused on the ‘grand homecoming.’
So here we have it, neo-liberal capitalism taken to extremes. What we now have in Iraq is a situation where private companies are operating with impunity – outside the scope of international law. Not only that, these companies are making billions of dollars, are not subject to any chain of command and as long as the money keeps rolling in have little incentive to leave. On the contrary, they have a vested interest in stretching out the conflict as evident by their ‘political activities’ in Washington. In 2002, $32m was spent by these firms on political lobbying and $12m was donated to political parties, with the George Bush’s Republican Party taking the lion’s share of the cake. And guess what? Among the largest donators was Dick Cheney’s old firm – Halliburton.
Jihadi groups alienate support base
By Paul Tate
Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse.
The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day.
Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage.
The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria.
In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population.
The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate.
Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse.
The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day.
Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage.
The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria.
In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population.
The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate.
Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
Jihadi groups alienate support base
Jihadi groups alienate support base
By Paul Tate Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse. The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day. Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage. The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria. In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population. The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate. Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
By Paul Tate Despite the best efforts of US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recruit a new pool of terrorists for Al Qaeda, the atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Madrid, Istanbul and Iraq may contain the very seeds that have caused previous Islamist insurgencies to collapse. The increasingly random, brutal and indiscriminate acts of Al Qaeda cells around the world appear to reveal an organisation that has fragmented into desperate groups of individuals with no overall command structure. A clear example of this is the organisation's change of tactics and its apparent inability to target high-profile symbols of US power. The foot soldiers of the organisation are still active and increasingly dangerous, but the brains are missing. Carefully selected targets representing US military and economic might have been replaced by so-called "soft targets". Drive-by shootings of Western civilians, beheading of hostages and blowing up of innocent civilians on commuter trains have become the order of the day. Most damagingly for the militants, increasing numbers of Muslim bystanders are dying as a result. Of course, many Muslims died on Sept. 11 and in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but the fact that the targets were chosen because they represented symbols of US power gave the militants a certain "credibility". As callous and barbaric as these attacks were, for many people, and not just in the Middle East, the fact that Al Qaeda was able to strike at such potent symbols of US economic and political power overshadowed the carnage. The leaders of Al Qaeda were well aware of the "PR value" of these targets, something that cannot be said now. The murder and recorded beheadings of civilian contractors in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of commuter trains taking ordinary people to work in Madrid and the killing of innocent Muslim bystanders in Saudi Arabia, Istanbul and Iraq have done nothing for Al Qaeda''s credibility. In their lust for blood, the radical Islamists of Al Qaeda have failed to learn from their predecessors in the Egyptian Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah or the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria. In both these countries, the militant groups were initially able to exploit widely held grievances not only against the ruling secular regimes, but also against the biased policies of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now their support base has vanished and their activities all but ceased. This was not solely due to the repression suffered at the hands of the security forces, although this destroyed a large part of their leadership. To a large extent, it was also due to the fact that these groups, through their increasingly barbaric acts, destroyed any legitimacy they may once have had with the very people they claimed to represent. No terrorist organisation can operate without the tactic support of at least part of the local population. The massacre at Luxor in 1997 was the final brutal act committed by the Al Jamiah Al Islamiyah. It sent waves of revulsion through the Egyptian population and caused increased hardship for those dependent on the tourist industry to feed their families. The terrorists in this attack were actually chased into the surrounding hills by enraged locals, with some reports claiming they were then beaten to death and their bodies set alight. Through their barbarity, the militants turned the very people they claimed to represent against them and found it increasingly difficult to operate. Similarly, in Algeria, what started out as a "popular uprising" soon descended into an orgy of violence. The security clampdown fractured the command structure and the militant groups became disorganised, blood thirsty and indiscriminate in their attacks. The result was that the radicals alienated the majority of their original supporters, who turned against them and began reporting any suspicious incidents to the security services making it difficult for the militants to operate. As a consequence the violence eventually subsided.
Through their barbaric acts of violence, the above militant groups gained a reputation as psychopathic killers, as opposed to the heroic Mujahedeen. Their true agenda and complete disregard for the sanctity of human life became visible for all to see. There are signs that Al Qaeda is following an identical course. One wonders how much killing it will take in Iraq or elsewhere before a similar fate awaits the latest crop of militants.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Man shoots ex-wife before turning gun on himself
By Hugh Naylor and Paul Tate
AMMAN — A 32-year-old man shot his ex-wife and her sister over a custody dispute concerning their son late Monday night before turning the gun on himself, a police official told The Jordan Times on Tuesday.
The man shot his former wife in her apartment in the Sports City area of the capital, said Police Spokesperson Major Basheer Daaja.
He added that the woman took a bullet in her left thigh, while her sister was hit in her chest and upper right arm.
Both are currently in a stable condition at the Specialist Hospital. The man, who apparently shot himself in the head, was said to be in critical condition.
The fight broke out over their eight-year-old son, according to Daaja. He said the scuffle occurred because both parents were refusing to take custody of the child.
Neighbours, who requested anonymity, said the incident occurred in a furnished apartment rented by two Iraqi women in their early 30s.
A woman who lives in the adjacent apartment building said she had previously complained to authorities about “strange comings and goings in the early hours” of the morning from the apartment.
“The two women used to leave the flat at around midnight and come home around dawn,” one neighbour told The Jordan Times. “I think they work in one of the nightclubs.”
Another neighbour said she heard gunshots at around 9:00pm followed by a woman screaming: “He shot her. He shot her.” The neighbour said she immediately telephoned the police who arrived at the scene within minutes, adding that an ambulance arrived 10 minutes later.
Neighbours, who had begun to gather outside the apartment building, said they saw a man being carried out of the apartment and placed into the ambulance.
“The man was not moving. We thought he was dead but wondered why the officers had not covered his body,” a witness at the scene said.
A woman whose apartment overlooks the one where the incident occurred said she was returning to her flat when she saw police officers jumping out of their vehicle and running into the building.
“When we got upstairs we could see right into the flat. There was a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood with a wound to the side of his head,” she said.
“I was shocked and quickly took the children out of the room but they had already witnessed the scene.”
AMMAN — A 32-year-old man shot his ex-wife and her sister over a custody dispute concerning their son late Monday night before turning the gun on himself, a police official told The Jordan Times on Tuesday.
The man shot his former wife in her apartment in the Sports City area of the capital, said Police Spokesperson Major Basheer Daaja.
He added that the woman took a bullet in her left thigh, while her sister was hit in her chest and upper right arm.
Both are currently in a stable condition at the Specialist Hospital. The man, who apparently shot himself in the head, was said to be in critical condition.
The fight broke out over their eight-year-old son, according to Daaja. He said the scuffle occurred because both parents were refusing to take custody of the child.
Neighbours, who requested anonymity, said the incident occurred in a furnished apartment rented by two Iraqi women in their early 30s.
A woman who lives in the adjacent apartment building said she had previously complained to authorities about “strange comings and goings in the early hours” of the morning from the apartment.
“The two women used to leave the flat at around midnight and come home around dawn,” one neighbour told The Jordan Times. “I think they work in one of the nightclubs.”
Another neighbour said she heard gunshots at around 9:00pm followed by a woman screaming: “He shot her. He shot her.” The neighbour said she immediately telephoned the police who arrived at the scene within minutes, adding that an ambulance arrived 10 minutes later.
Neighbours, who had begun to gather outside the apartment building, said they saw a man being carried out of the apartment and placed into the ambulance.
“The man was not moving. We thought he was dead but wondered why the officers had not covered his body,” a witness at the scene said.
A woman whose apartment overlooks the one where the incident occurred said she was returning to her flat when she saw police officers jumping out of their vehicle and running into the building.
“When we got upstairs we could see right into the flat. There was a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood with a wound to the side of his head,” she said.
“I was shocked and quickly took the children out of the room but they had already witnessed the scene.”
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The terrorists are Iraqis?
By Paul Tate
"They are shooting at us ... they are terrorists - they dress like the local population."
The above quote is from an American Marine interviewed on CNN during the US assault on Fallujah. Obviously, before CNN set up the camera scene the Marine's superiors had drilled the script into him. In parrot fashion, the young Marine dutifully repeated the mantra.
Amazing isn't it? The "terrorists" described by the Marine actually dress like the local population - they speak with Iraqi accents - they are, in Fallujah at least, Sunni Muslims, so what exactly differentiates them from the local populace?
Ever since the disastrous attack on Iraq began, the US occupation authorities have been trying to convince the rest of the world that the insurgency taking place in the country is either the result of foreign terrorists or of die-hard Saddam supporters who just don''t know when the game is up.
Initially, Iran and Syria came under fire from the hawks in Washington for allowing and allegedly abetting terrorists to infiltrate Iraq. No evidence was produced. Indeed, not one single suicide bomber has been identified as a foreign terrorist, not a single Al Qaeda operative has been arrested in Iraq, and of the 8,500 "security detainees" arrested by the US, only two per cent are said to be from outside Iraq.
Then we began to hear tales of civil war, of a supposedly ancient Sunni-Shiites split which was only kept under control by Saddam''s brutal oppression.
Convenient as this theory may be, it bears no relationship to the historical record and ignores the fact that the real fault line in Iraq is located up north, among the Kurds and their previous Sunni masters. One wonders what the occupation authorities will say then. Perhaps "terrorist Kurdish elements" from Turkey, Syria or Iran will be blamed.
During the past few weeks, thousands of Shiite militiamen loyal to what the mass media describe as the "extremist" Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr have joined the battle. They have been described by the occupation authorities as a "small group of criminals and thugs". Now we are hearing tales of how Saddam loyalists and terrorists have infiltrated the Iraqi police force. During the past two weeks of spiralling violence, the Iraqi police force has seen a fifty per cent defection rate, with the occupation forces claiming that 40 per cent have simply "ran away" while ten per cent have actually joined the resistance forces.
All these lies are, of course, aimed at deflecting attention from a notion the US is unprepared to entertain. Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis don't want the Americans to protect them. Maybe the Iraqis are not too keen on the US concept of sovereignty. For, surely, sovereignty and democracy do not entail being ruled by a group of people who were hand-picked by a foreign power and who lack legitimacy with the local populace.
The truth is that the Iraqi people want the Americans to leave their country. The Americans, on the other hand, are desperate to stay and in order to do so they need to allocate blame for the violence. Just because the people of Iraq were glad to be rid of Saddam doesn't mean that they want him replaced with Paul Bremer and Co. Judging by the events of the past week and the pictures broadcast on Al Jazeera (not the sanitised gloss of the Western news media), the occupation of Iraq is looking less like liberation and more like repression. Funny how quickly liberators can turn into oppressors.
After World War I, the British managed to keep the lid on Iraq for three years before an uprising occurred. The Americans have managed to provoke an uprising in just one year. But we must not mention the word "uprising".
This word is a taboo in the media for it means that what is now taking place in Iraq has the support of a significant percentage of the population. The simple truth is that the terrorists referred to by the Marine on CNN are, in fact, Iraqis
"They are shooting at us ... they are terrorists - they dress like the local population."
The above quote is from an American Marine interviewed on CNN during the US assault on Fallujah. Obviously, before CNN set up the camera scene the Marine's superiors had drilled the script into him. In parrot fashion, the young Marine dutifully repeated the mantra.
Amazing isn't it? The "terrorists" described by the Marine actually dress like the local population - they speak with Iraqi accents - they are, in Fallujah at least, Sunni Muslims, so what exactly differentiates them from the local populace?
Ever since the disastrous attack on Iraq began, the US occupation authorities have been trying to convince the rest of the world that the insurgency taking place in the country is either the result of foreign terrorists or of die-hard Saddam supporters who just don''t know when the game is up.
Initially, Iran and Syria came under fire from the hawks in Washington for allowing and allegedly abetting terrorists to infiltrate Iraq. No evidence was produced. Indeed, not one single suicide bomber has been identified as a foreign terrorist, not a single Al Qaeda operative has been arrested in Iraq, and of the 8,500 "security detainees" arrested by the US, only two per cent are said to be from outside Iraq.
Then we began to hear tales of civil war, of a supposedly ancient Sunni-Shiites split which was only kept under control by Saddam''s brutal oppression.
Convenient as this theory may be, it bears no relationship to the historical record and ignores the fact that the real fault line in Iraq is located up north, among the Kurds and their previous Sunni masters. One wonders what the occupation authorities will say then. Perhaps "terrorist Kurdish elements" from Turkey, Syria or Iran will be blamed.
During the past few weeks, thousands of Shiite militiamen loyal to what the mass media describe as the "extremist" Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr have joined the battle. They have been described by the occupation authorities as a "small group of criminals and thugs". Now we are hearing tales of how Saddam loyalists and terrorists have infiltrated the Iraqi police force. During the past two weeks of spiralling violence, the Iraqi police force has seen a fifty per cent defection rate, with the occupation forces claiming that 40 per cent have simply "ran away" while ten per cent have actually joined the resistance forces.
All these lies are, of course, aimed at deflecting attention from a notion the US is unprepared to entertain. Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis don't want the Americans to protect them. Maybe the Iraqis are not too keen on the US concept of sovereignty. For, surely, sovereignty and democracy do not entail being ruled by a group of people who were hand-picked by a foreign power and who lack legitimacy with the local populace.
The truth is that the Iraqi people want the Americans to leave their country. The Americans, on the other hand, are desperate to stay and in order to do so they need to allocate blame for the violence. Just because the people of Iraq were glad to be rid of Saddam doesn't mean that they want him replaced with Paul Bremer and Co. Judging by the events of the past week and the pictures broadcast on Al Jazeera (not the sanitised gloss of the Western news media), the occupation of Iraq is looking less like liberation and more like repression. Funny how quickly liberators can turn into oppressors.
After World War I, the British managed to keep the lid on Iraq for three years before an uprising occurred. The Americans have managed to provoke an uprising in just one year. But we must not mention the word "uprising".
This word is a taboo in the media for it means that what is now taking place in Iraq has the support of a significant percentage of the population. The simple truth is that the terrorists referred to by the Marine on CNN are, in fact, Iraqis
Israel's failed iron wall strategy
By Paul Tate
YET AGAIN we hear an Israeli prime minister blaming Palestinian intransigence
and violence for the lack of progress in the peace process. Ariel Sharon has stated that he has no option but to press ahead with his disengagement plan "in light of the absence of a peace partner on the Palestinian side".
The notion that all Palestinians are fanatical suicide bombers hell-bent on destroying Israel and incapable of reasoned discussion is, of course, aimed at a US audience, in order to maintain support for Sharon''s aggressive policies. However, it bears no relationship to the historical record.
Throughout the history of the state of Israel, successive Israeli leaders have used this excuse as a means to deflect attention from their own policies and in order to uphold the strategy of the "iron wall" in their relations with the Arab world.
The architect of the iron wall school of thought was the founder of Revisionist Zionism, Ze''ev Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was the first Zionist leader to acknowledge that the Palestinians were a nation and that they could not be expected to renounce voluntarily their right to self-determination.
His solution was to erect an iron wall of Jewish military force. However, unlike his followers, Jabotinsky did not believe that the strategy of the iron wall was an end in itself, but rather as a means to break Arab resistance, with a view to a final settlement. Jabotinsky, unlike Sharon, believed that peace with the Arabs was desirable, possible and ultimately inevitable.
The iron wall theory, however, always carried within it an inherent danger. The danger was that successive Israeli leaders would adopt this theory and refuse to negotiate even when there was someone to talk to on the other side. Paradoxically, the politicians on the Israeli right, the heirs to Jabotinsky, including Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu and Sharon, adopted the iron wall theory not as a means to an end, but as a permanent way of life. These leaders, bolstered by US military largesse, have used the iron wall as a bulwark against change and as a means of keeping the
Palestinians in a permanent state of subservience to Israel. By adopting this approach, they have squandered numerous opportunities to reach a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
History teaches us that far from being intransigent enemies of peace, numerous Arab leaders over the years tried hard to come to a peaceful resolution with the Israeli state, despite domestic opposition and the significant risks involved. The Israeli excuse for political impasse and the claim that there is no one to talk to on the other side goes as far back as the creation of the state of Israel itself.
According to the Israeli version of events, following the 1948 war, Israel's leaders (like Sharon states today) were desperate to achieve peace, but there was simply no one to talk to on the other side. Revisionist Israeli historians, however, now believe that post-war Israel was far more intransigent than the Arab states. The question that has always plagued Israel''s leaders is not whether peace with the Arabs is possible, but at what price?
Israel''s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion refused numerous opportunities to reach a settlement with his regional neighbours. He, just like Sharon, understood that in order to arrive at formal peace agreements, Israel would have to yield territory and agree to the return of a substantial number of Palestinian refugees. He decided that the price was not worth it and that Israel''s position could only improve with time, therefore, all peace feelers were rejected. Ben-Gurion rejected King Farouk''s peace
initiative in 1948 and Husni Zaim''s offer in 1949. The Syrian leader Zaim was desperate for dialogue, but complained bitterly that there was no one to talk to on the other side. The Gaza raids of 1955 put an end to the secret negotiations between Israel and Egypt and were described by Jamal Abdul Nasser as an event which destroyed his faith in the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel. The method of ending negotiations through the use of military force is a proven Israeli strategy
and that is particularly relevant today with the Sharon government.
However, the iron wall policy also led to significant failures, the most pronounced being Israel''s failure to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.
Although Jabotinsky never meant for military power to be an end in itself, unfortunately his heirs, such as Sharon, do not share the same view. By calling off the planned summit between him and the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, and by continually insisting that he is forced into unilateral action due to the absence of a partner for peace, Sharon is signalling his adherence to the iron wall theory which translates into a reliance on military strength and a reluctance to make territorial concessions for peace.
Therefore, history reveals that when Sharon talks about the impossibility of negotiating with the Palestinians, what he really means is a resumption of military aggressions and forced solutions.
YET AGAIN we hear an Israeli prime minister blaming Palestinian intransigence
and violence for the lack of progress in the peace process. Ariel Sharon has stated that he has no option but to press ahead with his disengagement plan "in light of the absence of a peace partner on the Palestinian side".
The notion that all Palestinians are fanatical suicide bombers hell-bent on destroying Israel and incapable of reasoned discussion is, of course, aimed at a US audience, in order to maintain support for Sharon''s aggressive policies. However, it bears no relationship to the historical record.
Throughout the history of the state of Israel, successive Israeli leaders have used this excuse as a means to deflect attention from their own policies and in order to uphold the strategy of the "iron wall" in their relations with the Arab world.
The architect of the iron wall school of thought was the founder of Revisionist Zionism, Ze''ev Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was the first Zionist leader to acknowledge that the Palestinians were a nation and that they could not be expected to renounce voluntarily their right to self-determination.
His solution was to erect an iron wall of Jewish military force. However, unlike his followers, Jabotinsky did not believe that the strategy of the iron wall was an end in itself, but rather as a means to break Arab resistance, with a view to a final settlement. Jabotinsky, unlike Sharon, believed that peace with the Arabs was desirable, possible and ultimately inevitable.
The iron wall theory, however, always carried within it an inherent danger. The danger was that successive Israeli leaders would adopt this theory and refuse to negotiate even when there was someone to talk to on the other side. Paradoxically, the politicians on the Israeli right, the heirs to Jabotinsky, including Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu and Sharon, adopted the iron wall theory not as a means to an end, but as a permanent way of life. These leaders, bolstered by US military largesse, have used the iron wall as a bulwark against change and as a means of keeping the
Palestinians in a permanent state of subservience to Israel. By adopting this approach, they have squandered numerous opportunities to reach a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
History teaches us that far from being intransigent enemies of peace, numerous Arab leaders over the years tried hard to come to a peaceful resolution with the Israeli state, despite domestic opposition and the significant risks involved. The Israeli excuse for political impasse and the claim that there is no one to talk to on the other side goes as far back as the creation of the state of Israel itself.
According to the Israeli version of events, following the 1948 war, Israel's leaders (like Sharon states today) were desperate to achieve peace, but there was simply no one to talk to on the other side. Revisionist Israeli historians, however, now believe that post-war Israel was far more intransigent than the Arab states. The question that has always plagued Israel''s leaders is not whether peace with the Arabs is possible, but at what price?
Israel''s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion refused numerous opportunities to reach a settlement with his regional neighbours. He, just like Sharon, understood that in order to arrive at formal peace agreements, Israel would have to yield territory and agree to the return of a substantial number of Palestinian refugees. He decided that the price was not worth it and that Israel''s position could only improve with time, therefore, all peace feelers were rejected. Ben-Gurion rejected King Farouk''s peace
initiative in 1948 and Husni Zaim''s offer in 1949. The Syrian leader Zaim was desperate for dialogue, but complained bitterly that there was no one to talk to on the other side. The Gaza raids of 1955 put an end to the secret negotiations between Israel and Egypt and were described by Jamal Abdul Nasser as an event which destroyed his faith in the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel. The method of ending negotiations through the use of military force is a proven Israeli strategy
and that is particularly relevant today with the Sharon government.
However, the iron wall policy also led to significant failures, the most pronounced being Israel''s failure to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.
Although Jabotinsky never meant for military power to be an end in itself, unfortunately his heirs, such as Sharon, do not share the same view. By calling off the planned summit between him and the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, and by continually insisting that he is forced into unilateral action due to the absence of a partner for peace, Sharon is signalling his adherence to the iron wall theory which translates into a reliance on military strength and a reluctance to make territorial concessions for peace.
Therefore, history reveals that when Sharon talks about the impossibility of negotiating with the Palestinians, what he really means is a resumption of military aggressions and forced solutions.
Spain: A nation of appeasers?
By Paul Tate
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.By Paul Tate
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.By Paul Tate
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.
Iraq political fallout begins
By Paul Tate
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
By Paul Tate
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
By Paul Tate
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
Jordan River mayors commit to water cooperation
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — Jordanian and Israeli mayors came together earlier this week in an attempt to breath life back into the Jordan River tributaries and promote tourism and development in their respective communities.
In a ceremony by the ancient ruins of the Roman city of Pella near the banks of the River Jordan, the Jordanian mayor of the town, Maoun Alloneh, and his Israeli counterpart from Beit Shean, Jacky Levi, signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on shared water issues.
“The mayors at this historic ceremony committed to rehabilitate their streams and the River Jordan, understanding that the cultural landscape of the Jordan Valley is an untapped treasure that could attract tens of thousands of tourists,” said Munqeth Mehyar, Jordanian chairperson of Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), a cross-border NGO that organised the meeting.
Under the terms of the memorandum, a master plan will now be developed for side streams of the River Jordan’s Wadi Ziglab in Jordan and Harod Stream in Israel based on the tourism potential of this historic landscape.
The agreement forms part of the Good Water Neighbours (GWN) project, established by EcoPeace/FoEME in 2001 to raise awareness of the shared water problems of Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis.
The idea behind the project is based on identifying cross-border communities and utilising their mutual dependence on shared water resources as a basis for developing dialogue and cooperation on sustainable water management.
“We came to the conclusion that the best way to solve the problems of this area was to let communities deal with each other directly, while also involving key decision makers such as local municipal officials and mayors,” said Mehyar.
The river has suffered intense environmental degradation over the years as a result of shortsighted development plans, according to FoEME.
During the 1960s, around 1.3 billion cubic metres of water flowed every year from Lake Tiberias to the Dead Sea.
But dams, canals and pumping stations built by Israel, Jordan and Syria to divert water for crops and drinking have reduced the flow by more than 90 per cent to about 100 million cubic metres.
Years of conflict and mismanagement among the main users of the river have contributed to the crisis, according to environmentalists.
Although the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel called for the rehabilitation of the river, so far little progress has been achieved.
As a result, on both sides of the Jordan Valley, streams that once flowed through communities such as those around Pella and Beit Shean are now either dry or polluted.
“The environmental problems in the tributaries are really severe with no fresh water as a result of the construction of dams and raw sewage flowing directly into the river,” said Mehyar.
Israeli director of FoEME, Gidon Bromberg, said the organisation has been campaigning for over two years on the need to rehabilitate the Jordan River and the final push came from the communities themselves.
“The meeting is the product of community support and understanding by municipal leaders that their residents cannot wait for central government and an end of conflict in the region,” he added.
The GWN project is sponsored by the EU Partnership for Peace Programme, the UK government and Goldman Fund.
Friday-Saturday, November 24-25, 2006
AMMAN — Jordanian and Israeli mayors came together earlier this week in an attempt to breath life back into the Jordan River tributaries and promote tourism and development in their respective communities.
In a ceremony by the ancient ruins of the Roman city of Pella near the banks of the River Jordan, the Jordanian mayor of the town, Maoun Alloneh, and his Israeli counterpart from Beit Shean, Jacky Levi, signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on shared water issues.
“The mayors at this historic ceremony committed to rehabilitate their streams and the River Jordan, understanding that the cultural landscape of the Jordan Valley is an untapped treasure that could attract tens of thousands of tourists,” said Munqeth Mehyar, Jordanian chairperson of Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), a cross-border NGO that organised the meeting.
Under the terms of the memorandum, a master plan will now be developed for side streams of the River Jordan’s Wadi Ziglab in Jordan and Harod Stream in Israel based on the tourism potential of this historic landscape.
The agreement forms part of the Good Water Neighbours (GWN) project, established by EcoPeace/FoEME in 2001 to raise awareness of the shared water problems of Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis.
The idea behind the project is based on identifying cross-border communities and utilising their mutual dependence on shared water resources as a basis for developing dialogue and cooperation on sustainable water management.
“We came to the conclusion that the best way to solve the problems of this area was to let communities deal with each other directly, while also involving key decision makers such as local municipal officials and mayors,” said Mehyar.
The river has suffered intense environmental degradation over the years as a result of shortsighted development plans, according to FoEME.
During the 1960s, around 1.3 billion cubic metres of water flowed every year from Lake Tiberias to the Dead Sea.
But dams, canals and pumping stations built by Israel, Jordan and Syria to divert water for crops and drinking have reduced the flow by more than 90 per cent to about 100 million cubic metres.
Years of conflict and mismanagement among the main users of the river have contributed to the crisis, according to environmentalists.
Although the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel called for the rehabilitation of the river, so far little progress has been achieved.
As a result, on both sides of the Jordan Valley, streams that once flowed through communities such as those around Pella and Beit Shean are now either dry or polluted.
“The environmental problems in the tributaries are really severe with no fresh water as a result of the construction of dams and raw sewage flowing directly into the river,” said Mehyar.
Israeli director of FoEME, Gidon Bromberg, said the organisation has been campaigning for over two years on the need to rehabilitate the Jordan River and the final push came from the communities themselves.
“The meeting is the product of community support and understanding by municipal leaders that their residents cannot wait for central government and an end of conflict in the region,” he added.
The GWN project is sponsored by the EU Partnership for Peace Programme, the UK government and Goldman Fund.
Friday-Saturday, November 24-25, 2006
Man shoots ex-wife before turning gun on himself
By Hugh Naylor and Paul Tate
AMMAN – A 32-year-old man shot his ex-wife and her sister over a custody dispute concerning their son late Monday night before turning the gun on himself, a police official told The Jordan Times on Tuesday.
The man shot his former wife in her apartment in the Sports City area of the capital, said Police Spokesperson Major Bashir Daaja.
He added that the woman took a bullet in her left thigh, while her sister was hit in her chest and upper right arm.
Both are currently in a stable condition at the Specialist Hospital. The man, who apparently shot himself in the head, was said to be in critical condition.
The fight broke out over their 8-year-old son, according to Daja. He said the scuffle occurred because both parents were refusing to take custody of the child.
Neighbours, who requested anonymity, said the incident occurred in a furnished apartment rented by two Iraqi women in their early 30s.
A woman who lives in the adjacent apartment building said she had previously complained to authorities about “strange comings and goings in the early hours” of the morning from the apartment.
“The two women used to leave the flat at around midnight and come home around dawn,” one neighbour told The Jordan Times. “I think they work in one of the nightclubs.”
Another neighbour said she heard gunshots at around 9:00 pm followed by a woman screaming: “He shot her. He shot her.” The neighbour said she immediately telephoned the police who arrived at the scene within minutes, adding that an ambulance arrived ten minutes later.
Neighbours, who had begun to gather outside the apartment building, said they saw a man being carried out of the apartment and placed into the ambulance.
“The man was not moving. We thought he was dead but wondered why the officers had not covered his body,” a witness to the scene said.
A woman whose apartment overlooks the one where the incident occurred said she was returning to her flat when she saw police officers jumping out of their vehicle and running into the building.
“When we got upstairs we could see right into the flat. There was a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood with a wound to the side of his head,” she said.
“I was shocked and quickly took the children out of the room but they had already witnessed the scene.”
Hana Namroqa and Baha’ Abu Hasna contributed to this report
AMMAN – A 32-year-old man shot his ex-wife and her sister over a custody dispute concerning their son late Monday night before turning the gun on himself, a police official told The Jordan Times on Tuesday.
The man shot his former wife in her apartment in the Sports City area of the capital, said Police Spokesperson Major Bashir Daaja.
He added that the woman took a bullet in her left thigh, while her sister was hit in her chest and upper right arm.
Both are currently in a stable condition at the Specialist Hospital. The man, who apparently shot himself in the head, was said to be in critical condition.
The fight broke out over their 8-year-old son, according to Daja. He said the scuffle occurred because both parents were refusing to take custody of the child.
Neighbours, who requested anonymity, said the incident occurred in a furnished apartment rented by two Iraqi women in their early 30s.
A woman who lives in the adjacent apartment building said she had previously complained to authorities about “strange comings and goings in the early hours” of the morning from the apartment.
“The two women used to leave the flat at around midnight and come home around dawn,” one neighbour told The Jordan Times. “I think they work in one of the nightclubs.”
Another neighbour said she heard gunshots at around 9:00 pm followed by a woman screaming: “He shot her. He shot her.” The neighbour said she immediately telephoned the police who arrived at the scene within minutes, adding that an ambulance arrived ten minutes later.
Neighbours, who had begun to gather outside the apartment building, said they saw a man being carried out of the apartment and placed into the ambulance.
“The man was not moving. We thought he was dead but wondered why the officers had not covered his body,” a witness to the scene said.
A woman whose apartment overlooks the one where the incident occurred said she was returning to her flat when she saw police officers jumping out of their vehicle and running into the building.
“When we got upstairs we could see right into the flat. There was a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood with a wound to the side of his head,” she said.
“I was shocked and quickly took the children out of the room but they had already witnessed the scene.”
Hana Namroqa and Baha’ Abu Hasna contributed to this report
Saturday, November 25, 2006
'Dragged into a war on false pretences'
By Paul Tate
The long awaited Butler report was finally published on Wednesday. The report took six months to complete and focused, like its counterpart in the US, on the intelligence that was used to justify the war on Iraq. Unlike the Senate report, Butler''s was quintessentially English - carefully crafted and constructed in such a way as not to offend anyone.
This was to be expected. Butler is a former Cabinet secretary and an establishment insider in the full sense of the term. Whereas the US inquiry a week ago cut straight to the chase, with Senator Jay Rockefeller stating aggressively that Congress was misled and adding "we went to war on false claims", Butler''s style was far more subtle in both tone and delivery.
Nevertheless, although the language was cautious, there was plenty of meat for those discerning enough to pick through the niceties. Plenty of mmunition to fire at Prime Minister Tony Blair - despite the fact that Butler himself remained perched firmly and securely on the fence, with every criticism quickly followed by a qualifier. The inquiry concluded that there were "serious intelligence flaws", but Butler saw no evidence of "culpable negligence".
The report stated that the 45-minute claim should never have been included in the September 2002 dossier. This was the dossier on which Blair''s argument for military action was based. Butler, however, despite agreeing that the claim may have been inserted for its "eye catching quality" - refused to make the connection that it was inserted to sell the war to parliament and to the general public. The report strongly criticised the government''s claim that the above dossier was "owned by the Joint Intelligence Committee", which it was not.
This claim gave credibility and legitimacy to the government''s case for war. The report makes clear how Blair saw fit to remove all the qualifiers. In the Blair version, possibilities became certainties and maybes became definites. A selective approach to the intelligence was used, giving the impression that the intelligence was solid when it was not. But yet again, Butler refrained from accusing the government of sexing up the document and maintained that the government had "acted in good faith".
Another criticism was aimed at the "informality of decision making" in No. 10 and the concentration of power in only a few chosen allies of the prime minister. Apparently, according to the report, Cabinet meetings were called at short notice and ministers were given no advance notice of the issues to be discussed, giving them no time to receive adequate briefing - thus, no awkward questions for Blair. But according to Butler, there was no reason to suggest that this style is "any less effective". And this was the nature of the report, criticism followed by qualification.
Despite the litany of failures detailed in the report, apparently no one is to blame. The British citizens were drip fed faulty intelligence - selective and "eye-catching" intelligence over the period of a year - including, let us not forget, a plagiarised PhD thesis complete with typographical errors, yet according to his lordship, no one is to blame. Prime Minister Blair chose to leave out important information and insert other "eye-catching" information that, according to Butler, should "not have been in the September 2002 dossier, yet no one is to blame.
According to Butler, "there was no case for stating that the parliament and the British public had been misled". So what are we to make of this? The report, while giving plenty of mmunition to the government''s critics, also cushions every blow in the true English spirit of fair play. But we are not talking about a game of cricket here or a game of polo. We are talking about war. The most unevenly contested conflict in the history of modern warfare. And let us not forget the fact that it was this "flawed intelligence" - this "selective" and "eye-catching" information - that was sold to the British public by Blair with the cunning of a second hand car salesman and the zeal of a TV evangelist.
This is what won Blair the March 2003 vote in the House of Commons to pursue his war - a war that according to the Sir Christopher Meyer, the ex-British ambassador to Washington, was planned in September 2001 during dinner with George W. Bush. Although Butler''s thoroughly British report will be seen by Blair as closure to the whole affair, MPs and the British public will see it differently. Both will feel hoodwinked by Blair. Should the UK face a serious threat of war in the near future, it is doubtful whether Blair would be believed.
This could have grave consequences for the security of the UK. Also, in drawing the intelligence services into the political process, Blair has done the country a great disservice at a critical time when trust in these services is essential in the face of the real threat to the UK from international terrorism. What is absolutely clear from the Butler report is that the UK was dragged into a war on false pretences. It is simply just not good enough for Blair to claim now that getting rid of Saddam wasrestore public confidence in the government, a full public enquiry should be conducted into the political judgements that resulted in the Iraq war.
The writer is former lecturer at the University of Durham, UK. He ontributed this article to The Jordan Times. Friday-Saturday, July 16-17, 2004
The long awaited Butler report was finally published on Wednesday. The report took six months to complete and focused, like its counterpart in the US, on the intelligence that was used to justify the war on Iraq. Unlike the Senate report, Butler''s was quintessentially English - carefully crafted and constructed in such a way as not to offend anyone.
This was to be expected. Butler is a former Cabinet secretary and an establishment insider in the full sense of the term. Whereas the US inquiry a week ago cut straight to the chase, with Senator Jay Rockefeller stating aggressively that Congress was misled and adding "we went to war on false claims", Butler''s style was far more subtle in both tone and delivery.
Nevertheless, although the language was cautious, there was plenty of meat for those discerning enough to pick through the niceties. Plenty of mmunition to fire at Prime Minister Tony Blair - despite the fact that Butler himself remained perched firmly and securely on the fence, with every criticism quickly followed by a qualifier. The inquiry concluded that there were "serious intelligence flaws", but Butler saw no evidence of "culpable negligence".
The report stated that the 45-minute claim should never have been included in the September 2002 dossier. This was the dossier on which Blair''s argument for military action was based. Butler, however, despite agreeing that the claim may have been inserted for its "eye catching quality" - refused to make the connection that it was inserted to sell the war to parliament and to the general public. The report strongly criticised the government''s claim that the above dossier was "owned by the Joint Intelligence Committee", which it was not.
This claim gave credibility and legitimacy to the government''s case for war. The report makes clear how Blair saw fit to remove all the qualifiers. In the Blair version, possibilities became certainties and maybes became definites. A selective approach to the intelligence was used, giving the impression that the intelligence was solid when it was not. But yet again, Butler refrained from accusing the government of sexing up the document and maintained that the government had "acted in good faith".
Another criticism was aimed at the "informality of decision making" in No. 10 and the concentration of power in only a few chosen allies of the prime minister. Apparently, according to the report, Cabinet meetings were called at short notice and ministers were given no advance notice of the issues to be discussed, giving them no time to receive adequate briefing - thus, no awkward questions for Blair. But according to Butler, there was no reason to suggest that this style is "any less effective". And this was the nature of the report, criticism followed by qualification.
Despite the litany of failures detailed in the report, apparently no one is to blame. The British citizens were drip fed faulty intelligence - selective and "eye-catching" intelligence over the period of a year - including, let us not forget, a plagiarised PhD thesis complete with typographical errors, yet according to his lordship, no one is to blame. Prime Minister Blair chose to leave out important information and insert other "eye-catching" information that, according to Butler, should "not have been in the September 2002 dossier, yet no one is to blame.
According to Butler, "there was no case for stating that the parliament and the British public had been misled". So what are we to make of this? The report, while giving plenty of mmunition to the government''s critics, also cushions every blow in the true English spirit of fair play. But we are not talking about a game of cricket here or a game of polo. We are talking about war. The most unevenly contested conflict in the history of modern warfare. And let us not forget the fact that it was this "flawed intelligence" - this "selective" and "eye-catching" information - that was sold to the British public by Blair with the cunning of a second hand car salesman and the zeal of a TV evangelist.
This is what won Blair the March 2003 vote in the House of Commons to pursue his war - a war that according to the Sir Christopher Meyer, the ex-British ambassador to Washington, was planned in September 2001 during dinner with George W. Bush. Although Butler''s thoroughly British report will be seen by Blair as closure to the whole affair, MPs and the British public will see it differently. Both will feel hoodwinked by Blair. Should the UK face a serious threat of war in the near future, it is doubtful whether Blair would be believed.
This could have grave consequences for the security of the UK. Also, in drawing the intelligence services into the political process, Blair has done the country a great disservice at a critical time when trust in these services is essential in the face of the real threat to the UK from international terrorism. What is absolutely clear from the Butler report is that the UK was dragged into a war on false pretences. It is simply just not good enough for Blair to claim now that getting rid of Saddam wasrestore public confidence in the government, a full public enquiry should be conducted into the political judgements that resulted in the Iraq war.
The writer is former lecturer at the University of Durham, UK. He ontributed this article to The Jordan Times. Friday-Saturday, July 16-17, 2004
US, UK clash over Afghan heroin eradication
By Paul Tate
Heroin was not the natural drug of choice for the disenfranchised youthof the early 1980s. Before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, teenagers in working class run-down housing estates across Western Europe preferred to smoke marijuana, largely to block out the monotony of unemployed life.
All that changed in the early 1980s with the setting up of a "pipeline" by the Pakistani Intelligence Services and the CIA, and funded by Saudi largesse to channel arms and funds to Osama Ben Laden and the Afghan Mujahedeen.
As a quid pro-quo, a blind eye was turned to the heroin that began to flow the other way. This vast supply of cheap high-grade heroin didn''t take long to make its way to Europe''s cities, which have been struggling with the consequences ever since. Wide-scale heroin addiction, crime, gangsterism and corruption, not to mention CIA-trained Islamic extremists,
were just some of the consequences of Afghanistan Mark I.
Twenty-five years later, the country has once again reclaimed its No. 1 spot at the top of the world league of heroin producers. Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taleban, according to White House figures.
Since the "war on terror" began, heroin production has soared by 1,400 per cent. According to the UN, the combined income of poppy farmers and smugglers last year was around $2.3 billion, a 6 per cent increase on the previous year and fifty per cent of Afghanistan''s legal gross domestic product.
British policy makers have been complaining of late that the US appears to be disinterested in combating the growing drug problem. Given that 95 per cent of the heroin sold on the streets of the UK originates in Afghanistan, as compared to only 5 per cent in the US, British anxiety
is understandable. But there are other reasons the US appears to be once again turning a blind eye to the booming opium trade.
One US official was quoted in Britain''s Guardian newspaper as saying: "You guys [the British] are here because you have a war on drugs, I''m here because we have a war on terror." But the real reason the US is reluctant to make a concerted effort to close down the drug laboratories is that some of its key allies in the Afghan government are thought to be up to their necks in drug money.
The US strategy in Afghanistan Mark II, as was the case in Afghanistan Mark I, is to turn a blind eye to heroin trafficking in order to pursue geopolitical goals. With the country already on the brink of anarchy, and US forces at full stretch, the last thing the Americans want is to
open up another front against the drug barons. Above all, the US doesn''t want to upset the current administration and the forthcoming elections scheduled for Oct. 9. Local commanders have, therefore, been allowed to use profits from drug trafficking to fund their private militias and amass power under the umbrella of the Bush administration''s war on terror.
But as Mirwais Yasini, Afghanistan''s Counter Narcotics Directorate chief, has pointed out, this strategy has already started to backfire. Alliances in Afghanistan follow the old dictum "my enemy''s enemy is my friend".
Today''s allies become tomorrow''s foes. Yasini says he is aware of at least two millionaire drug barons in league with Taleban rebels trying to destabilise the south of the country.
The consequences of inaction are clear: more money in the coffers of local warlords means more weapons which, in turn, leads to greater instability and undermines the fledgling democratic process. Afghanistan''s first post-Taleban elections have already been postponed twice due to increasing violence towards voters and officials. Attacks attributed to the Taleban
and its Al Qaeda allies have claimed more than 1,000 lives in the past 12 months. Only Kabul is considered secure. The rest of the country is in the grip of the warlords.
Efforts to disarm the militias, a precondition for elections under the Bonn 2001 accord, have stalled. Drug cultivation and trafficking are undermining the rule of law and providing a mass of funds for international terrorism and fuelling the Taleban revival, as well as a culture of addiction, crime, bribery and corruption in Afghanistan and the surrounding states.
At particular risk is the Central Asian state of Tajikistan. This desperately poor nation shares a 900-mile border with Afghanistan and is now the preferred route for traffickers. Analysts believe that the country is at risk of turning into a "narco-mafia state" controlled by an economy dependent on the flow of heroin and with links to Al Qaeda and regional Islamists
, precisely what the US claims it intervened in Afghanistan to prevent.
The country is already deeply affected by the fall out from the drugs trail. Tajikistan is experiencing a heroin epidemic akin to that experienced by Britain in the 1980s and all the misery that entails: drug-crime, social and family breakdown, wasted lives and increasing rates of HIV infection.
Meanwhile, in the towns and inner-cities of Europe, a new batch of cheap high-grade heroin is freely available on the streets. In Afghanistan Mark I, the proceeds of this trade went to fund the Mujahedeen against the Russians and, later, the infighting between rival warlords. Now, ironically, the heroin bought by European drug users is funding the forces of international terrorism and the Central Asian mafias - therefore increasing the possibility of wide-scale terrorist attacks and their ability to acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
Heroin was not the natural drug of choice for the disenfranchised youthof the early 1980s. Before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, teenagers in working class run-down housing estates across Western Europe preferred to smoke marijuana, largely to block out the monotony of unemployed life.
All that changed in the early 1980s with the setting up of a "pipeline" by the Pakistani Intelligence Services and the CIA, and funded by Saudi largesse to channel arms and funds to Osama Ben Laden and the Afghan Mujahedeen.
As a quid pro-quo, a blind eye was turned to the heroin that began to flow the other way. This vast supply of cheap high-grade heroin didn''t take long to make its way to Europe''s cities, which have been struggling with the consequences ever since. Wide-scale heroin addiction, crime, gangsterism and corruption, not to mention CIA-trained Islamic extremists,
were just some of the consequences of Afghanistan Mark I.
Twenty-five years later, the country has once again reclaimed its No. 1 spot at the top of the world league of heroin producers. Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taleban, according to White House figures.
Since the "war on terror" began, heroin production has soared by 1,400 per cent. According to the UN, the combined income of poppy farmers and smugglers last year was around $2.3 billion, a 6 per cent increase on the previous year and fifty per cent of Afghanistan''s legal gross domestic product.
British policy makers have been complaining of late that the US appears to be disinterested in combating the growing drug problem. Given that 95 per cent of the heroin sold on the streets of the UK originates in Afghanistan, as compared to only 5 per cent in the US, British anxiety
is understandable. But there are other reasons the US appears to be once again turning a blind eye to the booming opium trade.
One US official was quoted in Britain''s Guardian newspaper as saying: "You guys [the British] are here because you have a war on drugs, I''m here because we have a war on terror." But the real reason the US is reluctant to make a concerted effort to close down the drug laboratories is that some of its key allies in the Afghan government are thought to be up to their necks in drug money.
The US strategy in Afghanistan Mark II, as was the case in Afghanistan Mark I, is to turn a blind eye to heroin trafficking in order to pursue geopolitical goals. With the country already on the brink of anarchy, and US forces at full stretch, the last thing the Americans want is to
open up another front against the drug barons. Above all, the US doesn''t want to upset the current administration and the forthcoming elections scheduled for Oct. 9. Local commanders have, therefore, been allowed to use profits from drug trafficking to fund their private militias and amass power under the umbrella of the Bush administration''s war on terror.
But as Mirwais Yasini, Afghanistan''s Counter Narcotics Directorate chief, has pointed out, this strategy has already started to backfire. Alliances in Afghanistan follow the old dictum "my enemy''s enemy is my friend".
Today''s allies become tomorrow''s foes. Yasini says he is aware of at least two millionaire drug barons in league with Taleban rebels trying to destabilise the south of the country.
The consequences of inaction are clear: more money in the coffers of local warlords means more weapons which, in turn, leads to greater instability and undermines the fledgling democratic process. Afghanistan''s first post-Taleban elections have already been postponed twice due to increasing violence towards voters and officials. Attacks attributed to the Taleban
and its Al Qaeda allies have claimed more than 1,000 lives in the past 12 months. Only Kabul is considered secure. The rest of the country is in the grip of the warlords.
Efforts to disarm the militias, a precondition for elections under the Bonn 2001 accord, have stalled. Drug cultivation and trafficking are undermining the rule of law and providing a mass of funds for international terrorism and fuelling the Taleban revival, as well as a culture of addiction, crime, bribery and corruption in Afghanistan and the surrounding states.
At particular risk is the Central Asian state of Tajikistan. This desperately poor nation shares a 900-mile border with Afghanistan and is now the preferred route for traffickers. Analysts believe that the country is at risk of turning into a "narco-mafia state" controlled by an economy dependent on the flow of heroin and with links to Al Qaeda and regional Islamists
, precisely what the US claims it intervened in Afghanistan to prevent.
The country is already deeply affected by the fall out from the drugs trail. Tajikistan is experiencing a heroin epidemic akin to that experienced by Britain in the 1980s and all the misery that entails: drug-crime, social and family breakdown, wasted lives and increasing rates of HIV infection.
Meanwhile, in the towns and inner-cities of Europe, a new batch of cheap high-grade heroin is freely available on the streets. In Afghanistan Mark I, the proceeds of this trade went to fund the Mujahedeen against the Russians and, later, the infighting between rival warlords. Now, ironically, the heroin bought by European drug users is funding the forces of international terrorism and the Central Asian mafias - therefore increasing the possibility of wide-scale terrorist attacks and their ability to acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
Syria will pay price for Hariri murder
By Paul Tate
There is one certainty surrounding the assassination of Rafik Hariri,
the former Lebanese prime minister: no matter who is responsible, Damascus
will pay the price.
Opposition figures inside Lebanon opposed to Syria''s military presence
are now openly pointing the finger of accusation at Syria and President
Emile Lahoud''s pro-Syrian government. For years, the Lebanese have blamed
Syria for a string of political assassinations, but never before have
they declared it publicly.
They now feel confident to oppose Damascus because they sense, quite rightly,
that what is happening in Lebanon is part of a much wider game, involving
an array of anti-Syrian forces. Lebanon, as was the case during the 16-year
civil war, is once again finding itself in the unenviable position of
becoming the theatre for a much wider international conflict.
Syria and its sole ally Iran are now firmly in the US spotlight for possible
regime change, with the former being a much easier option. For months
now, Washington has been turning the heat up on Syria, accusing it of
aiding and abetting the insurgency in Iraq and of "interfering" in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process through its support of Hamas and Hizbollah.
Sanctions have already been placed on Damascus, with more in the pipeline.
Seen in this context, Hariri''s bombing and murder is a gift-horse to
those in Washington gunning for regime change in Damascus and supports,
rather conveniently, America''s claim that Syria is a destabilising force,
not just in Lebanon, but the whole region. The US wasted little time in
recalling its ambassador and bolstering Lebanon''s opposition forces by
calling for Lebanon to be allowed to choose "a path of freedom and independence",
in other words, for Syria to comply with UN Resolution 1559 and withdraw
its 14,000 forces from the country in accordance with the 1991 Taif accord
that ended the 16-year civil war.
Since the end of the cold war and the loss of its Russian ally, Syria''s
strategic hand has steadily weakened. Now isolated and on the defensive,
the regime in Damascus is desperately trying to retain the last card in
its pack: its domination over Lebanon. Lebanon is Syria''s last and most
vital bargaining chip in a 37-year struggle to regain the Golan Heights,
occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
Through its support for Hizbollah and Palestinian resistance groups, the
regime in Damascus has sought to persuade Israel to negotiate and make
a deal. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have constantly sought to
undermine Syria''s hand, shut down the resistance and isolate both Syria
and the Palestinians. The decision by Ehud Barak to end Israel''s 22-year
occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000 can be viewed in this context.
Ironically, Lebanon is now being used by Syria''s enemies as a platform
from which to exploit it. The once strategic bargaining asset is fast
becoming an Achilles'' heel. The methods once employed by Syria to ensure
domination in Lebanon, such as political manipulation and intimidation,
are now backfiring against the regime with devastating effect.
Syria is steadily losing its grip, highlighted by its diktat to extend
the constitutionally permitted presidential six-year term of pro-Syrian
President Emile Lahoud. The harder Syria pushes to hold on to her prized
possession the more it inflames the opposition, backed by international
powers.
Long-term Syrian allies, such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, although
remaining generally supportive of Syria, have been quick to sense the
changing tide and, like others, has decided to swim with the current.
Was Hariri about to jump on board with Jumblatt and back the opposition
and drive another blow against Syria''s bargaining chip in the Middle
East?
One thing is for sure: no matter who was responsible, Hariri''s murder
has severely undermined Syria''s already fragile position in the region,
whilst strengthening the hand of its enemies. It now remains to be seen
whether Syria will acquiesce to US designs in the region and trade in
the Lebanese card in some kind of deal to assure its place in the new
Middle East order, or whether Lebanon will once again become a battleground
for a much larger international conflict.
There is one certainty surrounding the assassination of Rafik Hariri,
the former Lebanese prime minister: no matter who is responsible, Damascus
will pay the price.
Opposition figures inside Lebanon opposed to Syria''s military presence
are now openly pointing the finger of accusation at Syria and President
Emile Lahoud''s pro-Syrian government. For years, the Lebanese have blamed
Syria for a string of political assassinations, but never before have
they declared it publicly.
They now feel confident to oppose Damascus because they sense, quite rightly,
that what is happening in Lebanon is part of a much wider game, involving
an array of anti-Syrian forces. Lebanon, as was the case during the 16-year
civil war, is once again finding itself in the unenviable position of
becoming the theatre for a much wider international conflict.
Syria and its sole ally Iran are now firmly in the US spotlight for possible
regime change, with the former being a much easier option. For months
now, Washington has been turning the heat up on Syria, accusing it of
aiding and abetting the insurgency in Iraq and of "interfering" in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process through its support of Hamas and Hizbollah.
Sanctions have already been placed on Damascus, with more in the pipeline.
Seen in this context, Hariri''s bombing and murder is a gift-horse to
those in Washington gunning for regime change in Damascus and supports,
rather conveniently, America''s claim that Syria is a destabilising force,
not just in Lebanon, but the whole region. The US wasted little time in
recalling its ambassador and bolstering Lebanon''s opposition forces by
calling for Lebanon to be allowed to choose "a path of freedom and independence",
in other words, for Syria to comply with UN Resolution 1559 and withdraw
its 14,000 forces from the country in accordance with the 1991 Taif accord
that ended the 16-year civil war.
Since the end of the cold war and the loss of its Russian ally, Syria''s
strategic hand has steadily weakened. Now isolated and on the defensive,
the regime in Damascus is desperately trying to retain the last card in
its pack: its domination over Lebanon. Lebanon is Syria''s last and most
vital bargaining chip in a 37-year struggle to regain the Golan Heights,
occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
Through its support for Hizbollah and Palestinian resistance groups, the
regime in Damascus has sought to persuade Israel to negotiate and make
a deal. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have constantly sought to
undermine Syria''s hand, shut down the resistance and isolate both Syria
and the Palestinians. The decision by Ehud Barak to end Israel''s 22-year
occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000 can be viewed in this context.
Ironically, Lebanon is now being used by Syria''s enemies as a platform
from which to exploit it. The once strategic bargaining asset is fast
becoming an Achilles'' heel. The methods once employed by Syria to ensure
domination in Lebanon, such as political manipulation and intimidation,
are now backfiring against the regime with devastating effect.
Syria is steadily losing its grip, highlighted by its diktat to extend
the constitutionally permitted presidential six-year term of pro-Syrian
President Emile Lahoud. The harder Syria pushes to hold on to her prized
possession the more it inflames the opposition, backed by international
powers.
Long-term Syrian allies, such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, although
remaining generally supportive of Syria, have been quick to sense the
changing tide and, like others, has decided to swim with the current.
Was Hariri about to jump on board with Jumblatt and back the opposition
and drive another blow against Syria''s bargaining chip in the Middle
East?
One thing is for sure: no matter who was responsible, Hariri''s murder
has severely undermined Syria''s already fragile position in the region,
whilst strengthening the hand of its enemies. It now remains to be seen
whether Syria will acquiesce to US designs in the region and trade in
the Lebanese card in some kind of deal to assure its place in the new
Middle East order, or whether Lebanon will once again become a battleground
for a much larger international conflict.
Tough challenges ahead for Blair
By Paul Tate
British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be putting a brave face on an election
win that gave his party a third consecutive term, but behind the optimistic
faade he will know that it signals the beginning of his demise.
Only 24 hours after his reelection, backbench MPs are already calling
for Blair to step down "sooner rather than later". The embattled British
PM is now regarded as an "electoral liability", according to one former
minister, with the general consensus among party members that the real
hero responsible for bringing Labour back to office is the PM in waiting
and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
Power struggles have already broken out in the Cabinet, with Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott and education secretary Ruth Kelly openely defying
Blair in their refusal to move to other posts.
Elected on a mere 36 per cent of the vote and with a reduced majority
in the House of Commons, not to mention a distinct lack of trust on the
part of the UK electorate, one wonders to what extent Blair will be able
to push through his much touted programme of reforms.
On controversial issues such as anti-terror control orders and compulsory
ID cards he will face stiff opposition which could well see them confined
to the filing cabinet for the remainder of his term. Also, in terms of
public service reform, Blair may find himself having to veer more towards
old Labour values of pouring in the cash in his quest for backbench votes,
which will not sit well with the much needed support of middle England,
so crucial to the New Labour venture. Navigating between these to diametrically
opposed political currents will take a lot of diplomacy and capital from
a prime minister who is all but spent up in this regard.
The new term will also require a change in political style from a man
that has so far demonstrated disdain for the consensual approach to decision
making. Due to the government''s sharply reduced majority, backbench Labour
MPs who have been sidelined over the previous eight years will now find
themselves courted by Blair - but will they back him? Gone are the days
when he could simply rely on his huge majority in the Commons to browbeat
the "awkward squad" into swallowing their convictions and back controversial
policies such as the introduction of university tuition fees.
Blair will also be aware that both of Labour''s old foes in the shape
of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have emerged strengthened
from this election. In the inner cities, the Liberals are snapping at
Labour''s heels, picking up votes from traditional Labour voters disillusioned
with the party''s swing to the right and by Blair''s insistence on dragging
Britain into the Iraq war.
This poses a dilemma for the Blair government. The whole New Labour project
has been one of occupying the middle ground - which roughly translates
as the centre-right. Therefore, he has, until now, solely focused on appealing
to conservative values while taking traditional Labour seats for granted.
But as the election results highlight, this strategy appears to be unravelling
with millions of voters defecting to the new party of the left - the Lib
Dems.
In the Tory heartland of middle England, where New Labour was born, Blair
also has to watch his back to ensure that their successes in London are
not repeated elsewhere. He is increasingly being viewed as soft on crime
and immigration, as well as veering towards big government - the antithesis
of the Tory creed, not to mention being too Euro-friendly. Michael Howard''s
decision to step down as Conservative leader, however, has bought Labour
some time. The Tories will be occupied with internal battles for a good
while yet.
On the international stage, and especially in terms of Blair''s partnership
with the Bush administration, the prime minister finds himself considerably
weakened. This will be welcome news in Damascus and Tehran, currently
feeling the heat from the US, but bad news for the Bush-Blair axis. Any
military action against either of these states now seems more unlikely
than ever. Blair is simply too weak in terms of both trust and political
capital to push through a vote in the House of Commons sanctioning another
war. This may well be taken by Iran as a window of opportunity to accelerate
its uranium enrichment programme, therefore forcing the hand of the US
and Israel.
But perhaps the key issue with the potential to unravel not just Blair
but the entire New Labour project will be on the European front - an issue
that has been on the backburner for some time now but which is rapidly
coming to the boil. Blair will follow a policy of wait and see in terms
of the outcome of the May 29 French referendum on the European constitution.
One can''t help but suspect that many in the Blair government wish the
whole matter would just go away. If the French vote yes, Blair will be
forced to follow suit and attempt to sell it to a Euro-sceptic British
public - with all Blair''s political capital and trust exhausted this
appears an impossible task. A referendum defeat on the EU constitution
would spell political disaster and turn the whole of Labour''s third term
into a debate as to whether Britain should break away from Europe. A scenario
such as this would push British politics firmly to the right, while damaging
European and transatlantic relations and completely undermining Britain''s
role as "America''s voice" in Europe.
The UK''s total exports to the EU amount to 9.5 per cent of the country''s
GDP, while member states'' exports to Britain are worth just 2.4 per cent
of their combined GDP. Britain''s succession, therefore, would not be
viewed kindly with negotiating strength firmly in favour of the EU. It
would also see Britain weakened in a world where China, India and Brazil
are emerging as economic powers.
The conclusion seems to be that Blair won Thursday night''s battle but
lost the war. In British politics one thing is certain - a British prime
minister cannot survive without a stable political base in the House of
Commons, especially one that is now regarded by many in his own party
as untrustworthy and a liability.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be putting a brave face on an election
win that gave his party a third consecutive term, but behind the optimistic
faade he will know that it signals the beginning of his demise.
Only 24 hours after his reelection, backbench MPs are already calling
for Blair to step down "sooner rather than later". The embattled British
PM is now regarded as an "electoral liability", according to one former
minister, with the general consensus among party members that the real
hero responsible for bringing Labour back to office is the PM in waiting
and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
Power struggles have already broken out in the Cabinet, with Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott and education secretary Ruth Kelly openely defying
Blair in their refusal to move to other posts.
Elected on a mere 36 per cent of the vote and with a reduced majority
in the House of Commons, not to mention a distinct lack of trust on the
part of the UK electorate, one wonders to what extent Blair will be able
to push through his much touted programme of reforms.
On controversial issues such as anti-terror control orders and compulsory
ID cards he will face stiff opposition which could well see them confined
to the filing cabinet for the remainder of his term. Also, in terms of
public service reform, Blair may find himself having to veer more towards
old Labour values of pouring in the cash in his quest for backbench votes,
which will not sit well with the much needed support of middle England,
so crucial to the New Labour venture. Navigating between these to diametrically
opposed political currents will take a lot of diplomacy and capital from
a prime minister who is all but spent up in this regard.
The new term will also require a change in political style from a man
that has so far demonstrated disdain for the consensual approach to decision
making. Due to the government''s sharply reduced majority, backbench Labour
MPs who have been sidelined over the previous eight years will now find
themselves courted by Blair - but will they back him? Gone are the days
when he could simply rely on his huge majority in the Commons to browbeat
the "awkward squad" into swallowing their convictions and back controversial
policies such as the introduction of university tuition fees.
Blair will also be aware that both of Labour''s old foes in the shape
of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have emerged strengthened
from this election. In the inner cities, the Liberals are snapping at
Labour''s heels, picking up votes from traditional Labour voters disillusioned
with the party''s swing to the right and by Blair''s insistence on dragging
Britain into the Iraq war.
This poses a dilemma for the Blair government. The whole New Labour project
has been one of occupying the middle ground - which roughly translates
as the centre-right. Therefore, he has, until now, solely focused on appealing
to conservative values while taking traditional Labour seats for granted.
But as the election results highlight, this strategy appears to be unravelling
with millions of voters defecting to the new party of the left - the Lib
Dems.
In the Tory heartland of middle England, where New Labour was born, Blair
also has to watch his back to ensure that their successes in London are
not repeated elsewhere. He is increasingly being viewed as soft on crime
and immigration, as well as veering towards big government - the antithesis
of the Tory creed, not to mention being too Euro-friendly. Michael Howard''s
decision to step down as Conservative leader, however, has bought Labour
some time. The Tories will be occupied with internal battles for a good
while yet.
On the international stage, and especially in terms of Blair''s partnership
with the Bush administration, the prime minister finds himself considerably
weakened. This will be welcome news in Damascus and Tehran, currently
feeling the heat from the US, but bad news for the Bush-Blair axis. Any
military action against either of these states now seems more unlikely
than ever. Blair is simply too weak in terms of both trust and political
capital to push through a vote in the House of Commons sanctioning another
war. This may well be taken by Iran as a window of opportunity to accelerate
its uranium enrichment programme, therefore forcing the hand of the US
and Israel.
But perhaps the key issue with the potential to unravel not just Blair
but the entire New Labour project will be on the European front - an issue
that has been on the backburner for some time now but which is rapidly
coming to the boil. Blair will follow a policy of wait and see in terms
of the outcome of the May 29 French referendum on the European constitution.
One can''t help but suspect that many in the Blair government wish the
whole matter would just go away. If the French vote yes, Blair will be
forced to follow suit and attempt to sell it to a Euro-sceptic British
public - with all Blair''s political capital and trust exhausted this
appears an impossible task. A referendum defeat on the EU constitution
would spell political disaster and turn the whole of Labour''s third term
into a debate as to whether Britain should break away from Europe. A scenario
such as this would push British politics firmly to the right, while damaging
European and transatlantic relations and completely undermining Britain''s
role as "America''s voice" in Europe.
The UK''s total exports to the EU amount to 9.5 per cent of the country''s
GDP, while member states'' exports to Britain are worth just 2.4 per cent
of their combined GDP. Britain''s succession, therefore, would not be
viewed kindly with negotiating strength firmly in favour of the EU. It
would also see Britain weakened in a world where China, India and Brazil
are emerging as economic powers.
The conclusion seems to be that Blair won Thursday night''s battle but
lost the war. In British politics one thing is certain - a British prime
minister cannot survive without a stable political base in the House of
Commons, especially one that is now regarded by many in his own party
as untrustworthy and a liability.
Fertile ground for radicalism
By Paul Tate
As the shock subsides and realisation sets in concerning the gravity of
the home grown suicide attacks on London last Thursday, the question
on everyone’s lips is: Why did four British-born Pakistani men, one apparently
a primary schoolteacher with a wife and child, deliberately set out to
kill and maim as many of their fellow citizens as possible?
Although troubling to many, the writing has been on the wall for many
years now. Britain has already produced a handful of homegrown suicide
bombers, one of whom, Asif Hanif, 21, from London, accomplished his mission
by walking into a bar in Tel Aviv in 2003 and blowing himself up. His
accomplice, from the English city of Derby, backed out of the mission
and was later found dead floating in the Mediterranean. There was also
the infamous but equally inept “Shoe Bomber”, Richard Reid, who attempted
to blow up a plane bound to Miami from Paris. Fortunately he was overpowered
by passengers before he was able to light the explosive cord concealed
in his shoe and has since been jailed for life in the US.
And there have been many more of their ilk, including Ahmad Omar Saeed
Sheikh, the public school boy and London School of Economics graduate
who masterminded the kidnapping and murder of the American journalist
Daniel Pearl. Sheikh was sentenced to death last year in Pakistan.
So we cannot pretend that this is something new - that British-exported
terrorism wouldn’t come home to roost. Added to this, it is well known
that up to 3,000 British-born Muslims have attended terrorist training
camps in Afghanistan, including, it seems, at least one of the London
bombers, with many more volunteering to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir
and the newly created crÚˆme de la crÚˆme of training grounds - Iraq.
Given this context, the only surprise should be that last Thursday’s barbaric
acts took so long in coming and that the security service MI5 failed to
catch the perpetrators before they had chance to murder innocent civilians.
The radicalisation of a section of British Muslims has long been known,
driven by a desire to align themselves with the forces of global jihad.
When Bush divided the world into good and evil, us or them, and subsequently
invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, for many British Muslims the choice was
made easy and they threw their hands in with Ben Laden.
For this reason it is significant that all four suicide bombers carried
with them some form of identity - no doubt to the consternation of those
who sent them. Already some conspiracy theorists are beginning to cry
foul - why would they carry items that could identify them, they ask.
The answer is simple, they wanted to be known
As the shock subsides and realisation sets in concerning the gravity of
the home grown suicide attacks on London last Thursday, the question
on everyone’s lips is: Why did four British-born Pakistani men, one apparently
a primary schoolteacher with a wife and child, deliberately set out to
kill and maim as many of their fellow citizens as possible?
Although troubling to many, the writing has been on the wall for many
years now. Britain has already produced a handful of homegrown suicide
bombers, one of whom, Asif Hanif, 21, from London, accomplished his mission
by walking into a bar in Tel Aviv in 2003 and blowing himself up. His
accomplice, from the English city of Derby, backed out of the mission
and was later found dead floating in the Mediterranean. There was also
the infamous but equally inept “Shoe Bomber”, Richard Reid, who attempted
to blow up a plane bound to Miami from Paris. Fortunately he was overpowered
by passengers before he was able to light the explosive cord concealed
in his shoe and has since been jailed for life in the US.
And there have been many more of their ilk, including Ahmad Omar Saeed
Sheikh, the public school boy and London School of Economics graduate
who masterminded the kidnapping and murder of the American journalist
Daniel Pearl. Sheikh was sentenced to death last year in Pakistan.
So we cannot pretend that this is something new - that British-exported
terrorism wouldn’t come home to roost. Added to this, it is well known
that up to 3,000 British-born Muslims have attended terrorist training
camps in Afghanistan, including, it seems, at least one of the London
bombers, with many more volunteering to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir
and the newly created crÚˆme de la crÚˆme of training grounds - Iraq.
Given this context, the only surprise should be that last Thursday’s barbaric
acts took so long in coming and that the security service MI5 failed to
catch the perpetrators before they had chance to murder innocent civilians.
The radicalisation of a section of British Muslims has long been known,
driven by a desire to align themselves with the forces of global jihad.
When Bush divided the world into good and evil, us or them, and subsequently
invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, for many British Muslims the choice was
made easy and they threw their hands in with Ben Laden.
For this reason it is significant that all four suicide bombers carried
with them some form of identity - no doubt to the consternation of those
who sent them. Already some conspiracy theorists are beginning to cry
foul - why would they carry items that could identify them, they ask.
The answer is simple, they wanted to be known
Australia and Canada close embassies, citing security threat
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — Australia and Canada closed their embassies here indefinitely on Sunday due to an undisclosed security threat, a day after Britain closed its embassy citing similar security concerns.
“Reports suggest terrorists may be in the final stages of planning attacks against Westerners and places frequented by Westerners in Jordan,” said a statement on Sunday posted on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.
The statement advised its citizens to exercise a “high degree of caution in Jordan because of the high risk of a terrorist attack.”
Both embassies announced that their premises would remain closed until further notice. No one at either embassy was available for comment.
Britain closed its embassy in Amman on Saturday. While giving no specific details on the nature of the threat, a spokesperson from the embassy told The Jordan Times that it would remain closed until further notice “due to a security alert.”
Jordanian Government Spokesman Nasser Judeh in a statement on Sunday to the Jordan News Agency, Petra, said the security threat against the embassies was not sufficient to warrant their closure.
Judeh did not comment on the reasons behind the decision to close the embassies but said that the Kingdom's security agencies had made a full assessment of the situation and had informed the three embassies of the threat level.
“In this case the security authorities concluded that the threats did not warrant the closures,” Judeh said.
However, he added that security around the embassies had been reinforced.
“Jordan is committed to use all its available resources to provide full security as required to all diplomatic missions,” Judeh said.
British Ambassador to Jordan Christopher Prentice praised Jordanian security departments on Sunday for ensuring the embassy's safety, according to the Jordan News Agency, Petra.
When asked about the reasons for the embassy closure, Prentice said a threat came via the Internet. He also expressed hope that the embassy would open as soon as possible.
The decision to close the embassies comes amid heightened security measures throughout the country following the November 2005 suicide attacks on three of the capital's hotels, which left 60 people dead and around 100 injured.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Jordanian fugitive Abu Mussab Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Shortly after the bombings, the group posted an Internet statement on an Islamist website promising more attacks against places frequented by foreigners, and warning Jordanians to avoid visiting hotels, embassies and tourist sites.
Since the attacks, security has been stepped up at the country's major institutions and leisure facilities, with metal detectors and security guards becoming a regular feature of life in the capital at the entrances to hotels, restaurants and shopping malls.
In August 2005, a Jordanian soldier was killed during a rocket attack on two American warships docked in the southern Port of Aqaba. The incident was also blamed on the group led by Zarqawi.
In 2004, the State Security Court sentenced Zarqawi to death in absentia after convicting him, along with six others, of the murder of USAID officer Laurence Foley, who was gunned down outside his Amman home in October 2002.
Monday,January 9, 2006
AMMAN — Australia and Canada closed their embassies here indefinitely on Sunday due to an undisclosed security threat, a day after Britain closed its embassy citing similar security concerns.
“Reports suggest terrorists may be in the final stages of planning attacks against Westerners and places frequented by Westerners in Jordan,” said a statement on Sunday posted on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.
The statement advised its citizens to exercise a “high degree of caution in Jordan because of the high risk of a terrorist attack.”
Both embassies announced that their premises would remain closed until further notice. No one at either embassy was available for comment.
Britain closed its embassy in Amman on Saturday. While giving no specific details on the nature of the threat, a spokesperson from the embassy told The Jordan Times that it would remain closed until further notice “due to a security alert.”
Jordanian Government Spokesman Nasser Judeh in a statement on Sunday to the Jordan News Agency, Petra, said the security threat against the embassies was not sufficient to warrant their closure.
Judeh did not comment on the reasons behind the decision to close the embassies but said that the Kingdom's security agencies had made a full assessment of the situation and had informed the three embassies of the threat level.
“In this case the security authorities concluded that the threats did not warrant the closures,” Judeh said.
However, he added that security around the embassies had been reinforced.
“Jordan is committed to use all its available resources to provide full security as required to all diplomatic missions,” Judeh said.
British Ambassador to Jordan Christopher Prentice praised Jordanian security departments on Sunday for ensuring the embassy's safety, according to the Jordan News Agency, Petra.
When asked about the reasons for the embassy closure, Prentice said a threat came via the Internet. He also expressed hope that the embassy would open as soon as possible.
The decision to close the embassies comes amid heightened security measures throughout the country following the November 2005 suicide attacks on three of the capital's hotels, which left 60 people dead and around 100 injured.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Jordanian fugitive Abu Mussab Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Shortly after the bombings, the group posted an Internet statement on an Islamist website promising more attacks against places frequented by foreigners, and warning Jordanians to avoid visiting hotels, embassies and tourist sites.
Since the attacks, security has been stepped up at the country's major institutions and leisure facilities, with metal detectors and security guards becoming a regular feature of life in the capital at the entrances to hotels, restaurants and shopping malls.
In August 2005, a Jordanian soldier was killed during a rocket attack on two American warships docked in the southern Port of Aqaba. The incident was also blamed on the group led by Zarqawi.
In 2004, the State Security Court sentenced Zarqawi to death in absentia after convicting him, along with six others, of the murder of USAID officer Laurence Foley, who was gunned down outside his Amman home in October 2002.
Monday,January 9, 2006
Jordan’s security boosted by Zarqawi’s demise — analysts
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — The prospect of further large-scale terrorist attacks in Jordan has been significantly reduced as a result of the death of Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Mussab Zarqawi, analysts said on Sunday.
The Jordanian-born militant was killed late Wednesday after two US F16s dropped a pair of 500lb bombs on his safe house in Hibhib, a village 48km northeast of Baghdad.
“Zarqawi’s demise is definitely positive for Jordan as he had a long-standing grudge against the regime and was heavily involved in planning and staging attacks in the country, said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director of International Crisis Group.
In addition to leading scores of bombing campaigns in Iraq, Zarqawi was a strong proponent of spreading the jihad to neighbouring countries, as evidenced by his hand in masterminding the November 2005 triple suicide bombings in Amman.
The attacks against three of the capital’s hotels left 60 people dead and around a hundred injured.
In an Internet statement following the bombings, Zarqawi threatened more attacks and denounced Jordan as a land “crawling with American and Zionist spies.”
“Zarqawi’s grudge against the Monarchy dates back to the late 1980s when he returned radicalised from the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan,” Hiltermann said.
On returning to Jordan, Zarqawi attempted to form a jihadi cell which ended in failure when authorities broke up his group after an unsuccessful attempt to attack Israeli targets. He was sent to prison only to be released in a Royal amnesty in 1999.
“Of all the neighbouring countries, Jordan will benefit most from the news that Zarqawi is no longer active,” according to political analyst and Al Ghad columnist Muhammad Abu Rumman.
“Iraq gave Zarqawi the perfect training and recruiting ground to export the jihad here. Although he was based in Iraq, there is no doubt that his eyes were always fixed on his homeland,” Abu Rumman said.
Hiltermann said the likelihood of Zarqawi’s followers in Jordan carrying out attacks in emulation or support of their slain leader was minimal, adding that although local followers have the technical know-how they have been thoroughly infiltrated by the security forces.
“The chances now of large- scale Al Qaeda synchronised attacks has been greatly reduced with the end of Zarqawi. If there are attacks by his followers here seeking to emulate him they are much more likely to be sporadic, low-key and unorganised,” said Hilterman.
Fares Braizat, from the University of Jordan’s Centre for Strategic Studies, agreed that the threat to Jordan came from Zarqawi’s ability to use Iraq as a base for his wider struggle.
“His ability to recruit experienced and battle-hardened foreign militants posed a serious threat to Jordan’s security, as evidenced by the four Iraqis who carried out the November attacks, said Braizat.
Analysts agreed that the new Al Qaeda leardership in Iraq is now much more likely to be focussed on finding a new leader, which may lead to an internal power struggle.
The organisation will also be seeking to show that they have not been affected by the loss of their leader, a position that will translate into an increase in attacks on coalition forces, according to Braizat.
Hiltermann, however, sounded a note of caution.
“We shouldn’t jump the gun and need to wait and see who the new leader is going to be. If the leader turns out to be another Jordanian then the country may well remain the frame for some time to come.”
Monday, June 12, 2006
AMMAN — The prospect of further large-scale terrorist attacks in Jordan has been significantly reduced as a result of the death of Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Mussab Zarqawi, analysts said on Sunday.
The Jordanian-born militant was killed late Wednesday after two US F16s dropped a pair of 500lb bombs on his safe house in Hibhib, a village 48km northeast of Baghdad.
“Zarqawi’s demise is definitely positive for Jordan as he had a long-standing grudge against the regime and was heavily involved in planning and staging attacks in the country, said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director of International Crisis Group.
In addition to leading scores of bombing campaigns in Iraq, Zarqawi was a strong proponent of spreading the jihad to neighbouring countries, as evidenced by his hand in masterminding the November 2005 triple suicide bombings in Amman.
The attacks against three of the capital’s hotels left 60 people dead and around a hundred injured.
In an Internet statement following the bombings, Zarqawi threatened more attacks and denounced Jordan as a land “crawling with American and Zionist spies.”
“Zarqawi’s grudge against the Monarchy dates back to the late 1980s when he returned radicalised from the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan,” Hiltermann said.
On returning to Jordan, Zarqawi attempted to form a jihadi cell which ended in failure when authorities broke up his group after an unsuccessful attempt to attack Israeli targets. He was sent to prison only to be released in a Royal amnesty in 1999.
“Of all the neighbouring countries, Jordan will benefit most from the news that Zarqawi is no longer active,” according to political analyst and Al Ghad columnist Muhammad Abu Rumman.
“Iraq gave Zarqawi the perfect training and recruiting ground to export the jihad here. Although he was based in Iraq, there is no doubt that his eyes were always fixed on his homeland,” Abu Rumman said.
Hiltermann said the likelihood of Zarqawi’s followers in Jordan carrying out attacks in emulation or support of their slain leader was minimal, adding that although local followers have the technical know-how they have been thoroughly infiltrated by the security forces.
“The chances now of large- scale Al Qaeda synchronised attacks has been greatly reduced with the end of Zarqawi. If there are attacks by his followers here seeking to emulate him they are much more likely to be sporadic, low-key and unorganised,” said Hilterman.
Fares Braizat, from the University of Jordan’s Centre for Strategic Studies, agreed that the threat to Jordan came from Zarqawi’s ability to use Iraq as a base for his wider struggle.
“His ability to recruit experienced and battle-hardened foreign militants posed a serious threat to Jordan’s security, as evidenced by the four Iraqis who carried out the November attacks, said Braizat.
Analysts agreed that the new Al Qaeda leardership in Iraq is now much more likely to be focussed on finding a new leader, which may lead to an internal power struggle.
The organisation will also be seeking to show that they have not been affected by the loss of their leader, a position that will translate into an increase in attacks on coalition forces, according to Braizat.
Hiltermann, however, sounded a note of caution.
“We shouldn’t jump the gun and need to wait and see who the new leader is going to be. If the leader turns out to be another Jordanian then the country may well remain the frame for some time to come.”
Monday, June 12, 2006
WOCMES tackles global rise in suicide attacks
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — The global rise in suicide attacks is set to increase as a result of the inequalities of modern day conflicts, a leading specialist in the field said on Thursday.
In a keynote address delivered at the Second World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies (WOCMES-2), visiting Professor of Sociology at Yale University Riaz Hassan said since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 there have been more suicide attacks globally than in the previous 25 years combined.
“The targeted use of self-destructing humans against a perceived enemy for political ends has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, said Hassan, who has spent the past 40 years delving into the reasons which drive people to commit suicide.
Hassan said the main causes of suicide terrorism are primarily political and not religious, adding that they are linked to “a historical experience of humiliation and dispossession.”
“Attacks are more likely to take place in situations of unequal conflict and are aimed at forcing concessions from the more powerful enemy, said Hassan, referring specifically to Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
“The potential suicide bomber empowers him or herself in the face of powerlessness and is driven by deep-rooted feelings of humiliation which acts as a strong magnet in recruiting more potential bombers.”
According to the scholar’s research, between 1981 and 1990 there was an average of 4.7 suicide bombings globally each year.
However, in 2005 a total of 224 suicide attacks took place in the Middle East region alone, mostly in Iraq, with 172 attributed to the group formerly led by Abu Mussab Zarqawi.
“Studies reveal that most suicide bombers are aged between 18-31, are well educated, polite and serious individuals with a deep sense of religious conviction,” said Hassan.
He traced the modern era of suicide bombing to events in Lebanon and the 1981 attack against the Iraqi embassy and later the 1983 suicide operation targeting American and French forces in the country, leading to their ultimate withdrawal.
“However, suicide bombing is not the great modern phenomenon that we are led to believe, and can be traced back as far as the first century AD during the Roman occupation of Judea,” said Hassan.
“This trend carried on in the 12th and 13th centuries with the Islamic order of the Assassins in northwest Iran right through to the Japanese Kamikaze pilots during World War II and Sept. 11 2001,” he added.
“The main difference now is that the problem has become global.”
Hassan concluded by suggesting that the rise in suicide attacks can only be reversed by addressing the root causes, in addition to empowering moderate forces, engaging in constructive dialogue, moderating foreign policy and tackling the sources of funding.
“The strange thing is that as suicide attacks have increased whilst incidents of global terrorism have declined from 665 in 1986 to 208 in 2003,” said Hassan, saying this calls into question the whole concept of the US-led war on terror.
The keynote address was chaired by Hassan Abu Nimah, director of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, the local organiser of the five-day conference.
The congress, which concludes today, gathers more than 1,500 scholars, researchers and experts on Middle East from around the world, drawn from a broad range of educational and other organisations.
Friday-Saturday, June 16-17, 2006
AMMAN — The global rise in suicide attacks is set to increase as a result of the inequalities of modern day conflicts, a leading specialist in the field said on Thursday.
In a keynote address delivered at the Second World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies (WOCMES-2), visiting Professor of Sociology at Yale University Riaz Hassan said since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 there have been more suicide attacks globally than in the previous 25 years combined.
“The targeted use of self-destructing humans against a perceived enemy for political ends has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, said Hassan, who has spent the past 40 years delving into the reasons which drive people to commit suicide.
Hassan said the main causes of suicide terrorism are primarily political and not religious, adding that they are linked to “a historical experience of humiliation and dispossession.”
“Attacks are more likely to take place in situations of unequal conflict and are aimed at forcing concessions from the more powerful enemy, said Hassan, referring specifically to Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
“The potential suicide bomber empowers him or herself in the face of powerlessness and is driven by deep-rooted feelings of humiliation which acts as a strong magnet in recruiting more potential bombers.”
According to the scholar’s research, between 1981 and 1990 there was an average of 4.7 suicide bombings globally each year.
However, in 2005 a total of 224 suicide attacks took place in the Middle East region alone, mostly in Iraq, with 172 attributed to the group formerly led by Abu Mussab Zarqawi.
“Studies reveal that most suicide bombers are aged between 18-31, are well educated, polite and serious individuals with a deep sense of religious conviction,” said Hassan.
He traced the modern era of suicide bombing to events in Lebanon and the 1981 attack against the Iraqi embassy and later the 1983 suicide operation targeting American and French forces in the country, leading to their ultimate withdrawal.
“However, suicide bombing is not the great modern phenomenon that we are led to believe, and can be traced back as far as the first century AD during the Roman occupation of Judea,” said Hassan.
“This trend carried on in the 12th and 13th centuries with the Islamic order of the Assassins in northwest Iran right through to the Japanese Kamikaze pilots during World War II and Sept. 11 2001,” he added.
“The main difference now is that the problem has become global.”
Hassan concluded by suggesting that the rise in suicide attacks can only be reversed by addressing the root causes, in addition to empowering moderate forces, engaging in constructive dialogue, moderating foreign policy and tackling the sources of funding.
“The strange thing is that as suicide attacks have increased whilst incidents of global terrorism have declined from 665 in 1986 to 208 in 2003,” said Hassan, saying this calls into question the whole concept of the US-led war on terror.
The keynote address was chaired by Hassan Abu Nimah, director of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, the local organiser of the five-day conference.
The congress, which concludes today, gathers more than 1,500 scholars, researchers and experts on Middle East from around the world, drawn from a broad range of educational and other organisations.
Friday-Saturday, June 16-17, 2006
UK minister downplays criticism of Israel
By Paul Tate
Amman — British Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East Kim Howells on Monday played down earlier remarks criticising Israel’s “disproportionate use of force” in Lebanon, instead placing the blame for the current conflict firmly on Hizbollah.
“It’s easy for me to say the response was disproportionate but I am not one of those people in Haifa having their legs blown apart by Hizbollah missiles, Howells told a press conference at the British ambassador’s residence here.
Earlier yesterday, Howells met with HRH Prince Feisal, the Regent, Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit and Foreign Minister Abdul Ilah Khatib to discuss the escalating crisis amid a flurry of diplomatic activity in the region.
“We sought from the Jordanians their insight into the way Syria is behaving and the links between Iran, Syria and Hizbollah,” he said. He did not elaborate further.
On Friday during a visit to Beirut, Howells dramatically broke ranks with his government’s so far uncritical support of Israel by calling into question the Jewish state’s military tactics.
“These have not been surgical strikes. And it’s very, very difficult I think to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used, “ he said, referring to the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.
Yesterday, however, the minister emphasised the need to protect Israel’s security and voiced Britain’s firm support for the US position that a ceasefire would not be appropriate without the necessary political framework in place and a stabilisation force set up.
“We are committed to bringing this conflict to a close, but it is no good to have a gesture and the violence stops and then Hizbollah using it as a claim of victory or to rearm itself and replenish its resources,” said the diplomat.
“That is not the way to form a sustainable peace,” he added.
Howells did not give any details on what form any possible stabilisation force would take.
“There are no easy decisions about an intervention force... what will be its rules of engagement? And most importantly it has to be a force that has the agreement of the Lebanese government,” he said.
Howells’ trip has so far taken him to Beirut, Cyprus, Tel Aviv and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, but not Syria, viewed by many as the key player in brokering any possible ceasefire.
“There are great suspicions about the Syrians. Why are they playing this role? Why are they being the bankers and armours of Hizbollah,” he said, adding that it was incumbent upon them to show transparency and honesty.
The US has so far refused to talk to Syria, which it lists as a state sponsor of terror and Howells indicated that a British delegation may not have been welcomed in Damascus.
“I am not sure that the Syrians would have welcomed a visit... but we have engaged very closely through our ambassador in Damascus,” said the minister.
“I have no doubt that the Syrians have a part to play and they will have a part to play,” he added.
Howells said the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and the disarming of Hizbollah is the key to stability in Lebanon.
“You cannot have within a state two spokespersons speaking on behalf of the people and two sets of guns. You can only have one, and that has got to be the democratically elected government,” he said.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Amman — British Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East Kim Howells on Monday played down earlier remarks criticising Israel’s “disproportionate use of force” in Lebanon, instead placing the blame for the current conflict firmly on Hizbollah.
“It’s easy for me to say the response was disproportionate but I am not one of those people in Haifa having their legs blown apart by Hizbollah missiles, Howells told a press conference at the British ambassador’s residence here.
Earlier yesterday, Howells met with HRH Prince Feisal, the Regent, Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit and Foreign Minister Abdul Ilah Khatib to discuss the escalating crisis amid a flurry of diplomatic activity in the region.
“We sought from the Jordanians their insight into the way Syria is behaving and the links between Iran, Syria and Hizbollah,” he said. He did not elaborate further.
On Friday during a visit to Beirut, Howells dramatically broke ranks with his government’s so far uncritical support of Israel by calling into question the Jewish state’s military tactics.
“These have not been surgical strikes. And it’s very, very difficult I think to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used, “ he said, referring to the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.
Yesterday, however, the minister emphasised the need to protect Israel’s security and voiced Britain’s firm support for the US position that a ceasefire would not be appropriate without the necessary political framework in place and a stabilisation force set up.
“We are committed to bringing this conflict to a close, but it is no good to have a gesture and the violence stops and then Hizbollah using it as a claim of victory or to rearm itself and replenish its resources,” said the diplomat.
“That is not the way to form a sustainable peace,” he added.
Howells did not give any details on what form any possible stabilisation force would take.
“There are no easy decisions about an intervention force... what will be its rules of engagement? And most importantly it has to be a force that has the agreement of the Lebanese government,” he said.
Howells’ trip has so far taken him to Beirut, Cyprus, Tel Aviv and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, but not Syria, viewed by many as the key player in brokering any possible ceasefire.
“There are great suspicions about the Syrians. Why are they playing this role? Why are they being the bankers and armours of Hizbollah,” he said, adding that it was incumbent upon them to show transparency and honesty.
The US has so far refused to talk to Syria, which it lists as a state sponsor of terror and Howells indicated that a British delegation may not have been welcomed in Damascus.
“I am not sure that the Syrians would have welcomed a visit... but we have engaged very closely through our ambassador in Damascus,” said the minister.
“I have no doubt that the Syrians have a part to play and they will have a part to play,” he added.
Howells said the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and the disarming of Hizbollah is the key to stability in Lebanon.
“You cannot have within a state two spokespersons speaking on behalf of the people and two sets of guns. You can only have one, and that has got to be the democratically elected government,” he said.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)