NATO: Not Behind the Times

Sunday, September 5, 1999; Page B06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/05/137l-090599-idx.html

Henry Kissinger argues that "the timing of [the] sudden [European] quest for autonomy" from NATO "is puzzling, even jarring" ["The End of NATO as We Know It?" op-ed, Aug. 15]. This statement is puzzling. Throughout this decade, the Europeans have sought the ability to act militarily without necessarily calling upon the United States -- and hence NATO. The European Security and Defense Identity is to be built within NATO, in order to avoid duplication of resources, and will be "separable but not separate" from the Atlantic Alliance.

Last December, the British and French proposed that the European Union be the executive agent for the European Security and Defense Identity, and this was blessed by the rest of the European Union well before the Kosovo conflict. At last April's Washington summit, NATO as a whole -- including the United States -- ratified the arrangements that Mr. Kissinger sees as somehow undercutting transatlantic cohesion and NATO's sense of purpose.

The Europeans fully and formally agree that NATO must be the primary instrument of transatlantic security. In developing a security identity, they are working to complete European integration, which was given major impetus this year by the introduction of the euro. They also are responding to U.S. demands over many years that they shoulder a larger share of the burden of providing security in their own back yard. Thus this supposedly "sudden" European goal of having "the capacity for autonomous action backed up by credible military forces" has long been welcomed by the United States.

Mr. Kissinger also neglects NATO's core functions, to which all the allies are committed. Acting militarily in Bosnia and Kosovo was important to demonstrate that NATO could halt conflict in Europe. But the alliance's broader roles are to ensure America's necessary strategic engagement on the continent; to modernize NATO's military capabilities to meet tomorrow's challenges; to provide lasting security and stability in Central Europe; and to design a place for Russia in an encompassing European security system. These are consequential and coherent purposes. Coupled with steps taken to achieve them, they already meet Mr. Kissinger's appeal that NATO be "a living institution systematically adapting itself to new realities."

ROBERT E. HUNTER
Washington
The writer was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998.

**

Henry Kissinger raises important issues about the justification for NATO to go to war. He is entitled to his view that national interest is separable from humanitarian concern and that it alone should motivate military action, even though this will strike many as overly simplistic. More surprising is that Mr. Kissinger characterizes Europe's center-left leaders as throwbacks to the 1970s, motivated by the sort of anti-American sentiment for which that period is famous. This view apparently lies behind his judgment that Europe's political leaders want "independence" from America, want to opt out of NATO and drive their foreign policy by reference to television footage of world events rather than rational strategic objectives.

If any of this were true -- and Mr. Kissinger offers no evidence for his assertions -- this extraordinary lurch in European thinking would, indeed, be "puzzling, even jarring." But plentiful statements from England's Tony Blair, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, France's Lionel Jospin and others indicate their firm commitment to NATO and their belief that a stronger, more effective Europe in foreign policy and security will strengthen NATO and therefore benefit America. All that is being proposed is that "Europe needs to develop the ability to act alone in circumstances where, for whatever reason, the U.S. is not able or does not wish to participate," as Tony Blair said long before Kosovo.

As Kosovo demonstrated, American involvement is badly needed to win any serious war. But should U.S. taxpayers and U.S. troops always have to resolve any problems that exist on Europe's doorstep? I can think of no better way than this to alienate America from Europe, and that is the last thing European leaders want or need.

PETER MANDELSON
London
The writer is a member of Britain's House of Commons.

-----------

[Visions of grey-suited fellows with expanding bellies behind desks, "sign in here, please" / "walk through the metal detector" - or are we talking Globo Cops? What precisely IS a "security guard", and what kind of training and arming is involved?]

Kosovo security guards in demand

Updated 2:52 AM ET September 5, 1999, By BETH POTTER
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990905/02/international-security

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia, Sept. 5 (UPI) Kosova Security Co., started three weeks ago by American Lance Johnston, is not a typical security company.

But then, this regional capital of Kosovo isn't a typical place, either.

Looting, car-jacking and grenade attacks are still common, a little more than two months since KFOR soldiers entered. KFOR troops continue to seize large numbers of weapons at road checkpoints and in cities around the province. And organized crime appears to be flourishing in several places, where sleek Mercedes and four-wheel drive vehicles sporting Albanian license plates or no license plates at all crowd the streets.

With an optimism matched only by their energy, Johnston and his ethnic Albanian colleagues want to make Kosovo a safer place, one business at a time. They plan to do that by training unarmed security guards to work as personal bodyguards, security guards and bouncers at nightclubs.

Guards are trained to be non-confrontational and to resolve problems in a diplomatic manner. They're only authorized to use force to protect themselves or clients from bodily harm. So far, Kosova Security Co. has trained about 150 guards to do investigations, risk assessments, and plan for emergencies.

Already, customers range from the popular watering hole Tricky Dick's to an international aid group, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and warehouses.

"Clients are coming to us," Johnston said. The demand is so great, we don't want to advertise and find we don't have enough staff to meet the demand."

The way Johnston figures, he had a much more dangerous job before NATO bombing started. That's when he was part of a security detail for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Kosovo verification mission, a group of international monitors brought in after an agreement with the Yugoslav government in October to monitor the rapidly deteriorating situation in Kosovo. Johnston worked for Ambassador William Walker, mission head, whose focus on a massacre in Racak is widely believed to have drawn international attention to Kosovo's ethnic violence.

"We went unarmed into situations were guys were held at gunpoint," Johnston said, as he sat in a newly leased office in downtown apartment building. "We were providing security, unarmed, during a guerilla war, so this is much easier."

For Agim Musliu, director of training at Kosova Security Co. and an ethnic Albanian who spent 10 years in the Kosovo police force, the current security situation in Pristina isn't as bad as it might seem from the news reports.

"I'm very surprised at how quiet it is," said Musliu. "Imagine New York City without police for one day."

Johnston and Musliu realize they can't supplant the law and order of the 50,000 KFOR soldiers in the region and a future civilian police force expected to reach 3,200 officers by the end of the year. Anyone who threatens a Kosova Security Co. guard with a weapon will be reported immediately to KFOR, for example, Johnston said.

-----------

School for civil disobedience opens in Cuba

September 4, 1999 USA Today "World"
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nw1.htm

HAVANA - In an unusually bold move, Cuban opposition leaders opened a school Friday designed to teach political dissidents about civil disobedience. Fidel Castro's communist government has not yet shut down the school on the outskirts of the capital. About two dozen people showed up for the first day of classes, held in a converted barn full of Cuban flags hanging upside down in a display of civil disobedience. The school is a new concept for Cuba's most timid opposition, a group calling itself the Civic Brotherhood. The group does not even hold public demonstrations.

-----------

[Interesting that the US and other world powers are asking Indonesia to "keep lid on E.Timor," when many Timorese are convinced that Indonesia has no right to their "occupied" country.]

World Urges Indonesia To Keep Lid On E.Timor

Updated 6:56 AM ET September 4, 1999, By Mark Bendeich
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/r/990904/06/international-timor-reaction

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The world community urged Indonesia Saturday to stop bloody reprisals by pro-Jakarta militias in East Timor after the territory voted overwhelmingly for independence.

Near neighbors Australia and New Zealand, as well as Indonesia's biggest aid donor Japan, said it was up to Jakarta to guard against any bloody reprisals by anti-independence forces.

The European Union also voiced concern amid signs that the situation in the territory was quickly unraveling into violent chaos.

"The European Union condemns the escalation of violence and is deeply concerned about the deteriorating security situation in East Timor," the Finnish government, which holds the EU presidency, said in a statement on behalf of the 15-nation bloc.

Earlier, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan announced in New York that 78.5 percent of East Timor's more than 450,000 voters had opted for independence in Monday's U.N.-organized referendum.

Swift reprisals by pro-Jakarta militias, backed by elements of Indonesia's military, tempered enthusiasm at the result.

The militias began an armed build-up in the East Timorese capital, Dili.

A U.S. citizen working for the United Nations was shot in the stomach in a town outside Dili, U.N. sources said, and there were also reports of unrest in another western town.

Many people were fleeing Dili or taking refuge in churches. U.N. staff were evacuated from two East Timorese towns after militia went on a rampage, roaming streets and firing weapons.

East Timor has chafed under Jakarta's rule since Indonesian troops invaded it in 1975. Jakarta declared East Timor a province in 1976 in a move never recognized by the United Nations.

The chief of the U.N. mission in East Timor said Saturday that Monday's vote reflected the majority's clear desire to shake off Indonesian rule but he said the future was still uncertain.

"It doesn't yet have independence. It begins a transition to independence," Ian Martin told Reuters.

Britain welcomed East Timor's vote for independence but warned Indonesia to keep order there and not allow further violence to mar the independence process. France urged Jakarta to do all it can to bring the militias to heel.

Indonesia's close neighbor, Singapore, said violence must not be allowed subvert independence. "The result of the voting cannot be changed by resorting to violence by any party in East Timor," said a Singapore foreign ministry spokesman.

Indonesian President B.J. Habibie said he understood many people in Indonesia and East Timor would feel bitter about the result but appealed for calm in the territory and said Jakarta would honor its commitment to allow it independence.

The vote for independence has still to be ratified by Indonesia's top legislative body, which does not meet until next month, and Indonesia retains responsibility for security.

East Timor's former colonial ruler, Portugal, which quit the colony before Indonesia's invasion, hailed the referendum as a first, irreversible step toward statehood.

But Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres said the international community could not sit back and do nothing if Jakarta proved incapable of dealing with the situation.

Australia said it was working on a proposal for a small peacekeeping force to be sent to East Timor if requested. A fully fledged U.N. peacekeeping force would take months to deploy.

"Australia will stand by the people of East Timor at this time," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told reporters.

China, always wary of inflaming separatist agendas at home, said Saturday it respected East Timor's vote for independence.

Human rights group Amnesty International condemned Indonesia's failure to stem violence in East Timor, saying some 4,000 local U.N. workers were in serious danger.

"Everyone in East Timor is now at risk," Amnesty said.

For many East Timorese though, both in exile and inside the territory, the result of the referendum was a sweet moment.

"Excited... tears running down my face, happiness," Australian-based resistance member Alfredo Fereira said when asked how he felt.

---

Indonesia accepts E.Timor vote

Updated 1:58 AM ET September 4, 1999
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990904/01/international-timor

JAKARTA, Indonesia, Sept. 4 (UPI) Indonesian President B.J. Habibie has expressed the government's acceptance of East Timor's overwhelming vote for independence.

Habibie said today that because a democratic choice has come from the majority of "our brothers and sisters in East Timor and is in line with the New York agreement on May 5, 1999," he stated that "the government of the Republic of Indonesia would honor and accept that choice of the people of East Timor."

Habibie added, "I also understand how bitterly that thing will be felt by wide circles of East Timor and Indonesian society."

Also in Jakarta, jailed East Timor resistance leader Xanana Gusmao called for the rapid deployment of an armed U.N. peacekeeping force.

"And we foresee chaos. We foresee a new genocide in East Timor," Gusmao said in a statement. "We foresee total destruction in a desperate and last attempt by the Indonesian generals and politicians maybe as well to deny the people of East Timor their freedom."

Gusmao, who is scheduled to be released Sept. 15, was moved to a secret location because of fears for his safety, a government official said.

Hours of the announcement, the militias began an armed buildup in the East Timor capital of Dili, and shots were fired near the local U.N. compound where about 150 people were hiding from the violent anti- independence mobs, eyewitnesses say.

Despite high tensions that kept most of the city closed, pro- independence supporters celebrated with scores of youths dancing and singing in the streets.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced at a special Friday evening session of the U.N. Security Council that 78 percent of the 446, 953 voters chose independence, while 21 percent supported autonomy under Indonesian rule.

"The people of East Timor have thus rejected the proposed special autonomy and express their wish to begin a process of transition towards independence," the secretary-general told the 15-member panel.

"There are no winners and losers today. Rather, this moment heralds the opportunity for all East Timorese to begin to forge a common future in what is to become an independent East Timor," Annan said.

At a press conference after the session, Annan adamantly refused to discuss any contingency plans to be implemented if, as widely feared, there is an escalation of violence on the island.

He admitted, however, "There is no doubt that in the third phase (of the U.N.-brokered process), when we get into the transition, a U.N. presence, including troops, will be necessary."

In his brief speech before the Security Council, Annan had reiterated his call for the Indonesian government "to maintain law and order in the territory."

Four U.N. staff and 24 civilians were reportedly killed by pro- Indonesia militias since balloting took place on Monday. The violence also forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of people.

"Today, I ask all parties to bring to an end the violence that for 24 years has caused untold suffering to East Timor," Annan said before the Council.

---

UN troops eyed for E. Timor

Updated 5:07 PM ET September 3, 1999
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990903/17/international-timor-un

UNITED NATIONS (UPI) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson says there is an urgent need for international action in East Timor to protect a terrorized population.

Robinson says the Security Council must urgently consider the deployment of "international or regional forces to protect the population."

A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said assembling a peacekeeping force for East Timor from scratch may not be practical given the urgency of the situation, but said another option is a coalition of willing nations with the capacity to deploy troops "quickly, armed, and ready to act."

Spokesman Fred Eckhard said Portugal and Indonesia would have to both approve of such a force before it could be deployed.

Indonesia on Thursday indicated for the first time it may accept U.N. troops immediately after the ballot results are announced if voters chose independence. Portugal has called for an increased U.N. presence.

The Indonesian military says it has prepared a contingency plan to evacuate up to 250,000 people from East Timor by land, sea and air if violence there escalates.

Annan is expected to announce the results of the East Timor ballot on independence from New York tonight at 9 p.m. EDT.

The Security Council plans to meet before and immediately after the announcement, which many fear will heighten the violence.

Australia Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says that planning has already begun for a U.N. security presence, and Australian Prime Minister John Howard has condemned Indonesia for not intervening to stop the violence.

New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Don McKinnon said on Wednesday a non-United Nations intervention in the territory is possible in a worst- case scenario.

In Washington, the Clinton administration rejected the prospect of an early deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force.

"A U.N. peacekeeping mission is not a practical suggestion at this time," said a State Department official who asked not to be identified.

The official called on the Indonesian government to disarm and disband the militias responsible for the violence, adding that Jakarta was fully capable of doing so.

If and when Indonesia proves unwilling to meet its responsibilities in East Timor, it would be up to the international community to decide how to proceed, said the official.

International monitors have told the BBC that up to 20 people are thought to have been slain in the East Timor town of Maliana, where two U.N. workers were stabbed to death following a ballot on independence from Indonesia on Monday.

U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata says her staff are in a race against time to care for 50,000 East Timorese still in the country who have fled their homes in fear.

Militiamen have seized control of several areas of East Timor, and are manning blockades to prevent supporters of Indonesian independence from leaving.

The advocacy group Human Rights Watch said in a statement today it was too late to deploy an international force and called on Indonesia's major aid donors, Australia, Japan and the U.S., to take whatever steps are needed, including a suspension of aid, to pressure Indonesia into keeping the militias under control.

-----------

Hezbollah blasts Albright

Updated 4:59 AM ET September 5, 1999
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990905/04/international-albright-hezbollah

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 5 (UPI) The Hezbollah movement has denounced U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who made a stop in Beirut as part of her Middle East tour for ignoring the ordeal of the Lebanese people caused by Israel's aggression.

A Hezbollah source said in a statement released today that Albright came to Lebanon "looking for a chance to relieve the occupation by calling for self-restraint, deliberately ignoring the only reason for the sufferings of the Lebanese: which is the enemy's terrorism and violence."

The source said Israel was occupying the Lebanese land, committing massacres, displacing inhabitants and arresting civilians and taking them hostages while the U.S. administration and United Nations keep silent.

He denounced Albright for not even mentioning during a news conference at the end of her two-hour visit to Beirut Saturday the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon "and what tragedies it is causing while trying to lure the public opinion that the U.S. administration backs Lebanon's sovereignty and wishes to see it free of foreign troops, violence and terrorism."

Albright has urged maximum restraint in southern Lebanon, but warned that the activities of Hezbollah, whose fighters are engaged in a guerrilla war to force Israel out of the occupied Lebanese territories, "undermine the prospects" of establishing peace in the region.

The Hezbollah source reminded Albright that the Lebanese government and people back the resistance movement as they "consider the Zionist entity an occupying enemy and fighting it is a national duty and honor and there is no way to compare it to the Syrian Army," which has some 35,000 troops stationed in two-thirds of Lebanon.

The source said Albright "claims that calm, self-restraint and stopping the violence could give a chance for the fake peace, as if the Lebanese should control themselves and not scream from pain...so that Albright drags the Arabs from one concession to another."

He said Hezbollah will continue to fight Israel "because it is the only path that proves to be leading to recuperating the land and preserve dignity."

Israel has been occupying a 9 mile (15 km) strip of land inside south Lebanon called the security zone, established in 1985 to protect its northern border.

Some 181 Lebanese, including women and teenagers, are held in Israeli prisons, the majority without trial or simply on suspicion of assisting the resistance guerrillas.

---

Highlights of Israel-Palestinian accord

Updated 6:19 PM ET September 3, 1999
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990903/18/international-agreement

JERUSALEM, Sept. 3 (UPI) Diplomatic sources have provided United Press International with details of what was worked out by negotiators for inclusion in the new Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The details worked out today could change before the final agreement is signed Saturday.

The working outlines of the agreement include:

* Prisoner release: Israel will release 350 Palestinian prisoners convicted of crimes before 1993. While the release will include what Palestinians call "political prisoners," it will not include anyone who murdered an Israeli.

200 prisoners will be released in mid-September, and another 150 will be released the end of October. Israeli will "aim" for more releases early next week.

* West Bank land: Israel will resume the hand-over of land in the West Bank that was part of last fall's Wye and Madrid peace accords. This will give the Palestinians a total of 40 percent of the West Bank.

The withdrawal will be in three phases starting Sept. 15, Oct. 15 and Jan. 20. A joint committee will work to determine another Israeli withdrawal.

* Safe Passage: Agreements on the safe passages that connect Gaza and the West Bank mean safe passage will start Oct. 1. Construction of the Gaza seaport will also start Oct. 1.

* Further work to be done: A final Palestinian-Israeli agreement is to "conclude" in one year, in September 2000. Negotiations on these tough final status issues are to be in an "accelerated" manner after the mid-September prisoner release.

The issues will include the claim of both sides to Jerusalem, Jewish settlements, water, Palestinian refugees and the future of the Palestinian state.

By February, both sides will reach a framework on these final negotiations. The Palestinians want the framework to include the Israeli acceptance to a Palestinian state to replace the current self-rule government of the Palestinian Authority.

---

Compare old and new Israeli peace accords

By The Associated Press, 9/04/99- Updated 04:13 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nwssat05.htm

Here is a comparison of the U.S.-brokered Wye River interim peace accord, signed at the White House in October, and the new agreement, which contains major revisions. The issues:

Troop Withdrawals

Under Wye, Israel promises to withdraw from 13% of the West Bank in three stages, over a period of three months. Previous Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withdraws from 2% in November, leaving his successor, Ehud Barak, a balance of 11 percent.

Under the new agreement, Israel hands over the remaining 11% in three stages, instead of in two. The withdrawals stretch over five months, from September to Jan. 20, rather than being completed over a two-month period, as stipulated by Wye.

Prisoners

The Wye agreement contains no specific reference to the release of Palestinian prisoners, though Netanyahu promised orally to free 750. However, he did not commit in advance to what type of prisoners would be freed. In a first of three scheduled releases, most of the 250 detainees freed by Israel were common criminals, not the security prisoners sought by the Palestinians.

Under the new agreement, Israel pledges that at least 350 of the Palestinian prisoners still to be released will be those held for anti-Israeli activities. The two sides agree to talk in December about an additional release, but no numbers are suggested.

Final Peace Accord

Wye does not contain a specific target date for concluding talks on a permanent peace accord.

The new agreement says that within five or six months, the two sides should negotiate the outlines of a final agreement and that within a year, on Sept. 10, 2000, the accord should be concluded.

---

Albright assists in Syrian-Israeli talks

9/04/99- Updated 04:17 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nwssat04.htm

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Syria notified Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Saturday that it would hold peace talks with Israel if it could be assured of recovering the strategic Golan Heights.

Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa indicated Syria expects Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to accept the conditions. He said Barak was in the mold of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who Syria claims had made a commitment to give back the lost land.

''We believe Prime Minister Barak belongs to the school of Rabin, and he considers Rabin his mentor, and he is going to follow his steps,'' al-Sharaa said. ''We feel he is going to endorse what Rabin did.''

Albright arrived here flush with an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in which Israel will begin this month relinquishing 11% of the West Bank.

Albright said negotiations with Syria should be based on the principle of ''land-for-peace.'' But she declined to say whether she agreed with al-Sharaa, who told reporters at a joint news conference ''we would like to resume where we left off.''

After the Damascus meetings, Albright flew to Beirut, Lebanon, and became the first secretary of state to land at Beirut International Airport since George Shultz in 1983. ''It is a signal of our assessment that Lebanon is making significant progress toward normalizing life in Lebanon,'' a senior official on Albright's plane told reporters.

The secretary of state had talks scheduled in Beirut with Prime Minister Selim al-Hoss, who also is Lebanon's foreign minister.

Afterward, Albright told reporters that although her unannounced visit to Lebanon was brief, ''It is a vital part of the trip, for without Lebanon, no discussion of the region would be complete, nor without Lebanon would lasting peace be possible.''

She said she is in the Middle East ''to explore the possibilities for resuming progress toward a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, including Lebanon.''

In speaking of Lebanon's security, Albright mentioned by name neither Syria, which has thousands of troops in Lebanon, nor Israel, which maintains a ''security zone'' in southern Lebanon with the help of a local Christian militia.

But she said: ''We look forward to the day this country is free of all foreign forces and from the threat of terror and violence.''

In recent months, she said, the climate for peace has warmed. But, Albright said, ''the question is whether regional leaders can develop concrete proposals that are flexible and creative and that will make it possible for the process to go forward.''

Talks between Israel and Syria broke down three years ago. But Albright sees new opportunities with Barak.

Waxing poetic, Albright said ''the light that came from yesterday's agreement should illuminate the whole region.'' She then went off to see President Hafez Assad.

Israel backs Albright's diplomatic initiative. Foreign Minister David Levy said Friday in Jerusalem ''we would wish this path with Syria would be reopened. This is a time of good will. We should seize it.''

When talks broke down three years ago, Israel was on the verge of giving up the Golan Heights, the high ground around Mount Hermon overlooking northeastern Israel.

''Syria is with peace, and there will be no peace in the Middle East without Syria,'' the official Tishrin newspaper reported Saturday. ''But Syria will not give up one iota of its soil to please Israeli leaders and their expansionist plans.''

Most of Saturday's state-run newspapers called on Albright to take a more active role.

The daily Baath criticized Barak for ''seeking to restrict and confine the U.S. role in the peace process to that of an observer.''

-----------

U.S. Aids Hunters of Iraqi War Criminals
Private Groups Suffer Setbacks

By Colum Lynch Special to The Washington Post Saturday, September 4, 1999; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/04/110l-090499-idx.html

UNITED NATIONSAnn Clwyd, a British Parliament member who pursues Iraqi war criminals in her spare time, quietly began amassing evidence last year against Barzan Tikriti, the half-brother of President Saddam Hussein and a former head of Iraq's intelligence agency.

But as she was preparing to try to persuade Swiss authorities to arrest Barzan, he suddenly returned to Iraq last November from his home in Geneva. The pursuit of Barzan was the first secret operation by Indict, a single-issue organization founded by Clwyd and Iraqi opposition figures.

Modeled loosely on the groups that tracked Nazi war criminals to the far reaches of the globe, Indict is one of a handful of private organizations that are trying to cast a net around Saddam Hussein and his inner circle, with the moral and financial backing of the U.S. government.

Its board members include Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia; Ahmad Chalabi, a key player in the CIA's botched efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the early '90s; and Hamid Bayati, a leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, a Tehran-based opposition group that has gained access to Iranian archives on the Iraqi use of chemical weapons.

Since it was founded in Britain in 1997, Indict has compiled a list of more than 10 Iraqis that it considers war criminals for their actions during the Persian Gulf War, the Iran-Iraq War and various crackdowns on Kurdish and Shiite minorities.

While the organization has yet to secure the arrest of a single Iraqi, it got a major boost this year: the first $500,000 of a $3 million commitment from the U.S. government, part of a broader American effort to undermine Saddam Hussein's regime.

The Clinton administration, which Congress has authorized to spend $8 million to support the Iraqi opposition, is now considering giving assistance to other organizations that seek to bring suspected Iraqi war criminals to justice, including the U.S.-based Iraq Foundation, the International Monitoring Group and the Human Rights Alliance.

"We are very supportive of the Indict program and these other organizations," said David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes.

Better-established human rights groups, however, eschew government funding to preserve their independence and, while supportive of war crimes prosecutions in general, are skeptical about what may be seen as opportunistic alliances.

"I hate to be cynical, but the [Clinton] administration thinks there is no viable opposition [in Iraq] to provide arms to, so they are looking for ways to spend" the money allocated by Congress, said Joe Stork, an analyst at New York-based Human Rights Watch, which has long urged the U.S. government to pursue Iraqi war criminals.

Galbraith said the financial contribution shows that American officials are finally putting their "money where their convictions are."

He said Indict will use the money to collect testimony from witnesses, pay researchers and develop legal arguments. Already, he said, the University of Colorado at Boulder has 18 tons of Iraqi documents captured by Kurdish groups after the Gulf War, and Kuwait has four tons.

"The Iraqis were a bit like the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge: they recorded the minutest details," said Clwyd.

Besides Saddam Hussein, Indict's target list includes his son Uday, his two half-brothers, deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, senior intelligence officials and Ali-Hassan al Majid, who is called "Chemical Ali" by the opposition for his alleged role in using chemical weapons.

If one of these men eventually is arrested, prosecutors will face the question of where to attempt a trial. Iraqi opposition groups say they would like the Clinton administration to push for a special U.N. tribunal for Iraq, along the lines of the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. But there is strong opposition to that idea in the U.N. Security Council.

Inspired by the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London last year on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge, Indict and other groups have been scouting Europe for sympathetic judges and prosecutors.

Last month, Indict and a Vienna city councilman, Peter Pilz, tried to persuade Italian authorities to detain Aziz at a conference in Italy. But the case revealed a woeful lack of coordination.

While Indict and Pilz, working independently and unaware of each other's efforts, sought to prepare a legal trap for Aziz, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema urging him to revoke Aziz's entry visa. Aziz canceled his trip at the last minute.

On Aug. 5, the war crimes hunters got a fresh opportunity with the arrival of another senior Iraqi official, Izzat Ibrahim Douri, in Austria for medical treatment. Tipped off by an informal network of Iraqi informants, Clwyd began building a case against the former ice vendor, who rose through the ranks of the ruling Baath party to become Saddam Hussein's second in command.

Pilz, a member of Austria's Greens Party and long-time advocate of the Kurdish cause, was also on the trail. Through a local Kurdish refugee network, he located potential witnesses including Aziz Dilshad, a 27-year-old woman who lived near the northern Iraqi town of Halabja when it was bombed with chemical weapons in March 1988, killing as many as 5,000 Kurdish civilians.

"We found victims in Vienna who were ready to act," Pilz said. He filed a criminal complaint against Douri with the Vienna district attorney's office on Aug. 13. But the Austrian government took no action, and Douri quickly boarded a Royal Jordanian Airlines flight for Amman.

The missed opportunity brought recriminations against Pilz.

"He jumped the gun," said Clwyd. "I felt if we had another week we would have been able to present quite substantial evidence."

The episode, according to Reed Brody, director of advocacy at Human Rights Watch, underscores the need to prepare an ironclad case before going to court. "The Austrians have friendly relations with Iraq, but if you confront them with compelling evidence, they are going to be put in a difficult position," said Brody. "We need to be in a position to act quickly."

---

Saddam claims Western jets downed

Updated 8:00 AM ET September 3, 1999
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990903/08/international-strikes

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 3 (UPI) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has claimed his army has shot down a number of Western jets that have been carrying almost daily airstrikes against northern and southern Iraq.

Today's Iraqi newspapers quoted Saddam as saying during a meeting with his military commanders that the United States and Britain cannot deny that Iraqi forces have also hit a number of missiles fired by their planes "as we have samples of them."

Saddam said there are "indications that you have shot down a number of their jets otherwise why is the enemy taking all these precautions and cannot achieve his goals."

He added, "Even if you have not shot down their warplanes, the important is that you have deprived the enemy from achieving his goal if not scored victory over him."

Saddam said the U.S. and British planes are flying over "a certain line whereby it could be easy for them whenever a jet is hit to reach territories they consider friendly and we regretfully mean the territories of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."

Meanwhile, Iraq again denied that it has installed anti-aircraft missiles near civilian houses in the city of Mosul in northern Iraq, which was bombed by the Western jets, killing a number of people last month.

Baghdad Radio said Arab and foreign television stations inspected the targeted site in Mosul and did not find any military position or missiles near the houses or in the area.

U.S. and British planes have recently intensified their airstrikes of Iraq's southern and northern regions. Iraqi officials claim the strikes have killed or wounded dozens of people.

---

Official: U.S. fails to partition Iraq

Updated 8:57 AM ET September 3, 1999
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/u/990903/08/international-us

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 3 (UPI) Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz says the United States has failed to partition Iraq or change its regime, but succeeded in destabilizing its northern region.

Aziz, in an interview with the Lebanese An Nahar newspaper today, accused the United States of going ahead with a plan to maintain the U. N.-imposed embargo on Iraq using "useless pretexts" concerning its disarmament.

He said Washington has linked the lifting of the nine-year embargo to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's removal from power, but such "a condition is not included in the U.N. Security Council resolutions and is thus a violation of these resolutions and international laws."

He said Iraq could not be partitioned and "Saddam Hussein is not the sole guarantee for its unity."

Aziz said the Iraqi president "is a human being and would not live 1,000 years so does this mean that Iraq will be disintegrated?"

He said the situation in the Kurdistan areas in northern Iraq was "a semi-occupation that was imposed by force with the entry into the region by the American Army in 1991."

Asked if he believes the United States wants to partition Iraq, Aziz said: "America cannot partition the country. It would have done so if it could as it does not possess the decision in this regard."

He noted that the United States "partially succeeded in imposing a state of instability in the northern (Kurdistan) region....But it failed to separate it from the country."

He added the United States also failed to overthrow Saddam, "although the latest (Desert Fox operation) aggression meant to destabilize the regime in order to bringing it down."

On the Iraqi opposition groups, Aziz described them as becoming pure "business as anyone who says I am with the opposition he goes to London where he is given an apartment and a salary and where he can live well instead of bearing the ordeal of the siege and continued aggression."

---

Key Nations Seek New Policy on Iraq

Filed at 4:51 a.m. EDT September 4, 1999 By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-UN-Iraq-Meeting.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council appears to have ended its contentious debate over VX nerve gas and other chemical agents left in a Baghdad laboratory by U.N. weapons inspectors.

Details about what was said during Friday's closed-door meeting were sketchy, and it wasn't immediately clear how the agreement was reached to drop the issue. The council issued no statement.

However, Netherlands U.N. Ambassador Peter van Walsum, the council president, said he hoped the VX issue had been laid to rest. And U.S.deputy ambassador Peter Burleigh said ``it's the end of the issue.''

The debate has been simmering since three months ago, when Russian first raised the laboratory issue in the council. Discussion centered primarily on seven vials of the deadly nerve agent VX left in the U.N. Special Commission's laboratory when inspectors pulled out of Iraq in mid-December on the eve of U.S. and British airstrikes. Iraq has barred the inspectors from returning.

The issue came to the fore last year when the United States found traces of VX on fragments of Iraqi missile warheads. A Swiss laboratory found no traces and a French laboratory's tests were inconclusive.

China, France and Russia -- Iraq's closest allies on the council -- wanted the VX from the Baghdad laboratory held for further analysis, intimating it may have been used to contaminate the missile warhead fragments.

Iraq maintains that UNSCOM deliberately contaminated the warhead fragments.

The United States, Britain and the majority of the 15-member council backed U.N. weapons inspectors who said the tiny quantities of VX could only be used to calibrate equipment testing for the nerve agent, posed no danger, and should be destroyed.

The technical debate continued on how the material was tested, and Russia again intimated Friday that UNSCOM planted the VX on the missile fragments, diplomats said.

Burleigh defended UNSCOM's work and said it was time to focus on the real issue of trying to get council agreement on a new policy toward Iraq, diplomats said.

---

IRAQ: U.S. ATTACKS FOR THIRD DAY

September 4, 1999 New York Times World Briefings
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/world/world-briefs.html

American fighter jets bombed military sites in northern Iraq for a third day after coming under antiaircraft fire and being tracked by radar during a routine patrol, the United States military said. A statement from the European command based in Stuttgart said the attack took place north of Mosul. (Agence France-Presse)

-----------

TURKEY: A WAY OUT FOR CONSCRIPTS

September 4, 1999 New York Times World Briefings
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/world/world-briefs.html

... Desperate to raise money for earthquake relief, the Government announced legislation that would let Turkish men pay their way out of compulsory 18-month military service. Turkey's generals backed the move, a major turnaround for NATO's second-largest army. The Chief of General Staff, Gen. Huseyin Kivrikoglu, calculated that up to 200,000 men would take up the offer, bringing in an estimated $1.6 million. (AP)

-----------

[I wonder if the Tomahawk missiles fired at the plant carried depleted uranium as ballast?]

Facing the Consequences As El Shifa Shows, It Takes More Than Intelligence to Make Smart Decisions

By Bruce D. Berkowitz Sunday, September 5, 1999; Page B01
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/05/122l-090599-idx.html

Several years ago, I had a chance to talk with a friend who had been an intelligence analyst during the Cold War. (He would rather I did not use his name in the paper; many old-timers are reluctant to go public, even in retirement.) We talked about intelligence analyses he had worked on. Some of the assessments were successes. Others, like the forecasts of Soviet strategic nuclear forces published in the 1950s and 1960s, were famously off the mark.

I asked my friend whether he thought the muffed estimates had caused real harm. Sure, he conceded, but one needs to keep the role of intelligence in perspective. After all, he reminded me, "No one ever stopped a policy meeting by waving an intelligence report in the air and shouting, 'But this is what the estimate says!' "

My friend's point was that intelligence is just one ingredient that shapes policy. It is supposed to inform decisions, not dictate them. This is only prudent. Intelligence assessments are rarely clear-cut. Usually there is a judgment call to be made. The responsibility for filling in those gray areas properly belongs to elected officials and their appointees.

I was reminded of that conversation by some of the recent controversies over U.S. intelligence. There have been several intelligence miscues lately--the surprise Indian nuclear test in May 1998, the surprise North Korean missile test last December and the targeting of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade all come to mind. But the flap over the intelligence used to justify the bombing of the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. in Khartoum, Sudan, just over a year ago, stands alone, because the problem seems to have been not just faulty intelligence but in the judgment of officials using it. The importance of skillfully filling in the gray areas became clear, first, when U.S. officials decided to strike the plant and, second, when they tried to explain their decision to the public.

The basics of the El Shifa episode are by now well known: On Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 200 people. Information from a suspect apprehended in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and other intelligence gathered by investigators implicated the terrorist network led by Saudi expatriate Osama bin Laden. U.S. officials believed that bin Laden was using the El Shifa plant to produce VX, a nerve gas agent. Less than two weeks after the embassy bombings, 13 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at the plant. According to news reports, U.S. officials later told congressional committees that intercepted communications and financial transactions linked bin Laden to the plant, and that a soil sample secretly collected outside the plant by U.S. intelligence contained traces of EMPTA (a precursor chemical for VX).

The strike on El Shifa was unusual. The United States has carried out half-a-dozen similar airstrikes since the Clinton administration took office (not counting the past year's ongoing operations over Iraq). In each of the other cases, though, the operation was part of a larger war, or was direct retaliation against someone who had attacked the United States or its citizens. This time, U.S. forces struck a country simply because a facility in its territory was linked to a terrorist group. The attack could set a precedent for how we deal with terrorist organizations in the future--but it is a dangerous precedent.

The trouble, as we have since discovered, is that the link between bin Laden and El Shifa was not as close as officials first suggested. Critics (including the owner of the plant, Saudi businessman Saleh Idris, who is suing the U.S. government for damages) have presented a substantial case of their own. It turns out that many people--including several U.S. citizens from religious organizations and the business community--were familiar with the plant. Some had even been inside and found nothing other than the activities one would normally expect at a medicine factory. Also, the financial links between bin Laden and the owners of El Shifa, it turns out, were open to dispute at best. In other words, there were many gray areas that required judgment, and, in this case, judgment seems to have failed.

Such judgments were not so crucial during the Cold War. Military planners might keep a factory in Czechoslovakia on their strategic target list because it was believed to make parts for Soviet tanks, even though no one could actually prove what was inside. But the planners were not about to launch a missile at the factory unless there was a nuclear war. Today, as the El Shifa case demonstrated, our suspicions--mistaken or not--might actually be what triggers an airstrike. As a result, prudent judgment is more important than ever.

Once U.S. officials tried to justify their judgment in approving the raid, more problems emerged. Officials have often used intelligence to account for their actions after the fact. In 1962, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson brought U.S. aerial reconnaissance photographs to the Security Council to confront his Soviet counterpart and justify the U.S. blockade during the Cuban missile crisis. Twenty-one years later, Jeane Kirkpatrick brought to the Security Council intercepted radio transmissions--"The target is destroyed"--as proof that the Soviets had downed an errant Korean airliner near Sakhalin Island. The Reagan administration also released reports of intercepted cables between Tripoli and the Libyan embassy in Berlin to prove Libya's role in the 1986 bombing of a nightclub frequented by American soldiers, which resulted in a U.S. air raid against Libya.

The problem is that, after the strike on El Shifa, U.S. officials tried to use intelligence as though it were evidence in a court case, and intelligence is usually poorly suited for that task. In a court, standards for proof are stringent--one must show a "preponderance of the evidence" in civil actions, or "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases. The real world standard for intelligence more often is "give me what you've got; I need it now." We expect officials to fill in the gaps with surmises and hunches if necessary--something we would never accept in a court proceeding.

What's more, it is particularly hard to use intelligence as evidence supporting a policy decision after the fact without compromising intelligence sources. It is telling that lawyers talk about "full and complete disclosure" and "the process of discovery by the opposing legal team," while intelligence officers talk about "limiting access based on the need to know." Trying to settle public controversies by citing intelligence data will inevitably make collecting intelligence more difficult in the future.

With each round of disclosure in the Sudan incident, more U.S. intelligence sources have been exposed. Now, for example, our adversaries have a greater awareness that U.S. intelligence tracks electronic financial transactions to identify supporters of chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and chemically analyzes soil samples covertly collected near suspected facilities. One can be sure that future, would-be proliferators will protect their banking records better and be more careful not to spill stuff.

Officials need to use intelligence, make their best judgments--and then accept the public consequences. This really isn't a new issue. For example, it was U.S. intelligence that originally fingered Julius Rosenberg in 1950 as a Soviet spy. But U.S. Justice Department officials never revealed that the real source of their information was intercepted and deciphered cable traffic--a fact that the intelligence community confirmed just a few years ago. Instead, they took the time to build a legal case, independent of the intelligence--and took the heat when critics pointed to the gaps in the evidence.

Even when intelligence has been pivotal to major policy decisions, in the past U.S. officials understood that they should reveal as little as possible--even in the face of public pressure. Take for example, the event that triggered the U.S. entry into World War I, the Zimmermann Telegram, an intercepted message that exposed a German plot against the United States. (The Germans promised Mexico the land it lost in the mid-1800s in exchange for Mexico's assistance if the United States stepped up aid to the Allies.) U.S. officials released the telegram to the press without revealing that it had been intercepted by British intelligence and secretly supplied to the Americans. Even so, the resulting public reaction, combined with political leadership, was enough for a declaration of war.

So, here are a few rules of thumb for officials using intelligence to make national security decisions:

First, do not try to hide behind an intelligence estimate when you are really making a judgment about policy. Intelligence analysts are soft-skinned and make poor human shields. Eventually you will need to deal with the flak yourself.

Second, any time you use intelligence as evidence, you can be sure that it will be subjected to unrelenting scrutiny by the public and the media. They will be able to investigate at their leisure and, operating after the fact, may have better information than the intelligence community did when it made its assessment. Remember that our adversaries will be able to mount their own case to refute our evidence--sometimes using valid data, sometimes bogus. Be prepared to be second-guessed, and be frank in explaining when and why you made your best judgment.

Third, never cite a specific source of intelligence data to support your decision unless you are willing to compromise and lose the source. Bear in mind that unconvincing explanations are bound to be leaked. The intelligence sources used to justify a strike against terrorists are usually the same that are used to detect terrorist strikes, so such practices could make us more vulnerable in the future. Ask yourself: Is the policy objective worth the loss of the source? Will you ever need that source again? Is there a way of making the case almost as well by citing information that is public? Can you use information that is not quite as good to make your case by putting your own credibility on the line?

Finally, when you use intelligence as part of any policy decision, remember that increasing levels of certainty are required, depending on the severity of the consequences. Bombing to preempt a terrorist attack should usually require evidence of a clear and present danger. Decide in advance the level of certainty required to take a particular kind of action against an adversary. You will be on more solid ground if you do need to explain your actions later--or defend them in court.

Intelligence will always have gray cases where officials must exercise judgment. El Shifa may or may not have been an intelligence failure. But the record certainly suggests a failure by policy makers.

Bruce Berkowitz is co-author of the forthcoming book "Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age" (Yale). He was formerly an analyst at the CIA and a staff member for the Senate Intelligence Committee.

-----------

White House Sets Friday Deadline For FALN Clemency

Updated 12:51 AM ET September 5, 1999 by Tim Loughran
http://webcrawler-news.excite.com/news/r/990905/00/news-clinton-clemency

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House officials gave 16 jailed Puerto Ricans nationalists until Friday at 5 p.m. EDT to renounce violence or lose the clemency offered by President Clinton on Aug. 11, an administration spokesman said Saturday.

In a letter sent Friday to the lawyers for the jailed members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, known by its Spanish acronym FALN, the Clinton administration set the Friday deadline, Jim Kennedy, the spokesman, said.

"We have always believed that the renunciation of violence is the critical aspect of the offer," Kennedy said.

"We told them if we did not receive a written answer by Friday Sept. 10 at 5 p.m., we would consider that a rejection of the president's offer and they would continue to serve their sentences," Kennedy said.

Clinton has offered to release 11 members of the FALN convicted of a series of attacks across the United States in the 1970s and 1980s; he offered to reduce the sentences of two other jailed FALN members and eliminate the fines against three others.

The government says the FALN, fighting for Puerto Rico's independence, made 130 bomb attacks on U.S. political and military targets between 1974 and 1983.

The Republican leadership of Congress, gearing up for a tough fight over the fiscal year 2000 budget and next year's presidential and legislative elections, has hinted that it may initiate hearings into Clinton's clemency, which came over objections from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Others criticized the offer as a ploy to help his wife, Hillary Clinton, win support from New York City's Puerto Rican community in her expected run for the Senate in New York next year.

Saturday, Mrs. Clinton said in a statement that her possible candidacy had nothing to do with the FALN clemency offer and said Saturday she agreed with the deadline.

"When the administration first offered these prisoners clemency, I made it very clear that I had no involvement in or prior knowledge of the decision, as is entirely appropriate, and that the prisoners should not be released unless and until they renounced violence," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.