Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Uranium-based weapons warning
DU = 'Disarm USA' or 'Depleted Uranium'? Part I
'No place for WMDs in Iran's strategy'
Iran recruits Saddam's scientists to build long-range missile
US to put nuclear squeeze on Iran
U.S. Asks Iraq Arms Experts to Surrender
Japan Cabinet backs Bill to send troops to Iraq
Ex - S. Korean Leader Urges North on Nukes
THE ROSENBERGS, 50 YEARS LATER
If Bush Is Lying, He's Not the First
In His Own Words
Senate has many millionaire members
MILITARY
U.S. Puts Its Afghanistan War Tactic to Use in Iraq
Afghan Government Sets Up New Commission
Machetes Set Aside for Guns In Congo's Bloody Conflict
New Arms Sales to India Make Israel a Top Global Weapons Supplier
WHEN LAWS DON'T APPLY
BAE Systems Dismisses Merger Speculation
Myanmar: Suu Kyi Under Protective Custody
WAR HERO WINS LANDMARK RULING
Soldiers forced to buy private treatment for war injuries
The New Soviet Union of Europe is upon us
Seeking Unity, Europe Drafts a Constitution
Change in the wind
Iran 'jams' US-based satellite channels after clashes
Iran Blames Paramilitaries for Attacks on Student Protesters
Terror alliance targets us force in Iraq
U.S. Soldiers Strip Baghdadis Clean Of Their Savings
US purge aims to eliminate resistance
Iraqi Leader Asks U.S. to Stop Military Sweeps
Sources: Israel may give PA control of Bethlehem, Gaza
Hamas says it will consider renewing cease-fire dialogue
Deal on Removing Israeli Troops From Northern Gaza Seems Near
Israelis and Palestinians Hold Overnight Talks
Jewish Settlers Build New Outposts
The cock's arrogance
Egyptian negotiators hold truce talks with militants
Russia Hails Pakistani Efforts to Curb Militancy
Guantanamo prepared for possible executions, permanent prison
U.S. Entangled in Mystery of Georgia's Islamic Fighters
U.S. Soldiers Strip Baghdadis Clean Of Their Savings
Turning the tanks on the reporters
Iran Internet Use at Risk from Conservatives
U.S. media caved in to the Bush agenda
Truth Is Strongest Weapon In War
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Patriot Act of 2001 casts wide net
Juries Reject Death Penalty in Nearly All Federal Trials
Texas to Free 13 Jailed on Agent's Word
Showdown for a Tool in Human Rights Lawsuits
FBI Director: Handling of Immigrants Held in Terror War to Change
Secret Balkan camp built to hold UK asylum seekers
Lawyers Seek Access to Suspected al - Qaida
ENERGY AND OTHER
Fossil Fuels, Nukes Pressure Energy Talks
PUBLIC FORUM ON WIND POWER
ACTIVISTS
Peace groups protest missile defense
Hundreds Join in Show of Peace at Korean Railroad Stop
Heavy Security Puts Iran Protesters on Back Foot
Iran Arrests Anti - Government Activists
Bush Praises Iranian Pro - Democracy Protesters
Hundreds take part in peace forum
Bicyclists pump to build support for statehood
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- depleted uranium
Uranium-based weapons warning
Experts cite kidney and environmental damage
By AP NEWS
Sunday, June 15, 2003
http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-06-15-0061.html
NEW YORK -- The widespread use of depleted-uranium munitions by U.S. and British forces in Iraq could pose serious health and environmental risks to troops and residents, nuclear and medical experts warned yesterday.
Dr. Helen Caldicott, president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which organized the gathering, said the hazards of using the radioactive material included severe consequences for kidney function and environmental pollution.
Hari Sharma, a retired chemistry professor from the University of Waterloo, Ont., said: "As long as something is radioactive, you are going to do harm to human health."
Sharma studied urine specimens from soldiers of several countries that fought in the 1991 Gulf War and later studied tissues samples from people in southern Iraq. All showed evidence depleted uranium had lodged in the human body, he said.
However, scientists will not be able to say precisely what impact depleted uranium had in the recent war until more tests are done, he said.
Some experts on the health risks of depleted uranium called for it to be banned. Others came close to the Pentagon's assurances so-called DU weapons do not pose an "unacceptable health risk" to U.S. troops.
Depleted uranium, which is left over from the process of enriching uranium for use as nuclear fuel, is an extremely dense material the U.S. and British militaries use for tank armour and armour-piercing weapons. It is less radioactive than natural uranium.
Most of the scientists, physicians and specialists in the field called for more study about the radioactive and chemical impacts of the material on the lungs, kidneys, lymph systems and other organs. They also demanded a full accounting of its use, not only in the recent war in Iraq but also in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The Pentagon has said the use of depleted uranium gives U.S. forces a tremendous advantage on the battlefield. The Pentagon and many experts also contend the material, because of its low radioactivity, poses no risk to the health of soldiers handling munitions made from it or to civilians living in areas where those shells were used.
The anti-nuclear institute, based in Washington and San Francisco, invited the Pentagon to send a speaker to the symposium but the Defence Department declined, Caldicott said.
Daniel Fahey, a former member of the U.S. navy who has produced several reports on depleted uranium, said the Pentagon exaggerates the need for them, especially in wars against armies with antiquated equipment.
Experts at the Pentagon and the United Nations have estimated 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium were used by U.S.-led coalition forces during their attack on Iraq in March and April. This contrasts with about 340 tonnes used in the 1991 Gulf War.
----
DU = 'Disarm USA' or 'Depleted Uranium'? Part I
A historical overview of the United States' DU usage over the last decade
By Lamya Tawfik
15/05/2003
Islam Online
http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2003/05/article06.shtml
What do Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan have in common? Depleted Uranium (DU) is abundant in the bodies of those who live there and on their soil. These regions have been laced by DU, thanks to their brethren who live on the either side of the pacific.
With DU having a half-life of more than 4 billion years, the grim fact, which they will have to disclose to their children through out the years, is that their land has been contaminated for eternity; undeniably so.
It's no secret (trust me, it's not, just try a 'DU' search on any search engine) that the U.S. and some of its allies have marked their place forever in history, by intentionally using a plethora of weapons laced with depleted uranium in virtually every terrorism - sorry, war - against 'terrorism'.
Using munitions laced with DU is a crime that makes Saddam Hussein's 1991 burning of Kuwaiti oil fields an amateurish act of terrorism. DU 101
Before we go any further let's first put forward an obvious question. What is DU? Like many buzzwords, DU is commonly used. But what does it really mean?
According to a fact sheet published by the World Health Organization (WHO), natural uranium, which exists in varying but small amounts in rocks, soils, water, air plants, animals and in all human beings, consists of a mixture of three radioactive isotopes which are identified by the mass numbers U- 238(99.27% by mass), U- 235(0.72%) and U-234 (0.0054%). 1
"The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% U-238,0 .2% U-235 and 0 .001% U- 234 by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU. The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less U-235 than the latter.
"DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass." 2
DU, the fact sheet explains, is used because of its high density (about twice that of lead) in civilian uses as counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. Militarily, DU is used for defensive armor plate because of its high density but also because it can ignite on impact if the temperature exceeds600 °C. 3
Health problems due to chemical toxicity of DU include the damage of the kidney's proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney). Other health problems include the damage of lung tissue, which could lead to lung cancer with increased radiation doses. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (in the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.4
Despite, the well-known hazards of DU to health and the environment, weapon-manufacturing gurus have still used the substance because it is easy to find and is efficient. How it spreads
By wind and rain, DU is spread into the environment putting people who live and work in affected areas at the risk of inhaling DU laden dusts or even having excessive amounts of DU in their food and drinking water. 5
Because of their tendency to put everything in their mouths, children playing near DU impact sites are more likely to receive greater exposure to DU from ingesting contaminated soil. 6
According to Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, an oncologist and member of the Royal Society of Physicians in the U.K, "The desert dust carries death. Our studies indicate that more than forty percent of the population around Basra will get cancer. We are living through another Hiroshima." 7
This was his comment regarding the damage left behind by the U.S-led coalition in the 1991bombing of Iraq.
A 1991study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority predicted that if less than10 percent of the particles released by depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq and Kuwait were inhaled it could result in as many as "300, 000probable deaths." 8
It's just the "Gulf Syndrome"
Gulf war veterans have experienced respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, in addition to birth defects among their newborn children.
"As a result of heavy metal and radiological poison of DU, people in southern Iraq are experiencing respiratory problems, kidney problems, cancers. Members of my own team have died or are dying from cancer," said Doug Rokke, the health physicist for the U.S. army who oversaw the partial clean up of depleted uranium bomb fragments in Kuwait. He himself has fallen ill. 9
Rokke is not the only 'victim'. During the 1991 Gulf war, many soldiers participating in the attacks against Iraq were not even aware of the DU that was being used in their weapons. Many were coming back sick, plagued with a number of diseases and excessive DU traces in their bodies.
The term coined for this was the 'Gulf Syndrome' - a benign name for a malignant, grisly truth. Some analysts saw this as a crisis in civil-military relations saying the Pentagon may have withheld and distorted information about the soldier's exposure to DU munitions.10
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark drafted an appeal to the U.S. government to ban the use of DU weapons saying that "of the 697, 000U.S. troops who served in the Gulf, over90 , 000have reported medical problems."
"Symptoms include respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, low blood pressure. There are birth defects among their newborn children."11
DU contamination; Pandora's box
However, the DU dust did not only affect those taking part in the war, but the entire Gulf region is living through an environmental crisis due to the spread of DU dust.
Even the country that was being liberated at the time, Kuwait, saw the result of DU last year after thousands of fish were found dead on its shores in the year 2002.12
There were many theories proposed by scientists investigating the crisis, soaring temperatures being one, but one of the explanations proposed was the 300 tons of DU that were being used by the NATO forces in 1991 to bomb Iraq in Operation Desert Storm.
These theories were not unfounded. In February2001 , Kuwaiti officials announced the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will send inspectors to survey Kuwaiti territories for depleted uranium (DU) possibly used by U.S. troops during the 1991 Gulf War after local outcries that Kuwaitis were facing a health hazard similar to that reported in the Balkans.
"An investigating team from a U.S. solidarity delegation to Iraq on January18 th found 'extremely high levels of radioactivity' in soil samples in the Iraqi desert south of Basra."13
Over the next few sections, we'll take a journey through the U.S.'s (and it's allies) usage of DU during the last few wars. There have been no qualms about using DU laced munitions in any war on the part of the United States.
Iraq: 1991
Perhaps the world, outside the academic field, began to know about DU and its harms right after the Kuwaiti liberation war in1991 . In addition to using hallucinogenic weapons14, the U.S. also used more than 300 tons of DU munitions (some reports say900 ).
After the meeting of the fifty-eighth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 2002 in Geneva, a report published by the WHO said that an Iraqi delegation stated "there are increasing rates of cancer from depleted uranium, and pollution of drinking water which causes diseases particularly among children."15 Peace activist Ginny NiCarthy spoke about her visit to Iraqi hospitals and said that a Baghdad pathologist showed them photos of birth defects that emerged after the war.
A Baghdad pathologist showed our team photographs of birth defects: infants without eyes, without limbs, or whose brains had no covering, or whose intestines were outside their bodies, or whose noses were above their eyes instead of below. He, as well as many other scientists, believes the birth defects are caused by the fathers' inhaling of DU on the battlefield.
The incidence of such births is still about two in each thousand. But the increase since 1991 has been so dramatic, and the deformities so grotesque, that for many women, pregnancy is rife with fear. A new mother's first question used to be, "Is it a boy or a girl?" Now she wants to know, "Is it normal or abnormal?" 16
In 1995, the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean sent a mission to Iraq to assess the national cancer registry and to advise on cancer incidence rates. A second mission went to Iraq in August 1998 to advise on possibilities for investigating the reported increase in leukemia cases in the southern governorates. At the end of January 2001, another mission visited the country to assess the situation of non-communicable diseases, including cancer, and to advise on strengthening national prevention and control initiatives. 17
In a report published by the Iraqi Health Ministry in July 2001, the ministry said that the laser guided bombs and uranium tipped weapons used by the coalition in 1991 against Iraq caused increased incidence of leukemia, congenital deformities and hereditary diseases. 18
According to Iraqi sources, cancer rates have quadrupled in areas of southern Iraq, which was bombed the most in the second gulf war. Bosnia: 1995
According to the WHO, a U.N. expert team reported in November 2002 that they found traces of DU in three locations among 14 sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO air strikes in 1995. 19
Reports say that leukemia rates in Sarajevo have tripled in the last five years. Also affected are NATO and U.N. peacekeepers in the region who are coming down with cancer. 20
By 1999, talk about the Gulf War Syndrome subsided, and instead a new 'Syndrome' appeared: "The Balkan Syndrome".
In response to a request from the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, a WHO team visited Kosovo from 22 to 31 January 2001 to advise on claims regarding the possible risks to the health of the population associated with exposure to depleted uranium and other environmental contaminants. 21
In January 2001 , Switzerland ordered labs to check DU weapons samples from Kosovo for plutonium amidst concern. Also the United Nations Environemt Programme (UNEP) sent a mission to Kosovo to check DU contaminated sites.
"NATO has been criticized for using armor-piercing shells in the Balkans, which some ailing soldiers and anti-nuclear campaigners say have caused cancer.
"The alliance and the United States, whose aircraft fired some40 , 000DU shells during the 1999 air raids against Yugoslavia in Bosnia in 1994 - 95 and earlier in the Arab Gulf, deny there is any link between the use of DU-ammunition and cancer." 22
The second part of this article, shall discuss the war in Afghanistan, the most recent Gulf War as well other states' usage of DU for military purposes.
Lamya Tawfik is a Cairo-based freelancer. She is currently preparing her master's degree in Mass Communication with a specialization in Children's Media Education at the American University in Cairo. She has previously worked as a news editor at IslamOnline.net and as a journalist and public relations specialist in Dubai, UAE. You can reach her at lamyatawfik@islam-online.net
1- Depleted Uranium, WHO fact sheet http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
2- Ibid.
3- Ibid.
4- Ibid.
5- Ibid.
6- Ibid.
7- DU: Cancer as a weapon, Counter Punch. org http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html
8- Ibid.
9- Ibid.
10 Foster, Gregory, Failed Expectations: The Crisis of Civil-Military Relations in America, Brookings Institute http://www.brook.edu/press/review/fall97/foster.htm
11- WHO Team to Study Effects of Depleted Uranium in Iraq, IslamOnline http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-08/24/article2.shtml
12- Depleted Uranium Possible Cause For Dead Fish in Kuwait, IslamOnline http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-08/30/article5.shtml
13- International Atomic Body To Look For U.S. Depleted Uranium In Kuwait, IslamOnline http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-02/15/article1.shtml
14- Spy Says U.S. Used Hallucinogenic Weapons Against Iraq , IslamOnline http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-07/29/article2.shtml
15- Health and the Fifty-Eighth Session of the United Nations Commission On Human Rights, March 2002, WHO http://216.239.33.104/cobrand_univ?q=cache:IkN0kAw0ifQC:www.who.int/entity/hhr/information/Health%2520at%2520the%252058th%2520Session%2520of%2520Commission.pdf+%22Depleted+Uranium%22+%2B+Iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
16- NiCarthy, Ginny, The Weapon That Never Quits, Seattle Community Network http://www.scn.org/ccpi/nicarthy-DU.html
17- WHO: Health Effects of Depleted Uranium, March 2001 http://216.239.37.104/cobrand_univ?q=cache:Is-V_0dB-zEC:www.who.int/gb/EB_WHA/PDF/WHA54/ea5419.pdf+%22Depleted+Uranium%22+%2B+Iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
18- Over 9,000 Iraqis Died in June Due to U.N. Sanctions, IslamOnline http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-07/28/article1.shtml
19- Depleted Uranium, WHO fact sheet http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
20- DU: Cancer as a weapon, Counter Punch. org http://www.counterpunch.com/du.html
21- WHO: Health Effects of Depleted Uranium, March 2001 http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Is-V_0dB-zEC:www.who.int/gb/EB_WHA/PDF/WHA54/ea5419.pdf+%22In+response+to+a+request+from+the+United+Nations+Mission+in+Kosovo%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
22- International Atomic Body To Look For U.S. Depleted Uranium In Kuwait, IslamOnline http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-02/15/article1.shtml
-------- india / pakistan
Islamabad: we will not freeze nuclear program
June 15 2003
AP
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/14/1055220810063.html
Pakistan will neither roll back nor freeze its nuclear weapons program, the country's state-run news agency has quoted the Information Minister as saying.
"We are a declared nuclear power, so there is no question of freezing it," Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told reporters yesterday, according to the Associated Press of Pakistan.
Ahmed said Pakistan would not tolerate any pressure to stop its nuclear program. He did not elaborate.
Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998 when it tested atomic bombs in response to tests by India.
The two countries have not opened their arsenals to international inspectors, and it's not known how many nuclear weapons they possess.
Pakistan offered in May to get rid of its nuclear arsenal if India did the same. India, however, rejected the idea.
Pakistan and India have fought three wars - two over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir - since they gained independence from Britain in 1947.
The West fears their dispute could lead to a nuclear confrontation, and has pressed them to hold peace talks.
-------- iran
'No place for WMDs in Iran's strategy'
Sunday June 15, 2003
News International, Pakistan
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2003-daily/15-06-2003/world/w4.htm
TEHRAN: A senior Iranian security official asserted on Saturday that nuclear weapons had no place in the country's defensive strategy, in the latest bid to ease suspicions the Islamic republic is seeking to acquire the atomic bomb.
"Weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security strategy," Hassan Rowhani, who heads Iran's Supreme Council on National Security, was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.
"One of the most important elements of Iran's Middle East policy consists of the region being free of weapons of mass destruction," he was quoted as telling a visiting Japanese government envoy.
He also demanded the "destruction of the arsenal of the Zionist regime (Israel), which is packed with weapons of mass destruction." As for Iran's first nuclear plant, currently under construction in the southern city of Bushehr with Russian assistance but seen by Washington as a cover for a nuclear weapons programme, Rowhani asserted the project was limited to producing power.
Rowhani was speaking two days before International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general Mohamed ElBaradei is scheduled to report to IAEA members on Iran's nuclear programme.
A pre-meeting document accused Iran of falling short of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), although the report said Iran was taking steps to amend the technical violations. "We are perfectly clear and under the control of the IAEA," Rowhani said.
However Iran has consistently refused to sign an additional protocol to the NPT allowing United Nations inspections of suspicious sites. At present inspectors only have the authority to see declared nuclear facilities.
According to an EU source in Brussel, European Union foreign ministers are to put extra pressure on Iran, saying that ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday want an urgent and unconditional signature to the additional protocol.
----
Iran recruits Saddam's scientists to build long-range missile
By Philip Sherwell in Baghdad
15/06/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/15/wmiss15.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/15/ixnewstop.html
Iran is recruiting top Iraqi weapons scientists to join a dangerous brain drain from Baghdad as international concern grows about Teheran's clandestine arms programme.
The pro-Iranian Badr Brigade, an Iraqi Islamic militia, is helping scientists to travel through tribal areas north east of Baghdad and across the border for meetings with senior military and regime figures in Teheran, The Telegraph has learnt.
The Iranian regime is particularly seeking Iraqi specialists in solid missile propellants, a technology in which Baghdad was strong but Teheran weak. Iran wants to switch from liquid to solid fuels to improve the performance of its long-range Shahab missiles, which may soon be able to reach Europe.
Last week Iran barred United Nations inspectors from taking samples from a suspect nuclear plant, heightening fears that the regime is secretly preparing to make enriched uranium, the crucial raw material for nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, issued a warning that Iran was actively working to develop a bomb.
A senior Pentagon official who has just visited Baghdad privately confirmed that Iran headed a list of states - including Syria, Libya and possibly North Korea - which have approached some of Saddam Hussein's leading missile experts. Senior employees of Iraq's Military Industrialisation Commission (MIC), the body that ran Baghdad's weapons programmes, have also told this newspaper that scientists are being recruited overseas.
There are particular fears over the intentions and whereabouts of Gen Mudh'her Sadeq Sabe'a, Saddam's chief missiles expert, and the man behind the al-Samoud missile that was proscribed by UN inspectors for exceeding the permitted 92-mile range.
Gen Mudh'her, who shares the same Shia Muslim faith as Teheran's ruling clerics, disappeared from Baghdad after the war. An Iraqi businessman with close links to the MIC said that the general was travelling between his home province of Diyala and Iran, under protection from the Badr Brigade. Former MIC associates predicted that several leading weapons scientists would take their expertise to Iran after falling victim to the clear-out of ruling Ba'ath Party officials ordered by the coalition.
"Do not be surprised when some of these people start turning up in Teheran," Brig Marouf al-Chalabi, the former director-general of the MIC, told The Telegraph.
"If the Americans do not find work for MIC's employees soon, and if they continue to rule out all of the Ba'athists, then many of our best scientists will leave. Some want to go to the West, but others will go to Iran."
Brig al-Chalabi, who insisted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme after 1991 during a lengthy interview last week, said that he did not know Gen Mudh'her's specific plans.
He also gave a warning that files and computer disks looted from his Baghdad research facility could be sold abroad.
The brigadier, who studied mechanical engineering in America and was honoured by Saddam for his work last year, said that he had previously been questioned extensively by UN inspectors, but had not been questioned by the Americans.
American officials confirmed that Iran and Syria are making lucrative financial offers to Iraqi scientists. One intelligence official said: "Some have gone, and others will go. We need to get a programme in place quickly to keep these people and their expertise in Iraq."
----
US to put nuclear squeeze on Iran
By Gillian Tett and Roula Khalaf in London and Judy Dempsey in Brussels
June 15 2003
Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054966127160&p=1012571727088
The US and its allies will this week urge the United Nation's nuclear watchdog to warn Iran to curb its alleged clandestine nuclear activities.
The US wants to step up pressure on Tehran to allow enhanced inspections of its facilities. But US diplomats want to maintain a co-ordinated position with European allies and present a united front to Tehran. At a board meeting today of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US will stop short of demanding that the agency declare Tehran to be in breach of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty or refer the matter to the UN Security Council.
The meeting coincides with a call by European Union foreign ministers on Tehran "urgently and unconditionally" to accept tougher inspections by the IAEA. The EU statement, to be released during the foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg, is the toughest since the Europeans started negotiating a trade and co-operation agreement with Iran last year.
"The Iranians cannot be surprised by our stance," said an EU official "They know we have always linked progress on the trade side with a political dialogue that entails becoming transparent over issues such as weapons of mass destruction."
Iran says its nuclear projects are for civilian energy use. This year it announced that a uranium enrichment plant would be built in central Iran but it said that, too, was tied to peaceful purposes. Tehran also argues that it would agree to tighter inspections only if the ban on access to technology were lifted.
The 35-member board of governors of the IAEA, which includes Iran, will study a report submitted by Mohamed El Baradei, head of the agency, following a trip to Iran in February.
The confidential document, seen by the Financial Times, underlines the IAEA's concern at Iran's failure to report imported natural uranium, the subsequent processing of some of the material and the facilities used.
The carefully worded report reflects the agency's suspicion that Iran might have tested centrifuges with processed uranium. Although it says Iran has failed to comply with its safeguards agreement, it falls short of accusing it of "violating" the NPT. "This report shows a clear pattern of behaviour that is very disturbing . . . but it is an interim report, a step on the road," said a diplomat involved in the IAEA talks. "The focus of this meeting is to raise the pressure and urge the IAEA to keep up its work."
The IAEA will hold its next meeting in September. But Washington is likely to press the agency to produce a more conclusive report on Iran before then.
IAEA inspectors have been receiving some co-operation from Iran since Mr El Baradei's visit, but attempts to take environmental samples from an electric power company were blocked by Tehran last week.
The rising international pressure on Iran comes as anti-regime protests in Tehran continued early yesterday for the fifth consecutive day, though on a smaller scale than last week. Similar protests have erupted in other cities.
Additional reporting by Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
-------- iraq / inspections
U.S. Asks Iraq Arms Experts to Surrender
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-WMD-Appeals.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The United States is increasing its radio appeals for Iraqis involved in weapons of mass destruction programs to surrender for trial, offering leniency for those who cooperate.
On Sunday, an AM radio station in Baghdad operated by U.S. Army's Psychological Operations personnel broadcast an appeal to Iraq's former weapons scientists to give up.
``It's time to leave your hideouts,'' an announcer said in Arabic. ``If you come voluntarily and give information about weapons of mass destruction and their launch vehicles, the United States will do its best to give you a just trial in accordance with the law.''
Nearly three months of searching have turned up no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and pressure is mounting on President Bush to explain the failure.
Last week, U.S. military units assigned to track down the banned weapons appeared to slow their search -- with some assigned to other duties -- as some officials said they had run out of places to look. A Pentagon intelligence team is coming in to take over the effort, relying more on leads from interviews and documents.
Saddam Hussein's alleged caches of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were the main justification offered by the United States to go to war.
The Army Psyop broadcasts is aimed at helping the effort to find more candidates to interview. The station, which is called Information Radio and is operated from a portable radio transmitter, has broadcast similar appeals since April.
In the past two weeks, the station has increased its appeals -- broadcasting them multiple times daily.
``If you choose to cooperate today, you'll get tolerance and mercy for what you've done. If you refuse to cooperate today, you'll be arrested later,'' the announcer repeats.
-------- japan
Japan Cabinet backs Bill to send troops to Iraq
Reuters
June 15, 2003
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,194671,00.html
Controversial measure is likely to pass in parliament despite concerns that it violates the country's pacifist charter
TOKYO - Japan's Cabinet yesterday approved a controversial Bill allowing the government to send troops to Iraq, a move sure to please Washington but which stirs worries at home that Japan is departing from its pacifist constitution.
The law, aimed at giving Japan a higher profile in reconstructing the war-torn country, has already been criticised as going against a constitution that has been interpreted to mean the military is restricted to self-defence. Advertisement
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the dominant force in the ruling coalition, endorsed the Bill earlier yesterday after much wrangling.
'I'm glad that they showed some good sense,' Mr Koizumi told reporters after the Cabinet approval, referring to the support by the LDP.
The LDP had been expected to approve the Bill on Thursday, but failed to reach a decision after many party members voiced opposition to the Bill, saying it would put the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) in danger or involve them in military action.
While the troops will only be sent to areas 'free of military conflict', critics have pointed to the repeated attacks on US forces there as argument that such a goal was impossible.
Coupled with the tight limit on the SDF's use of weapons, they say the move will put Japanese soldiers in danger.
The Bill is likely to pass parliament in the current session, which is expected to be extended until mid-July.
Its approval by the Cabinet came on the same day as the so-called crisis laws aimed at boosting Japan's ability to defend itself, which also drew heavy criticism from some quarters, came into effect.
A mission to Iraq would mainly provide logistical support to the US-led forces.
Critics also charge that the new law is another sign that Tokyo is merely following the US lead in dealing with Iraq.
'If we're just sending the SDF because we made a promise to the Americans, then it's diplomacy which lacks a long-term vision,' Mr Seiji Maehara, the shadow national security minister in the opposition Democratic Party, told reporters this week.
The initial Bill listed the disposal of weapons of mass destruction as a potential task for the SDF in Iraq, but it was taken out in the final draft, leading to speculation that the change was out of consideration for Washington.
Using a baseball analogy, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said Japan should be on the playing field, not in the stands as it was for the 1991 Gulf War when it gave US$11 billion (S$19 billion) but sent no troops.
'You can't play at all unless you're on the baseball diamond. I'm hoping that the nation will decide to get out of the stands and onto the playing field,' he said earlier this week. --
-------- korea
Ex - S. Korean Leader Urges North on Nukes
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-Summit.html
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea's former president who engineered a historic summit with North Korea three years ago Sunday urged the communist country to learn ``a lesson'' from the Iraq war and give up its nuclear programs.
Kim Dae-jung, who met North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in 2000, said the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula can be resolved if the North first abandons its nuclear ambitions. Washington can then meet its demands for security guarantees and economic aid, he said.
Kim called the North's suspected nuclear weapons programs ``a child's toy'' compared to the U.S. military might.
``They don't help North Korea at all,'' Kim told Seoul's national KBS-TV in an interview marking the anniversary of the summit.
``For the North, it's not time for face-saving or brinksmanship diplomacy,'' he said. ``We saw the Hussein regime disappearing in Iraq. North Korea should learn a lesson from that.''
Kim, an outspoken advocate of dialogue and reconciliation with North Korea, ended his five-year term in February. His successor, President Roh Moo-hyun, continues Kim's policy on North Korea, but has joined the United States and Japan in mustering international pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.
In Tokyo, a senior Japanese official said Sunday that continued pressure could result in a ``dramatic turn'' in North Korea's policies.
``It is mistaken to think there is no possibility of General Secretary Kim Jong Il making a dramatic turn in policy -- rather it is highly possible,'' said Japanese Deputy Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.
Meanwhile, North Korea marked the summit anniversary by urging South Korea ``to refrain from cooperating with the outsiders in their anti-(North) racket to start a new war.''
At a rally in the North Korean capital, Kim Yong Nam, the communist government's No. 2 leader, called for inter-Korean cooperation ``to avert the danger of imminent war'' and expel the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, the North's official KCNA news agency reported.
Relations between the two Koreas improved vastly after the summit in June 2000. But they deteriorated during Kim's later years in office, and worsened after the United States said last October that North Korea had admitted running a secret nuclear program.
Earlier Sunday, hundreds of South Koreans braved rain and gathered near the border to mark the anniversary, reading statements urging a peaceful end to the nuclear crisis. They later stomped on balloons that formed the word ``war,'' and released doves and balloons symbolizing peace.
Also Sunday, the Koreas exchanged lists of hundreds of people who will be temporarily reunited with relatives for the first time since the 1950-53 Korean War divided many families. The reunions, scheduled for June 27-July 2 are the seventh since the summit.
During his interview, the former South Korean president denied allegations that he had ``bought'' the summit, his crowning achievement which won him the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize.
An independent counsel plans to summon Kim's closest ally, former Presidential Chief of Staff Park Ji-won, on Monday to question him about $500 million sent to North Korea by South Korea's Hyundai business group shortly before the summit.
Hyundai says it made the payment to secure approval for business ventures in the North. Opposition leaders allege the money was a payoff to persuade North Korea to hold the summit.
Kim's former economic adviser, Lee Ki-ho, was arrested last month on charges of influencing a state-run bank to extend loans to help Hyundai send cash to North Korea. South Korean law forbids transfers of cash to the North without government approval.
Kim has said his government approved Hyundai's money transfers -- despite ``legal problems'' -- because they facilitated peace on the peninsula. On Sunday, he repeated that the government's decision should not be subject to judicial judgment.
-------- spies
THE ROSENBERGS, 50 YEARS LATER
Yes, They Were Guilty. But of What Exactly?
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By SAM ROBERTS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/weekinreview/15ROBE.html
Fifty years ago Thursday, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in the electric chair at Sing Sing. Their execution, originally set for 11 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 1953, was rescheduled for 8 p.m. to avoid conflict with the Jewish sabbath.
"They were to be killed more quickly than planned," the playwright Arthur Miller wrote, "to avoid any shadow of bad taste."
A shadow lingers.
"I grew up believing Ethel and Julius were completely innocent," Robert Meeropol, who was 6 years old in 1953, says of the Rosenbergs, his parents. "By the time I completed law school in 1985, however, I realized that the evidence we had amassed did not actually prove my parents' innocence but rather only demonstrated that they had been framed."
After digesting newly released American decryptions of Soviet cables a decade later, Mr. Meeropol came to a revised conclusion. "While the transcriptions seemed inconclusive, they forced me to accept the possibility that my father had participated in an illegal and covert effort to help the Soviet Union defeat the Nazis," he writes in his new memoir, "An Execution in the Family: One Son's Journey" (St. Martin's Press).
Of course, the Rosenbergs weren't executed for helping the Soviets defeat the Nazis, but as atom spies for helping Stalin end America's brief nuclear monopoly. They weren't charged with treason (the Russians were technically an ally in the mid-1940's) or even with actual spying. Rather, they were accused of conspiracy to commit espionage - including enlisting Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, through his wife, Ruth, to steal atomic secrets from the Los Alamos weapons laboratory where he was stationed as an Army machinist during World War II. Mr. Greenglass's chief contribution was to corroborate what the Soviets had already gleaned from other spies, which by 1949 enabled them to replicate the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. (He confessed, testified against his sister and brother-in-law and was imprisoned for 10 years; Ruth testified, too, and was spared prosecution.)
As leverage against Julius, Ethel was also indicted on what, in retrospect, appears to have been flimsy evidence. The government didn't have to prove that anything of value was delivered to the Soviets, only that the participants acted to advance their goal.
"When you're dealing with a conspiracy, you don't have to be the kingpin, you have to participate," says James Kilsheimer, who helped prosecute the Rosenbergs. "You can't be partially guilty any more than you can be partially pregnant."
But to justify the death penalty, which was invoked to press the Rosenbergs to confess and implicate others, the government left the impression that the couple had handed America's mightiest weapon to the Soviets and precipitated the Korean War.
Records of the grand jury that voted the indictment remain sealed. But we now know the Soviet cables decoded before the trial provided no hard evidence of Ethel's complicity. And Mr. Greenglass has recently admitted that he lied about the most incriminating evidence against his sister. The government's strategy backfired. Ethel wouldn't budge. The Rosenbergs refused to confess and were convicted.
"She called our bluff," William P. Rogers, the deputy attorney general at the time, said shortly before he died in 2001.
"They had the key to the death chamber in their hands," Mr. Kilsheimer says. "They never used it."
Whatever military and technical secrets Julius delivered to the Russians - and it now seems all but certain that, as a committed Communist, he did provide information - the Rosenbergs proved more valuable as martyrs than as spies.
"The Soviets did win the propaganda war," said Robert J. Lamphere, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The war isn't over. David Greenglass is 81; Ruth Greenglass is 79. They live under a pseudonym because their surname has become synonymous with betrayal of kin and country. "Perhaps," Mr. Meeropol says, "this is David and Ruth's final punishment."
On Thursday, Mr. Meeropol, who is 56, and his brother Michael, who is 60, (they took their adoptive parents' name) will attend a program at City Center in Manhattan to "commemorate the Rosenbergs' resistance" and benefit the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which Robert runs.
Michael Meeropol is chairman of the economics department at Western New England College. Would any evidence ever convince him that his father was a spy? "If Soviet documents were verified as historically accurate, I'd certainly believe that," he replied.
Then what? How would he explain his father's behavior? "I would have to do some thinking about my parents being involved in dangerous things, but I can't judge people from the 1940's," he said. "He's not in the Army. He has bad eyesight. He can't make the contribution that others were making. I could argue that this was a way of doing it."
To this day, plenty of people would argue that he's wrong.
Sam Roberts, the deputy editor of the Week in Review, is the author of "The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case."
-------- us politics
If Bush Is Lying, He's Not the First
By David Wise
Sunday, June 15, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57402-2003Jun13?language=printer
The sign on the White House these days might well read "Welcome to Credibility Gap."
Sooner or later, every modern administration has fallen into this unwelcome gulch, a disaster that happens when the gap between the government's words and the known facts becomes discernible to the voters. The phrase "credibility gap" came into use during the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but deception as an instrument of national policy began long before that. Misleading official statements, "spin" and, at times, outright lies are an all-too-familiar part of the White House landscape. Government lying has become as American as apple pie.
For President Bush, the problem centers on the furor over whether he misled the nation and the world by asserting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network. Since the twin allegations were the primary premise for going to war against Saddam Hussein's regime, pressure has been building on the White House to prove its claims. The CIA is busily reviewing intelligence gathered before the war. Congressional leaders are skirmishing about what kind of inquiry to pursue. The Republicans so far have resisted the Democrats' call for public hearings into whether the intelligence on Iraq was faulty or whether it was deliberately warped to fit policy, opting instead for a closed-door format. The investigations may also look into the rival intelligence unit that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld formed in the Pentagon last year, which some analysts claim was set up to find the evidence that the hawks among the policymakers wanted to hear.
Of course, weapons of mass destruction may yet be uncovered in Iraq. But in Poland last month, President Bush startled observers by saying on Polish TV: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories . . . . And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
Bush was referring to two mobile units that the CIA had concluded were designed to manufacture biological substances. But by artfully joining the "manufacturing devices or banned weapons" in one sentence, his comments nicely fuzzed up what he meant by saying, "We found them."
The casual, almost breezy nature of the president's statement in Poland seemed strangely out of step with the intensity of the hunt underway in Iraq. For weeks, military units had been searching, without success, for weapons of mass destruction. Officials on the scene had warned that it could take months to uncover the evidence, and some privately had expressed surprise about their failure to turn up any hard evidence.
This past week, as questions persisted about the missing weapons, there appeared to be a subtle shift in the administration's statements. Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, indicated that Bush had relied on the director of intelligence, George Tenet, and the information produced by his predecessors. Then the president himself said that Iraq had a weapons "program," which some might construe as different than saying that Iraq actually had weapons.
As it prepared for war, however, the administration made a number of dramatic pronouncements about Iraq's capabilities. As early as Oct. 7, 2002, Bush had declared in a nationally televised speech that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
On Feb. 8, Bush said in his weekly radio address: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." No such weapons were used against American troops during the fighting.
On March 17, when Bush said Saddam had 48 hours to leave town, the president said in another speech to the nation that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. The regime has already used weapons of mass destruction . . . ."
Similar statements were made by other administration officials in the run up to the war. On Jan. 7, at a Pentagon news briefing, Rumsfeld said, "There's no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons." Pressed by a reporter, Rumsfeld made clear that he was not basing his assertion on the fact that Iraqis had used chemical weapons in the past.
Two days later, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." On March 16, Vice President Cheney had even more frightening news. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he said: "We believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
On March 30, on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Rumsfeld, referring to "weapons of mass destruction," said flatly: "We know where they are."
The administration might have been citing the best intelligence it had at the time. But it's hardly surprising that questions are now being raised about the truthfulness of these statements. Nor is it the first time that the Bush administration has run into difficulty in this area. Last year, it was disclosed that the Pentagon had created a propaganda arm to plant false news stories in the foreign press. It was called by an Orwellian title -- the Office of Strategic Influence -- but the unit was soon axed in the wake of a public outcry.
For the modern presidency, the U-2 affair in 1960 was the watershed event that marked the start of a long train of fibs, lies and artful dodging. When CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down inside Soviet territory, the State Department denied that there had been any deliberate attempt to violate Soviet air space. It was a bald-faced lie, and when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev produced the live pilot, President Dwight Eisenhower was forced to admit the spy flight. The truth came as a shock to most Americans -- Eisenhower was a revered father figure and war hero.
During the Kennedy administration, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, gave a speech defending the government's "right, if necessary, to lie . . ." He did add, "when it is going up into a nuclear war," but even qualified, it was an unprecedented display of candor that caused a firestorm. Sylvester's mistake was to say out loud what many officials thought. And the Kennedy administration did lie in 1961 during the CIA-backed invasion of Cuba, falsely insisting that the United States was not behind the attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro.
Lyndon Johnson claimed that his great-great-grandfather had died at the Alamo, which was total fiction. The joke that went around Washington during the LBJ years had someone asking, "How can you tell when Lyndon is lying?" The answer: "When his lips move." That was perhaps unkind and certainly untrue. But it was under Johnson that a credibility gap turned into a political Death Valley for Oval Office occupants.
Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing Johnson to use force in southeast Asia, because Johnson assured Congress and the public that American destroyers had been attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the gulf on Aug. 4, 1964. It wasn't true.
What Johnson did not say when he addressed the nation just before midnight that day was that 10 hours earlier, the Pentagon had received a cable from the commander of the Maddox, one of two destroyers supposedly attacked, warning that reports of "torpedoes fired appear doubtful," the work of an "overeager sonarman." Nor did the public know that half an hour before the president went on the air, the Pentagon was still frantically cabling for confirmation of an attack.
Nine years later, more than 58,000 Americans had died in Vietnam, including 47,000 on the battlefield, and more than 303,000 were wounded. Only much later did a divided nation learn the truth about the incident in the gulf. ". . . we concluded maybe they hadn't fired at all," Johnson says to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara on one of the LBJ audio tapes edited by historian Michael Beschloss. "Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish," Johnson is quoted as saying by Stanley Karnow in "Vietnam: A History." Public mistrust of Johnson, especially over the Vietnam war, led to his decision not to run for reelection in 1968.
Richard Nixon, as a result of the Watergate scandal, was the first president to resign because of his lies. The temptation of chief executives to cover up political embarrassment by invoking national security was never better illustrated than during that saga. In one exchange, captured on Nixon's taped conversations, Nixon and two aides, John Dean and H.R. Haldeman, are scrambling to come up with an explanation for the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press. The illegal break-in was the work of the White House "plumbers," a secret group created to plug such leaks:
Dean: You might put it on a national security grounds basis.
Haldeman: It absolutely was.
Nixon: National security. We had to get information for national security grounds . . . the whole thing was national security.
Dean: I think we could get by on that.
Governments lie for a variety of reasons. The United States emerged from World War II as a superpower. As a result, a vast national security bureaucracy was created, including the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies. The CIA ran hundreds of covert operations, and cover stories were prepared to explain them in case of exposure. The test was not truth, but whether a cover story would withstand scrutiny and be accepted as "plausible denial." Many of the now-celebrated government fabrications -- from the Gary Powers U-2 flight, to the Bay of Pigs, to the Iran-contra affair -- fall into this category.
Of course, political leaders also lie to try to save themselves from personal embarrassment. Bill Clinton insisted he never had sex with "that woman," a deceit that led to his impeachment and tarnished his presidency, even if it will help to sell large numbers of books for his wife. (And for him as well, when he will no doubt rehash the Monica Lewinsky affair in his own memoir due out next year.)
Sometimes the falsehoods are designed to protect a military operation. On the eve of President Reagan's invasion of Grenada in October 1983, White House spokesman Larry Speakes called a network report of the invasion "preposterous." The next day, U.S. forces landed on the Caribbean island.
Deception in battle -- to mask the site of the Normandy invasion in World War II, for example -- is defensible. Official, institutional lying as an ongoing instrument of foreign policy cannot be justified.
Six years ago, the CIA admitted that the Air Force lied for years about flights of high-altitude spy planes during the Cold War. The secrecy about the flights and bogus official explanations -- the Air Force said people were seeing "ice crystals" -- gave rise to the belief by some citizens that the government was covering up the existence of UFOs.
And that is the problem. Official lies erode the public's confidence in its leaders and inspire conspiracy theories. Public trust between the government and the electorate is the bedrock of a democracy that ultimately rests on the informed consent of the governed. Ethics professor Sissela Bok has written of "the presumption against lying" that forms the basis of trust, without which "institutions collapse." Official lying destroys that bond.
There is an alternative to government lying. It is to tell the truth. Or, if need be, to remain silent.
David Wise is the author of "The Politics of Lying" (Random House), a 1973 book examining how and why governments engage in secrecy and deception. His most recent book is "Spy: The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America" (Random House).
----
In His Own Words
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58483-2003Jun14?language=printer
An excerpt from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's stump speech:
I am running for president because these are tough times for our country and we need a strong new leadership to get America moving forward again. The world has changed and America has changed in the last three years -- terrorism, wars, disease; here at home an economy that's in real difficulty, a health care system that's not delivering for our people, an education system that is not doing well enough by all of our children. And we have an administration that has taken so much of our treasure and spent it on a tax cut that was more than we could afford, that was unfair and, we know now after two years, hasn't done anything to get the economy going again. But it has deprived us of the resources to invest in education, to invest in improving our health care system, to invest in homeland security after September 11. In the world, we're more separated from the rest of the world, including our allies, than we've been in a long time. And that compromises our security and takes us from the high ground of principle, where America is always the strongest.
So I'm running for president to protect the American people's security, to revive our economy and to uphold our best values, including the great American values of opportunity and responsibility, social justice and social progress.
I believe very strongly that I am the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with the president in the areas where many think he's strong -- the questions of security and values -- and then defeat him where we know he's weak, on the economy and his divisive right-wing social agenda. . . .
Believe me, I have a real sense of mission about this. I feel very fortunate to have the chance to run for president. It's in some senses awesome, but I feel after 30 years in public life ready for this responsibility, and I feel in my heart that I have the kind of experience that will help me to provide strong leadership in the world and strong leadership here at home. The American people ought not to be given a choice in November of '04 between this president who says he'll be strong in the world and mostly will want to talk about international issues, and a Democratic candidate who mostly will want to talk about domestic issues. The American people deserve a president who will do more than one thing at a time and who will provide strong leadership in the world and strong leadership here at home. I offer myself to you as that kind of candidate and that kind of president. . . .
The fact is we can do a lot better than we are doing now. As president, I propose to do just that, to lead America back to the responsible path toward balanced budgets, investing in education, homeland security, helping the states and cities to deliver what we all want them to deliver. Together, we can revive the American dream for all of our people, and to do that we've got to elect a Democrat and not give these folks another four years. . . . We can do better, but to do it we've got to win and . . . I'm the only Democrat who can do that.
I know that I can beat George W. Bush in 2004. Why? Because Al Gore and I already did it.
----
Senate has many millionaire members
6/15/2003
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-13-senate-disclosure_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - New Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is among the wealthiest in a Senate full of millionaires, according to financial disclosure forms released Friday.
The Tennessee Republican, a former Nashville heart-lung transplant surgeon whose family founded HCA - The Healthcare Company, one of the nation's largest for-profit hospital chains, reported blind trusts in the $6.5 million to $31 million range.
He also said, in the forms required of all legislators every year, that his wife Karyn and three sons each had blind trusts that earned more than $1 million apiece.
Frist says he hasn't been actively involved in his family's business since he was first elected to the Senate in 1994.
Frist is among many in the Senate who are likely to reap benefits this year from the just-passed $350 billion tax cuts that reduce the maximum tax rate on both dividends and capital gains to 15%, down from 38.6% for dividends and 20% for capital gains.
In contrast, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who has spent most of his life in politics, reported relatively modest holdings.
He had a bank account of $100,001-$250,000; a credit union account of $50,001-$100,000 and a Fidelity investment fund of $50,001-$100,000. He also earned interest and dividend profits from banks and mutual fund accounts in the $10,420-$32,402 range.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received more than $1.15 million as partial payment for her memoirs. But that sum was overshadowed by the $9.5 million that her husband, former President Bill Clinton earned making speeches around the world for as much as $400,000 a speech.
The Clintons still owe somewhere between $1.7 million to $6.5 million in legal fees, stemming largely from past White House investigations.
Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., another senator with a famous spouse, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, asked for an extension.
Daschle's deputy, Democratic whip Harry Reid, D-Nev., listed 160 acres in Bullhead City, Ariz., worth $500,000 to $1 million and Nevada land holdings and mining claims worth $786,000 to $1.675 million. His investments from municipal bonds and other sources, earned him $29,116-$85,050.
As always among the top millionaires in the Senate was Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has a family trust fund - worth $8 million to $45 million - set up in 1936 when he was four years old by his late father Joseph P. Kennedy.
He also has two blind trusts in his name valued at $1,001,001 to $5,015,000 and reported unearned income of $2 million to $13 million from family and blind trusts.
Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said he and his wife have assets worth between $7.7 million and $31.6 million.
The Florida senator is director of the Graham Companies, a business established with his brothers to turn the family's farm land into the suburb of Miami Lakes.
The forms do not list the independent assets and earnings of spouses. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential contender, reported no unearned income but his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, heir to the Heinz food fortune, is estimated to be worth more than $500 million.
Kerry lists a Dutch painting owned jointly with his wife worth $250,000-$500,000.
The second-ranked Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, also reported that his wife, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, was the major breadwinner. She listed a Vanguard 500 Index fund worth $500,000-$1 million, another fund worth $100,000-$250,000 and a house worth $500,000-$1 million that the couple rents for $5,000-$15,000.
Among other disclosures:
• Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., reported that his wife Hadassah earned nearly $33,000 from royalties and signing agreements for their book on his 2000 vice presidential campaign. She also earned $94,000 in fees for eight speeches, all to various Jewish nonprofit organizations.
• Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., paid off the original $15,001-$50,000 mortgage on a cottage in Ireland.
• Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took in $18,009 from his side job as a songwriter. Hatch has written dozens of religious hymns and patriotic soft-rock ballads.
• Sen. John Edwards, D.N.C., another presidential candidate, reported a blind trust worth $5 million-$25 million. The former trial lawyer claimed income of $100,000 to $1 million on that trust.
• Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., whose 45 years in the Senate is longer than anyone else in the chamber, filed a simple two-page form stating he owns no stocks, bonds or investment properties. His net worth was under $700,000.
All 535 members of Congress are required to submit financial disclosure forms every year that show outside sources of income, assets, liabilities, travel paid by private interests and speech honoraria.
By law, all honoraria for speeches must be donated to charity. In general, income from activities other than investments was limited to $23,205 last year.
In 2002 senators, and their House colleagues, received a salary of $150,000, a figure that rose to $154,700 this year. The House and Senate majority and minority leaders were paid $166,700 last year and are getting $171,900 this year.
House financial disclosure reports come out Monday.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
U.S. Puts Its Afghanistan War Tactic to Use in Iraq
By Paul Richter and Michael Slackman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
June 14, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-mili14jun14,0,3505014.story
WASHINGTON -- With this week's operations in central Iraq, U.S. forces are sending a signal that America will use superior force to crush resistance wherever it arises.
Finding themselves under daily fire more than a month after President Bush announced the end of major combat in Iraq, U.S. commanders have taken a page from the Afghanistan campaign: They are emulating Operation Anaconda, in which American forces killed hundreds of regrouping Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
The target this time is the remnants of Saddam Hussein's forces who have been mounting a harassment campaign that has contributed to a U.S. death toll of 45 since May 1 -- including 10 this month.
American forces have fought back with a broad sweep that U.S. authorities say has killed nearly 100 Iraqis this week, including an attack on a training camp northwest of Baghdad, and a battle late Thursday about 45 miles north of Baghdad in which seven Iraqis were killed.
In Thursday's action, U.S. forces chased Iraqi fighters who had attacked an American tank patrol. Lt. Col. Andy Fowler, commander of the troops involved, said the soldiers returned fire after someone shot at them.
He acknowledged that only two of the seven wore the uniform of the Fedayeen Saddam militia and that the five others were locals. Residents said the other five were farmers.
"I will tell you that there are still those that are loyal to a regime that is no longer in power," Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of ground forces in Iraq, told reporters Friday in a videoconference from Baghdad. "We will continue to have to seek out ... and either apprehend them or destroy them, and that will take some time."
If U.S. forces can prevent the guerrillas from gathering in groups, they can keep them not only from attacking with strength, but also from training and reorganizing.
As in Anaconda, the U.S. strikes "don't destroy all resistance," said Michael Vickers, a former Army Special Forces and intelligence officer who is at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "But they can reduce it to a much lower intensity."
Yet while the use of massive force -- 4,000 soldiers participated in one operation this week alone -- might achieve military goals, it risks alienating many Iraqis upon whose support the U.S. reconstruction of the country depends.
U.S. commanders contend that the surge in recent attacks against Americans in Iraq does not represent a full-scale guerrilla war fed by discontent over the occupation. Yet the military's aggressive actions signal a new determination to snuff out, as quickly as possible, attacks that are jeopardizing the U.S. reconstruction and could, in time, erode American political support for the war as well.
The "hot spots" of resistance are largely confined to the so-called Sunni Triangle within 100 miles of Baghdad that is populated by the Sunni Muslims who were most loyal to Hussein. In fact, a pro-U.S. politician, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, has alleged that Hussein could be hiding in the area.
Even so, the attacks suggest that U.S. leaders misjudged how many troops the job would require, and the enthusiasm with which Iraqis would greet American forces.
Bush administration officials wanted to keep the U.S. troop numbers as small as possible in the postwar period, believing that with a small "footprint," the American presence would seem less like an oppressive military occupation.
Yet "if we had troops all over this area, maybe we wouldn't have needed the operations this week," said Daniel Goure, a former defense official and vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia research organization.
He said the continuing increase in the number of U.S. troops in the country -- now approaching 200,000 -- is an acknowledgment of this.
The Hussein loyalists and foreign Islamic militants who are assaulting U.S. forces appear to be hoping that through a war of attrition they can persuade Americans to pull out.
At a rate of about one a day since May 1, the loss of U.S. troops probably isn't enough to turn the American public against the reconstruction effort, many experts agree. But if the losses continue, that could change, especially if the Iraqis were able to kill a large number in one sensational attack, the experts say.
The areas where American troops are concentrated in large numbers, such as military camps, are the most heavily protected.
The Iraqi fighters probably will be able to continue ambushes with the rocket-propelled grenades, land mines and AK-47 assault rifles they have in abundance. And U.S. commanders acknowledge that enemy combatants have been using more sophisticated techniques in recent days. Even so, the Iraqi capabilities are limited: Rocket-propelled grenades have little use against tanks, and only limited use against armored personnel carriers, experts say.
The incident in which seven Iraqis were killed came on the heels of Operation Peninsula Strike, a comprehensive land, sea and air attack by U.S. forces who first isolated the region north of Baghdad that juts into a bend in the Tigris River, then stormed through looking for weapons and fighters. In that operation, at least 15 Iraqis were killed, U.S. authorities said.
The peninsula operation was over by Tuesday, and U.S. Army officers at the scene two days later said the Army was trying to shift into a hearts-and-minds campaign to win over local support. But it was fighting rumors that it had killed two civilians. The Army denied any responsibility for the deaths, attributing both to heart attacks, but there was a lot of skepticism among residents.
On Friday, the U.S. Central Command reported that its forces had collected 70 to 80 surface-to-air missiles, at least 75 rocket-propelled grenades and about 20 AK-47 assault rifles in the operation, which it said was carried out "to eradicate Baath Party loyalists, paramilitary groups and other subversive elements."
The U.S. military action this week also included a separate air and land attack involving members of the 101st Airborne Division against what military officials described as a terrorist camp more than 100 miles northwest of Baghdad. At least 70 people at the site were killed, some of them non-Iraqis, officials told reporters.
L. Paul Bremer III, director of the Coalition Provisional Authority, said Thursday that "we do not see signs of central command and control" in the resistance by Hussein loyalists. But, Bremer noted, the groups are "organized.... They may be five or six men conducting isolated attacks against our soldiers."
Although there have been repeated suggestions by U.S. military officials that non-Iraqi Arab fighters are involved in some of the episodes, it was not clear how the military knew that the fighters killed at the operation northwest of Baghdad were not Iraqis.
With drone aircraft, satellites and other surveillance tools, U.S. forces have a good capability to track down enemy fighters in the areas north and west of Baghdad where they have been hiding, analysts say.
U.S. commanders say they have also been getting tips from Iraqi civilians, as happened in the case of the guerrilla training camp that was hit Thursday.
"Much of our intelligence is being given to us by Iraqis," said McKiernan, the commander.
At the same time, analysts say, it's important for U.S. commanders to lose no time quelling the resistance because of the way mass arrests, and intrusions into homes and businesses, are alienating the people they hope to win over.
Even in the Sunni areas, Vickers said, "if you can root out the bad guys, you can get on with trying to win over the people who are so worried by all that's been happening."
Richter reported from Washington and Slackman from Dijeel, Iraq. Times staff writer John Daniszewski in Jordan contributed to this report.
--------
Afghan Government Sets Up New Commission
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Fighting-Corruption.html
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The Afghan government has set up a new commission to fight corruption, nepotism and red tape, President Hamid Karzai said Sunday.
The Independent Reform of Civil Administrative Services Commission is the latest in a series of measures Karzai has taken to try to jump-start the economy. After two decades of war, the country is desperately short of cash and heavily dependent on foreign aid.
The panel will be headed by one of the country's several vice presidents, Hadyat Amin Arsala, Karzai said in a speech at the Interior Ministry. Several Cabinet members were among the hundreds who attended.
``Lots of people complain about how our administrative system works. Businessmen say they have to wait for days and days to get licenses to operate,'' Karzai said.
``These people should be allowed to start work as soon as possible, because if they open businesses, it will mean more job opportunities for lots of people.''
Afghans have taken to the streets several times in recent weeks, demanding the government increase salaries, pay back wages and rehire employees it has laid off.
Karzai responded by demanding that warlords who control lucrative import routes hand over millions of dollars in unpaid customs revenues -- a move that has begun to pay off. Money has started coming in, and much of it has been used to pay soldiers and civil servants whose salaries were several months in arrears.
The government hopes to raise at least $200 million in custom revenues this year, but Karzai said that alone would not be enough to get the economy going. Providing job opportunities was ``not just the job of government,'' he said, adding that private sector growth was also key.
``Customs revenues alone are not enough,'' Karzai said. ``If we have a good economy and we can pay good salaries to civil servants, then there won't be any need for corruption in government.''
The new commission also would work to route out nepotism, Karzai said.
``It's not good when someone gets work because he knows the boss or director,'' Karzai said. ``The people who have the talent and capacity to do a job should get the job.''
-------- africa
Machetes Set Aside for Guns In Congo's Bloody Conflict
Influx of Modern Weapons Gives Rise to Growing Brutality
By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 15, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60251-2003Jun14?language=printer
BUNIA, Congo -- It happened at dawn. In the damp morning light, with sleepy eyes, Elekana Batsi spotted a band of drunken, red-eyed militiamen stumbling toward the hut where he lay. He forced his 87-year-old mother awake. Run, he told her, grabbing her hand. Run with your spirit.
So Durcil Batsi raced barefoot on the red earth of her village last Saturday with dozens of others. They hurried past the squawking roosters and the mud huts that dot this corner of the world where there is no electricity and virtually no running water, let alone phones to call for help.
"We were running so fast," Elekana Batsi, 61, recalled with hazy eyes. "Don't be afraid, I told her. We will make it."
But the bullets were faster. Batsi's mother collapsed to the dirt as soon as they pierced her flesh. One shattered the back of her skull, one cut into her right shoulder, the last penetrated her lower leg. And an old woman died not warm in her bed, but bleeding from three wounds inflicted by teenagers with automatic rifles.
"If we were running from people with machetes, we would have outrun them and lived," Batsi whispered as he sat, still stunned, inside his hut. "An old woman should not die this horrible way. Why do they have such weapons?"
The new reality of ethnic conflict in this lawless corner of Congo is a grandmother shot from behind, a small playhouse bombed and a church choir missing half its members, many of them killed by rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s. A massive, sudden influx of modern weapons in a place where televisions are rare and running water is considered a luxury has turned a long-running rivalry between the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups into a far more brutal conflict than the outside world can imagine.
"Just a short time ago, this was a typical African war with machetes and matches," said Marcus Sack, head of mission for German Agro Action, an organization fighting world hunger. "Now they are using all kinds of things -- mortars, Kalashnikovs, rocket launchers. We are practically ready for weapons of mass destruction to come next."
The fighting between the Hemas and Lendus is just one facet of the complex civil war in Congo that has taken an estimated 3.3 million lives since fighting erupted in August 1998. Several African nations entered the conflict -- some on the side of the Congolese government, some on the side of the rebels trying to seize power -- and local factions found weapons and support suddenly plentiful.
Rwanda and Uganda sent troops into northeastern Congo and enlisted the help of local militias to fight forces loyal to the Congolese government. But their initial alliance disintegrated into a contest for control of the northeast, fought largely by their local proxies. Here in the lush, mineral-rich Ituri district, an estimated 50,000 men, women and children have perished since 1999.
Caught in the tangle of foreign interests were two edgy and impoverished ethnic groups: the Hemas, who are traditionally herders and traders, and the Lendus, who are farmers. The two groups had lived side by side since the 17th century, but in the late 19th century Belgian colonizers favored the Hemas, using them to run local government offices and manage Lendu workers on plantations and in mines.
The first serious tensions between the two groups did not emerge until 1966. That gave way to bloodshed in June 1999 when, according to human rights groups, a Hema businessman produced fake title deeds to evict Lendu families from land he claimed to have acquired. Two hundred people died in two days, many killed with guns given to local militias by Ugandan and Rwandan troops. Between June and October of that year, 5,000 to 7,000 people were killed and 100,000 were displaced.
"Everyone used to use locally made machetes. Now it's weapons everywhere you turn," said Ben Uchya, an English teacher who has lived in Bunia for 27 years and has studied its conflicts, collecting facts and figures on pieces of paper that he carries around town in a plastic bag. "Part of the blame is on the backs of foreign powers that inflamed any tensions that were there."
A 1999 peace accord required all foreign troops to leave Congo, and last month the last Ugandan units pulled out of Bunia. But the fighting hasn't stopped, nor has the outside support of the warring militias. Rwanda's ethnic Tutsi government continues to support Hema groups to protect its borders from Rwandan Hutu militias who came to Congo after carrying out the genocide there in 1994. The Congolese government is backing Lendu factions here.
Last month, more than 430 civilians were butchered in a battle for control of Bunia. Many clearly were killed with machetes, but rifles, rocket launchers and mortars caused many other deaths, U.N. investigators say.
U.N. peacekeepers have so far been unable to stop the killing, largely because they have lacked the authority to disarm the gunmen.
During last month's carnage, a small contingent of U.N. troops -- mostly from Uruguay, a country that hasn't fought a war since its independence in 1828 -- was powerless to intervene. Seven of the unit's officers are being treated for mental breakdowns. Two U.N. observers, Maj. Safwat Oran of Jordan and Capt. Siddon Davis Banda of Malawi, were found shot in the head after Lendu fighters accused them of collaborating with the Hema.
This month, the United Nations dispatched a larger, French-led force. But even as the force's members begin to assemble here, their commander has said they will not take weapons away from combatants -- a stance that has drawn strong criticism.
"How can the violence stop if the guns are not taken away? Everyone here is now armed to the teeth," said Nigel Pearson, a physician with the aid group Medair who authored an Oxfam report on arms proliferation. "And there is a cycle of fear and killing and helplessness. It's making the situation far, far worse."
Bunia, currently controlled by Hema forces, looks more like a scene out of an old Western movie than a crossroads town in central Africa. Young men with bands of bullets around their necks twirl grenades and hoist rifles on their backs. Instead of horses, they speed around in pickup trucks. At dusk, they lounge in their truck beds, sipping warm beer.
The sour smell of death hangs in the air, especially over a tent that was converted from a storage depot for dead bodies into lodging for foreign journalists. Dozens of dogs, pigs and ducks roam the town like scavengers.
Drunken militiamen recently burst into a local aid worker's house, held rifle butts to the heads of the five people inside and demanded $1,000 from each of them. Last week, a five-hour firefight with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars rattled the town as residents rushed for cover.
And still the Congolese try to maintain some semblance of life. At Nyakasanza Catholic Church, the white-and-red-robed choir softly sings "God Have Mercy." As clouds of incense float in the air, young children in clean white dresses swing pompoms made of plastic and older boys dressed in red gently shake tambourines.
Half the choir is missing -- some are dead, some have fled. Outside the church, bullet casings lie on the grass and young boys with guns and oversized army fatigues swagger by.
"Half of my people were attacked and killed by guns," said Theodore Wanican, the choir director, who watched the armed boys parading around beyond the church's gates. "These modern things are making our lives a hell."
-------- arms sales
New Arms Sales to India Make Israel a Top Global Weapons Supplier
Tim Kennedy
Arab News,
15 June 2003
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=27442&d=15&m=6&y=2003&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
WASHINGTON - The export of Israeli weapons and military services to India has made this tiny Mideast country one of the world's top arms suppliers. In 2002 transfers of Israeli defense technology and know-how totaled $4.18 billion, ranking it fifth only to the United States, the European Union, Russia, and Japan in weapons exports. The previous year, Israel's arms exports totaled just $2. 5billion.
India has become one of Israel's biggest customers in recent years, and I will likely become the top customer now that the United States has decided to drop its objection to $ 1billion sale of the Israeli "Phalcon" airborne early-warning system to New Delhi.
The Phalcon is a close copy of the US E- 3"Sentry," an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) that provides all-weather surveillance, command, control and communications to battle commanders. The Israeli version of AWACS uses sophisticated Israeli radar carried aboard a Russian-made cargo plane.
Three years ago, Washington instructed Israel to rescind a similar Phalcon deal to China, claiming the state-of-the-art system might be re-exported by Beijing to nations unfriendly to the United States. Many arms control officials believe this possibility still exists.
According to a recent article in the Jerusalem Post, Israel has been hired by India to train four battalions of nearly3 , 000Indian soldiers for specialized anti-insurgency strikes. Experts quoted in the newspaper say New Delhi's recent reliance on Israel for combat soldier expertise is due to its failure to adequately repulse Pakistani border incursions and because of a deadly suicide attack last year by terrorist infiltrators on the Indian Parliament.
The Israeli newspaper notes that in conjunction with the deal for counterinsurgency training services, India has signed a $ 30million contract with Israel Military Industries (IMI) for3 , 400Tavor assault rifles and 200 Galil sniper rifles, as well as night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment.
"The purchase seems to demonstrate a broadening of the defense trade relationship beyond Indian purchase of Israeli high-tech electronic systems. For decades, New Delhi has bought most of its air force and army hardware from Russia," says a recent report by the Tel Aviv-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a conservative defense think tank whose board of directors includes many of President George W. Bush's top national security advisors.
According to JINSA, India has had to significantly boost its defense budget in order to finance all its new Israeli arms purchases: By 2010 New Delhi's annual military budget is expected to reach $ 100billion.
Overall Indo-Israeli trade has also seen a huge increase, climbing from about $ 250million annually to more than $1. 15billion in2002 , with the exchange of arms seeing the most rapid growth.
In addition to IMA, another state-run arms conglomerate - Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) - has signed lucrative technology and training contracts with the Indian Air Force (IAF). JINSA reports that negotiations are also under way for Israel to provide state-of-the-art fire control systems and thermal imagers for the Indian Army's Russian-made T- 72tank fleet.
In February, the International Herald Tribune reported that India plans to purchase two Israeli Elta Green Pine long-range radar systems, a component of the "Arrow" Ballistic Missile Defense System.
Begun in1988 , the joint US-Israel Arrow missile program has had over 75 percent of its development money coming from the US Department of Defense.
With the lifting of sanctions on the Phalcon sale, strategic talks between Israel, India and the United States may clear the way for the transfer of a complete Arrow missile defense system to New Delhi.
According to JINSA, a 2001 review by the US Department of Defense concluded that the "defensive nature" of the Arrow system exempts it from sales restrictions imposed by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), an international agreement designed to stop the spread of offensive missile technology.
----
WHEN LAWS DON'T APPLY
Cracking Down on the Terror-Arms Trade
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/weekinreview/15SANG.html
KENNEBUNKPORT, Me. - First came pre-emption, President Bush's declaration that the age of containment was over and that the United States would no longer wait before wiping out potential threats. Now, after he turned doctrine into practice in Iraq, comes the next phase of the strategy: a bid to pre-empt conflict itself by hobbling the traffic in the most horrific armaments.
Call it pre-emptive pre-emption. The aim is to keep countries like North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria from trading in arms that could be slipped to terrorists or used to challenge American power.
Under this new approach, now being refined by Pentagon and State Department officials, the White House is pressing for a coalition of nations that would allow ships to be boarded and aircraft to be forced down the moment they slipped into any cooperative country's waters or airspace. Thus the United States and its allies would combine intelligence with creative use of national laws to seize suspicious shipments around the world and disrupt the transportation system for everything from missiles to the centrifuges used to enrich uranium.
As Mr. Bush headed to his parents' house here on Thursday, American officials and many of their allies were meeting in Spain to devise the new rules. Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Poland and Japan were represented, but not Russia, China and South Korea. The next day, in a sign of why the United States believes it needs to move fast, the Thai police seized 60 pounds of radioactive cesium in Bangkok that authorities believe may have been intended for use in "dirty bombs."
The administration's initiative was born partly out of frustration with the way international law had deep-sixed an effort to stop the shipment of North Korean missiles to Yemen last year. Rather than try to rewrite international laws that govern freedom of the seas - bedrock principles for the global economy and American economic power - the White House decided to base its efforts on the inventive use of national laws.
Some experts said the strategy of stepping up pressure on North Korea and other countries without creating international legal problems is creative, if complicated. "It requires a lot of cooperation - the Chinese, for example - and an agreement on what constitutes contraband," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has studied the implications of the Bush approach.
The failed effort to stop the missiles bound for Yemen reflects the hurdles involved. American intelligence tracked the ship, which flew Cambodia's flag, and Spanish troops boarded it. But having discovered the cargo, they let it go after Yemen declared the missile shipments legal under international law. Not wanting to anger a sometime ally against terrorism, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney relented.
"It was not the brightest moment in the American fight against proliferation," a senior aide said.
The new coalition is intended to tie up such shipments on whatever pretext is available, long before they make it to their destination, and preferably before they make it to the high seas at all.
Imagine, American officials said, that spy satellites detect a North Korean missile shipment headed to Iran. The missiles could not be seized in international waters. But if they entered the waters of a coalition member, they could be grabbed under a variety of national laws.
"We're going to use every rule available," a top White House national security official said in an interview. "There will be gaps, places where we can't act. But no one has ever before tried to marry the ability we have to track these shipments with the existing national authorities that are out there."
Missiles and nuclear material aren't the only targets. In the case of North Korea, the administration is trying to shut off its main sources of hard currency, which pay for its armaments.
The North Koreans had a taste of this approach last week in Japan. More than 1,000 Japanese police officers, customs officials and shipping regulators suddenly showed up at the dock where a ferry between North Korea and Japan regularly runs. For years, the ferry has been considered a link in providing North Korea with hard currency, mostly from pachinko parlors run by Koreans who live in Japan.
The cash transfers themselves are probably legal. But in recent months Japan has finally worked up the gumption to act against the North, and so the ship was subject to intensive safety inspections and the most rigorous customs examination in memory. North Korea immediately ended the ferry service. The Japanese authorities moved on to other North Korean rust buckets that show up in their ports, few of which could pass anyone's safety inspections.
Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, said last week that his country was working on a plan with the American and Japanese navies to intercept North Korean smugglers, some of whom were grabbed recently as they tried to deliver a shipload of drugs off the Australian coast.
Drugs are an easy case, because they are considered contraband around the world. The trick for the Bush administration is to persuade other nations - including Russia and China, which helped North Korea and Iran with their nuclear programs - that they must join in the crackdown.
----
BAE Systems Dismisses Merger Speculation
June 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-airshow-bae.html
LE BOURGET, France ( Reuters) - The chief executive of BAE Systems Plc., Europe's biggest arms maker, poured cold water Sunday on speculation it was in merger talks with big defense companies in the United States.
``Any merger talk is just speculation,'' Mike Turner told reporters at the Paris Air Show, although later he reiterated that the British company's long-term goal was to expand in the U.S.
``It is quite clear to anybody who can add up that if you look at the spend on technology in the UK and Europe and technology in the U.S., it is obvious where the future is.'' Advertisement
His comments came after recent unsourced reports that the British company has been considering possible tie-ups with prime arms contractors in the United States, including Boeing Co, Lockheed Martin Corp and General Dynamics Corp.
Turner also rejected an unsourced report in the Sunday Times newspaper that BAE was considering General Dynamics as either a full-blown merger partner or as a buyer of its shipbuilding business as part of a three-way tie-up with Boeing.
He told reporters that BAE had been in close contact with General Dynamics about its Astute nuclear attack submarine after the program ran into major cost overruns and had seconded a dozen of its engineering managers to help with the contract.
BAE, which has posted a net loss in each of the past three years, said a week ago it had no ``preconceived notion'' of how it would achieve its long-stated goal of a transatlantic link.
Speculation about a transatlantic merger between BAE and Boeing has stirred for years.
Turner was caught in a public spat with French defense electronics firm Thales SA last week after he told a newspaper Thales had made an informal merger offer at a private meeting in London. Thales strongly denied it had made any offer.
-------- asia
Myanmar: Suu Kyi Under Protective Custody
By SUTIN WANNABOVORN
Associated Press Writer
Jun 15, 2003
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ASEAN_SUU_KYI?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP) -- Myanmar's foreign minister said Sunday that Aung San Suu Kyi is being kept in custody to protect her from a possible assassination attempt, and added that no time frame can be given for the pro-democracy leader's release.
Foreign Minister Win Aung refused to say who the possible assassins would be or why they would want to target Suu Kyi.
"We have heard there were assassins coming in the country. I don't know who their target will be," the minister told reporters in Phnom Penh where he will attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations conference beginning Monday.
"We know that whatever happened to her will be real trouble to us. Because everything will be blamed (on) us and there will be attempts to create a situation where the country will be in deep anarchic situation," he said.
Suu Kyi was detained on May 30 after a clash between her supporters and a pro-government crowd in northern Myanmar. She has been kept incommunicado since then, jeopardizing the reconciliation process to end the country's 15-year-old political deadlock. Advertisement
Although the government has said previously that she is in "protective custody," this is the first time that an assassination theory has been put forward.
Win Aung stressed that the Nobel Peace laureate is not in detention but in custody to make sure that she comes to no "personal harm," adding the government had no intention of harming Suu Kyi, the daughter of Myanmar's national hero, Aung San.
"She is our national leader's daughter she is like our sister," he said.
In the meantime, he said, the government cannot give a committed date for her release.
"Don't press us to commit ourselves to a timeframe and date of releasing her ... the important thing is that the will (to free her) is there," he said.
The current junta came to power in 1988 after crushing a pro-democracy movement. It called elections in 1990 but refused to hand over power after Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy Party won.
She was kept for several years under house arrest, and a U.N.-mediated national reconciliation process started in October 2000 has made little progress.
On Saturday, Myanmar's state-run press blamed Suu Kyi for the May 30 clash that led to her detention, and said the violence showed she was incapable of running the country.
The government says members of Suu Kyi's party instigated the violence when her motorcade was confronted by thousands of military supporters.
But opposition accounts say pro-government thugs ambushed Suu Kyi's motorcade, stabbing and beating her followers.
Her detention has evoked an international outcry from world leaders including President Bush and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who have demanded her release.
The foreign ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, of which Myanmar is a member, will meet with foreign ministers of other Asian and Pacific countries on Wednesday at a regional security meeting.
-------- britain
WAR HERO WINS LANDMARK RULING
HOW SICK EX-SOLDIER SHAUN BATTLED FOR 10 YEARS TO BEAT THE MoD
By Mike Hamilton
Jun 15 2003
UK Mirror
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13070870_method=full_siteid=106694_headline=-WAR-HERO-WINS-LANDMARK-RULING-name_page.html
THE phone call reduced Gulf War veteran Shaun Rusling to tears. "Congratulations Daddy, you are my hero," said his four-year-old daughter Ellie.
Shaun had also wept hours earlier as he won a landmark legal victory against the MoD which will open the door for more than 5,000 other veterans to make claims for having Gulf War Syndrome - the illness the Government has always denied exists.
But to ex-Army medic Shaun, 44, the loving message from the daughter he had feared would inherit his terrifying health problems was the crowning moment in his 10-year battle. He said: "It meant the world to me. Ellie is obviously too young to understand what has happened. But she knew I had done something important."
Shaun, who suffers from chronic fatigue, skin problems, irritable bowel syndrome, headaches, confusion, mood swings, nausea, swollen glands and osteoporosis, added: "The MoD have done everything they can to deny I had Gulf War Syndrome. It's as though they thought I was mad in insisting the illness existed. But I knew I was right all along." Shaun's victory came at the High Court on Friday when a judge refused to overturn a tribunal decision to award The former Territorial Army soldier disability benefits for having Gulf War Syndrome.
He had kept his legal battle going even though he had been given a 90 per cent Army pension because it said he had "signs and symptoms of ill-defined conditions" (SSIDC) NOT Gulf War Syndrome
He said last night: "I am elated - not just for me but for all the other veterans who have been trying since 1991 to get an explanation for their illness. More than 5,000 have applied for pensions and not got full ones.
"The MoD have tried to cover up the condition. Once we had won the war they didn't care. If we had dropped dead at the end of the war, they wouldn't have given a toss because we had done what they wanted.
"It was like David and Goliath - but I got there in the end with help from family, friends and other veterans."
Gulf War Syndrome is blamed on the vaccinations given to troops, on the depleted uranium in Allied weapons and to exposure to chemical and biological agents.
Campaigners say it has affected 9,000 Gulf War 1 veterans. And The Sunday Mirror has highlighted several new cases from the latest conflict in Iraq.
Shaun, who worked as a nurse in his home town of Hull, was called up in December, 1990 and given nine vaccinations - including a controversial anthrax jab - plus Nerve Agent Pre-treatment tablets and anti-malarial pills.
He was then jetted out to the Gulf and treated injured Coalition and Iraqi troops at a Field Hospital in Wadi Al Batin, Saudi Arabia. Although he suffered two days of fever in Saudi, he appeared to make a full recovery and returned home in April, 1991.
In fact, his nightmare was just beginning - he was struck down his range of illnesses. Shaun said: "There was something wrong but I couldn't put my finger on it.
"I was agitated and couldn't sleep. People described me as being like a cat on a hot-tin roof. I had constant sweats and fevers and a rash kept appearing on my stomach and feet.
"I suffered flashbacks and could picture Iraqis whose flesh had been blown away but still had their boots on."
In September 1991, he walked out on his then wife Belinda and daughter Gemma, three. He said: "I was snappy and verbally aggressive. I froze Belinda out. She could not understand what was going on and neither could I. Our marriage did not stand a chance."
Shaun found he could not carry on with his nursing job and moved in with parents Pamela and Joe in Hull. In 1993 he had a physical and mental breakdown. "I had hit rock-bottom," he said. "Previously I could run 10 miles with a 35lb pack and a rifle on my back.
"Then I couldn't do anything. I couldn't sleep or concentrate and was really agitated. I was permanently mentally exhausted."
Shaun was diagnosed with Gulf War Syndrome by doctors in Hull in 1993. Medics from the War Pensions Agency initially agreed with this - and also said he post-traumatic stress disorder.
But although the MoD accepted his illness stemmed from his service, they refused to say it was GWS.
Shaun was at his lowest ebb when he met his current wife, Maria, 34, in 1995. They married in July, 1996.
Maria said: "Shaun was totally honest about his illness. It meant we could not go out a lot, like other couples do, because it was too difficult for him.
"He suffered from mood swings and terrible depression. But it didn't change the way I felt about his wonderful personality. You want to care for and stand by someone you have such strong feelings for."
Shaun and Maria wanted children - but were wracked with anxiety because they had seen reports of Gulf veterans passing illnesses on to their children.
To their overwhelming relief, Ellie has been perfectly healthy since being born in 1998. Maria said: "All through the pregnancy Shaun was a bag of nerves and could be really bad-tempered. But that was replaced by joy and relief when Ellie was born."
Maria, who had been an office manager with an insurance broker for 14 years, quit to help Shaun with his battle against the MoD. She now works for the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association of which Shaun is president.
She said: "I would see Shaun spending hours trying to reply to an MoD letter and getting really annoyed. I had to take some of the burden off him."
Despite this, Shaun's moods have led to problems in his often-stormy relationship with Maria. She said: "He has walked out on me twice after we have had massive rows for no reason.
"The slightest thing would set him off, like getting a letter from The MoD or seeing something about war on TV. And when he had not slept properly he was a nightmare. He took it out on me all the time because I was the one closest to him. It was always verbal abuse, never physical, but it is hurtful all the same.
"And I feared he would go out and bump into someone in the street and punch them or something.
"One time he was playing up - shouting and ranting and raving when Gemma was round. I had to take her back to her mum's because I didn't want her to see him like he was."
Shaun added: "Gemma has had to grow up without a father because I was ill. But our relationship is better now and I am trying to make up for it." Shaun collapsed in Maria's arms as Mr Justice Newman dismissed the MoD's appeal on Friday.
Toasting his victory with a glass of champagne, he said: "I feel like Michael Owen when he scored that hat-trick against the Germans."
But he is still bitter about his treatment by the Government. He said: "They have dragged me over the coals for 12 years.
"Some of the 5,500 veterans who have applied for pensions are on £20 per week. So denying this syndrome exists has saved the MoD millions. Hopefully, that will all change now."
Shaun, who still has to take 12 tablets a day and has an injection every three weeks to keep his multiple health problems under control, added: "I am ill and the MoD should have accepted the doctors' views.
"It doesn't take a genius to see that having osteoporosis, chronic fatigue and so on is not good for a man of my age.
"I treated Iraqi POWs better than the MoD have treated me and other veterans."
THE National Gulf Veterans and Families Association 24-hour helpline is 01482 833812.
mike.hamilton@sundaymirror.co.uk
----
Soldiers forced to buy private treatment for war injuries
By Sean Rayment,
Defence Correspondent
15/06/2003
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/15/ndms15.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/15/ixhome.html
British troops injured in war are being forced to pay for private medical treatment or face long delays for operations on the National Health Service.
A staffing crisis in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) means that more than 10,000 soldiers - the equivalent of 15 infantry battalions - are currently not fit for frontline duty. That figure rises to more than 17,000 when all three services are taken into consideration, according to Government figures given to the Liberal Democrats.
Senior officers have told ministers that unless they receive an emergency injection of cash, large sections of the Army will be declared unoperational because of the number of troops waiting for surgery.
One soldier, who was injured on active duty in Afghanistan, has now been told that he faces a 12-month wait for a knee operation unless he is prepared to pay £2,000 for private treatment.
Another soldier who recently returned from Afghanistan after serving with the International Stabilisation and Assistance Force (Isaf) has been told that he will have to wait six months before he can see a specialist about his damaged ankle.
He may then face a further year's wait for an operation. He has, however, been advised that if he were to go private, he could see a specialist immediately and have the operation within three weeks.
The soldiers asked not to be named because military personnel are not allowed to speak to the press without authorisation.
The Ministry of Defence has spent more than £5 million on private health care in the last few years to reduce the number of servicemen and women waiting for operations. However, only a fixed amount of money is available to each unit, and commanding officers are being forced to ration the private treatment.
Service personnel whose injury prevents them from carrying out their duties are classified as "medically downgraded". These troops cannot be deployed on military operations and are unlikely to be able to undertake courses which have any physical element.
They can have their pay reduced and may be passed over for promotion until fully fit. A sergeant in the RAF wrote to his service's newspaper, the RAF News, saying he was faced with the choice of paying for a private operation or being unable to perform his duties for a year and a half.
"I have been medically downgraded for the first time in 18 years' service. Although it is temporary, I nevertheless cannot be deployed and I have limitations imposed on my normal duties.
"I find this whole situation unacceptable and as a result I have decided to pay for private treatment."
Soldiers claim that waiting up to a year for NHS treatment would deny them active service or promotion.
It is thought to be the first time in British history that troops are having to pay for surgery for injuries sustained during military service.
Officers are further pointing to the fact that numbers will increase dramatically in the aftermath of the war in Iraq.
Bernard Jenkin, the Tory shadow defence secretary, described the situation as an outrage. "The fact that our servicemen and women are having to pay for medical treatment is nothing short of a national scandal.
"Troops are meant to get priority treatment on the NHS. On Monday I will be demanding a statement from the Government asking why the MoD and the NHS are failing our soldiers." The DMS was meant to treat the Armed Forces after the nation's military hospitals were closed.
Senior officers claim that the crisis has been caused by bad morale, a lack of qualified medical staff and the effects of a savage cost-cutting programme undertaken in the mid-1990s which resulted in the closure of all military hospitals.
For non-emergency operations, soldiers now simply join NHS waiting lists.
A senior officer said this weekend: "How on earth are we meant to recruit for the Armed Forces when soldiers, sailors and airmen and women face the ridiculous possibility of having to pay for their own operations or spend months on a waiting list? It is a shocking and shameful state of affairs. There will be many servicemen and women returning from the Gulf carrying an injury which will get progressively worse and they will eventually need an operation but they will have to go on a waiting list.
"They then face the prospect of having to wait for up to 18 months and accept that their careers will stagnate - or pay for the operation themselves."
A spokesman for the MoD said that it accepted that a problem existed with troops facing long waiting times for surgery. He said a fast-track process was in place for units about to deploy on active operations.
-------- europe
The New Soviet Union of Europe is upon us
By PETER HITCHENS,
Mail
Sunday, Jun 15th, 2003
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_page_id=2&in_article_id=181289
I want to make your flesh creep, to frighten and perplex you. I can see no other way to alert this country and its people to the approaching end of a thousand years of history.
We are about to be extinguished as an independent nation. We are about to lose the power to control our own destiny, to make and enforce our own laws.
The threat comes from a bundle of paper, from a tedious conference in that grey, foggy capital of dullness, Brussels. There, for some months, a special convention has been drawing up the European Union's new constitution. And that means they have been drawing up our constitution, since we will be bound by it.
The document, driven through by the autocratic French ex-President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, has a simple purpose. It turns the EU into a state.
Its core, Article 9, declares: 'The Constitution, and law adopted by Union institutions in exercising competences conferred on it by the Constitution, shall have primacy over the law of the member States.'
This means that, once it is in force, a centralised Europe will be the source of power, not the nations that make it up.
No doubt bits and pieces of it can be, and will be, modified at the conferences which will discuss it. Anthony Blair will engineer a fake confrontation in which he will 'win' the 'right' to keep command of our own Armed Forces and our own foreign policy for a few years.
But the other parts of the treaty will make all that meaningless. Because piece by piece and hour by hour the power to take important decisions will be packed up in boxes and shipped from Westminster and Whitehall to Brussels.
Our courts will have to defer to the European Supreme Court in Luxembourg. If European officials disagree with British Ministers, the Euromen will have the upper hand. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights, a document so vague that it offers no serious protection against repression, will be the basis of all legal decisions.
Parliament will no longer be able even to pretend to have the final say on anything.
At the same time, the police on the streets will begin to enforce European, rather than British, laws.
So will the courts. And those who break European laws will - especially if they travel to other EU countries - be open to prosecution even if the things they have done are not officially illegal in Britain.
A European Public Prosecutor will decide what goes to court. And since hardly any other EU country has jury trial, the presumption of innocence or habeas corpus, our courts will come under pressure to fall into line with theirs.
These are not small things. Nor are they disliked by everyone. Some will co-operate with this new order because it gives them things they have always wanted. Most of our liberty depends on the fact that the authorities cannot push us around, even if they want to.
Governments usually do want to shove people around, and officials and bureaucrats loathe the annoying restraints placed on them by what they see as silly and finicky documents such as the Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights - both of which will be quietly strangled by the new Euro-Constitution.
The British Home Office longs to get rid of inconvenient juries. British chief constables would love to be running the centralised, powerful police forces of the Continent.
Our bureaucrats yearn for the security and freedom from accountability which their European counterparts enjoy.
Many of our politicians would love to have the lives of easy privilege, permanent perks and closed-list elections which beckon from Brussels.
And the Labour Party's brighter members have long wanted the introduction of EU regulations and rights, which will reverse once and for all the economic and trade union reforms of the Thatcher era.
They know they cannot get this past the electorate, but they will not need to when all such decisions are taken elsewhere, in distant office blocks which the power of the voters cannot reach.
A lot of people have an interest in seeing that this country is governed by foreign officials. It is only the rest of us, who pay taxes rather than live off them, who need to challenge authority from time to time to stay free, who will be hurt by the secret plan to turn us into a province of the New Soviet Union which Giscard is planning.
Anthony Blair, who speaks for this class, has endorsed the new plans twice, in a littlenoticed speech in Cardiff in November 2002 and a communiquÈ issued in Madrid in February this year, when he presumably hoped nobody was looking.
But do we care enough? British people are so accustomed to living in freedom that they do not really understand what a rare thing it is, or how much difference it makes. They think it is a natural feature, like the grass underfoot or the sky above.
But just as the grass grows weedy and thin if neglected, and the sky grows filthy and murky if we allow it to be polluted, freedom must be guarded and tended constantly.
Even when the threat is obvious, we do not always pay attention.
Encouraged by the ludicrously pro-Brussels BBC, we tend to think that this issue is just a concern of a few loopy, obsessed Tories.
Not so. That phrase about 'a thousand years of history' comes from a great speech made by the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell in 1962, shortly before he died, warning of the dangers of joining the then Common Market.
Gaitskell was nobody's idea of a fringe lunatic, but he knew, even then, that the European scheme was a menace to our liberty, and he was right.
At the very least, this horrible plan should not be allowed to become law without a referendum.
And if its supporters say that the alternative is to leave the European Union altogether, then I for one could not think of a better moment to escape this dreary prison-house of nations and rediscover our destiny as a global, open, free civilisation.
--------
Seeking Unity, Europe Drafts a Constitution
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/europe/15EURO.html
BRUSSELS, June 12 - It will be much less than a United States of Europe. But it will be more than the distillation of five decades of treaties into one document.
For 16 months, Europe's most important and exclusive club has struggled to draft its first constitution. The process has been awkward and unpredictable, ambitious and timid, as delegates from the 15 member nations of the European Union and the 10 that are to join next year fight to protect their countries' national interests even as they agree to cede bits of sovereignty.
Philadelphia it ain't.
The founding fathers came together in 1787 for a Constitutional Convention to forge a document that created a national identity and institutionalized the sovereignty of the American people in one nation-state. The 105 delegates who made up the Convention on the Future of Europe tried to do something much more modest: codifying common ground among long-established states that will give their union more of a logical structure - and perhaps more power - as they expand eastward.
"Until now, Europe was mainly associated with a common market," Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister and a delegate representing her government, said in an interview. "Now Europe will be more and more a place of citizenship. Now people will associate Europe with a constitution."
Indeed, one article in the draft constitution states, "Every national of a member state shall be a citizen of the union." When the union expands, that means a mega-Europe of 450 million citizens, larger than any population mass except for China and India, and an economy of more than $9 trillion, close to that of the United States.
The proposed constitution also states that European Union law will have primacy over that of member states. It simplifies voting rules and spells out areas like trade policy in which the union will have full authority and other areas to be shared with the member states, including justice, transportation and economic and social policy.
It will also set up a new structure for an organization that was created for only 6 states and will soon have 25, with two permanent presidents, one foreign minister, a stronger administrative arm and a Parliament with expanded power to pass more legislation.
But for many participants in the process, including Giuliano Amato, a former Italian prime minister and a constitutional law expert who is one of two vice presidents of the convention, the proposed constitution is lacking because it fails to create a common foreign and security policy.
"I'm not entirely satisfied," he said in an interview. "Too many member states are defending themselves instead of sharing power at the European level to make things better. It's each state beyond the constitution. That's why I'm not even sure we are entitled to call it a constitution."
[On Friday, despite deep disagreements within the delegation, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president who is the convention's president, told the final plenary session in Brussels that the convention had adopted a historic first draft. The forum rose for the union's anthem, Beethoven's "Ode to Joy," and toasted their endeavor with Champagne.]
With over 400 articles, the constitution is very much a work in progress. Mr. Giscard d'Estaing will present it to a summit meeting of the member heads of state in Greece next week. Then, in October, it will go into intergovernmental review, in which each member state has the right to demand changes. Each parliament - including those of next year's 10 newcomers - must ratify the document before it comes into force. Some countries, like Ireland and Denmark, will have national referendums - as required by their constitutions.
Even the pope has weighed in, lobbying - thus far successfully - for a specific reference in the text to God and Europe's Christian heritage. After all, the union's debt to the "civilizations of Greece and Rome" and later "by the philosophical currents of the Enlightenment" are mentioned.
One of the main challenges to forming a more perfect European Union is one that the American founding fathers confronted: how to find a way for big states and small states to share power. France and other big states would like a strong president from a large country who would reflect their views, an idea that is anathema to the smaller states. Spain has vowed to fight to retain complex voting rules that give it power disproportionate to its population. (Spain has 27 votes in the union, only 2 fewer than Germany, which has more than twice its population.)
Britain, which is skeptical about creating anything that looks like a European state, is demanding the absolute right for any member nation to veto decisions on foreign policy and taxation. Sometimes the big-small divide is trumped by history. Germany, for example, is more inclined to create a federal structure that would more closely resemble a United States of Europe.
Another issue yet to be resolved is how to make the union more accountable to its citizens by opening the decision-making process to public scrutiny. "Right now, if my prime minister goes to Brussels and makes decisions behind closed doors, I as a parliamentarian cannot hold him to account because I only know the outcome, I don't know the process," said Gisela Stuart, a member of the British delegation and of the European Parliament. "It's the same with the ministers. They can tell me anything."
The new constitution will introduce a single foreign minister to give the union a single actor on the international stage. It will also create a permanent president, elected by member heads of state, who will serve up to a five-year term to replace an unwieldy system in which the presidency rotates among member states every six months.
Already there is intense speculation that Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister as well as a convention delegate, is eager for the job of European foreign minister, even though it will probably not be created before 2006. In recent weeks, he suddenly began to talk to Anglophone journalists in English, and friends in Brussels said that he had asked them where one might want to live there.
But there will continue to be two presidents indefinitely - one for the Council of the European Union, which consists of the heads of state of each member country, another for the European Commission, a kind of executive body that is more federal in nature and tends to take the smaller states more seriously.
"You have an animal with two heads," said Mr. Amato, who favored a proposal to merge the two presidencies in 2015. "Can an animal with two heads survive for long?"
Mr. Giscard d'Estaing answered yes. "We still have seven monarchies in the system," he said in an interview. "Some went through violent revolutionary uprisings, like France. Some were under the Communist rule for 50 years, 70 years. So if we try for an oversimplified system it cannot work."
The draft constitution clearly states that "member states shall actively and unreservedly support the union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity" and shall "refrain from action contrary to the union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
But that was language picked up from previous treaties and did not prevent the union's deeply painful split on Iraq, which pitted countries like France and Germany against Spain and Britain.
In a setback to those who wanted a more powerful union to help counterbalance the United States when it comes to issues like foreign policy, defense and taxation, each country - even Luxembourg, with a population of 440,000 - has the right to veto any decision on foreign policy and defense.
In one of the most ambitious expansions of the union's authority, the draft constitution also would create a European public prosecutor to combat terrorism and cross-border crimes like corruption, fraud and people-trafficking. It simplifies legislative and legal procedures and extends decision-making by majority vote, particularly in areas like justice, law enforcement, immigration, asylum, energy and the annual European Union budget.
The draft document also gives the union a "legal personality" that would allow it to sign international treaties. A solidarity clause will require member states to provide mutual assistance in case of terrorist attack. The constitution also explicitly bans slavery (which the original United States Constitution did not) and the death penalty (which was never banned in the American Constitution). There is even an exit clause so that a member state can secede from the union if it chooses.
On defense matters, the constitution pledges enhanced "structured cooperation" for "more demanding tasks," but does not pledge military resources for common purposes. Not surprisingly, no effort was made to coax France and Britain to give up their seats as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Underscoring just how important national differences remain, the constitution will be published in the union's 11 current official languages - 21 when the 10 new members are admitted next year. There was no agreement on what to call the new union once it has a constitution, so delegates deleted the space in the draft's preamble where a new name would have appeared.
Even the inclusion of the dreaded word "federal" as a description of way the union would function was found to be objectionable, particularly by Britain. It was replaced by anodyne phrases like "united in an ever closer fashion."
"The reality is that you have different visions for Europe," Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former Belgian prime minister who is a convention vice president, said in an interview. "So never fight for words. Just because someone doesn't want to name the baby, you don't throw out the baby."
Even in the best of circumstances, the constitution will not come into effect for years. So it will not solve the immediate problem of how to absorb the 10 new countries next year. With the expansion, the population of the European club will increase by 20 percent, but the average wealth per person will fall by about 13 percent because most of the newcomers are relatively poor. That means that the new union, which started out as a club for the rich, will have to find ways to balance the interests of a country like Luxembourg, which has a per capita gross domestic product of nearly $43,000, with a country like Lithuania, which has a per capita G.D.P. of $3,200.
The constitution also will not do away with the 80,000 pages of European Union laws and regulations that dictate what members can and cannot do in some of the biggest and smallest areas of life. The rules govern such things as how to make cars and cigarettes, how corporations carry out acquisitions, how high a budget deficit a country is allowed to have, who is a dentist, what preservatives can be used to make beer, how many hours a week people can work and when hunters can shoot small birds.
-------- iran
Change in the wind
By JON SAWYER
St Louis Post-Dispatch
06/15/2003
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/99CAAE6C7A4AB11986256D450032BD57?OpenDocument&Headline=Reformers%2Bwant%2Bno%2Bnudge%2Bfrom%2BU.S
TEHRAN, Iran - After quick victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. armed forces are suddenly on both sides of Iran's Islamic republic, the country that gave Americans their first taste of Islamic extremism a generation ago.
Iran's continued support for anti-Israel resistance organizations, its alleged harboring of al-Qaida operatives and a suspect nuclear technology program make it a prime target for U.S. pressure - and a prime opportunity as well, judging from renewed student demonstrations this past week.
In the view of key officials in President George W. Bush's administration and some of its outside advisers, the clerics who rule Iran are more ripe for toppling now than at any moment in the republic's quarter-century history.
But that is not the view of the great majority of those fighting for change from within Iran.
In a reporting trip to Iran over the past two weeks, the Post-Dispatch found turbulence aplenty:
Young people fed up with a poor economy and social restrictions.
Journalists lashing out at government policies despite jail terms and newspaper closures.
Muslim mullahs openly debating whether rule by clerics should ever have been enacted.
Missing was the sense of a dramatic breakthrough anytime soon. But very apparent was a deep concern that American intervention could make things worse.
Among those who have stood up to the current government and to clerical authorities - journalists and liberal clerics and opposition leaders in parliament, some of them jailed and others banned from work because of their views - there is the conviction that Iran is slowly, painfully, but surely finding its way toward greater freedom and more democracy.
"We are experiencing our 1968 social revolution right now," said Ziba Jalali, an editor at the journal Goftegoo ("Dialogue"), who has written extensively on the struggle for women's rights in Iran.
Student demonstrations began Tuesday in protest against a proposal to privatize Tehran University but then swelled into more generalized complaints against Iran's poor economy, the lack of jobs and the failure of President Mohammad Khatami to deliver on the reforms he has repeatedly pledged during six years in office.
The demonstrations were an echo of similar protests last summer and fall and a possible prelude to something bigger by early next month, the fourth anniversary of another clash at Tehran University that produced the biggest popular protests since the 1979 revolution.
Yet support for overthrowing the government remains scattered and unorganized, according to Jalali and other activists, while resentment against past U.S. interventions runs deep.
The last thing Iranian reformers need now, they say, is American pressure. "You can't democratize a country with violence, with rockets and bombs," says Jalali. "It's a contradiction in terms."
The message of these activists? Iran is not Iraq. To proceed as if it were, they warn, is to play with fire.
There's nothing monolithic about Iranians themselves - from the every-man-for-himself chaos of Tehran's traffic to the dozens of ideologically driven newspapers that boisterously compete each day for attention and sales.
In a country that bans alcohol, young people flock to food courts and coffee shops instead - and find plenty of alcohol at private parties of mixed gender where women quickly shed the over-garments they are required by law to wear in public.
In Tehran, the fashionable Gandhi Street boasts six of the coffee shops side by side on the plaza level of a single shopping center. Out front there's a pizza parlor, with attractive tables overlooking the street, but on three recent evenings that area was empty. The 20-somethings crowded instead among the shops in the rear, less visible and therefore less subject to the roving basij militia whose mission, it sometimes appears, is to beat back the very idea of youth.
It is a losing battle, at least for now.
Islamic dress codes that were intended to shield feminine identities are now observed by the wearing of the sheerest, most brightly colored scarves, and by "overcoats" that cling to curves and barely reach the thighs, with daring slits on the side.
"It is an irony of history that this scarf and covering, which in the beginning was supposed to suppress femininity and sexual differences, is now the means of strengthening those lines," said Jalali, the feminist editor. "The comment I hear from so many people coming from abroad is, 'Iranian women are so seductive!'"
In many ways this is not the country that rose up against America, the "Great Satan," a generation ago.
The population has doubled, to nearly 70 million today from around 35 million in 1979. It is better educated - 83 percent literacy today compared to just under 50 percent in 1979 - and women play an increasingly visible role. Total university enrollment today, in fact, is 60 percent female.
Two-thirds of Iranians are under the age of 30, with no recollection of life under the Shah or the bloodletting that followed, and only vague impressions of the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s that claimed nearly half a million lives. It is making the most of their own lives, now, that matters most.
In the central Iranian city of Isfahan, families by the hundreds gathered recently at Emam Khomeini, the exquisite 17th-century Safavid Dynasty mosque and palace on an open plaza that dwarfs Moscow's Red Square.
The square was renamed in honor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founding father of the Islamic republic. The famously rigid Khomeini would surely have been taken aback by the scene there this month, on the 14th anniversary of his death.
Families savored the holiday moment, spreading out oriental rugs for picnics and heating huge vats of ahsh, the savory stew of vegetables, garlic and yogurt. Couples and families cruised the square on motorcycles, some of the women still in head-and-body chadors but many of those wearing makeup, lipstick and jeans.
A group of four boys sprawled on the ground, lost in a game of cards, oblivious to the fact that in the Islamic republic, card-playing remains taboo.
A few blocks away, couples strolled the riverbank between the astonishing 17th-century stone bridges of Isfahan, holding hands as evening fell or stopping in one of the water-level tea houses beneath the bridges, overflowing with smoke, chatter and young people flouting the rules.
Voicing caution
Some U.S. officials and Iran experts say the nation is ripe for regime change, that more pressure on issues like nuclear weapons and terrorism along with vocal support for demonstrations like the one this week will push Iran's conservative clerics over the edge. Others disagree.
"The situation is that if the Americans let us do things by ourselves, without interference, then very soon the reformists here will have the victory," said Fatemeh Rakei, a poet turned parliamentarian who is one of just 14 women elected to Iran's 270-member parliament.
Rakei was among the 135 members of parliament who signed an open letter last month to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, demanding action on the reforms. The open rebellion by nearly half of the parliament was unprecedented - as was the reaction by President Khatami's national security council, which banned publication of the letter on the ground that the issues it raised were too sensitive and might inflame public opinion.
The letter has circulated widely all the same, as behind-the-scenes negotiations continue over the two main reform bills. One would expand the powers of the presidency, in a system that now gives clerical authorities control of the judiciary and military and the right of veto against any parliamentary measure. The second would limit the clerics' current power to review - and block - all candidates for public office.
If the impasse persists, Rakei said, parliament might resign - and so might President Khatami, she said.
"Maybe this is the last card he can play," she said. "Khatami has tried hard to avoid crisis in the country, but everyone thinks this is not a situation that can be tolerated any longer."
Rakei warned that the current moment is highly sensitive and that any intervention by U.S. officials would be counterproductive.
"If America says the reformists are very good, or that the United States would protect us, this is very dangerous, because the conservatives will misuse it - to say that we have secret relations with the American superpower, that we don't want to have Islam, that we would sell our country to someone else," she said.
"Every expression of support for reform by America would just postpone the reforms. If Mr. Bush wants to do something for the people of Iran, let him solve his own problems, not ours."
Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Khatami's longtime chief of staff, now serves as his appointed vice president in charge of parliamentary and legal affairs.
Abtahi said Khatami is determined to give America no excuse for taking military or other action against Iran. Khatami proved his bona fides during the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and again this year in the war on Iraq, providing surprisingly extensive help on each occasion and agreeing to secret meetings with U.S. officials in Geneva to guard against any misunderstandings as the military operations began.
Iran's reward for that cooperation, Abtahi says, was to be labeled part of the "axis of evil" by Bush (in his State of the Union address last year) and to be singled out for attack again this spring when the dust from the Iraq war had barely settled. The about-face on Iran, using what Iranians consider trumped-up accusations about nuclear weapons and terrorism, "was one of the worst mistakes in U.S. policy," Abtahi said.
"The logic of Mr. Bush is very similar to the logic of Osama bin Laden," Abtahi said. "Bush says 'Those who are not with us are against us.' Bin Laden says 'Those who are not with us are pagans.'
"But we live in a world where we should consider different voices," Abtahi said.
Reality transformed
While internal Iranian reformists and dissidents are generally opposed to any U.S. intervention here, they acknowledge that America's suddenly robust military presence in the region - and its toppling of regimes to the east and west, in Afghanistan and Iraq - have changed the terms of internal debate.
"There's no doubt that U.S. military action in Iraq has had an impact on neighboring states, including Iran," said Davoud Bavand, a political analyst who served at the United Nations during the Shah's government. "Most Iranians believe that action has accelerated the pace of change here."
Bavand dismisses concerns voiced in Washington about Iran's alleged efforts to insinuate an Iranian-style Islamic government on postwar Iraq.
While about two-thirds of Iraqis profess Shiism, the strain of Islam practiced by nearly all Iranians, it is the differences between the two countries that are most pronounced, Bavand said. "For Iraqi Shiites, the connection to Arabism is much stronger than their ties to Shiism," Bavand said. "If the Shiites come to power in Iraq, the honeymoon with Iran will be very short."
The real question for Iranians is what will having America next door - or a reformed Iraq and Afghanistan - mean for Iran itself, and especially for the reformist and conservative camps vying for power within Iran's government.
Reformists say they fear that the United States will cut a deal with the conservative clerics, getting Iranian concessions on issues like the nuclear program and Israel in exchange for ignoring a crackdown on dissidents by the clerics at home. Others say it's more likely that Khatami himself will dispense with reforms, pulling closer to conservatives in the face of a perceived threat to national security.
Ibrahim Yazdi chairs the Iraq Freedom Movement, one of the "religious nationalist" opposition groups that has pressed the government to move faster on reforms. A pharmacologist who lived for many years in Houston, Yazdi also served as the first foreign minister for the interim revolutionary government. He resigned that post after the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in November 1979.
To understand the mood of Iran today, he said, it's necessary to recall what a deep impression the 1979 revolution made - both the exhilaration at displacing a widely loathed dictator and the shock, to many, of the oppressive clerical rule that followed.
"In 1979 many of us said the Shah must go, even if it meant that someone worse might come," said Yazdi, the only member of his party's executive board not currently under arrest.
"Now people know that that was a mistake," he adds. "Now they want to know for sure what the replacement would be."
Reporter Jon Sawyer: E-mail: jsawyer@post-dispatch.com Phone: 202-298-6880
----
Iran 'jams' US-based satellite channels after clashes
By Damien McElroy in Beirut
15/06/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/15/wiran15.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/15/ixnewstop.html
Iran's cleric-run government has declared war on satellite television and allegedly begun jamming American-based channels, blaming them for inciting the wave of student-led protests which have brought bloody clashes to Teheran's streets.
The move came as mobs controlled by Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards intervened in the fourth consecutive night of protests about the slow pace of reform, using clubs and iron bars to break up the crowds.
Stick-wielding thugs, mostly unemployed, attacked protesters, riding up to their lines on motorcycles. Women were dragged from their cars and beaten. Dozens fled bearing the marks of chains slashed across their faces, and there were reports of automatic weapons fire.
Students rallied to chants of "freedom" and "democracy" and called for the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, before scattering as riot police fired a barrage of tear gas.
Elsewhere in Teheran, dozens of vigilantes stormed at least two student hostels early yesterday, beating up students in their beds and detaining several.
Mojtaba Najafi, a student at Allameh Tabatabai University, said: "We were sleeping in our beds. Suddenly we heard windows being smashed. Fists and kicks by hard-line vigilantes woke up some of the students held up in their rooms."
More than 50 students were injured and taken to hospital while others had "disappeared" since the attack, he said.
Ayatollah Khamenei last week blamed America for stirring up protests by "mercenaries" as Donald Rumsfeld, the United States defence secretary, said Iran was secretly attempting to build nuclear weapons.
Many of those who took to the streets first learnt of the protests from Persian-language satellite channels, run by American-based exile groups. They include National Iranian Television, which is run by Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah.
The satellite broadcasts, which mix popular and political programmes, are one of the few diversions openly available to Iranian youth, a welcome relief from the religious fare offered on state-run channels.
Last week viewers complained that it had become almost impossible to watch their favourite programmes. "The television screen is all waves and noisy interference," said Ellie, 28, an unemployed graduate in Persian literature. "I can't watch anything at all. It's so frustrating here without it." Although it has long been illegal to buy or install satellite dishes, the devices cling to the sides of practically every building in the middle-class northern Teheran suburbs and are a common sight across the city.
Large circular white boxes installed in the grounds of government barracks and bases are believed to be jamming devices. Government ministers, however, denied that they had any knowledge of the attempt to jam the satellite signals.
----
Iran Blames Paramilitaries for Attacks on Student Protesters
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/middleeast/15IRAN.html
TEHRAN, June 14 - Chanting students and heavily armed vigilantes remained in a tense standoff around the main student dormitories of Tehran University tonight after the government unexpectedly put the blame for five nights of escalating clashes on shadowy paramilitary forces that have long been the favored means of squelching dissent here.
Reports emerging today indicated for the first time that the protests had spread beyond Tehran, with one protester reportedly killed in the southern city of Shiraz, and a dormitory at the Industrial University of Isfahan heavily damaged by fire.
"This is a student movement, not an American movement," some 500 students chanted outside the Tehran University dormitories, according to the Iranian Student News Agency. They were evidently answering accusations made by senior clerics that the demonstrators were stooges aiding an American plot to destabilize the Islamic Republic.
The ISNA report said that at least 50 vigilantes on motorbikes were circling the area yelling "Hezbollah! Hezbollah!" and darting through the heavy traffic to detain anyone who looked suspicious to them.
There has been no official announcement about the exact number of wounded or arrested in the clashes, but students and other witnesses said about 70 people were wounded in Tehran over the last four nights, some of them critically.
Students were wary about the presence of the vigilantes even after the nightly news on the main government-run television station announced that arrest warrants had been issued for 100 men believed responsible for fomenting bloodshed. They were described as followers of Said Asgar, also sought, who was freed after a brief jail sentence for the attempted murder of one of the country's leading reformers in 2000.
The sudden placing of blame on the much feared vigilantes - known as baseejis or Ansar Hezbollah and believed controlled by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader - came as a surprise. Student Web sites carried a statement from Ansar Hezbollah saying it was not responsible for the current attacks.
If carried out, the arrest of any such men would be a remarkable event. Although their command structure is obscure, the vigilantes have often been used as shock troops to instill fear in anyone threatening the government through civil disobedience. Students who detained half a dozen of the vigilantes attacking them on Friday night said they were carrying identification cards from the intelligence service of the Republican Guards.
On Thursday, Ayatollah Khamenei accused the United States of fomenting the protests and, although calling on the vigilantes not to intervene, chillingly warned that if the protests continued, they might end as similar disturbances did in 1999.
The vigilantes attacked the same Tehran University dorms that year, tossing students out third-story windows and vandalizing the buildings. One student was killed with a gunshot, several were brutally injured, and a few remain in prison. The current protests could well continue at one level or another until the July anniversary of those attacks.
Students said they remained fearful of a repeat of the ferocious assaults, which the regular security forces, although surrounding them, appeared powerless to prevent.
"We are all very scared," said a 21-year-old student reached by telephone who would identify himself only as Amir. "The regular security forces had entered the dormitories to protect us, but they only had a few batons, and they said they were not going to hang around tonight."
The vigilantes, on the other hand, swarmed onto campus in the early hours today by the hundreds, armed with truncheons, heavy sticks, chains and even a few sidearms, he said.
Details of attacks on the dorms at three universities in Tehran and others in Isfahan and Shiraz emerged slowly today. Pictures on student Web sites showed blood-smeared walls and doorways that had been smashed at Tehran University.
There were few details about the death in Shiraz, reported by the Web site of Amir Kabeer University, other than that the victim was a male shot in the chest who died later in a hospital. There were pictures of students with gruesome wounds that appeared to have been caused by razors or other sharp objects.
Given recent statements by the Bush administration calling for change in Iran, the protests have increased the concerns of an already jittery government. The fact that Farsi-language satellite broadcasts from the United States, run mostly by monarchist opposition groups, have been urging people onto the streets only added to their concerns.
But students and other protesters have shown themselves fed up with all sides. "We want no shah, we want no supreme leader," went one chant.
Experts said that the level of violence unleashed by the vigilantes would probably dampen the protests, but that growing anger about the slow pace of change in a country with 48 million people under the age of 30 - 70 percent of the population - would only fester.
"They really scared people last night," said Mohsen Sazegara, an opposition journalist. "But it will gradually push people to become more radical. People are unhappy and very angry, so whenever there is an opportunity, they want to express this anger."
The anger has not been reserved only for the conservative religious establishment around Ayatollah Khamenei, blamed for slowing the pace of greater democracy as well as of social and economic freedom.
Reformists have been calling for a referendum on constitutional change that would shift power away from the supreme leader, but have gotten nowhere. There was no orchestrated demand for that in the current protests, which mushroomed out of a small march last Tuesday against the privatization of universities.
Students, who voted heavily for the reformist president, Mohammed Khatami, have also expressed anger at his inability to deliver greater change. They have been especially angered by his silence in the face of the protests this week and for the first time chanted against him.
The Ministry of Information barred local and foreign reporters from covering the protests tonight, saying it could not assure their safety after a number had been beaten.
-------- iraq
Terror alliance targets us force in Iraq
IAN MATHER imather@scotlandonsunday.com
Sun 15 Jun 2003
Scotsman
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=660772003
IRAQIS call the violent trouble-makers who have taken over the streets at night 'Ali Babas' because of the orgy of thievery in which they indulge. Now another name has been added to their lexicon, describing an altogether more deadly force: 'Wahhabis'.
The arrival of the Wahhabis, members of a fundamentalist Islamic sect, represents an ominous new element in Iraq because they are highly organised, highly motivated and well funded. It is no coincidence that the number of bloody incidents involving US troops has escalated dramatically in recent days.
One American soldier was killed last week and another injured when attackers fired rocket-propelled grenades in the town of Fallujah. Ten US soldiers have died in the past 17 days alone, and the latest death brings the total to 42 since major operations were halted.
US troops have retaliated with the biggest military operations since President George W Bush declared the war over last month. At the present rate, in three months the number of American soldiers killed since Bush's announcement on May 1 will overtake the 138 killed in hostilities and accidents during the war.
Last week, in Operation Peninsula Strike, 4,000 troops hunted guerrillas in and around Balad, north-east of Baghdad. In a separate operation at least 70 Iraqis were killed in a land and air attack on a guerrilla training camp north-west of the Iraqi capital.
The Iraqis are hitting back. An Apache helicopter was shot down during the attack. The crew escaped. A tank patrol was ambushed, resulting in 27 Iraqis killed.
American forces have been dogged by hit-and-run attacks by small groups of fighters. Hardly a day has gone by in recent weeks when US soldiers have not been ambushed by enemy forces using rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons or mines. The Iraqi fighters, said to be using coloured flares to signal the advance of American troops, are focusing on 'soft' targets such as isolated checkpoints and military vehicles carrying supplies.
Paul Bremer, administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said: "It's an organised programme - not yet, as far as we can tell, centrally directed - but an organised programme to try to thwart the coalition and its efforts to bring basic services to the Iraqi people, and they are not going to succeed."
Lieutenant General David McKiernan, the senior allied land commander, said his troops are facing resistance from Ba'ath Party loyalists, paramilitary forces and militants "from other Arab countries". He said that he did "not exclude" the Wahhabis.
According to US intelligence, Wahhabis were among an armed group that took over an abandoned village 30 miles east of Iraq and used its buildings for training. One officer said: "All of a sudden these Wahhabi guys have been appearing. We're hearing that word a lot more."
The inspiration and funding for the Wahhabis comes from Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is the ultra-strict, separatist form of Islam that is the official sect of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was a follower.
In a disturbing development for the American-led regime in Iraq, Saudi-backed religious fanatics have crossed the border to join forces with remnants of the Ba'ath party in waging war against the Americans.
Superficially, the Wahhabis seem strange bedfellows for the Ba'athists, since Ba'athism is a secular organisation. But the Wahhabis are Sunnis, and the Ba'athists, who dominated Saddam's regime, are drawn exclusively from the Sunnis in Iraq. The Wahhabis and the Ba'athists have a common enemy in the Shia Muslims, who form a majority in Iraq and a minority in Saudi Arabia that the Wahhabis consider a threat. The US military presence in Iraq has given the Shia an opportunity to grab more power, giving the virulently anti-American Wahhabis a double motive for joining the Ba'athists' struggle.
Dr Mai Yamani, a Middle East specialist at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, said: "There is incredible animosity from the Wahhabis towards the Shia, whom they consider heretics. The Shia form a majority in the eastern province where the oil is, and there is even talk of their joining with the Shia in Iran to form a sort of 'Petrolistan'. The war in Iraq has brought a resurgence of Shi'ism in Iraq and emboldened the Shia in Saudi Arabia."
The animosity was re-ignited by the Iranian Revolution when Ayatollah Khomenei, a Shia, challenged the Wahhabis and said they should not be the custodians of the holy sites in Saudi Arabia. This was a direct challenge to the House of Saud, since senior Wahhabi clergy form an integral part of the Saudi government.
Yamani said: "Now we have the so-called 'new Wahhabis', thousands and thousands of angry graduates of Saudi religious schools, many of whom are embarking on jihad or want to fight the Shias. It is entirely understandable that they should be trying to influence what is going on in Iraq."
Stephen Schwartz, director of the Islam and Democracy Programme at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, said: "The Wahhabis hate Shia Muslims more than they hate anyone else in the world, Jews and Christians included.
"Saudi Arabia has a large and discontented Shia minority who have suffered a long history of discrimination and cruel treatment under Wahhabi dominance." Though the Saudi regime is careful to distance itself from the most extreme Wahhabi activities abroad, behind the scenes it sees the Iraq war as opening up an opportunity to expand its ideological influence through missionary networks dedicated to the global spread of Wahhabism, according to Schwartz. "And where Wahhabism goes, terrorism is seldom far behind."
There is growing evidence of Wahhabi activities in Iraq. Last month's issue of The Future of Islam, a monthly publication of the Riyadh-based World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which is accused of financing al-Qaeda, carried a cover interview with Saudi cleric Ayed al-Qarni. Al-Qarni, an adviser to Prince Abdel-Aziz bin Fahd, youngest son of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, stated that he prays for the destruction of America several times a day. He also urged Saudi subjects to go and fight in Iraq or contribute money.
Another Wahhabi cleric, Naser Al-Omar, preaches in favour of suicide attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. "We should hope for more bombings to kill more of the enemies of God, the Jews and Christians," he said in a recent interview.
Even before the war on Iraq an alliance had sprung up between the Wahhabis and the Ba'athists.
Saudi alarm at the Shi'ite uprising after the Gulf War led Saudi Arabia to promote Wahhabism in Iraq, diplomats say. Saddam encouraged Wahhabi influence as a counterweight to the Shi'ite majority. Despite suppressing Islamist opposition for years, his government sponsored a four-year "faith campaign" to encourage Iraqis to turn to religion. Dozens of mosques and religious schools sprouted across Iraq. Most of the clergy were Wahhabis, who gave full vent to their penchant for enforcing public morals and intolerance of non-Muslims.
"Wahhabi agents are working underground to incite Iraqi Shia against co-operation with the temporary occupation authorities," said Schwartz. "As New York's Shia leader Agha Jafri put it: 'The Arab street is the Wahhabi street', and when the Arabs demonstrate against the United States in Iraq, the Wahhabis are never far from the scene.
"Whatever course we follow in dealing with Syria, Iran, or any other perceived threat, we should attend to Saudi Arabia's mischief north of its long and porous border with Iraq."
Islam's Puritans
THE Wahhabi movement was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century.
Al-Wahhab was born Uyaynah, an oasis in southern Najd, in what is now Saudi Arabia, in 1703. He was brought up in a family of religious judges and scholars and left Uyaynah to study with other teachers in Medina and then in Iraq and Iran.
It was on his return to Uyaynah that he first began to preach his revolutionary ideas of religious reformation on fundamentalist lines.
Al-Wahhab was particularly disturbed by the Shia practice of revering Imams after their deaths. Ostentation in worship and luxurious living were also regarded as evils. Instead, he focused on the Muslim principle that there is only one God, and that God does not share his power with anyone.
Students who adhered to this puritanical 'unitary' principle began to refer to themselves as muwahhidun (unitarians).
Al-Wahhab converted the Saud tribe and the Saudi sheik, convinced that it was his religious mission to wage holy war against all other forms of Islam, and began the conquest of his neighbours around 1763. By 1811 the Wahhabis, from their capital at Riyadh, ruled all Arabia, except Yemen.
The modern Saudi state is founded on an alliance between the Wahhabi religious movement and the House of Saud, the family that has ruled the Kingdom since its creation in the 1930s.
In Saudi Arabia the religious establishment has imposed strict segregation of the sexes, prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol and banned women from driving.
----
U.S. Soldiers Strip Baghdadis Clean Of Their Savings
Frisking could mean stealing in many cases
By Ali Halani,
June 15, 2003
(IslamOnline.net)
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-06/15/article07.shtml
BAGHDAD - Iraqis are forgetting the traditional image they have of Ali Babas with their Arabian outfits and strategy of stealing from those who once tortured people, as they are now facing new kind of Ali Babas in military suits, working under the flag of the United States and stealing from all.
After almost nine weeks of the downfall of Iraq to the hands of the U.S.-led occupation and now that the free-for-all looting that swept the anarchy-mired country has come under control, the Iraqis are now facing new "Ali Babas," namely, U.S. soldiers who strip them clean of their savings and possessions.
Traditionally, Ali Babas were brave and had the excuse that they were plundering the palaces of those who once tortured people and stole their belongings.
"Ali Baba" has now become the mantra of the Iraqis and the "nom de guerre" for the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, who went on stealing and looting whatever it reached their hands, starting from money to the account of cellular phones.
"I was carrying750 , 000Iraqi dinars (one dollar equals some 1300 dinars) inside a plastic bag. I was on my way to a friend of mine to buy a second-hand small car to use it in transferring the products of my farmland to the customers. But U.S. soldiers spotted me and frisked me," Hussein Abdul Gabar, an Iraqi breadwinner and owner of a farmland, told IslamOnline.net correspondent.
"Once his eyes spotted the cash, one U.S. soldier extracted them and ordered me to leave the place...But when I complained and told him that this was my money, he told me bluntly: 'Go away," pointing his gun at me, he said.
They, in fact, are not hesitant about killing anyone under the pretext that he was a Baathist or a loyalist to (toppled Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein," he added.
He went on: "It was breaking my heart to see the soldier sharing my money with his fellowmen who were waiting for him in a nearby tank, with their faces creased into broad smiles."
"Now the U.S. soldiers understand what 'Ali Baba' really means," Abdul Gabar added.
Baba, "daddy" in Arabic, is a direct reference to "Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves", a famous tale of the One Thousand and One Nights.
Stealing Women
Somia al-Zubeid, a housewife, is one of a myriad of Iraqis who have been looted by U.S. soldiers. She lives in Baghdad's Kafa'at district, where you find doctors, engineers and university professors.
"U.S. soldiers stormed into my house at night, turned it upside down and stole $2500, one million dinars in addition to some of my daughters' jewels," she told IOL.
"The seven soldiers ordered us to lie prone with their weapons pointing at out necks as if we were sheep...four of them scoured the house for more than one hour. They were heedless to the fact that we are women and home alone.
"Once they left, my daughters and I found out that they had stolen our jewels and the money we saved and used them to eke out a living until their father finds a job," she added.
Abu Habib, a taxi driver, told IOL that U.S. soldiers stopped him at almost 2:00p.m. in Al-Mansour district in Baghdad, noting that they frisked him and searched his car, arguing that they were hunting wanted people.
"After they made sure I was not one of the wanted, they released me and I went home to discover that they stealthily stole my money just as it takes place inside crowded buses," he said.
'Free International Calls'
As for Atef al-Samrrai, an Iraqi businessman, he tells a different story about a new method of stealing.
"At the beginning of this month, I went to one of the U.S. military offices in Baghdad to get a security clearance for my exports via the road running through northern Turkey," Samrrai said.
"U.S. soldiers ordered me to leave my satellite-operating Thuraya cellular phone at the office's gate to allow me in. I agreed, thinking that it was a routine measure adopted all over the world. As I got my clearance I took back my mobile, but I found that I ran out of account and scores of calls had been made to the U.S.," Samrrai said.
----
US purge aims to eliminate resistance
June 15 2003
The Sydney Morning Sun-Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/14/1055220811113.html
American forces in Iraq killed up to 100 Iraqis in three days of fighting north of Baghdad as coalition troops tried to eradicate the last pockets of resistance in the country.
At least 27 Iraqis were reported killed when a US tank patrol came under fire on Friday in the town of Balad, 145 kilometres north-west of Baghdad, the US military said.
The news of the action came as: . A letter, purportedly from ousted president Saddam Hussein, was published, issuing an ultimatum to foreigners to leave Iraq.
- Six companies agreed to buy 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil, marking the battered country's first major oil export since the US and its coalition partners invaded.
- A new report said an elite US special forces unit secretly hunting for banned Iraqi arms had not found any evidence of their existence.
The action north of Baghdad was the latest in a series of clashes in the "Sunni triangle" around Tikrit, Saddam's home town, where elements loyal to the dictator have continued to harry coalition forces.
The operation, code named Peninsular Strike, came after several weeks of low-level skirmishes which have seen the death of 40 US soldiers since May 1.
The guerilla attacks have been concentrated in Baghdad and two nearby areas - to the west around Ramadi and Falluja, and to the north around Balad, Baquba and Tikrit. US military and diplomatic sources discount claims the resistance is being centrally organised, blaming localised pockets of pro-Saddam fighters.
The mopping-up operation began on Thursday with air and land strikes on what was described as a terrorist training camp outside Balad.
Up to 70 Iraqis were reported killed and almost 400 held for interrogation. Local sources said the resistance was fuelled by resentment at the heavy-handed tactics of US forces. Later it was confirmed about 70 of the prisoners had been released because they were too young, too old or "of no intelligence value".
The US military said at least 70 surface-to-air missiles, 75 to 78 rocket-propelled grenades and 20 AK-47 assault rifles were found at the camp.
In a separate incident in northern Iraq, Turkish authorities said investigations were under way to establish whether sabotage was to blame for a blast on a section of pipeline in the Kirkuk oilfield.
The "get out" ultimatum to foreigners came in a letter published in the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, which said was signed by Saddam.
Al-Quds Al-Arabi editor Abdul Bari Atwan said the letter, which has not yet been authenticated, warned that all foreigners should leave Iraq before June 17.
He says, however, it was likely the date was meant to be July 17, the anniversary of the 1968 coup that brought Saddam's now-deposed Baath Party to power.
In the first first major oil export since this year's war, six companies have agreed to buy 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil.
The companies are US-based ChevronTexaco, Tupras of Turkey, Total of France, ENI of Italy and two Spanish firms, Repsol and Cepsa.
The proceeds of the sale will go to a US-controlled fund that is helping to pay for rebuilding efforts in Iraq.
----
Iraqi Leader Asks U.S. to Stop Military Sweeps
By PATRICK E. TYLER
June 15, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/worldspecial/15IRAQ.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 14 - Adnan Pachachi, a respected elder Iraqi statesman encouraged by Bush administration officials to enter postwar politics here, criticized the United States military today for its increasingly aggressive operations in Iraq and said they should be suspended while an interim Iraqi government is formed over the next month.
Mr. Pachachi said that military sweeps through civilian areas with mass arrests, interrogations and gun battles, intended to suppress the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military command, were inflaming sentiments against the American and British occupation.
He predicted that if such sweeps continued, they would be "exploited by the Baathists," and he added, "It would be much better if we didn't have these operations."
Mr. Pachachi, a former foreign minister who returned to Iraq last month after more than 30 years of exile, emphasized that he supported allied efforts to re-establish security in the country. But he expressed concern about the marked escalation of allied assaults through civilian areas, where guerrilla raids have attacked troop convoys or checkpoints and left 10 American soldiers dead in the last three weeks.
"These incidents will not help to pacify the country," he said, referring to the military operations. "For now, the quieter it is, the better" for the postwar political process, he added.
Speaking in an interview, Mr. Pachachi, who served as Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, called on the top American administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, to allow Iraqis to form an interim government with only "consultations" with Mr. Bremer and the United Nations representative here.
He said such a step would help meet the rising demands from Iraqis that they control their own political destiny during reconstruction.
The pointed remarks from the man the State Department had nudged back into Iraqi politics at the age of 80 are likely to add to the pressure on Mr. Bremer to respond to Iraqi opposition groups and religious figures who want a speedy transition to substantive Iraqi control over the political process. They see such a transition as an essential step in preventing a backlash against the occupation authority.
Mr. Pachachi spoke at the end of a week of major military operations in Iraq in which allied forces have laid siege to a peninsula along the Tigris River 40 miles north of Baghdad, where more than 380 arrests were made during house-to-house searches in civilian neighborhoods and at military roadblocks.
Northwest of Baghdad, allied strike aircraft and helicopters assaulted what the military command called a terrorist training camp, killing 70 people.
In a separate operation on Thursday near the northern city of Kirkuk, the 173rd Airborne Brigade detained 74 "suspected sympathizers" of Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden. There were no further details about the operation, or explanation for the basis of the suspicions about those arrested.
Today, Iraqi detainees at the Abu Gharib prison complex west of Baghdad attacked their American guards by throwing rocks and charging them with pieces of sharpened metal during an apparent escape attempt. One American guard was wounded and other guards opened fire during the melee, in which one detainee was killed and seven were wounded, two critically.
It was the third incident in a week involving Iraqi prisoners, and the second attempted escape as allied forces were rounding up more suspected Baathists believed to be planning or inciting guerrilla attacks on allied checkpoints and convoys in central Iraq. On Thursday, two prisoners were shot trying to escape from an allied camp, and one died.
Mr. Pachachi has been regarded by American officials as a unifying figure on Iraq's rapidly developing political landscape. He has deftly kept his distance from a group of former Iraqi opposition leaders who have formed a "leadership council" to negotiate a postwar political structure with Mr. Bremer. But Mr. Pachachi also has stated common cause with them.
The council includes the two main Kurdish factions of Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi National Accord of Iyad Alawi, the democratic movement of Nasir Chadirchy, the Shiite Dawa Party represented by Ibrahim Jafari, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq under the Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim.
Mr. Bremer has ultimate authority in Iraq under a United Nations resolution that recognizes the United States and Britain as occupation powers. He has said that he intends to appoint a 25-to-30 member "political council" of Iraqis. Some Iraqi political figures have criticized this model for forming a transitional administration, and a prominent Shiite Muslim political organization said it would not be able to take part in any administration appointed directly by Mr. Bremer.
Mr. Bremer has said that any Iraqi political group is free to to boycott the selection process for his political council if it chooses to do so. But he has been working assiduously and diplomatically behind the scenes to ensure the broadest participation possible in the postwar political process.
Mr. Pachachi said he was working to bridge the differences between the American administrator and Iraq's emerging political forces.
"Why would Bremer want to dictate to the Iraqis who he wants?" Mr. Pachachi said. "I don't think he knows Iraq better than the Iraqis."
Mr. Pachachi said he was going to press this view in a meeting with Ryan Crocker, the State Department official assigned to Mr. Bremer's administration and a likely choice to serve as the first United States ambassador to Iraq when a government is formed.
"The people of Iraq want a government," Mr. Pachachi said, "and we could easily say this political council is a true government of Iraq" if Mr. Bremer essentially turned over the authority to choose such a body to a large group of Iraqi political figures.
Instead of a decree from Mr. Bremer, a decision to invite the selected Iraqis to serve on the political council of the interim government could be announced, Mr. Pachachi said, "as the result of extensive consultations" without Mr. Bremer's asserting his prerogative.
The former diplomat suggested that Mr. Bremer could maintain the fig leaf of control over the final decision-making by participating in the "consultations" with the Iraqis assembled from all parts of the political, religious and economic spectrum.
Their task, once seated as an interim government, would be to make policy on economic recovery, a new currency, a new judiciary, a census and electoral law to guide the first democratic elections in about a year's time.
The interim administration would have the authority to appoint ministers and carry out Iraq's foreign relations during the occupation period "by appointing and receiving ambassadors," he said.
"I think for us, speed is of the essence," he said. "We want to have a government as soon as possible."
The negotiations with Mr. Bremer are set to continue this week.
Official Is Captured
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 14 (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein's air force commander has been taken into custody by American forces, the United States Central Command said today in a statement.
It said that the commander, Hamid Raja Shalah al-Tikriti, was number 17 on the American list of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis. So far, 31 of those on the list are known to be in custody.
-------- israel / palestine
Sources: Israel may give PA control of Bethlehem, Gaza
15/06/2003
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/303327.html
Israel is awaiting a detailed Palestinian proposal concerning the passing over of security control of the northern part of the strip to the PA, security sources told Haaretz on Sunday, adding that Israel has also agreed to consider positively the Palestinian request to quickly expand the plan to the Bethlehem region.
According to the sources, if all goes well there may be a transfer of security control as early as this week.
The number of terror alerts from the Bethlehem region is not especially high, IDF sources said.
The two sides are negotiating in an attempt to convene another security meeting between the sides as early as tonight. It is still unclear at this stage whether the meeting will be held in a similar format to yesterday's meeting or whether it will include regional field commanders from the Gaza strip.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday morning that Israel will continue to take action against "ticking bombs" and that it had American approval to carry out such operations, even in Palestinian areas.
Sharon was responding to recent reports that the Americans had asked him to stop targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the cabinet that "Israel would continue to operate in those areas where the Palestinians fail to do so." He also said that there was no connection between last Tuesday's failed assassination attempt on top Hamas official Abdel Aziz Rantisi and the suicide bombing in Jerusalem a day later that killed 17 people.
Sharon also told his ministers that Israel had prepared a position paper ahead of meetings with an American delegation headed by special envoy to the Middle East John Wolf, which arrived in Israel on Saturday night. Sharon said that the document makes it clear that Israel's acceptance of the U.S.-backed road map for Middle East peace includes its 14 reservations over the plan.
The delegation headed by Wolf, who met with Shin Bet security chief Avi Dichter at U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer's Herzliya home shortly after arriving in Israel, comprises officials from different branches of the U.S. administration, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Their mission, the State Department said, will be to hold urgent talks with the two sides in order to block any further bloodshed.
Director of Military Intelligence Major General Aharon Ze'evi told the cabinet Sunday that Israel now had a green light from the U.S. to take informed decisions against Hamas "without harming innocent bystanders and without causing irreparable damage."
Ze'evi added that Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) still does not have full control on the ground, but would at a later stage succeed in taking hold of the reins. He warned against expelling Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, saying that it would only return him to center stage.
The Israeli defense establishment is making preparations to withdraw from the northern Gaza Strip, Army Radio reported Sunday. Israel is also ready to hand over security control to the Palestinians following high-level security talks set for Sunday night.
The talks follow U.S. pressure to help salvage the peace plan, which has been jeopardized by a week of violence in which more than 50 people were killed.
The discussions between IDF Major General Amos Gilad, Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and Mohammed Dahlan, Palestinian Authority minister responsible for security affairs were the first such talks since U.S. President George W. Bush launched the Middle East road map at the Aqaba summit almost two weeks ago.
Palestinian sources told Israel Radio that the meeting took place at the Herzliya home of U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, thus giving U.S. patronage to the meeting. Israeli sources however said that the meeting took place in a Jerusalem hotel.
Israel Radio reported that Dahlan demanded that Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the West Bank town of Bethlehem, stop its targeted assassinations of wanted militants, lift the siege on Arafat and the end closures on Palestinian towns and cities.
Gilad told the Palestinians that Israel wants them to stop the terror attacks and end the incitement against Israel. He also warned that should a terror attack originate from an area where Israel had withdrawn, the army would go back in and take over the area again.
The sides agreed, say sources, to present their response to the other's demands later Sunday.
Wolf is scheduled to meet Monday with Sharon, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. The members of his delegation will spend their first week being briefed by security officials and touring the territories.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Wolf had left for the region to help the sides remember the vision of peace even in their darkest moments.
An Egyptian team, appointed by intelligence chief Omar Suleiman was due in Gaza Sunday to continue efforts to secure a cease-fire between the Palestinian Authority and the militant groups.
In addition, Sharon's bureau chief Dov Weisglass left for the U.S. Saturday night for talks with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
----
Hamas says it will consider renewing cease-fire dialogue
By Arnon Regular
Monday, June 16, 2003 Sivan 16, 5763
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=301787&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
The Hamas organization yesterday announced it was prepared to study the proposal put forward by Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to renew the talks on stopping attacks against Israelis.
A flyer put out yesterday by the Hamas leadership in Gaza stated: "We will study Abu Mazen's call for a dialogue while bearing in mind the interests of our nation, its rights, the strengthening of national unity, and first and foremost the question of the prisoners, the right of return,
Jerusalem and an end to the occupation."
This is the first time in the past few days that the organization has publicly stated its readiness to renew the dialogue, but at the same time it accused Abu Mazen of duplicity in his dealings with Hamas. "The Abu Mazen government has spoken in two voices. On the one hand, it has addressed the Hamas behind closed doors in one way, and on the other hand has given Bush and Sharon sweeping commitments that harm the Palestinian nation and its principles," the flyer read.
The Hamas statement was preceded by a veiled threat made by Abbas during a press conference yesterday morning in el-Bireh near Ramallah. "I stand fast on the principle that dialogue is the best way to achieve a cease-fire, but we cannot force anyone to sit down and talk. Those who refuse to renew the dialogue will be responsible for the results," Abbas said.
Turning to criticism from all sectors of the Palestinian public about his statements at the recent Aqaba summit, Abbas said: "The Aqaba speech ... was coordinated with Yasser Arafat." He said the Aqaba commitments would be shown to the Palestinian parliament. "We are negotiating the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, and a solution to the refugee problem and other issues for a final settlement. The Israelis tried to take the refugee issue off the agenda but we rejected this attempt unequivocally. I am trying to end the suffering of the Palestinian people."
Turning to Arafat's position, he said: "Arafat will continue to head the PA and to supervise the Palestinian struggle and the establishment of the state. We call for an end to the political siege and we shall continue to fight to put an end to the harsh conditions in which our president, the Nobel Prize winner, finds himself."
One of the Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, Mahmoud a-Zahar, said later that Hamas was pleased with Abbas' call to renew the dialogue. However, he expressed disapproval of what he called "Abu Mazen's attempts to cast aspersions on the movement's intentions." He said: "Attempts are being made to put words into our mouths that we did not say. I ask, what will Hamas have to negotiate about, if it is not allowed to join the security forces or the PA's ministerial positions?"
----
Deal on Removing Israeli Troops From Northern Gaza Seems Near
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By GREG MYRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/middleeast/15CND-MIDE.html
JERUSALEM, June 15 - Israel and the Palestinians today appeared to be edging toward an agreement that would remove Israeli troops from the northern Gaza Strip, the scene of repeated confrontations, and replace them with Palestinian security forces.
Visiting American and Egyptian delegations were attempting to broker the deal with the larger aim of moving ahead on an international peace plan. But violence persisted today, with Israeli troops shooting dead one Palestinian militant in northern Gaza, and Palestinians firing several rockets from the territory at Israeli towns.
"I'm taking this as a serious proposal from the United States," said Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian cabinet minister. "We believe the American administration can deliver when it wants to."
In the oscillating conflict that began in September 2000, the Israelis and Palestinians launched the most ambitious peace effort so far with a Mideast summit in Jordan on June 4.
But last week brought a surge of violence that left more than 50 people dead, and was accompanied by overheated rhetoric. In the past two days, pressure from the United States and others has the two sides again talking about concessions.
The Palestinian security chief, Muhammad Dahlan was meeting for the second successive night with senior Israeli security officials on details of the evolving plan.
Earlier in the day, the Israeli and Palestinian cabinets held separate sessions in which they endorsed the basic principle, while setting several conditions.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel said his government would continue to pursue members of the Islamic group Hamas and other Palestinian militants if they were in position to strike Israel. The United States backed this approach, Mr. Sharon said.
President Bush, speaking from Kennebunkport, Me., said, "The free world and those who love freedom and peace must deal harshly with Hamas and the killers."
Still, Mr. Sharon said that if the Palestinian leadership could persuade Hamas and other militant groups to agree to a truce, it would be welcomed.
"We will hold our fire, except in cases of self-defense against ticking bombs," Mr. Sharon was quoted as saying by a cabinet official.
The Palestinians, meanwhile, said they were prepared to take security control in northern Gaza, and also wanted the Israeli forces to leave the rest of the coastal strip, as well as the West Bank town of Bethlehem.
The Palestinians also want guarantees from the United States that the Israelis will not come storming back after leaving, and that Israel will stop its targeted killings of militants.
"We don't want a random Israeli withdrawal," said Nabil Amr, the Palestinian information minister. "It should be based on a political vision."
Hamas, which has always opposed peace talks with Israel, has rejected the Mideast peace plan.
The group carried out a suicide bombing on Wednesday that killed 17 people on a Jerusalem bus, including Anna Orgal, 55, identified as the cousin of the United States ambassador to Israel, Daniel C. Kurtzer.
Hamas is facing pressure to suspend attacks, and group leaders today joined other Palestinian factions in discussions with an Egyptian delegation seeking to negotiate a truce.
Also, the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, was expected to travel Monday from his West Bank headquarters in Ramallah to Gaza, to renew the dialogue on a cease-fire.
The head of the visiting United States delegation, John S. Wolf, met Israeli officials today and planned to see Mr. Sharon on Monday. After that, he will see Palestinian leaders.
Mr. Wolf's original mission was to monitor the implementation of the peace plan, which calls for a Palestinian state and a Middle East political settlement within three years. But the visit has turned into one of crisis management as the violence spiraled over the past week.
In a clash that erupted before dawn today, Israeli forces entered the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanun, the site of frequent Palestinian rocket launches at Israel.
The troops came under heavy fire and shot back, the military said. Palestinians said one militant was killed, identifying him as a member of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a group loosely affiliated with the Fatah movement of the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.
Later in the day, Palestinians fired several rockets from northern and southern Gaza. The small, inaccurate rockets targeted Israeli towns just across Gaza boundary, but caused no damage or injuries.
The military also said it arrested three wanted Palestinian militants hiding out in a cave outside the West Bank town of Bethlehem. One of the men, Essa Batat, was the local leader of Islamic Jihad, and was linked to multiple attacks that killed six Israelis, according to the army.
In another development, Peace Now, an Israeli group that monitors settlements, said Jewish settlers have established five new outposts in the West Bank over the past week, despite a stipulation in the peace plan that calls for recently erected settlements to be dismantled.
"The settlers are nervous, and things are much more tense," said Dror Etkes, a Peace Now official. "But it's the same old story. The construction is still going on."
The Israeli military took down 10 uninhabited settlements last week, and listed an additional five with a small number of residents that were to come down. However, the settlers have challenged the army plan in court and no action has been taken.
The army took down one additional outpost today, removing a bus that had been fashioned into living quarters on a hill south of Hebron, in the West Bank, witnesses said. No one was living at the outpost.
--------
Israelis and Palestinians Hold Overnight Talks
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By GREG MYRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/middleeast/15MIDE.html
JERUSALEM, Sunday, June 15 - After a week of ferocious bloodshed, Israel and the Palestinians held top-level security talks into the early hours of this morning in a bid to calm the region and salvage an international peace plan.
The main focus was a proposal for Israeli troops to pull back from volatile areas in the northern Gaza Strip and for Palestinian security forces to move in and take control.
The United States has been putting pressure on the two sides to meet, and the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel C. Kurtzer, played host to the talks at his home outside Tel Aviv, according to Israeli news reports. Also, an American team, including Assistant Secretary of State John S. Wolf and David F. Satterfield, a Middle East specialist at the State Department, was arriving as part of a mission to monitor the peace plan, known as the road map.
But with the latest surge in violence, the most urgent priority was to halt the fighting. More than 30 Palestinians and more than 20 Israelis have been killed over the last week, one of the highest weekly tolls since the Palestinian uprising began 32 months ago.
On Saturday, a 19-year-old Palestinian was shot and killed in the West Bank city of Nablus during a stone-throwing clash with Israeli troops, Palestinians said. An Israeli military source said the troops shot a young man when he tried to climb on an Israeli armored vehicle. Also, the military said it arrested a Palestinian man in the West Bank town of Tulkarm and discovered two belts with explosives that were intended to be used by suicide bombers.
Much of the recent fighting has been concentrated in northern Gaza, where Palestinian militants killed four Israeli soldiers a week ago, and the militant Islamic Hamas movement has repeatedly fired rockets on the Israeli town of Sederot, just outside Gaza's northeastern boundary. Since Tuesday, Israel has carried out seven helicopter strikes against Hamas militants and a suspected arms depot in and around Gaza City.
Efforts to implement the initial stages of the peace plan, which was formally inaugurated at a summit meeting in Jordan just 10 days ago, appeared to be on hold as the sides worked on security arrangements.
Muhammad Dahlan, the Palestinian security chief, met Saturday night with an Israeli delegation that included Maj. Gen. Amos Gilad, who is responsible for overseeing the West Bank and Gaza, according to the Israeli media. As the talks stretched past midnight, there was no immediate word on whether they had made progress.
Israelis officials say they are ready to withdraw troops from parts of Gaza as long as the Palestinian forces could prevent attacks against Israeli targets.
The proposed Israeli-Palestinian security talks were complicated by the absence of the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who was in neighboring Jordan receiving medical treatment for an eye ailment, Palestinian sources said.
Meanwhile, Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, gathered the Palestinian security officials at his compound Saturday in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Afterward, Mr. Dahlan said the Palestinians would be willing to move into areas vacated by the Israeli forces under certain conditions. The Palestinians, he said, wanted "Israeli commitments to withdraw from these territories, an end to Israeli assassinations, and American guarantees that the Israelis will not come back."
The Israelis and Palestinians have not held high-level talks since the June 4 summit meeting in Aqaba, Jordan, which was attended by Mr. Abbas, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel and President Bush.
The visiting American team was expected to have meetings with both sides, and Mr. Wolf planned to see Mr. Sharon on Monday, Israel radio reported. Also, an Egyptian delegation was scheduled to hold talks today in Gaza with Hamas, which has rejected the peace plan and continued to attack Israel.
The Palestinian security forces have yet to carry out a major crackdown against Palestinian militants since the fighting began in September 2000, and Mr. Abbas says he wants to use persuasion rather than force. It was not clear how the Palestinian security forces would respond if Israel withdrew from northern Gaza and Hamas militants tried additional attacks.
Mr. Sharon has made it clear that the Israeli Army would continue to single out Hamas members until the Palestinian leadership was prepared to rein in the militants.
In the latest Israeli helicopter attacks, one Hamas member was killed Friday night in Gaza City when missiles struck his car, and more than 20 Palestinians were wounded. In a second attack, Israel struck a warehouse where Hamas stored missiles, according to the Israeli military.
American officials have not ruled out the possibility of expanding Mr. Wolf's group to include monitors from Western Europe or Russia, whose governments helped develop the peace plan. The administration said the initial group had about 10 people and that it included intelligence officials and diplomats.
No timetable has been set for Mr. Wolf to complete his mission and return to the United States, said Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman.
The Bush administration has said that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will visit Jordan this coming week for an economic conference. But his schedule would also allow time, officials said, to visit Israel for more meetings with Israelis and Palestinians if necessary.
Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said Friday that Mr. Powell and Mr. Wolf would seek to "help the parties, even in the darkest moments, find their way to remember the vision to peace."
--------
Jewish Settlers Build New Outposts
June 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-outposts.html
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Jewish settlers have quietly set up five new outposts in the West Bank since Israel began dismantling such sites last week under a U.S.-backed ``road map'' to peace, an Israeli monitoring group said Sunday.
Israel's Peace Now group, which monitors settlement activity, said only one of the five new outposts, at Neve Tsuf near the West Bank city of Ramallah, was inhabited. It was set up near the spot where Palestinian gunmen wounded two Israeli women Friday.
The group opposes settlements on land seized in the 1967 Middle East war.
--------
The cock's arrogance
By Uzi Benziman,
June 15, 2003
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=303624&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
"When he was commander of a battalion of reservists in the Jerusalem Brigade, [Sharon] instructed a number of his officers to shoot women at the village of Katana when they were drawing water ... thinking the killings would result in an artillery response by the Arab Legion.... And so it was: A quiet area exploded and the UN observers had to intervene. Many years later, some of the officers in the battalion came to feel they were tools in the hands of an arrogant commander who started a blaze on the border between Jordan and Israel with insufficient justification." [See below]
On Tuesday, January 17, 1978, then-prime minister Menachem Begin made a speech at the Jerusalem Hilton, during the visit of an Egyptian delegation headed by foreign minister Muhammad Ibrahim Kamel. The group came to Israel to further the negotiations between the two countries, which started two months earlier with the boisterous landing of president Anwar Sadat at Ben-Gurion International Airport. Begin referred to his guest as "young man" and made a powerful political speech in which he taught a chapter in the history of the Jewish people and described their claim to the Land of Israel.
Twelve hours later, Sadat recalled his delegation and caused a serious crisis in the unfolding dialogue between the two countries. When the Israeli guests and the American mediators sought to understand the causes of the Egyptian president's decision, they learned that one of the reasons was the patronizing tone with which Begin addressed Kamel.
Begin acted with good intentions: He bothered to attend the official dinner and did not leave the role of host to his foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, in an effort to honor the Egyptian guest. He believed there was something cute and fatherly in addressing Kamel as "young man" (15 years separated the two men), but his guest was insulted and so was the Egyptian president. At the time, the potential for a crisis in the negotiations existed even without the Begin speech; however, his style provided the spark. The Israelis in charge of state policies at the time, among them Moshe Dayan and Ezer Weizman, who were supposedly great experts on the ways of the "Arabs" and their sensibilities on matters of honor, did not apply this need to practice.
Last week, when Ariel Sharon called Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) "a chick without feathers," he only added fuel to the blaze in which the road map was burning. A week previously, Sharon gave Abu Mazen credit and considered him a worthy interlocutor. There is no other way of understanding his choice of expression except as an attempt to intensify the dispute with the Palestinians and to complicate it terribly; on the other hand, the choice of words suggests an outburst of rage that paralyzes his ability to consider his next step coolly.
This is also the key to understanding Sharon's decision to assassinate Abdel Aziz Rantisi. It is most reasonable that he sought in this way to sink the Aqaba process. On the other hand, he acted out of an emotional tempest caused by the continuation of the militant attacks. The method in which he chose to contribute his part in disrupting the nascent diplomatic process (or, which he uses in order to release his frustration at the continuation of Palestinian terrorism) is a well-tested one, and proof of this are the periods of calm that were violated as a result of the killings of Abu Ali Mustafa, Ra'ad Karmi, Salah Shadeh, and others. Sharon invented this method in the early `50s: When he was commander of a battalion of reservists in the Jerusalem Brigade, he instructed a number of his officers to shoot women at the village of Katana when they were drawing water. The reason for this was that, on the way to the well, the women crossed the border. Already thinking the killings would result in an artillery response by the Arab Legion, he set in place teams with mortars. And so it was: A quiet area exploded and the UN observers had to intervene. Many years later, some of the officers in the battalion came to feel they were tools in the hands of an arrogant commander who started a blaze on the border between Jordan and Israel with insufficient justification.
Abu Mazen is no chick. He is also no goose laying golden eggs at the behest of Israel, but he is a man whom Sharon allegedly wanted to see at the head of a Palestinian government and he even actively pursued this effort. Sharon continues to claim that Abu Mazen is a positive alternative to Yasser Arafat. Why then does he act as if he is planning to decapitate him?
-------- mideast
Egyptian negotiators hold truce talks with militants
By Arnon Regular and Tsahar Rotem, Haaretz Correspondents,
Haaretz Service and Agencies
15/06/2003
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/302577.html
Egyptian mediators, assistants to Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, arrived in Gaza City on Sunday for cease-fire talks with Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas was to join the talks Monday.
Officials close to the talks said they were optimistic an agreement could be reached, despite assertions by militant leaders in recent days that they will reject a truce. Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Amr quoted an Abbas envoy to the talks as saying progress has been made.
The East Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper reported Sunday that the Egyptian delegation was bringing with it a proposal for a 6-month cease-fire between the Palestinians and Israel.
Palestinian sources told Israel Radio on Sunday that Israel had proposed a three-day cease-fire to the Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayad. But the plan was scuttled by Israel's assassination of Hamas militant Fuad Gidawi in Gaza on Friday.
The Palestinians claim that there has been some advance in talks between Fayad, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau chief Dov Weisglass. Weisglass left for Washington on Saturday night for talks with Rice.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad rejected any possibility of a cease-fire with Israel, claiming that a truce would only serve Israel's interests.
"The word cease-fire is not part of our vocabulary," top Hamas official Abdel Aziz Rantisi told a French news agency Friday. "We are defending ourselves and will continue to do so."
"Resistance will continue until we uproot them from our home land," added Rantisi, who was wounded last Tuesday in an Israeli attempt to assassinate him.
The reports, he said, "are mere lies which only serve [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon."
"Those who said that Hamas is considering a cease-fire agreement or seeking a truce are those working for Sharon," he added.
Rantisi was however reported as saying Sunday that Hamas would not boycott the meetings with the Egyptian delegation, which was expected to meet with the organization's spiritual leader Shiekh Ahmed Yassin later Sunday.
Islamic Jihad leader Mohammed al-Hindi on Friday dismissed such a proposal as an Israeli effort to gain international backing.
"If the occupation continues, and if prisoners are not released, we will return to the cycle of violence. Sharon's cease-fire proposal is a plot to garner world support," Israel Radio quoted al-Hindi as saying.
Earlier Friday, a senior Hamas official denied a report by the Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera that the militant group was prepared to agree to a conditional cease-fire with Israel, but said that the group was holding "intensive" talks with Palestinian Authority representatives.
According to the Al-Jazeera report, Hamas was willing to announce a truce if Jerusalem agreed to end its targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders.
Hamas spokesman Mahmoud Zahar, speaking earlier in the day after Israel's fifth missile strike in 48 hours on Thursday, pledged to maximize the group's terror campaign against Israel.
EU to consider ways to end Hamas funding The European Union will consider how to cut off funding for Hamas after Wednesday's suicide attack in Jerusalem for which it claimed responsibility, the bloc's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said Friday.
"The EU will discuss this issue with a view to finding ways to end external support to Hamas," said a statement by Solana.
An official said the statement showed the EU - which has the military wing of Hamas on its list of banned "terrorist" groups but not its charitable wing - finally opened the debate on a wider clampdown long sought by Washington.
-------- pakistan / india
Russia Hails Pakistani Efforts to Curb Militancy
June 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-pakistan-russia.html
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov welcomed Sunday Pakistan's efforts to curb ``terrorist'' activity on its soil, calling it an international phenomenon threatening both countries.
Ivanov, in Islamabad for a day before going on to India, also told a news conference that Moscow was pleased with progress nuclear rivals Pakistan and India had made in easing tensions.
Islamabad and Moscow have been divided for years by Russia's close ties with India and Russian suspicions that Pakistan is used as a safe haven for Muslim extremists.
``Russia welcomes the efforts undertaken by Pakistani authorities to cut the activities, and to neutralize the activities of terrorists and extremist organizations in the country,'' said Ivanov.
``It is obvious that international terrorism is posing today threats to each and every country including Russia and Pakistan.
``That is why our countries are interested in conducting and coordinating action in combating international terrorism within the framework of an international coalition.''
Ivanov was the first Russian foreign minister to visit Pakistan in nine years.
Russia had previously expressed concern about Islamic militancy in Pakistan and urged Islamabad to put an end to infiltration into Indian-controlled Kashmir and cut the flow of guerrillas fighting a bloody insurgency there.
Moscow, suspicious of Pakistan since it backed Afghan forces fighting the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s, has also alleged that Pakistanis have joined Muslim rebels active in Russia's breakaway Chechnya region.
The two countries began to put the past behind them with a visit by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to Moscow in February, the first such trip by a Pakistani leader in 30 years.
But Moscow has been careful not to harm relations with Pakistan's traditional foe India, a major arms client.
``By and large Russia is prepared to develop mutually beneficial relations with Pakistan on all levels, definitely without any detriment to our partners,'' Ivanov said.
He added that Russia welcomed the ``notable detente'' between Pakistan and India, after the neighbors who came to the brink of a fourth war last year over Kashmir vowed to work toward peace.
``From its side Russia is going to provide its utmost support to this dialogue,'' he said.
Moscow has a history of acting as a go-between in disputes between India and Pakistan going back to 1966, when Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin hosted leaders in Central Asia. He issued a statement calling for a peaceful solution to Kashmir.
-------- prisoners of war
Guantanamo prepared for possible executions, permanent prison
6/14/2003
(AP)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-13-gitmo_x.htm
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Guantanamo officials are working on plans to provide a courtroom, a prison and an execution chamber if the order comes to try terror suspects at the base in Cuba, the mission commander said.
Although no new directive has been given and no plan has been approved, a handful of experts are looking at what it will take to try, imprison and, if need be, execute detainees accused of links to Afghanistan's fallen Taliban regime or to the al-Qaeda terror network.
"We have a number of plans that we work for short-term and long-term strategies but that's all they are - plans," Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller said in a telephone interview earlier this week.
Isolated on Cuba's eastern tip and out of the jurisdiction of U.S. civilian courts, Guantanamo is a likely location for U.S. military trials. (Related site: Tribunal details http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2003/b05022003_bt297-03.html)
Last month, officials named Army Col. Frederic Borch III the chief prosecutor and Air Force Col. Will Gunn as chief defense lawyer for the proposed trials. The Pentagon has listed 18 war crimes and eight other offenses that could be tried, including terrorist acts, and has issued rules for the tribunals.
Borch said he was looking at prosecuting at least 10 possible cases before a tribunal.
Some 680 detainees from 42 countries are in Guantanamo, categorized as unlawful combatants by the U.S. government. It has refused demands from human rights organizations to recognize them as prisoners of war. They have no constitutional rights as non-U.S. citizens being held outside U.S. territory, and none have been formally charged or allowed access to attorneys.
The cases would be decided by a panel of three to seven military officers who act as both judge and jury. Convictions could be handed down by a majority vote; a decision to sentence a defendant to death would have to be unanimous.
Some civil liberties advocates have criticized the process.
"Any further movement in the direction of trying these men in commissions that could have the power to carry out death sentences is cause for great concern," Vienna Colucci of Amnesty International's Washington office said.
Miller said renovations on a building being considered as a courtroom began in March and likely will be completed next month. The building is being rewired and could be used as a courthouse with facilities for media and military officers.
There also are plans to build a permanent modular detention facility, to imprison detainees who might be sentenced to indefinite terms, and an execution chamber should any be sentenced to death, he said.
"We're getting ready so we won't be starting from scratch," Miller said, speaking while on a visit to Washington.
About five people have been drafting several plans for the last six months, he said. It was unclear how much money it would take to sustain such a permanent mission.
After the detention center opened in January 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the detainees "among the most dangerous, best trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth." But, after lengthy interrogation, many are thought to be low-level former Taliban fighters and unlikely prospects for commission trials.
-------- russia / chechnya / georgia
U.S. Entangled in Mystery of Georgia's Islamic Fighters
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By DEXTER FILKINS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/15GEOR.html
PANKISI GORGE, Georgia, June 11 - For months, local residents say, the group of 15 Arab and Central Asian fighters lived quietly in a two-story house here, among the hundreds of guerrillas who had turned this wooded vale near the Russian border into a burgeoning center of Islamic militancy.
Like many of those who gathered here, the fighters had come over the snowy passes from Chechnya, where they had been helping their fellow Muslims in their struggle to break with the Russian republic. They exercised to stay in shape and went into the woods to practice shooting. Some of the militants departed, presumably for Russia, while new ones came to prepare for the fight.
Then, one night last fall, according to local residents, the group of Arabs and Central Asians packed up and left. Over the next several months, villagers and Georgian officials said, hundreds of other fighters followed, never to return.
"One morning, I got up, and they were gone," said Valodya Tskhovrebov, a farmer who lived near the Arab fighters. "They were nice guys. They didn't drink or smoke."
The departure of the Islamic fighters from this gorge in the Caucasus Mountains appears to represent an uncertain victory for the Bush administration, which last year asserted that the area had become a center of activity by Al Qaeda. To help Georgia confront the threat, the administration dispatched a team of Green Berets last year to provide military training to the country's troops.
Since last August, when Georgian forces began an operation to clear the gorge, senior Georgian leaders and Western diplomats here say the number of guerrillas in the gorge has dropped to fewer than 50 from about 700. The passage of militants across the mountains into Chechnya has largely ceased for the moment, according to Western diplomats and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has dispatched observers to watch the border.
Georgian officials say they detained more than 30 militants from the gorge, most of them Arabs or Chechens. They were deported, the officials said, to countries ranging from Russia to France and Japan, where officials say they detained a Japanese citizen helping the guerrillas.
A senior Georgian official said his government had also turned over 13 Arab fighters to the United States government last fall. The Arabs had been found in the gorge and were suspected of being involved in the Chechen campaign. It is unclear what the Americans did with them.
"We just handed them over," the Georgian official said.
Officials at the American Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia's capital, declined to comment on the reported deportations. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration has taken into custody hundreds of foreign citizens suspected of terrorism and held them without charges or access to legal representation. The administration has refused to release the names of those arrested, considering them enemy combatants.
What happened to the hundreds of other fighters who left the Pankisi Gorge remains a mystery that casts doubt on the ultimate success of the operation to sweep the area of Islamic militants. Villagers said that most of the fighters were Chechen, and that once it became clear they were no longer welcome in Georgia, they headed back toward Russia. Some of the fighters, they said, were killed by Russian soldiers as they crossed the mountains.
Indeed, the American-backed effort to clear the gorge of terrorists appears to have become a de facto campaign against the Chechen nationalist movement as well, thereby entangling the United States in the region's politics to a greater extent than before. By most accounts here, the overwhelming majority of the fighters in the gorge were Chechens, and while they were intensely religious, they were dedicated to striking at Russian, not Western, targets.
For months, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had threatened to send his country's forces into Georgia against the Chechen rebels he said were taking shelter in the Pankisi Gorge. Georgian officials, fearing a Russian attack, turned to the United States for help last year.
Georgian officials say Mr. Putin was furious over their decision to invite American military trainers into a country that he regards as falling within Russia's sphere of influence. But for now, the threat of invasion seems to have ebbed.
Yet while the operation appears to have succeeded in apprehending several individuals with possible links to Al Qaeda, it also appears to have killed many Chechen guerrillas, and thereby to have embittered Chechens who looked to the United States for sympathy in what they considered a legitimate revolt against a repressive government.
One Chechen refugee, Acima Imadiova, who lives in a dilapidated community center in the gorge, approached an American visitor, wearing a bitter smile. "Tell Mr. Bush to stop the war in Chechnya," she said. "Ask him why he is paddling in the same boat with Putin."
The first Chechen guerrillas began arriving here in 1999, as the second Chechen war got under way. The gorge, a lush river valley about 25 miles from the Russian border, was already home to several thousand ethnic Chechens known as the Kist, whose ancestors had migrated to predominantly Christian Georgia a century ago.
By all appearances, the gorge was a perfect sanctuary for the fighters to rest and regroup. Grozny was but two days away by foot, through one of the innumerable passes that lead to Russia. Before long, as many as 6,000 Chechen refugees had arrived, along with as many as 1,500 fighters.
Georgian officials say that by late last summer, the Pankisi Gorge was, in effect, Chechen territory, a place where Georgian forces ventured at their peril.
"We didn't dare come into the gorge," said Nika Laliashvili, a senior official with Georgia's Ministry for State Security. "The Chechens controlled it."
In August, under pressure from both the Americans and the Russians, Georgian officials decided to sweep the gorge of the militants. But instead of mounting a large-scale invasion, the Georgians took a more subtle approach. Officials met with village elders and told them the militants could no longer stay.
"We did not want to have a confrontation," said David Bakradze of Georgia's National Security Council. "We said, `If you won't go, then we'll kick you out.' "
The Georgians say they did not use the battalions trained by the Green Berets, but those units did stage a military exercise outside the gorge shortly before the operation began.
Georgian officials declined to speak in detail about the level of resistance they encountered when they entered the gorge. But they offered one example of where, they said, Georgian forces had proved effective. Last fall, they said, they forced a group of about 30 mostly Chechen fighters back across the border. The group, they said, walked right into a force of Russian soldiers, who killed many of them.
At the same time, Georgian officials described an incident in which an Arab fighter with apparent links to Al Qaeda might have been allowed to get away. Georgian officials said they believed that the man, Abu Hafsi, had been running financial operations in the gorge and had supervised the building of a military hospital there. He slipped away, presumably to Chechnya, officials said.
In the Pankisi Gorge, local residents largely confirmed the government's account. Zhora Shavlokhov, headmaster of the Dumasturi Elementary School, said the 30 fighters arrived about 18 months ago and occupied the school. Mr. Shavlokhov said he did not much like the men, but they carried guns and brooked no arguments.
Mr. Shavlokhov said the fighters were an odd mix: doctors, lawyers, criminals and drug addicts. Indeed, the detritus left behind filled out the details of the headmaster's story: a makeshift exercise bar was still suspended between two trees, and used hypodermic needles and empty vials lay scattered about the yard.
"The Russians killed them at the border," he said.
A Western diplomat in Tbilisi said his government was not upset with the way the Georgians chose to move most of the militants out of the gorge. As long as the militants left the gorge - the only inhabitable area along the Russian border - then his government was satisfied, he said.
The diplomat expressed frustration, however, that Georgian leaders were not more aggressive with the 50-odd militants still in the gorge.
Chechen refugees here express a different kind of frustration. Their camps are full of families who braved snowy mountains and Russian guns in their flight from their homes, and they ask why the outside world, and particularly the American government, seems more concerned with Al Qaeda than with aggrieved civilians.
"Bush would do anything to have Russia in his coalition," said Baslan Gidiev, who walked across the mountains three years ago.
Even so, they say they, too, are happy that the militants of the Pankisi Gorge have left.
"We admire them, and we think they are brave," said Ruslan Nalayev, who also left Chechnya three years ago. "But when they are here, they bring great danger. We're glad they are gone."
-------- us
U.S. Soldiers Strip Baghdadis Clean Of Their Savings
Frisking could mean stealing in many cases
By Ali Halani, Iraq Correspondent
June 15, 2003,
IslamOnline.net
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-06/15/article07.shtml
BAGHDAD - Iraqis are forgetting the traditional image they have of Ali Babas with their Arabian outfits and strategy of stealing from those who once tortured people, as they are now facing new kind of Ali Babas in military suits, working under the flag of the United States and stealing from all.
After almost nine weeks of the downfall of Iraq to the hands of the U.S.-led occupation and now that the free-for-all looting that swept the anarchy-mired country has come under control, the Iraqis are now facing new "Ali Babas," namely, U.S. soldiers who strip them clean of their savings and possessions.
Traditionally, Ali Babas were brave and had the excuse that they were plundering the palaces of those who once tortured people and stole their belongings.
"Ali Baba" has now become the mantra of the Iraqis and the "nom de guerre" for the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, who went on stealing and looting whatever it reached their hands, starting from money to the account of cellular phones.
"I was carrying750 , 000Iraqi dinars (one dollar equals some 1300 dinars) inside a plastic bag. I was on my way to a friend of mine to buy a second-hand small car to use it in transferring the products of my farmland to the customers. But U.S. soldiers spotted me and frisked me," Hussein Abdul Gabar, an Iraqi breadwinner and owner of a farmland, told IslamOnline.net correspondent.
"Once his eyes spotted the cash, one U.S. soldier extracted them and ordered me to leave the place...But when I complained and told him that this was my money, he told me bluntly: 'Go away," pointing his gun at me, he said.
They, in fact, are not hesitant about killing anyone under the pretext that he was a Baathist or a loyalist to (toppled Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein," he added.
He went on: "It was breaking my heart to see the soldier sharing my money with his fellowmen who were waiting for him in a nearby tank, with their faces creased into broad smiles."
"Now the U.S. soldiers understand what 'Ali Baba' really means," Abdul Gabar added.
Baba, "daddy" in Arabic, is a direct reference to "Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves", a famous tale of the One Thousand and One Nights.
Stealing Women
Somia al-Zubeid, a housewife, is one of a myriad of Iraqis who have been looted by U.S. soldiers. She lives in Baghdad's Kafa'at district, where you find doctors, engineers and university professors.
"U.S. soldiers stormed into my house at night, turned it upside down and stole $2500, one million dinars in addition to some of my daughters' jewels," she told IOL.
"The seven soldiers ordered us to lie prone with their weapons pointing at out necks as if we were sheep...four of them scoured the house for more than one hour. They were heedless to the fact that we are women and home alone.
"Once they left, my daughters and I found out that they had stolen our jewels and the money we saved and used them to eke out a living until their father finds a job," she added.
Abu Habib, a taxi driver, told IOL that U.S. soldiers stopped him at almost 2 : 00p.m. in Al-Mansour district in Baghdad, noting that they frisked him and searched his car, arguing that they were hunting wanted people.
"After they made sure I was not one of the wanted, they released me and I went home to discover that they stealthily stole my money just as it takes place inside crowded buses," he said.
'Free International Calls'
As for Atef al-Samrrai, an Iraqi businessman, he tells a different story about a new method of stealing.
"At the beginning of this month, I went to one of the U.S. military offices in Baghdad to get a security clearance for my exports via the road running through northern Turkey," Samrrai said.
"U.S. soldiers ordered me to leave my satellite-operating Thuraya cellular phone at the office's gate to allow me in. I agreed, thinking that it was a routine measure adopted all over the world. As I got my clearance I took back my mobile, but I found that I ran out of account and scores of calls had been made to the U.S.," Samrrai said.
-------- propaganda wars
Turning the tanks on the reporters
Iraq will go down as the war when journalists seemed to become a target, writes Philip Knightley
Sunday June 15, 2003
The UK Observer
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,977702,00.html
The Pentagon made it clear from the beginning of the Iraq war that there would be no censorship. What it failed to say was that war correspondents might well find themselves in a situation similar to that in Korea in 1950. This was described by one American correspondent as the military saying: 'You can write what you like - but if we don't like it we'll shoot you.' The figures in Iraq tell a terrible story. Fifteen media people dead, with two missing, presumed dead. If you consider how short the campaign was, Iraq will be notorious as the most dangerous war for journalists ever.
This is bad enough. But - and here we tread on delicate ground - it is a fact that the largest single group of them appear to have been killed by the US military.
Brigadier General Vince Brooks, deputy director of operations, has told us the Americans do not target journalists. But some war correspondents do not believe him, and Spanish journalists have demonstrated outside the US embassy in Madrid shouting 'murderers'. I believe that the traditional relationship between the military and the media - one of restrained hostility - has broken down, and the US administration has decided its attitude to war correspondents is the same as that set out by President Bush when declaring war on terrorists: 'You're either with us or against us.'
Journalists prepared to get on side - and that means 100 per cent on side - will become 'embeds' and get every assistance. Any who follow an objective, independent path, the so-called 'unilaterals', will be shunned. And those who report from the enemy side will risk being shot.
The media should have seen it coming. Last year the BBC sent one of its top reporters, Nik Gowing, to Washington to try to find out how it was that its correspondent, William Reeve, who had just re-opened the Corporation's studio in Kabul and was giving a live TV interview for BBC World, was blown out of his seat by an American smart missile. Four hours later, a few blocks away, the office and residential compound of the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera was hit by two more American missiles.
The BBC, Al-Jazeera, and the US Committee to Protect Journalists thought it prudent to find out from the Pentagon what steps they could take to protect their correspondents if war came to Iraq. Rear Admiral Craig Quigley was frank. He said the Pentagon was indifferent to media activity in territory controlled by the enemy, and that the Al-Jazeera compound in Kabul was considered a legitimate target because it had 'repeatedly been the location of significant al-Qaeda activity'. It turned out that this activity was interviews with Taliban officials, something Al-Jazeera had thought to be normal journalism.
All three organisations concluded that the Pentagon was determined to deter western correspondents from reporting any war from the 'enemy' side; would view such journalism in Iraq as activity of 'military significance', and might well bomb the area. This view was reinforced in the early days of the war in Iraq, when the Pentagon wrote officially to Al-Jazeera asking it to remove its correspondents from Baghdad. Downing Street made the same request to the BBC. In the US a Pentagon official called media bosses to a meeting in Washington to tell them how foolhardy and dangerous it was to have correspondents in the Iraqi capital. But no one realised it might also be dangerous to work outside the system the Pentagon had devised for allowing war correspondents to cover the war: embedding. In total, 600 correspondents, including about 150 from foreign media, and even one from the music network MTV, accepted the Pentagon's offer to be embedded with military units.
I found only one instance of an embedded correspondent who wrote a story highly critical of the behaviour of US troops and which went against the official account of what had occurred. On 31 March, American soldiers opened fire on a civilian van that had failed to stop at a checkpoint, killing seven Iraqi women and children. US officials said the driver of the car failed to stop after warning shots and that troops had fired at the passenger cabin as 'a last resort'.
But William Branigin, of the Washington Post, embedded with the Third Infantry, witnessed the shooting. He reported that no warning shot was fired and that 10 people, not seven, were killed. It will be interesting to see what becomes of Branigin's relations with the US military. For the rest of the embeds, the conclusion of veteran New York Times journalist Sydney H Schanberg applies: 'Embedded means you're there,' he said. 'It also means you're stuck'.
But that is what the Pentagon wanted, and after the death of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, and the probable deaths of two of his team (they're still listed as missing) who had been operating unilaterally, the Coalition Commander, General Tommy Franks, pointed out that no embedded correspondent had been killed.
What Franks did not reveal was exactly how Lloyd died. Now, more than a month after Lloyd's death, neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Pentagon has told ITN what the investigation into his death has revealed. It may turn out this was an unfortunate accident, another 'friendly fire' incident. But what happened at the Palestine Hotel was a different matter. On 8 April, three war correspondents were killed when an American tank fired a shell at the suite on the 15th floor. Tarek Ayyoub, a cameraman for Al-Jazeera, was killed when a US plane bombed the channel's office in Baghdad. American forces also opened fire on the offices of Abu Dhabi TV, whose identity is spelled out in large letters on the roof.
In the Iraq war the Pentagon regarded Al-Jazeera as an enemy propaganda station, putting out devastating accounts of Iraqi civilian casualties to a vast Arab audience, fuelling anti-American sentiment. Al-Jazeera was apprehensive about US reaction and repeatedly informed the US military of the exact co-ordinates of its Baghdad office. It was a waste of time. The Pentagon has offered neither explanation nor apology.
When the news of the Palestine Hotel attack first came, the American command said nothing until it emerged that the French TV channel, France 3, had filmed the tank aiming and firing. Then the coalition put out a series of contradictory accounts. Colonel David Perkins, commander of the Third Infantry Division's Second Brigade, said Iraqis in front of the hotel were firing rocket-propelled grenades at the tank. The division's commander, General Bouford Blount, issued a statement saying the tank had come under sniper fire from the hotel roof and had fired at the source of the shooting, which had then stopped.
Correspondents in the Palestine Hotel insisted there had been no grenades and no sniper fire. But the most telling evidence is that France 3's cameraman had started filming some minutes before the tank opened fire, and his camera's sound track records no shots whatsoever.
More puzzling was an official Spanish government statement that the coalition had actually declared the Palestine Hotel a military objective 48 hours before it was attacked and that the correspondents should have left. This was news to the correspondents, all of whom denied knowledge of any warning.
I am convinced that in the light of all the evidence the Pentagon is determined there will be no more reporting from the enemy side, and a few deaths among the correspondents who do will deter others. And the Pentagon's policy will work. Al-Jazeera seriously considered pulling all of its correspondents out of Iraq because it could not guarantee their safety. Arab TV and British media bosses will think twice in any future war of sending staff reporters to the enemy side - not least because insurers will refuse to underwrite the risk. I think the Pentagon is not concerned in the slightest about its attacks on journalists because it is convinced that the public will support its view and its actions.
With five out of 10 Americans believing that most of the terrorists who carried out the attack on 11 September were Iraqis, the American media decided that its readers and viewers were not interested in the plight of Iraqi victims. The New York Times said it aimed to capture the true nature of the war but avoid 'the gratuitous use of images simply for shock value'. The biggest radio group in the US, Clear Channel, used its stations to organise pro-war rallies. McVay Media, one of America's largest communications consulting companies, advised its radio clients to play 'patriotic music that makes you cry, salute and get cold chills', and under no circumstances cover war protests. When New York magazine writer Michael Wolff broke ranks at the coalition's daily press conference at Qatar and asked General Brooks: 'Why are we here? Why should we stay? What's the value of what we're learning at this million-dollar press centre?' Fox TV attacked him for lack of patriotism, and right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh gave out Wolff's email address - in one day he received 3,000 hate emails. Finally, a mysterious civilian in army uniform took him aside and told him: 'This is a fucking war, asshole. No more questions for you.' Wolff realised that the press conferences were not for the benefit of correspondents. The correspondents were extras in a piece of theatre. The farce could not have taken place if the correspondents had gone home, but given the competitive nature of war reporting, there was no danger of that.
Let's finish with a look at the image that everyone will still remember when the debate and all these issues are long forgotten. As seen on television and on the front pages of newspapers around the world, cheering Iraqis attach a rope and a chain to Saddam's neck then call on the services of an American vehicle to haul him down. The statue hesitates, bends at the knees and topples into the dust. In an information war heavy with symbolism, this marked the end of Saddam Hussein and the coalition's victory.
But this image was not quite what it seemed. The statue was pulled down by American troops using American equipment - the Iraqis on their own would not have been able to do it.
Although there were lots of other statues, the toppling of this one took place opposite the Palestine Hotel, where most members of the international media were still staying. Without the media, the event would have meant nothing. Long-distance shots show that the Iraqis who helped topple the statue and later celebrated its fall numbered no more than 100.
So what happened? Was it as portrayed - a spontaneous outpouring of joy by ordinary Iraqis? Or was it a photo opportunity, a staged event in the theatre of propaganda? Excited TV presenters told their viewers they were witnessing history. But whose history?
· Philip Knightley is the author of 'First Casualty' (Carlton), a history of war correspondents and propaganda.
· A longer version of this article appears in the BJR edition 14(2), available from SAGE Publications, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU. Subscription hotline: 020 7330 1266. E-mail: subscription@sagepub.co.uk
----
Iran Internet Use at Risk from Conservatives
Sun June 15, 2003
By Firouz Sedarat
(Reuters)
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=2931969
TEHRAN - The diary of a former prostitute is one of the hottest Web sites in Iran, a strict Islamic society where the Internet is coveted for the access it gives users to a forbidden world.
The anonymous author, who presents herself as a 24-year-old former sex worker, says she does not want to just titillate readers in the conservative country which bans sex and romance outside marriage.
"Some may see my writings as an erotic film, but others might learn something useful from them. It's like a knife that can be used to kill or to peel a cucumber," she says on her site (faheshe.persianblog.com).
Her site and other unabashed online diaries offer a rare insight into the mindset of Iranian youth who have grown up under strict social rules since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
The new generation has been using the Internet to express themselves and satisfy their hunger for knowledge about taboo subjects, ranging from sex to Western-style entertainment or politics.
But they are at risk of losing that window to the world as Islamic conservatives move to restrict Internet use as they have done with foreign satellite television. Their aim is to blot out the "immoral" effects of Western culture.
"This is my only link to the West. One click and I'm in Los Angeles. It also allows me freer contact with other young people inside Iran," said Haleh, a young woman.
After school, she often goes to a neighborhood Internet cafe to chat online or look for the latest fashions or news of Iranian entertainers living in exile in Los Angeles.
She tries to suppress a giggle as she furtively reads an Iranian site offering tips on dating.
"I'm worried about being denied access to many of my favorite sites. I don't approve of immoral sites, but the question is who decides what is or is not moral," Haleh added.
A latecomer to the Internet age, Iran began last month to block pornography and other sites deemed obscene or subversive.
Some 70 youngsters were arrested in March for meeting through an illegal online dating site, newspapers reported, suggesting the authorities had monitored a chat-room they used.
INTERNET BOOM
An Internet boom has caught officials by surprise and prompted them to draw up rules for the largely unregulated sector. The number of users has jumped by 90 percent in the past year. Still, only about three million of Iran's population of 65 million -- half of them under 25 -- have access to the net.
Iranian youths have launched 20,000 active Web logs, or "blogs," -- online diaries which range in topic from simple musings on life to political discussions to sports.
In April, Sina Motallebi became the first blogger to be arrested in Iran where dozens of reformist journalists have been charged by hardline courts. He was freed on bail three weeks later but still faces undisclosed charges.
Women have been especially active bloggers, seizing the opportunity to speak out freely and anonymously on subjects such as dating and romance.
Besides popular political and news sites, half of the 10 most visited Persian blogs are about sex, according to figures from a service providing statistics on Web usage.
"Blogs show us a new generation...that is self-expressive, tolerant and individualistic," said Hossein Derakhshan, a Toronto-based veteran Iranian blogger (hoder.com/weblog).
"Many are lonely and hopeless to the point of depression. They seem to be frustrated and have a problem with sex," said Derakhshan, who presented a study on Iranian blogs at a conference in Vienna in late May.
U.S. PRESSURE PROMPTS MORE CONTROL
Growing tension with Washington since the war in neighboring Iraq has prompted hard-liners to tighten control over the flow of information. There is heavier jamming of U.S.-based Iranian satellite television stations carrying entertainment and dissident messages calling for anti-government protests.
"I think authorities are upset about the parallels these stations draw between Iraq and Iran," said Hassan, a journalist.
The United States has hardened its rhetoric against Iran since the Iraq war, raising the spectre of military action against a country it calls part of an "axis of evil."
Iran's conservatives also seek to counter reformist and dissident groups using the net to reach the public and get round a ban on some 90 pro-reform newspapers in three years.
Reformists allied with President Mohammad Khatami are opposed to restrictions but conservatives say they are needed to check "enemy propaganda" and Western cultural influences.
So far 100,000 mainly foreign porn sites and about 200 Iranian sites have been blocked, but industry sources say the curbs are less drastic than those in nearby Gulf Arab states.
"Up to now mostly political sites have been hit, not blogs. But nothing is predictable here," said Ata Khalighi of persianblog.com, which hosts most Iranian Web logs.
"The day the filtering started, I rushed to check if our site has been blocked or not," he said.
Among the first sites to be blocked were the Persian Web page of the Voice of America, one of its most-viewed sites, and that of Radio Farda, a 24-hour station set up by Washington to try to woo young Iranians with a mix of pop songs and news.
----
U.S. media caved in to the Bush agenda
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
June 15, 2003
Canoe (Canada)
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jun15.html
Why, readers in the U.S. keep asking me, are so many Americans unconcerned their government appears to have misled them and Congress over Iraq, and then waged a war with no basis in law or fact?
Why is there growing outrage in Britain over Tony Blair's equally exaggerated or patently false warnings over Iraq, while middle America couldn't seem to care less about George Bush's "Weaponsgate."
One answer is found in an old joke.
Greenberg is sitting in a bar. He goes up to Woo, a Chinese gentleman, and punches him.
"Why'd you do that?" cries Woo.
"Because of Pearl Harbor," snarls Greenberg.
"But I had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, I'm Chinese!" says Woo.
"Chinese, Japanese, it's all the same to me," answers Greenberg.
A month later, Greenberg sees Woo in the bar and apologizes to him. The Chinese gentleman smiles, then punches Greenberg.
"Why did you do that?" cries Greenberg?
"Because of the Titanic."
"What do I have to do with the Titanic?" asks Greenberg.
"Greenberg, iceberg, it's all the same to me."
Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Saudis, Taliban, al-Qaida ... it's all too much for many geographically challenged Americans. Don't bother us with the details and strange names, they say, kill 'em all, God will sort 'em out. The Muslim 'A-rabs' did 9/11 and we got revenge. Whacking those I-raqis made us feel a whole lot better. So what if Saddam didn't really have the weapons of mass destruction good ol' George W. Bush said endangered the entire world? All politicians lie. So what?"
First, venting national outrage over 9/11 was one factor that helped form this group-think.
Second, starting with Afghanistan, the Bush White House threatened big corporate media it would be held "unpatriotic" and occasionally hinted at unspecified reprisals if coverage did not actively support the war effort there and in Iraq.
Big media too often caved in, sometimes sounding like a public relations arm of the administration.
Third, there was near total domination of Iraq media commentary by the special interest groups that helped to engineer this phony war. Almost all of it in the lead-up to war was done by self-serving Iraqi exiles, uninformed generals and neo-conservatives from Washington think-tanks sometimes echoing the views of Israel's Likud party. In short, a media lynch mob developed, endlessly repeating that Baghdad's terrifying killer weapons were about to blitz the U.S.
I scanned the major U.S. networks for voices challenging the distortions and bunkum coming from the White House and neo-cons. There was virtually none.
Group-think and the big lie prevailed. The British and Canadian media carried both pro- and anti-war views; as a result, there was far more healthy skepticism in both nations about the war than in America.
By contrast, much of the U.S. mainstream media muffled criticism, became part of the war effort and devoted itself to patriotic flag-waving. Americans would have been totally misled had it not been for such Internet sites as Antiwar.com, Bigeye and LewRockwell, and incisive magazines such as American Conservative and Harpers.
Even the august New York Times allowed itself to be used. Right now, the Times is hand-wringing about two cases of plagiarism and phony reporting by staffers. It should instead be anguishing that its pages trumpeted phony reports about Iraqi weapons and links to al-Qaida that came from anti-Saddam exile groups and the pro-war cabal in the Pentagon.
Most so-called Iraqi "experts" on TV, including some colleagues of mine, merely regurgitated what they had read in the morning's Times. The Times and much of the major media were duped, to put it politely, abandoning their vital role in our democratic system as tribune and questioner of the politicians.
So, too, the Democratic party, which, as war fever was being stoked by the Bush administration and the press, shamefully rolled over and played dead - with the exception of that great American, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who long ago denounced Bush's Iraq misadventure, and who now demands a full investigation of how Americans and their Congress were misled.
Absurd exaggerations
The black comedy continues:
# Bush citing what turned out to be crudely forged documents in his state of the union address.
# "Drones of death" that turned out to be rickety model airplanes.
# The "decontamination" trucks cited by Colin Powell that turned out to be fire trucks when inspected by the UN.
# The notorious "mobile germ labs" the British press now reports were for inflating artillery balloons and, in fact, were sold to Iraq by the U.K.
Some British and American intelligence officers are accusing their governments of outright lies or absurd exaggerations.
Maybe Americans have become brain-dead from too much TV. Maybe they don't care terrorism is surging, or that recent polls show the U.S. is reviled, hated, or distrusted around the globe thanks to this administration and its neo-con mentors. Maybe they don't understand that over 288 Americans and an estimated 26,300 Iraqi civilians and soldiers have so far died in a totally unnecessary conflict. Or that the U.S. in now stuck in an ugly little colonial war in Iraq, its very own West Bank and Gaza.
(Note to American hate-mailers: spare Canada, I'm a New Yorker.)
----
Truth Is Strongest Weapon In War
June 15, 2003,
Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/columnists/nyc-bres0615,0,1770940.column
I was around when Watergate was being called a third-rate burglary. Brilliant minds in Washington said congressional hearings would be ludicrous, cheap and unpatriotic. Then, Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina arrived with a lance to start cross-examining White House people, and we were off into history. I don't think he went three days when the first murmurs of impeachment were heard.
Therefore, on Friday I looked through my notebooks and files about the deaths in Iraq of two Marines, Cpl. Marcus Rodriguez and Sgt. Riayan Tejeda.
Rodriguez's funeral was at Blessed Sacrament Church in Cypress Hills. His mother passed out on the sidewalk after the Mass.
Tejeda was buried out of St. Elizabeth's in Washington Heights. After the service, the mother, bent in pain, had to be helped through a crush of grief on the sidewalk.
Today, the two dead Marines are the symbol for everybody who died in a war that was started because of a series of coordinated lies in Washington that said that Iraq had nuclear bombs. "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The Bush administration used the term so much that it turned into initials, WMD.
I use here a 100-page report from "Defense and the National Interest," a publication respected in war colleges and put out by Charles Spinney, a retired Air Force officer who actually put his reports out while working in the Pentagon since 1975. It is now on the Internet -- with whistle-blowers enthusiastically sending him reports.
Here is just one significant part of his 100-page release:
The State Department said on Sept. 12, 2002, "A new report released on September 9th from the International Institute for Strategic Studies -- an independent research organization -- concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."
In October 2002, the CIA said, "If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade."
It will either rain or it will not rain tomorrow.
The Defense and the National Interest Report states that more than 90 percent of the entire Manhattan Project budget went to fissile materials, less than 4 percent went to the weapons laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M.
A bomb with fissile material or no bomb at all.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said that there were no claims of Iraq actually attempting to import fissile material since 1991, and the known fissile material inside Iraq prior to that date has been fully accounted for by the atomic energy agency. In 1981, Iraq tried to import uranium or "yellowcake" from Niger. Twenty-two years later, Niger today cannot export yellowcake without the consent of its three partners, France, Japan and Spain. It has not happened.
The British then excitedly came out with a document with the forged names of half the government of the country Niger, stating that Iraq was buying uranium. One of the signatures was of a dead man. The forgery was sold to an Italian intelligence agent. There was no uranium moved anywhere. Intelligence agencies all over the place are saying that they knew about the forgery.
And then on Jan. 20, George W. Bush announced in his State of the Union address something that had been known to be fraudulent for months and yet he told his country:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently bought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
That's what Bush said. Why he said it is the question. And why Cheney and Rumsfeld kept trying to justify the war with cries of "WMD" must be questioned by today's Sam Ervin. Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell loved aluminum tubes. If Saddam has them, he's ready to fire. The tubes turn out to be suitable for short-distance missiles and useless for nuclear manufacture.
One reason for your government operating this way could be that the small closed group in the White House sees what they want to see and proceeds from there, even if it is plainly delusional to anybody looking in from outside.
The only one who takes on George W. Bush over the weapons is Sen. Bob Graham of Florida. Graham compared Bush to Richard Nixon. He says the Republican closed-door hearings are shameful and a dangerous display of secrecy.
Aside from delusion, the other reason for scaring the country about nuclear bombs is lying. There is the lie being told that is false but which the teller has taken to be true. They give the president a speech that is a lie and he gives it. Then there is the lie that tells the opposite of what the teller knows to be true.
It leaps out that the reason given to Americans for going into Iraq -- to stop them from blowing us up with nuclear weapons -- was an outright lie. It was told to America by President George W. Bush. And people died because of it. What kind of a lie and why it was told is something that only a full investigation by Congress, full and on television, can tell the public and tell us who lied and why.
And tell the families of these two Marines we lost in Iraq and who stand for all the others who died for a lie.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Patriot Act of 2001 casts wide net
June 15, 2003
By Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030615-123422-5163r.htm
Long-sought details have begun to emerge from the Justice Department on how anti-terrorist provisions of the USA Patriot Act were applied in nonterror investigations, just as battle lines are being drawn on proposed new powers in a Patriot Act II.
Overall, the policy now allows evidence to be used for prosecuting common criminals even when obtained under extraordinary anti-terrorism powers and information-sharing between intelligence agencies and the FBI.
"We would use whatever tools are available to us, within reason, to prosecute violations of any law," Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said in the wake of his department's massive report to Congress describing how the USA Patriot Act is being implemented.
The information was a response to doubts, not from outspoken civil liberties groups, but from Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and the House Judiciary Committee chairman who publicly pushed for its speedy 337-79 House passage.
"We had something to do with encouraging Chairman Sensenbrenner to express our concerns," said Timothy Edgar, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel. The ACLU spearheaded opposition to sections that could let the government obtain vast amounts of information that infringe on constitutional rights.
"It's clear that the problems of 9/11 were the result of not analyzing information we had already collected. Creating more hay to search through the haystack is not an effective way to find the needle," Mr. Edgar said in an interview.
"It's impossible for anyone to make the case that our civil liberties were the problem," agreed Lee Tien, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.
Key objections include authorizing FBI agents to monitor mosques, which the Justice Department said was done only by 20 percent of FBI's 45 field offices; access to business records, which they say includes files at libraries and bookstores; and expanding CIA influence over domestic intelligence by authorizing the agency to request individual surveillance.
The Justice Department takes the position that grand juries have long had the power to subpoena bookstore and library records, and that the Patriot Act merely expanded that authority to anti-terror and foreign intelligence probes.
Mr. Tien said the Patriot Act corrected a general belief that the long-standing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was restricted to terrorist activity.
"It is now much easier to use FISA surveillance in an investigation for a law-enforcement purpose," he said, but he added that authorities rarely cross that line.
Without acknowledging such objections, Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee in an appearance Thursday to consult on guidelines for future investigations that September 11 proved the FBI must prevent crime, and not just wait for new outrages.
But Mr. Ashcroft always was emphatic about the law's purpose and on Oct. 25, 2001, told the U.S. Mayors Conference that he supported applying to terrorists Robert Kennedy's stated policy to arrest organized crime figures for "spitting on the sidewalk" if need be.
"We will use every available statute. We will seek every prosecutorial advantage," Mr. Ashcroft said that day before the Patriot Act was signed into law. On June 5 he asked that those powers be expanded.
More changes were expected to follow Justice Department negotiations with House Judiciary Committee staffers scheduled for last week, but the recent revelations showed that information gathered under the law - by secret warrant or compulsory disclosures - will be used for nonterrorist prosecutions as well.
The committee's ranking Democrat, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said he hoped the meetings would allow better analysis of the complex subject than each member's having five minutes each to quiz Mr. Ashcroft.
The complexity of the 342-page USA Patriot Act would be difficult to overstate since it modified 15 existing laws to:
•Expand the capability to obtain warrants and conduct searches without disclosing them immediately.
•Expand DNA collection to include any violent crime.
•Allow Internet monitoring.
•Mandate access to "business records" that include librarian and bookstore files.
•Restrict lawsuits to keep from bankrupting airlines whose planes were hijacked September 11.
•Compensate survivors of more than 3,000 people killed that day.
Many provisions are now planned to expire in October 2005, although evidence obtained now may be used later. Some provisions are yet to go into effect, including aspects requiring fuller identification of "financial-transaction" customers, which takes full force Oct. 1.
Software, like that sold by Innovative Systems of Pittsburgh, helps firms in 25 finance-related industries covered by the law to compare millions of customer records with thousands of entries on federal government blacklists. "Suspicious Activity Reports" will be required to the Treasury Department from car dealers, insurance companies, investment brokers, lenders, and real-estate firms.
"The only companies out doing that today are banks. I'll bet a lot of places don't even know they'll have to do it," said Charles Schardong, Innovative's product manager, who said private companies shield their customers' privacy.
One example of detail in the law - whose full formal name is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 - is that Acting Assistant Attorney General Jamie E. Brown used 60 closely spaced pages to respond to 18 pages of questions on civil liberties issues. In addition, answers containing classified information were filed separately.
Among other things, the DOJ revealed it obtained 113 secret emergency search or electronic-surveillance authorizations in the year after September 11, compared with 47 in the 23 years before that attack. The law lowered the standard for such intrusions from terrorism being "the purpose" to being only "a significant purpose."
Other replies on statistical questions about the law's implementation:
•One of the 15 requests to seize material without notifying the owners was refused. A court ruled photographs of items in storage would suffice, so seizure was unjustified.
•Justice refused to say how many persons were detained as "material witnesses" or identify any, but said that as of January the total was "fewer than 50" and that most were freed in less than 90 days.
•Six hundred accounts encompassing $124 million in assets were frozen and 70 "terrorist financing" investigations led to 23 convictions or guilty pleas.
•Information obtained from computer-service providers was used in investigations unrelated to foreign terrorism. They included a kidnaping, a bomb threat against a school, a hacker who extorted his victim, and a lawyer who defrauded clients.
•The FBI hired 264 translators "to support counterterrorism efforts," including 121 Arabic speakers and 25 who speak Farsi.
•Telephone voicemails were obtained through search warrants rather than wiretap orders "in a variety of criminal cases ... [including] foreign and domestic terrorists." The law also opens to seizure e-mail stored on a provider's server.
•Pen-register devices that record strokes on a telephone keypad or a computer keyboard identified conspirators in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
•More than 8.4 million FBI files were provided to the State Department, and 83,000 records on wanted persons went to the Immigration and Naturalization Service along with data on detainees held in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"In our judgment the government success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland in the 20 months since September 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossibly so, without the USA Patriot Act," wrote Ms. Brown, who directs congressional affairs for the Justice Department.
Mr. Edgar, her opposite number at the ACLU, largely dismissed the bulky reply that provided answers his organization had long demanded.
"I'd say the response was dismissive and cavalier. It provided some information without answering the basic question: 'Are we safer from terrorism?' " said Mr. Edgar, adding that the impact of the Patriot Act appears exaggerated.
"They say we've used this section or that section but don't say why, how, or whether it was important or what would have happened if they had not used that section or whether it was used to prevent terrorism," Mr. Edgar said.
-------- death penalty
Juries Reject Death Penalty in Nearly All Federal Trials
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By ADAM LIPTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/national/15DEAT.html
Federal prosecutors failed to persuade juries to impose the death penalty in 15 of the last 16 trials in which they sought it, says the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, which assists lawyers defending federal capital cases.
Legal experts say the trend might have a number of explanations, like overreaching by prosecutors and some jurors' growing unease with the death penalty.
The rate at which juries rejected the death penalty in the federal trials, over about the last year, is sharply higher than in earlier years in the federal system and in current state prosecutions, Justice Department records and lawyers around the country say.
Kevin McNally, a lawyer with the project which collected the information, said the statistics were particularly surprising given the advantages federal prosecutors have in capital cases.
"The most aggravated cases are handpicked by seasoned career federal prosecutors with the most resources," Mr. McNally said, "and they only get one out of 16? If they were a corporation, there would be an investigation."
Monica Goodling, a Justice Department spokeswoman, did not take issue with the statistics and said they arose from a new prosecutorial philosophy under which more capital cases are taken to trial.
"Prior to 2001, federal prosecutors used to plead many of these cases to life," Ms. Goodling said. "But people who commit the same sort of heinous crimes are now treated equally no matter what state they committed the crime in."
She added that, viewed in absolute rather than percentage terms, "the number of death penalties obtained has remained consistent over time."
The current Justice Department has obtained about two death penalties a year, slightly fewer than earlier administrations.
The cases in which prosecutors failed to convince juries to impose the death penalty, all of which resulted in convictions, were in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The case in which they succeeded was in Arizona.
With the exception of the District of Columbia, said Jamie Orenstein, a former Justice Department official who advised Attorney General Janet Reno on death penalty issues, "these are all in jurisdictions that not only allow the death penalty but have historically been among the most receptive to imposing it." Many of the cases involved gruesome crimes, including mass murder and the killings of small children. On Friday, a jury in Binghamton, N.Y., sentenced two defendants to life without parole for torturing and killing a rival drug dealer.
Though Attorney General John Ashcroft has been aggressive in insisting on seeking the death penalty even over the recommendations of local prosecutors, just two of the 15 cases involved such overrides, Mr. McNally said. In one of them, Ms. Reno had authorized the death penalty prosecution.
David Baldus, a law professor at the University of Iowa and an expert in the death penalty, cautioned that a year's worth of federal trials was not a particularly large sample.
"It might just be a statistical artifact," Professor Baldus said. "It might be an anomaly."
In the two and a half years of the Bush administration, the defense counsel project says, 34 federal capital trials were concluded, resulting in 5 death sentences - about 15 percent of the cases. The comparable numbers from 1988 through 2000, Justice Department statistics show, were 26 death penalties in 57 capital trials, or 46 percent.
Definitive data about the juries' decisions in state capital trials is harder to come by, but legal experts said rates varied from about 25 percent in the Northeast to 85 percent in Texas.
"It is just the opposite of the federal experience," Professor Baldus said, referring to the recent statistics.
Franklin E. Zimring, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said recent results showed that federal defense lawyers were better financed and more competent than their state counterparts, particularly at presenting mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of the trial.
"It's almost a controlled experiment on the difference that quality of counsel makes," Professor Zimring said.
Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports the death penalty, attributed some of the trend to the way judges have interpreted the federal death penalty law.
A single juror can deadlock the sentencing phase in federal death penalty trials, resulting in a life sentence. In those circumstances some states allow selection of a new jury to decide the penalty.
Alan Vinegrad, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn, said the recent statistics represented something larger.
"It reflects that the tide is turning in this country with regard to attitudes about the death penalty," Mr. Vinegrad said. "There has been so much publicity about wrongfully convicted defendants on death row that people sitting on juries are reluctant to impose the ultimate sanction."
Mr. Orenstein, the former Justice Department official, said federal prosecutors should be more cautious.
"It's a dangerous game the Department of Justice is playing here," he said, adding that the failed capital prosecutions were a poor use of resources and damaged prosecutors' credibility.
"We've got to assume," he said, "that if some juries are balking at death in overcharged cases, others are balking at conviction."
-------- drug war
Texas to Free 13 Jailed on Agent's Word
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Tulia-Drug-Busts.html
TULIA, Texas (AP) -- Thirteen people imprisoned on the testimony of a discredited undercover officer were to be released on those charges Monday, nearly four years after they and dozens of other residents -- most of them black -- were arrested on drug charges.
``I'm so happy for them,'' said Billy Wafer, one of the 46 arrested in the 1999 sweep that capped an 18-month undercover operation. ``It's been a long time coming but it's finally here.''
Wafer wasn't charged; he had an alibi and his case was dismissed.
But 38 others were convicted on the uncorroborated word of undercover drug agent Tom Coleman -- now under indictment on perjury charges -- or they accepted plea agreements out of fear of lengthy prison terms.
Civil rights advocates have called the arrests racially motivated. Of the 46 arrested in the small Panhandle town, 39 were black. Coleman is white.
Coleman claimed he bought drugs from the defendants, but he worked alone and used no audio or video surveillance. No drugs were ever found during the arrests, and little or no corroborating evidence was introduced in court.
Monday, the 12 blacks and one Hispanic will be taken from the Swisher County Jail to the Swisher County Courthouse. There, State District Judge Ron Chapman of Dallas is expected to free them on bond while their cases are on appeal. One of them, Daniel Olivarez, 22, will remain in custody because there is a hold on him from Potter County, which is outside Chapman's jurisdiction.
Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill June 2 allowing for the releases; it could take as long two years for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to rule on their cases.
Chapman previously presided over hearings for four of the defendants and said Coleman was ``simply not a credible witness under oath.''
The judge recommended that the 38 convictions be overturned and new trials ordered, but a special prosecutor has said there will be no new trials.
Coleman, a contract agent for the Panhandle Regional Drug Task Force, was indicted in April on three charges of aggravated perjury stemming from his testimony during the hearings Chapman oversaw. The district attorney who prosecuted many of the cases, Terry McEachern, has denied wrongdoing.
A 14th defendant who was included in the governor's bill is not eligible for bail because his case is still pending on direct appeal, said Vanita Gupta, assistant counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Gupta, one of many attorneys involved in the cases, said she was ``overjoyed and relieved'' that the defendants who were ``ripped from their families'' finally will be free.
``It is incredible that all three branches of the Texas government have recognized the need for action to rectify the injustice that took place in Tulia,'' Gupta said. ``But until these individuals receive full and complete relief, whether through a pardon or an overturning of their convictions, this matter is not resolved.'' Mattie White is the mother of two of those being released: Kareem White, 27, sentenced to 60 years in prison, and her 26-year-old daughter, Kizzie, sentenced to 25 years. A third child, Donnie White, was paroled in January 2002.
``I thought, 'It's not going to ever happen,''' Mattie White said. ``I would go off and cry to myself. But with (my children's) prayers and everybody else's, I just caught on to it and started believing they would (get out).''
-------- human rights
Showdown for a Tool in Human Rights Lawsuits
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By ALEX MARKELS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/business/yourmoney/15TORT.html
IN a watershed case that could affect how multinationals do business in developing countries, a federal appeals court will consider on Tuesday whether the energy giant Unocal should stand trial in connection with human rights abuses that the government of Myanmar is accused of inflicting on villagers during construction of a natural-gas pipeline.
The crucial question before the unusually large panel of 11 judges is whether to apply international legal standards that hold parties responsible for aiding and abetting human rights abuses. The case is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
The plaintiffs are a group of villagers from Tenasserim, a region in southeastern Myanmar, the country once known as Burma. They say Unocal paid the military to provide security for the project and supported the government, which forced villagers to help build the $1.2 billion pipeline in the 1990's and threatened those who refused with rape and other atrocities. Unocal denies the accusations.
If the court allows the civil suit to go to a jury trial, "this will raise the stakes for multinationals that do business with repressive regimes," said William S. Dodge, an international law professor at the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. "There are plenty of repressive regimes around the world, and there are plenty of multinationals that do business with them. The question is, how far can a corporation like Unocal go in cooperating with such a regime before the company bears some legal responsibility?"
THE case is among a growing number based on the once-obscure Alien Tort Claims Act, a 1789 law originally intended to help prosecute international pirates in American courts. Since the early 1980's, it has been used to argue cases successfully against foreign military and police personnel accused of human rights abuses. More recently, human rights and labor groups have seized on it to do battle with oil, mining and other multinational companies that work with governments that they say engage in torture, genocide and similar violations of international law.
There have been more than a dozen alien tort cases filed against companies since the mid-1990's, but none have so far gone to a jury trial. Some have been dismissed on procedural grounds, while others are pending. The possibility of trials has raised concerns among both corporations and the Bush administration over potentially embarrassing testimony - and worry that a verdict could set a precedent that encourages thousands of foreign plaintiffs to seek damages for crimes committed by their own governments.
"You get a perfect storm of sympathetic plaintiffs, trial lawyers and anti-globalization activists working together to bring these suits," said William A. Reinsch, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, an industry group based in Washington. He cites cases like one recently filed against dozens of companies that did business in South Africa under apartheid. "It could be disastrous for global trade," he added.
Though there has not been a single verdict against them, companies are feeling the impact of the litigation, which they must increasingly factor into investment decisions.
"It's causing companies to run away from situations like Burma," said Errol P. Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and recently a co-author of "Global Governance, Economy and Law" (Taylor & Francis), which details the impact of such lawsuits on multinational companies.
He and others point to a variety of recent corporate decisions to demur or pull back from projects in countries where governments have been accused of human-rights abuses, including Nigeria, Indonesia and Sudan, as well as Myanmar.
Although Unocal, based in El Segundo, Calif., continues to do business in Myanmar, "this has created a great deal of uncertainty about future investing," said Charles O. Strathman, its vice president and chief legal officer. "It's not just the legal fees involved; it's also very disruptive and a big time commitment."
The negative publicity from such cases may be even more costly. Social-justice and environmental groups see the Unocal case as an example of globalization gone bad, inspiring protests on college campuses and campaigns to pressure school administrators to sell Unocal stock.
"Whether these companies prevail in a court of law, they are already losing in the court of public opinion," Professor Mendes said. "Just the launching of these lawsuits has a huge impact on companies' brand equity, which these days is their most important asset."
The suits are just one way to try to bring pressure on companies. In resolutions being put before corporate directors, shareholders are calling for companies to pull out of projects implicated in human-rights lawsuits. For example, after a shareholder resolution and negative publicity from a pending human-rights lawsuit, Talisman Energy in March sold its $770 million stake in an oil development project in Sudan. It had been accused of assisting Sudanese forces in an ethnic cleansing campaign against villagers near its oil fields.
"There was shareholder fatigue" in the investment, said David W. Mann, a senior manager for investor relations at Talisman, which is based in Calgary, Alberta, and listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He denied the suit's accusations.
Although a lawsuit filed against ChevronTexaco by villagers in Ecuador was dismissed last year by a federal judge, the company decided to end its oil development there last fall. The case is now scheduled to be heard in an Ecuadorian court. Various factors led to the decision to leave Ecuador, but the litigation "was not a positive indicator to say this is a place we want to continue to do business," said Edward B. Scott, vice president and general counsel for the company's overseas division. The threat of similar litigation, he said, "adds a further element of risk and makes us less competitive."
SECURITY experts regard such statements as signs that multinational companies based in the United States are increasingly worried about their liability for acts committed by host governments, which have long provided security and other services for their oil, mining and other projects.
While corporate officials emphatically defend their human-rights records overseas, "business leaders are getting very nervous about these lawsuits," said Catherine J. Boggs, a lawyer at Baker & McKensie in Chicago, who advises companies about security arrangements with local governments. "Some think the best way to deal with them is to try to repeal the law altogether, or at least modify it."
To that end, pro-trade groups and the Justice Department filed briefs in May in the Unocal case, arguing that the alien tort statute had been misapplied by plaintiffs and that such lawsuits could undermine American business interests and the war or terrorism. The lawsuit bears "serious implications for our current war against terrorism" and permits similar claims to be easily asserted against allies in that war, an assistant attorney general, Robert D. McCallum, wrote in the government's brief.
Despite increased pressure on judges to support the antiterrorism effort, legal experts say it is unlikely that the court will move to invalidate use of the alien tort statute in the Unocal case. Yet even if it advances to a jury trial, it may be difficult to prove that Unocal actively participated in abuse by Myanmar. "It's not to say that these acts weren't horrible, but the aiding and abetting by Unocal is not obvious," said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at the Brooklyn Law School who specializes in tort law. "These are difficult allegations to prove because they have to show that Unocal knew precisely how its aid was being used to commit human rights abuses."
Yet company officials worry that the aiding-and-abetting standard, which can include "knowing practical assistance, encouragement or moral support" to the perpetrator of the abuse, is so broad that practically any involvement with the government of Myanmar could be misconstrued as complicity. "The investment itself could be considered moral support or assistance," said M. Randall Oppenheimer, a lawyer at O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles, who represents Unocal in the case. "It seems fundamentally unfair to hold people liable for a situation that they don't control."
The plaintiffs argue, however, that Unocal was well aware of the military's poor human rights record in Myanmar and should have known that its security forces would engage in brutal practices, like forcing villagers who lived in the path of the pipeline not only to relocate, but to help build it. Their lawyers cite a 1992 report by consultants who advised the company on the risks of doing business with the government of Myanmar. The report warned that the military "habitually uses forced labor to construct roads."
A lawyer who represents the plaintiffs, Katharine J. Redford of EarthRights International in Washington, said: "Their own consultants told them they could be implicated as a willing partner in the abuse. That's exactly our allegation."
EVEN if the suit fails to prove that such actions amounted to aiding and abetting Myanmar's military, legal experts say that potentially embarrassing evidence made public during a jury trial could embolden potential plaintiffs in other cases to come forward. "It's similar to what happened with tobacco," Professor Sebok said. "The very fact that they were able to see the corporate files raises the threat value, so the next time around there would be greater willingness to settle at some price."
While companies aggressively fight both the lawsuits and the statute on which they are based, many have also endorsed documents like the State Department's Voluntary Principles on Human Rights and Security. It outlines ways to ensure security for corporate operations and to prevent abuse - to add human rights clauses to contracts with security firms, for example.
Some have also begun to work with organizations outside government. Executives at the Royal Dutch/Shell Group are working with members of Human Rights Watch, based in New York, to improve the human rights situation in Nigeria, where the company has been accused of assisting in abuses against members of a local opposition group. And Unocal has met with representatives of Amnesty International and recently allowed observers from the Collaborative for Development Action, an independent consulting group based in Boston, to visit the Myanmar pipeline and study its impact on the local people.
"It's a very cynical strategy," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human rights program at Human Rights Watch, "because you end up with companies' trying to do the right thing, but also trying to ensure that there's no consequences for doing the wrong thing."
-------- immigration / refugees
FBI Director: Handling of Immigrants Held in Terror War to Change
From Associated Press
June 14, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-aclu14jun14,0,7179627.story
WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III on Friday promised changes in the handling of illegal immigrants suspected of having links to terrorism.
In a speech to an American Civil Liberties Union conference, Mueller said a report last week from the Justice Department's inspector general "did a very good job of pointing out areas where we can do better."
The inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, criticized the lengthy detentions - some up to eight months - of many of the 762 immigrants held after the Sept. 11 attacks and the FBI's assumption of sole authority to decide whether individuals remain a threat. Conditions of custody were deemed often unduly harsh.
Among the planned changes, Mueller said, are better criteria for deciding when an illegal immigrant is a suspect of special concern, improved communication between agencies to speed disposition of cases and more personnel devoted to the investigations.
In addition, federal immigration officials will have greater authority over custody of these illegal immigrants, with the FBI taking over only if the case is made in writing that release of an individual would pose a threat or disrupt an investigation.
Assistant Atty. Gen. Michael Chertoff, head of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in a recent letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FBI and the Homeland Security Department - which now handles most immigration matters - are working to implement these changes.
"These enhancements would further reduce the potential for impinging on civil liberties," Chertoff said in the June 4 letter, which he said stated his personal views and not official government policy. Chertoff leaves his post Monday to become a judge on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The fate of detainees was only one of the issues that has drawn criticism from the ACLU in the war against terrorism. The ACLU has fought against government secrecy, questioned the increased surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act and raised concern that the FBI has singled out Muslims for investigation since Sept. 11.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero praised Mueller for his willingness to appear before such a critical crowd, albeit one that received him warmly. But Romero added that "the areas of disagreement outnumber the areas of agreement" between his group and the FBI.
Mueller said the FBI had redoubled its dedication to upholding citizens' rights under the Constitution, even as it retools to make counter-terrorism its top priority. Some secrecy is necessary in combating terrorism, he said, but many concerns about infringement of rights have been overblown.
For instance, Mueller said the FBI has investigated patrons' use of library books and computers only when probing specific individuals with court-approved warrants.
"The FBI will be judged not just on how we effectively disrupt and deter terrorism, but also on how we protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of all Americans," Mueller said. "We must accomplish both, so that future generations can enjoy lives that are both safe and free."
----
Secret Balkan camp built to hold UK asylum seekers
Britain to ship refugees to Croatian army base for 'offshore processing'
Martin Bright, Paul Harris and Dominic Hipkins in Trstenik
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer
http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,977842,00.html
Asylum-seekers arriving in Britain will be shipped to an 'offshore' camp in Croatia as part of a radical move to process all asylum claims outside European Union borders, The Observer can reveal.
In an attempt to crack down on rising levels of illegal immigration, supporters of the plan say it is logical to handle claims close to applicants' countries of origin, easing racial tension over the integration of refugees in European Union countries.
But critics claim the camps will breach international obligations to refugees, attract people traffickers and make it impossible to police any human rights abuses.
The Croatian camp will hold up to 800 people. It has been built in at the village of Trstenik, 30 miles from Zagreb near the town of Dugo Selo. The £1 million centre, funded by the European Commission, will take refugees arriving at British ports and airports from the Balkans and eastern Europe.
They would be immediately shipped to the 'transit processing centre', where their applications for asylum in Britain would be assessed.
The Home Office confirmed last night that Britain hopes to get approval at the EU summit at Thessaloniki in Greece this week for a trial series of processing centres and 'zones of protection' for asylum seekers in conflict regions. Britain already has the support of the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria for the scheme. Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes promised earlier this month the first non-EU asylum centre would be 'under way before the end of the year'. The Observer has discovered, however, that building at the Trstenik camp, a disused army base, is already nearly finished. Its 13 former barrack blocks, each with 26 rooms, will detain around 60 asylum-seekers.
The Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, Simon Hughes, called on the Government to explain why the plans had been kept secret: 'If this camp has been negotiated, developed and made ready with nobody being told, there are serious questions to be asked. Secrecy or deception at this level is completely unacceptable.'
At Tsrtenik a rusting watch tower dominates the one square-kilometre and a newly painted helicopter pad covers a concrete exercise yard. The base entrance is in the shadow of a nearby cement factory. A lone policeman confirmed that a truck in the camp car park was full of building materials 'because of this asylum business'.
The website of the European Commission's delegation to Croatia confirms that contracts are being advertised to reinstall sewage, water systems and electricity at 'Trstenik asylum home'.
A carpenter at the site said: 'Everyone has been told to finish their work by a six-month deadline ready for the asylum seekers.'
Croatians are furiously about being kept in the dark about the camp's new role. Government spokesman Zarko Plevnik initially urged Britain to 'take care of its own asylum seekers' when the plans for the centre first emerged last April. But it is thought Zagreb's attitude has since softened.
But Ivan Remenar, the mayor of nearby Rugvica, a bigger town south of Dugo Selo, warned: 'This will upset local people who have no experience of asylum-seekers.' The owner of a restaurant close to the camp said: 'This [camp] will destroy my business. Escaped asylum-seekers will be running around. Believe me, the police here can't catch them.'
In Britain Refugee Action spokesman Leigh Daynes expressed grave concern. 'We urgently need every assurance that these centres will be compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention.'
The Observer has obtained a copy of a letter from Tony Blair to Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis urging action on asylum at Thassaloniki. Attached to the letter are details of plans for Britain's vision of Europe's future asylum policy.
The proposals have two main pillars. The first, of which the Croatian camp is the vanguard, are plans to set up a regional network of 'transit processing centres' outside the EU. Here asylum- seekers would lodge their claims and be detained while they are being processed. The camps will be placed in countries bordering the EU creating a 'buffer zone' from asylum seekers. Countries likely to play host to such camps include Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Albania.
Any asylum-seekers arriving in Britain and seeking to lodge a claim would no longer stay in Britain while their claims were processed. Instead they would be transferred out of the UK and into one of the camps.
Britain wants the camps to be managed by the International Organisation for Migration with a screening system approved by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Any applicants who are rejected will then be returned to their own countries .
The second pillar of the policy is longer term and aims to create 'regional protection areas' in parts of the world which produce a lot of refugees and asylum-seekers, such as the Horn of Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan. These are likely to be less formal camps in countries like Kenya or Pakistan where eventually asylum claims could also be processed.
However, critics have criticised the proposals as destroying the international framework for dealing with refugees set up by the 1951 Refugee Convention that has been a bedrock of international relations for more than half a century.
Critics have warned that the policy will create a series of 'super Sangattes', a reference to the now closed asylum camp near Calais. They say the plans will solve none of the problems associated with the current chaos.
'This misguided policy will do huge damage to how we treat refugees and asylum-seekers,' said Richard Williams, of the Refugee Council.
-------- prisons / prisoners
Lawyers Seek Access to Suspected al - Qaida
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Indictments.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- Defense lawyers in a terrorism case are arguing they should be able to interview a suspected al-Qaida member who is the son of a sheik convicted of a 1995 plot to blow up New York landmarks.
The New York Times reported Sunday that a court document shows lawyers for Ahmed Abdel Sattar want access to Ahmed Abdel Rahman, who was with al-Qaida in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, according to a federal indictment. Rahman has reportedly been held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2001.
Sattar, lawyer Lynne Stewart and an Arabic translator were charged last year with helping deliver messages from Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. The sheik, who was Stewart's client, is serving a life sentence for conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks and assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Prosecutors say Sattar, Stewart and the translator helped relay messages from the blind Egyptian cleric to the Islamic Group, a radical Egyptian-based terrorist group. All three have pleaded innocent.
The federal indictment says Sattar arranged to send money to the sheik's son when he was with al-Qaida. Sattar's lawyers argue that the sheik's son, if questioned, ``would testify that any money sent to him by Mr. Sattar was for his own personal needs and use.''
According to the Times, U.S. Attorney James Comey's office wrote to Sattar's defense last week and refused to provide information about the son of the sheik.
``Disclosure of such information could be inimical to the national security of the United States,'' Comey's office said.
U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl has asked for further written arguments on the Rahman issue, the Times said.
Sattar's lawyers asked Koeltl to consider a ruling in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, who is charged as a conspirator with the Sept. 11 hijackers.
A federal judge in Virginia has ruled that Moussaoui must have access to al-Qaida prisoner Ramzi Binalshibh, a suspected organizer of the Sept. 11 attacks. The government has appealed the ruling, arguing that such access would harm national security.
Moussaoui contends Binalshibh could prove he was not part of the Sept. 11 plot, and the judge says he has a right to information that could potentially clear him.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
Fossil Fuels, Nukes Pressure Energy Talks
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Hydrogen-Talks.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration wants to enlist European support for an international partnership to develop hydrogen energy, but differences over fossil fuels and nuclear power are complicating the talks.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who was outlining the administration's hydrogen policy at a conference in Belgium on Monday, planned to emphasize that the United States is committed to developing renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But the United States also is determined to find ways to build pollution-free coal-burning plants and use nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen.
The Europeans will hear that the United States is looking at all these options and that half of the research money into hydrogen sources, part of a $1.7 billion program proposed by President Bush, involves renewables.
But some European leaders believe the administration is far less committed than Europe to research into renewable energy, which they want to make the cornerstone of a hydrogen energy economy.
The vision held by both the Europeans and Americans is for hydrogen fuel cells to replace polluting coal-burning power plants and to end the need for gasoline and pollution-spewing automobiles. Fuel cells use hydrogen and oxygen to produce power, with only water as a byproduct.
For a truly pollution-free system, environmentalists argue, the hydrogen must come from a source that does not pollute. They contend that a push for renewable energy technology such as wind and solar power -- and not fossil fuels -- is the answer.
Many Europeans have embraced the argument.
The European Union, for example, has committed to a benchmark of having 22 percent of its electricity, and 12 percent of its energy, come from renewables by 2010. The Bush administration has resisted any such commitments for domestic utilities.
Some of the Europeans fear that an international research effort, following the U.S. lead, might give short shift to research into renewable energy sources, says Jeremy Rifkin, an adviser to EU leaders on the hydrogren issues.
He has characterized the administration's hydrogen initiative as ``a Trojan horse'' for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.
``While the European Union understands that much of the hydrogen will have to be extracted from fossil fuels in the immediate future, its long-term game plan is to rely increasingly on renewable sources of energy to extract hydrogen,'' Rifkin says.
In a report to be presented at conference in Brussels, a high-level EU advisory group on hydrogen development acknowledges that during the transition period, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels will be needed to make hydrogen. The report does not reject a role for nuclear power.
But the report, viewed as a likely European road map to a hydrogen economy, urges a framework of research that would ``intensify the use of renewable energy.''
``In the longer term, renewable energy sources will become the most important source for the production of hydrogen,'' the panel says.
U.S. officials sought to play down any differences. They noted that hydrogen production is just one element of the necessary research should hydrogen fuel cells replace the internal combustion engine and fossil-based power plants.
``There are far more things that we are in agreement on that we intend to pursue together than things we might disagree on,'' Abraham said in an interview. ``We all agree we want to move toward a hydrogen economy. How we produce hydrogen is just one part of the puzzle.''
Abraham said he envisions an international effort in which countries ``will develop programs that fit their own priorities. How to produce hydrogen more cost effectively is just a single part of a much broader undertaking.''
Hydrogen, one of the most common elements on earth, can be derived from many sources. Today, it is commonly extracted from natural gas, or methane.
It also can be made from electricity generated by a coal-burning power plant or a nuclear reactor. The electricity, in a process known as electrolysis, splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be stored and later used in a fuel cell where it reacts with oxygen to produce energy; again, water is the only byproduct.
Since Bush in February drew attention to hydrogen development, the issue has attracted intense interest in Congress and elsewhere. Lawmakers are considering a $3 billion research effort to push hydrogen fuel-cell development and creation of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
The Energy Department has begun a $1 billion program to develop a new generation coal-burning power plant that would make electricity and hydrogen, while capturing carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
The administration also supports a Senate proposal that calls for building a $1.1 billion nuclear reactor that would produce hydrogen.
Rifkin and other critics of the Bush agenda say those projects alone dwarf administration efforts to develop renewable energy systems that also could produce hydrogen.
On the Net:
Energy Department: www.eren.doe.gov
National Hydrogen Association: www.hydrogenus.com
American Hydrogen Association: www.clean-air.org
----
PUBLIC FORUM ON WIND POWER
June 24th
From: LCurtis333@aol.com via Bill Smirnow <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon Jun 16, 2003
American Wind Energy Forum Site http://www.awea.org
Did you know that clean wind energy is available in New York State right now? And that any electric customer can purchase it!
Though the general public is aware of the renewable and environmentally friendly qualities of wind power, few people are aware of their potential to bring it to their homes. A number of individuals in the Green Party of New York State are presenting the Green Energy Buying Club, an organization aimed at developing clean energy resources in our state. As consumers in a free-market, we have the right to purchase from the sources we choose, and the GEBC is determined to make wind farms one of those options. Our goal is to sign up a minimum 600 new members this year, so that a new wind turbine will be built and put into use just because of us!
Please come to our kick-off meeting to learn more about joining and volunteering with GEBC and about wind energy. You can sign up to purchase clean wind energy at the meeting and/or volunteer to help spread the word. We need help getting the word out to the public about this vitally important project.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:00 pm Longview School 296 Locust Avenue Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567 (914) 739-2742
For further information you can call or-mail LCurtis333@aol.com or 845-227-6745..
-------- ACTIVISTS
Peace groups protest missile defense
By VICTORIA NAEGELE
For the Fairbanks News-Miner
Sunday, June 15, 2003
http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113%7E7244%7E1457121,00.html
Alaska - It's been a year since ground was broken for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense site at Fort Greely with a ceremony inside and a demonstration outside. In that year, the project has gone from a test bed with six missile silos to a launching site with 16--not encouraging for those in Alaska's peace and anti-nuclear groups who protested its construction both last June and again this weekend.
About 25 to 30 protesters came to Delta Junction for the second annual Peace Camp at Fort Greely to try to get their messages across: GMD won't work; it costs too much; it jeopardizes world peace.
Despite the fact GMD has grown in scope since the first Peace Camp at Fort Greely, organizer Stacey Fritz of No Nukes North said she isn't discouraged by the uphill battle or the comparatively few warriors. Victoria Naegele/For the News-Miner PEACE RALLY--Protesters line up along the Richardson Highway Saturday afternoon at the entrance to Fort Greely Army Garrison, not far from where the Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile site is being constructed south of Delta Junction. Amid both unfriendly and friendly gestures from passing motorists, the activists from Alaska peace and anti-nuclear groups made their second annual demonstration to object to the project they say escalates world tensions, is not a viable technology and costs too much.
"We have great people coming from around the state to get to know each other and plan future actions," Fritz said Saturday. "It's a small core group of people that will make a difference in the future."
That includes people like Dick Heacock of Alaska Impact, who joined the protest march from the rest stop south of Delta Junction to the Fort Greely Army Garrison gate. Heacock sees GMD as an utter waste.
"It cannot work successfully," Heacock said. "Even if it worked perfectly, it would be easy to defeat it."
But with a ballistic missile the least likely weapon of mass destruction for terrorists, all the project is doing is sucking away money from education and health care, the retired pastor said.
"This is a so-called national defense project that does not add to our defense," Heacock said.
Martin Freed and his wife Ruta Vaskys of Fairbanks said the war in Iraq motivated them to pick up their signs and head for Delta Junction.
"The policies of this administration have radicalized our position," Vaskys said.
The 100 miles from Fairbanks to Delta Junction was too close for three young Fairbanks residents for them not to make the drive Saturday, they said. Portia Collette, Christine Burgess and Taiga Bell worked on a sign that read: "My Home is Not for Your War Games."
"I don't want to have nuclear weapons two hours from my home," Burgess said. "I don't want my home to be a terrorist target. I don't want to sacrifice education for war."
Defense officials have said there will be no nuclear weapons on the missiles at Fort Greely.
The second annual Peace Camp at Fort Greely included a public meeting at the Delta Community Center on Friday, but Fritz said few locals attended.
As the protesters walked along the Richardson Highway and waved their signs near the Fort Greely gate, they endured some rude gestures and foul language, just as they did last year and at the first protest in September 2001.
"This group understands very well that locally there's support for it," Heacock said. "It means jobs."
On her way to Fort Greely, Delta resident Denise Coakley stopped briefly to talk to the protesters.
"If a missile comes, this will stop it," Coakley said, leaning out of the passenger window of her car.
A chorus of rebuttal rose from nearby protesters, and Coakley's car turned into the garrison. The protesters noted Coakley's politeness, even if she was, in their view, misinformed.
Fritz said educating the public about the dangers of space defense systems and other military myths won't be easy.
"It's an effort that will take years--generations--of education and awareness," Fritz said.
----
Hundreds Join in Show of Peace at Korean Railroad Stop
June 15, 2003
The New York Times
By DON KIRK
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/international/asia/15CND-DORA.html
DORA STATION, South Korea, June 15 - Hundreds of people prayed, shouted and sang for peace today at this final stop before the North Korean border on the newly built railroad that links North and South Korea for the first time since the Korean War.
The emotional display on the third anniversary of the signing of the joint declaration on reconciliation between North and South Korea ended a weekend of conflicting sentiments.
Koreans at the ceremony here stomped on balloons marked "war," then released balloons labeled "peace" one day after workers drove in the final spikes on the North-South railroad in the middle of the demilitarized zone.
"We are afraid President Bush will start a war against North Korea the same as in Iraq," said Kim Kyeong Minh, one of the organizers of the officially sanctioned ceremony held here in a steady drizzle. "Our message is we want peace and reconciliation on the Korean peninsula."
The message was clouded by the realization that the trains would not actually start moving between the two Koreas for months to come while South Korean policy-makers appeared to have hardened their outlook in talks with American and Japanese officials in Honolulu.
The trilateral meeting ended with a firm declaration against North Korea's nuclear program along with renewed insistence on multilateral talks with the North rather than the bilateral meetings that North Korea has said it wants with the United States.
The participants, besides calling for a "verifiable end" to the North's nuclear program, agreed that the presence of Japan and South Korea at negotiations was "indispensable," according to the final statement from the conference.
At the same time, American, South Korean and Japanese officials for the first time made North Korea's criminal activities a central topic for cooperation, expressing "concerns about illegal activities" by "North Korean entities," a reference to the state enterprises that it said were responsible for "drug-running and counterfeiting."
The statement said officials had talked about "cooperating among themselves and with other countries and international organizations" to combat the trade.
South Korean officials denied that the statement threatened "sanctions" against the North, describing it instead as an attempt to combat illegal activities that have become a matter of fast-rising concern. Japanese authorities say North Korea has been a major source of amphetamines that the North also ships elsewhere in Asia while North Korean counterfeit money, sent through banks and trading companies overseas, has shown up throughout the region.
South Korean officials sought to strike a balance that showed their enthusiasm for links with the North along with their worries about North Korean nuclear as well as criminal activities.
A South Korean delegate at Saturday's railroad ceremony said that "the nation's artery has been relinked" with the opening of barbed wire fences and the removal of mines that blocked the route. His North Korean counterpart said "the feverish blood of the nation, warm hospital and the history of co-prosperity" would run through the railroad, for which North Korea has not finished laying the rails on its side of the line.
In the outpouring of praise for the June 2000 inter-Korean summit at today's ceremony here, there was no mention of one of the most emotionally explosive events in Korean-American relations, the deaths on June 13 last year of two schoolgirls, crushed by an American armored vehicle.
On Friday night in Seoul, several thousand Koreans shouted anti-American epithets at a memorial rally marking the first anniversary, but the impact was blunted by a United States campaign of grief in which soldiers attended services on Friday at the American military headquarters and at 17 bases between Seoul and the demilitarized zone.
Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of United States troops in Korea, assured the families of the two girls that they "do not walk alone."
"Today we stop to remember," he said at the memorial at the base in Seoul. "We care because two young girls died as a result of something we did" - a turn of phrase that was seen as an admission of United States guilt even though the two sergeants on the vehicle were acquitted of negligent homicide by a military court.
----
Heavy Security Puts Iran Protesters on Back Foot
June 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran-protests.html
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Hardline Islamic militants, some carrying assault rifles, patrolled streets early on Monday near a Tehran University dormitory that has been the focal point of six nights of pro-democracy protests lauded by Washington.
Three gunshots rang out at one point but the cause of the shooting was unclear and witnesses said the atmosphere was much calmer than on previous nights when hardline vigilantes wielding clubs, chains and knives had attacked the demonstrators.campus were virtually empty of cars and pedestrians as the heavy security clampdown appeared to be paying off for the authorities.
The protests, which have included unprecedented insults hurled at Iran's clerical leaders, have been welcomed by Washington as a cry for freedom.
``This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran which I think is positive,'' President Bush said on Sunday during a weekend break at Kennebunkport on the U.S. Atlantic coast.
Iran has accused U.S. officials of orchestrating the protests from afar and exaggerating their importance.
But while the protests in Tehran appeared to be fizzling out or entering a lull, state media reported smaller demonstrations in at least three other cities in which one person was killed.
Protesters have vented most of their anger on conservative clerics who control the key elements of power in Iran.
But they have also lambasted the reformist government of moderate President Mohammad Khatami, accusing him of failing to deliver change after six years in office.
The protests come as Iran faces mounting hostility from Washington, which accuses it of seeking nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism.
U.S. officials will be watching as the International Atomic Energy Agency discusses a report this week which calls for further inspections of Iran's nuclear program. Iran says its atomic ambitions are limited to electricity generation.
U.S. WOULD WELCOME CHANGE
In the past 18 months U.S.-led forces have toppled the rulers of Iran's two largest neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. officials say they would welcome a change of government in Tehran though they stop short of embracing a policy of ``regime change.''
A police spokesman said that some 60 people, including 32 policemen, were injured in Tehran and five banks, 22 cars and 34 motorbikes were damaged in four nights of unrest, the official IRNA news agency reported on Sunday.
But Tehran Governor's office said 80 students were injured on Saturday at one university dormitory when vigilantes burst into the campus and beat students in their beds.
In an apparent effort to defuse the protests, police have arrested several ringleaders of the pro-clergy vigilantes who terrorized protesters in Tehran two nights ago, smashing car windshields and beating people with bars and chains.
Police chief Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf told IRNA 109 ``hooligans'' were arrested. No students were detained, he said.
Residents near the dormitory, where the protests began last week, said they heard three gunshots early on Monday.
``As soon as I heard the shots I rushed out of my house to see what was happening. But I couldn't see anything,'' said one 19-year-old man, who refused to give his name.
Dozens of hardline militants, recognizable by their beards, untucked shirts and trademark clubs and chains, walked between lines of cars, searching some and threatening drivers who dared to honk their horns in a sign of support for the protests.
But the menacing presence of the vigilantes prevented people from gathering to chant slogans against Iran's clerical leaders as occurred on the first few nights of demonstrations.
----
Iran Arrests Anti - Government Activists
June 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Protests.html
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Police arrested four activists accused of involvement in days of street protests against Iran's Islamic government, and President Bush said Sunday that the demonstrations showed a yearning for freedom.
The protests in the capital eased -- as did the clashes sparked by hard-liners trying to suppress the demonstrators -- but sporadic violence elsewhere claimed the first reported fatality. Police deployed in and around student dormitories throughout Tehran to prevent any repeat of last week's violence, in which pro-clerical militants wielding clubs and knives clashed with students.
The arrests of the anti-government activists came after the government arrested scores of pro-clerical militants, an apparent attempt to rein in the unrest from both sides before the protests get out of control.
The anti-government protests, which began on Tuesday, were the largest in months and included unprecedented chants calling for the death of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The hard-line clerics who hold power in Iran are concerned about increasing discontent, particularly among the youth, at a time when the United States is stepping up pressure on Iran.
Bush said Sunday that the protests were a sign of an expanding free society.
``I think freedom is a powerful incentive,'' Bush said. ``I believe that someday, freedom will prevail everywhere, because freedom is a powerful drive.''
Iranian officials say the protests have been orchestrated by America and have denounced previous remarks by the Bush administration as interference in its internal affairs.
The United States -- whose military now controls Iran's two largest neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan -- has stepped up accusations in recent days that Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and is harboring al-Qaida members. Iran denies both claims.
On Monday, the U.N. nuclear watchdog is to release its report on Iranian nuclear sites it visited this year. Washington wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare Iran in violation on non-proliferation treaties; Iran denies any violations, says its program is entirely peaceful and says it would allow more intense inspections under certain conditions.
The eruption of student protests has only added to the worries of Iran's clerics.
The hard-line judiciary ordered the four activists' arrests on charges of provoking the student-led protests.
Mohsen Sazegara and his son, Vahid, were taken to jail Sunday while two others -- Reza Alijani and Taqi Rahmani -- were arrested late Saturday, family members said.
``Plainclothes security forces came to our house and took my husband and son with them. They showed a judiciary order authorizing the arrest on charges of provoking students,'' Sazegara's wife, Soheila Hamidniya, told The Associated Press.
Police took papers, CDs, a family photo album and foreign cash belonging to her husband, who is protesting the arrest by refusing to eat, she said.
The death of the anti-government protester happened Friday night in Shiraz, 550 miles south of Tehran, where militants attacked a demonstrators, the daily Nasim-e-Saba reported Sunday. Security forces reportedly arrested 80 people.
Further protests broke out late Saturday in the town of Gohardasht, west of Tehran, but were stopped by 200 anti-riot police hours later, a resident said.
The Gohardasht protests sparked clashes that saw 100 hard-liners attack protesters, the resident said, speaking on condition of anonymity. About three dozen people, mostly teenage girls, were arrested, he said.
Nightly clashes in Tehran began Tuesday and peaked Friday, when hundreds of hard-liners tried to put down protests to Khamenei's regime by attacking crowds of onlookers with knifes and batons and storming two university dormitories, injuring more than 50 sleeping students.
The student demonstrations began as a protest against plans to privatize universities and snowballed into displays of opposition to Iran's religious establishment.
In Tehran on Sunday, police deployed inside and around student dormitories to prevent attacks by the hard-liners.
``Order has been restored to the Tehran University dormitory after several days of unrest,'' the Islamic Republic News Agency quoted police official Ali Asghar Mahaki as saying.
Mahaki said 22 cars, 34 motorbikes and five banks were destroyed or damaged last week, while 60 people -- including 32 police officers -- were injured by stone-throwers.
----
Bush Praises Iranian Pro - Democracy Protesters
June 15, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran-usa.html
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - President Bush on Sunday praised pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, calling their protests a positive step toward freedom.
``This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran which I think is positive,'' Bush said.
Thousands of Iranians in Tehran protested against their conservative Islamic rulers for a fifth night on Saturday and smaller protests were reported in two other cities in the biggest anti-establishment demonstrations for months.
``I think that freedom is a powerful incentive,'' Bush told reporters after he attended church services during a weekend visit to Kennebunkport. ``I believe that some day freedom will prevail everywhere because freedom is a powerful drive.''
Iran's Foreign Ministry accused the United States of ``flagrant interference in Iran's internal affairs'' and said the significance of the protests was being deliberately overstated by U.S. officials.
The United States has had poor relations with Tehran since cutting diplomatic ties after radical students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 following the Islamic revolution which toppled the U.S.-backed shah.
A White House statement on Saturday denounced Islamic hard-liners who attacked pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran and called on the government to release those jailed.
CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT URGED
Bush included Iran in an ``axis of evil'' last year, along with Iraq and North Korea, accusing the countries of pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting what the U.S. calls international terrorism.
Washington also says Iran harbors members of the al Qaeda network blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
U.S. officials say they would welcome a change of government in Tehran. Although they stop short of embracing a policy of ``regime change,'' their statements have prompted some alarm in the region after the U.S.-led invasion successfully ousted President Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq.
The Bush administration's major justification for attacking Iraq was that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an imminent danger to the United States. But no illegal arms have been found in the weeks since major combat operations ended.
The United Nation's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, discusses a report on Iran this week which calls for further inspections of its nuclear program. The IAEA says Tehran has failed to provide information as required under a safeguards agreement.
Iran says its nuclear program is for electricity generation but the United States says it is developing nuclear weapons.
A leading U.S. senator said he would ``not necessarily'' like to see the Iranian government toppled by outside forces.
``Well, a regime change that comes through the democratic processes of Iran, through the students and the young people taking charge -- now, how all that comes about, I don't know,'' Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview on ``Fox News Sunday.''
``But I think it has to be an Iranian process, which we can assist,'' the Indiana Republican added.
Lugar said the Bush administration's policy on Iran had not yet been fully formulated, but he expected the U.S. Congress to support Iran's pro-democracy forces financially.
----
Hundreds take part in peace forum
By Chris Durant
The Eureka Times-Standard
Sunday, June 15, 2003
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1457264,00.html
EUREKA, CA -- People looking for ways to organize and take part in grassroots peace and community organizations filled the Adorni Center Saturday for forums and workshops by local activists.
Taking the Next Step was initiated by the same people who organized the peace demonstration in Eureka in March and Veterans for Peace.
About two dozen booths were set up, ranging in topics from logging to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
"I wanted to see what activists were doing around Eureka and Arcata," said Matthew Dunn of Arcata. "What I'd like to see is everyone who is in the least bit interested in what's going on in the community to come together and start to organize."
The workshops seemed to be the most popular venues, with every speaker having 30 to 40 people in attendance.
The hour and a half-long workshops focussed on a variety of issues, including "Taking our media back from large corporations," "The whos and hows of local government and citizenship," and "Organizing fro change on the North Coast."
Entertainment was provided for children and some bands played in between workshops.
"I'm particularly interested in taking back our media from corporations and the depleted uranium issues," said Eileen McGee. "I came to hear some alternative voices in the community."
Bands provided entertainment into the evening and a vegetarian dinner was available for a $5 donation.
With the event going all day, it was hard for organizers to say how many people attended, but they estimated it was several hundred.
----
Bicyclists pump to build support for statehood
June 15, 2003
By Denise Barnes
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030615-121429-9478r.htm
Bicyclists propelled by ire over the District's lack of representation in Congress yesterday pedaled up and down the city streets to draw attention their quest for statehood.
The event was staged on Flag Day to emphasize the 50 stars on the national banner - which participants argue should number 51.
About 100 cyclists with backpacks and tire pumps met in front of the Wilson Building to begin the "Quest for the 51st Star," a 61-mile bike rally organized by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) and D.C. Vote.
Maggie Thompson, who lives in Mount Pleasant in Northwest, didn't mind giving up a day off from work to support a cause she believes in.
"It's very important to do what we can to get voting rights, and if it entails riding bikes, that's great," said Ms. Thompson, 23.
WABA Executive Director Ellen Jones said every city resident should care about D.C. statehood, adding that the bike rally was held on Flag Day for two reasons.
"We decided to have a good time but also make a point that it's not right that we do not have a vote in Congress," Ms. Jones said. "We can bring democracy and voting rights to locations around the globe, but around the [U.S.] Capitol, we don't have a vote. So we're taking our message to the streets today."
District residents are represented in Congress by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who can vote in committee but not in the full House. D.C. Vote advocates statehood for the District, which would mean full congressional representation.
Bicyclists yesterday "toured the country" by stopping at each state-named avenue in the city.
"I think it's a great idea to show how we can't have representation, but 50 states have avenues named after them. By riding on those 50 avenues, we are pointing out that we need to be treated equally in Congress," said Bill Rice, spokesman for the D.C. Department of Transportation who has been cycling for 15 years.
The ADC Street Map of Washington D.C. lists only 49 avenues named after states. North Dakota does not have an avenue named after it, though there is a Dakota Ave.
By early afternoon, many of the cyclists had stopped for lunch at Eastern Market in Southeast.
Cyclist Brian Sisolak, 23, said he was glad the skies were clear and sunny.
"It's a lot of stop-and-go, and it's a lot of pumping, but it's fun," he said of the "Quest" rally. "Some of the cyclists are bailing, but I'll make it to the end."
Mayor Anthony A. Williams, along with other city leaders, participated in the event. But Ms. Jones said the mayor had ridden only 10 miles and "visited" only 12 states.
"It's just good to see our elected representatives, [at least] the ones we can elect, show up," said Mr. Sisolak, a native Washingtontian who lives on Capitol Hill.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.