 |
||||||
| April 23, 2004 |
||||||
World Media Watch by Gloria R. Lalumia BUZZFLASH NOTE: WMW provides BuzzFlash readers foreign views and perspectives that are not usually available from the media here in the U.S. The presentation of these articles from these international publications is not an endorsement of their viewpoints. * * * WORLD MEDIA WATCH FOR APRIL 23, 2004 1//The Independent, UK--1,700 EXTRA TROOPS COULD BE SENT TO IRAQ TO REPLACE SPANIARDS (Britain's military planners are drawing up contingency plans to send up to 1,700 extra troops to Iraq in response to the escalating violence. Senior defence sources have told The Independent that lead elements could be flown out at very short notice if there were more bombings such as the ones that killed 68 people, including 17 children, in the south of the country on Wednesday...Tony Blair insisted yesterday that there were no immediate plans to reinforce British forces. But just a few hours earlier, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: "The troop numbers are kept under review; the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday in the House of Commons.) 2//The Guardian, UK--US WANTS BRITISH TO MOVE NORTH INTO HEART OF IRAQ FIGHTING (The Ministry of Defence is resisting US pressure on Britain to extend its sphere of military influence in Iraq to some of the most violent parts of the country, including the capital Baghdad. Britain is being leant on by the US military, although no formal request has been issued, to provide a new headquarters unit in south-central Iraq to replace Spanish troops being pulled out by the new Madrid government...British defence sources said they were unenthusiastic about filling the vacuum created by the quicker than expected departure of Spanish troops, triggered by the unexpected election victory of the anti-war Socialist government.) 3//Asia
Times Online, Hong Kong--BUSH'S 'TRANSFER OF
POWER' GAMBIT (The White House is creating a
parallel political regime in Baghdad. It has ordered
construction of the largest American embassy in
the world to accommodate an extraordinary 3,000
employees, far larger than any other US diplomatic
mission. Many of these "diplomats" will
be assigned to the various Iraqi government departments
as "advisers," or co-equal authorities,
effectively sharing in the operations of the Iraqi
government. According to the progressive British
journalist and film-maker John Pilger, writing
in the New Statesman on April 17: "There will
be no handover [of power]. The new regime will
be stooges, with each ministry controlled by American
officials and with its stooge army and stooge police
force run by the Americans." Evidence that
the US plans to impose itself on future Iraqi governments
is embedded in the interim constitution passed
by the IGC: all laws and regulations emanating
from the CPA must be recognized as valid in the
future. Whether this clause is to be retained in
the permanent constitution is not known. Many CPA
regulations are designed to control the economy.) 5//The Daily Star, Lebanon--PALESTINIANS DEVASTATED BY ID REVOCATION (Hundreds of Palestinians received a hard blow earlier this week when Interior Minister Elias Murr said he was preparing measures aimed at withdrawing Lebanese IDs from them. The minister said that up to 4,000 IDs awarded in 1996 were earmarked for cancellation. The Palestinians most likely to be affected by the cancellation are those hailing from the seven border villages with Lebanon...Many believe that the minister's decision was prompted by political considerations...Meanwhile, Ahmed Hajj, who is a young man living in the complex, said that he had made plans to do his compulsory Lebanese military service. "What shall I do now. Shall I wait for the unknown? Moreover, what happens to the naturalized people that have already completed their compulsory military service, married and had children? Is it possible for this to end with a mark of a pen? We call on Lebanese officials to do us justice," he said.) * * * 1//The
Independent, UK 23 April 2004 1,700 EXTRA TROOPS COULD BE SENT TO IRAQ TO REPLACE
SPANIARDS Britain's military planners are drawing up contingency plans to send up to 1,700 extra troops to Iraq in response to the escalating violence. Senior defence sources have told The Independent that lead elements could be flown out at very short notice if there were more bombings such as the ones that killed 68 people, including 17 children, in the south of the country on Wednesday. Talks with the Americans over the reinforcements are said to be at an advanced stage. Any further deployment would not be concentrated purely in Basra, but outlying areas that have seen a spate of attacks on British troops. These are also on the routes through which insurgents from central Iraq are believed to be coming into the British-run sector to carry out attacks. (SNIP) At present there are a total of 7,500 British service personnel in Iraq, with an additional 1,100 in surrounding countries. The plan had been to steadily reduce the numbers in the coming months. President George Bush and Tony Blair have both endorsed a United Nations blueprint for the future of Iraq that could lead to other countries, such as India, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia contributing troops for Iraq. United States and British commanders have warned that they expect a increase in violence in the run-up to the planned handover of political power to Iraqis after 30 June. The US commander in Iraq, General John Abizaid, is expected to receive 10,000 extra troops, but, according to defence sources, British commanders are not keen on having any sizeable American presence in the British sector. There is widespread disquiet in senior ranks of the British military about the aggression of the Americans in civilian areas such as Fallujah. Giving evidence before the Commons Defence Committee on Tuesday, General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of General Staff, took the highly unusual step of distancing British forces from the US tactics. "We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans," he said. "That the British approach to post-conflict is doctrinally different to the US is a fact of life". Tony Blair insisted yesterday that there were no immediate plans to reinforce British forces. But just a few hours earlier, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: "The troop numbers are kept under review; the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday in the House of Commons. If there is a need for more troops to be sent, then I'm sure my colleague Geoff Hoon [the Secretary of State for Defence] will arrange for that to happen. I don't think there are political objections to send more troops if that is what is needed on the ground." Nicholas Soames, the Conservative defence spokesman, said "We too have heard from very good sources that discussions are going on between the Americans and the British at a very high level about the sending of troops. The Prime Minister must be very ill-informed if he does not know this." (MORE)
US WANTS BRITISH TO MOVE NORTH INTO HEART OF IRAQ
FIGHTING The Ministry of Defence is resisting US pressure on Britain to extend its sphere of military influence in Iraq to some of the most violent parts of the country, including the capital Baghdad. Britain is being leant on by the US military, although no formal request has been issued, to provide a new headquarters unit in south-central Iraq to replace Spanish troops being pulled out by the new Madrid government. That would take British troops into the troubled town of Najaf, where the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is holed up. Some British military figures have also been told that UK forces may be asked to undertake a hearts and minds operation inside Baghdad, currently an exclusively US sphere of influence. The MoD said all sorts of options were being considered, but played down suggestions that a large increase in the 8,000-strong present British contingent was likely. British defence sources said they were unenthusiastic about filling the vacuum created by the quicker than expected departure of Spanish troops, triggered by the unexpected election victory of the anti-war Socialist government. (SNIP) Any decision to send British troops to either Baghdad or Najaf is fraught with political risk because of the inevitability of higher British casualties. So far 59 British soldiers have died in Iraq since last year's invasion, far fewer than the 100 US soldiers killed this month alone in vicious fighting in the Sunni town of Falluja, west of Baghdad, and elsewhere. The contrast between British-occupied southern Iraq and the rest of the country could not be greater. The US military is fighting a raging insurgency on two fronts - against Sunni militants in and around Falluja, and against armed supporters of Mr Sadr in south-central Iraq. Mr Sadr has been holed up inside the holy city of Najaf, surrounded by US forces.
SPEAKING FREELY: BUSH'S 'TRANSFER OF POWER' GAMBIT The guerrilla resistance, combined with Washington's bungling of the occupation, have compelled President George W Bush and his neo-conservative advisors to reconfigure or shelve several of their more grandiose post-war plans. But the US government has no intention to simply relinquish its expensively obtained hegemony over a Baghdad government possessing the world's second largest proven petroleum reserves and strategically located to influence the entire Middle East. (SNIP) It now seems the UN will create the structure of a new regime, among attendant tasks, assuming the various parties which rejected Washington's formulations can agree to operate within Brahimi's guidelines. This does not mean the Bush administration has lost its power in Iraq. The US has handed an exceedingly hot potato to the UN, while retaining decisive power where it matters. As the New York Times stated in an article April 16: "Administration officials asserted that, even with the UN overseeing the selection of a caretaker government and then holding an election and helping the Iraqis write a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable - not least because the US is to remain in charge of military and security matters and will be the country's main source of economic aid." Actually, the US is in a stronger position because it conveys the impression Bush is working with the UN to "create democracy" in Iraq. Bush and L Paul Bremer, who heads the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), have been taking steps for many months to assure that the US will continue to wield decisive influence after the "transfer of power" to the Iraqis. Here is how it will work: Some 110,000 US troops are scheduled to remain in Iraq for several years. They will be ensconced in 14 permanent military camps, designed as highly fortified enclaves outside big cities to minimize the number of American casualties. The GIs will fight only if US-controlled Iraqi security forces cannot handle a particular crisis, or if it becomes necessary for Washington to protect its own economic and political interests against an insurrection, or as a show of force to keep Baghdad in line. The Bush administration expects that the new government will "invite" US troops to remain in the country under the usual "status of forces" agreement with various foreign countries hosting some 750 other US bases. If the Iraqis balk at an occupation agreement, Washington will interpret UN Security Council resolution 1551 as providing the needed authority. The resolution was passed last fall to "legalize" the US-led occupation. As now, the commanding general of the occupation force will report directly to the Pentagon, bypassing Iraqi and US civilian authorities in the country. The White House is creating a parallel political regime in Baghdad. It has ordered construction of the largest American embassy in the world to accommodate an extraordinary 3,000 employees, far larger than any other US diplomatic mission. Many of these "diplomats" will be assigned to the various Iraqi government departments as "advisers," or co-equal authorities, effectively sharing in the operations of the Iraqi government. According to the progressive British journalist and film-maker John Pilger, writing in the New Statesman on April 17: "There will be no handover [of power]. The new regime will be stooges, with each ministry controlled by American officials and with its stooge army and stooge police force run by the Americans." Evidence that the US plans to impose itself on future Iraqi governments is embedded in the interim constitution passed by the IGC: all laws and regulations emanating from the CPA must be recognized as valid in the future. Whether this clause is to be retained in the permanent constitution is not known. Many CPA regulations are designed to control the economy. For example, they include rules to speed the privatization of Iraq's state enterprises and property, and for the disposition of the country's petroleum resources. The CPA has also established a number of "independent" regulators to share power in various government ministries. The US has another coercive weapon with which to manipulate the new government. It controls $18.4 billion in aid for desperately needed reconstruction tasks, without which Iraq will remain a ruin. Washington will decide which firms get the contracts for this aid. Bush has just selected John D Negroponte, Washington's ambassador to the UN, to function as the envoy to Baghdad. Considering the size and nature of his assignment, he will serve in effect as prime minister of the parallel government, reporting to the State Department. Negroponte is an old hand at subversion, after his years as ambassador to Honduras when the country was used to support counter-revolutionary Contras in neighboring Nicaragua. He has been widely criticized by the left for covering up for human rights abuses in Honduras. The Bush administration's intention to create a neo-colonial dependency under the guise of building democracy and restoring sovereignty may well degenerate into a fragile house of cards destined to collapse sooner than later. The two most important internal factors in making this determination will be the resistance of national liberation forces and the relationship of the Shi'ite majority to the new government and the US occupation authority. (SNIP) The evident unreliability of the Iraqi forces is a serious problem for the Pentagon, which is running out of soldiers because so many of them are stationed throughout the world. At this time there are 134,000 US troops in Iraq (not counting up to 20,000 mercenaries providing many of the security services once carried out by the armed forces). Bush promises to send more troops when needed, but there are not enough GIs to fight in a large and sustained guerrilla war, particularly since the 17,500-soldier "coalition" force is being depleted by the defection of Spain (1,300 troops), Honduras (370) and possibly other countries. (MORE) The situation in Iraq is exceptionally complicated and events are moving at considerable speed. Anything can happen - and probably will, in a matter of weeks or months. Keep your eyes on the "transfer of power" gambit.
US GENERAL SAYS PAKISTAN ARMY CAN HANDLE OPERATIONS
IN TRIBAL AREAS KABUL: The Pakistan Army does not require external assistance to conduct military operations in Pakistan's tribal belt and has the capability to take out terrorists hiding in that area. This was stated by Lt Gen David W Barno, commanding general of the Combined Forces Command in Afghanistan, while talking to a group of visiting Pakistani journalists. Gen Barno said the two sides "share concerns about foreign fighters" and added that Islamabad should "continue [its] operations to capture or kill [them] inside Pakistan's sovereign territory". Taking a different line from the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Gen Barno said, "We are all trying to do more against terrorism" and "have set high standards for ourselves". Ambassador Khalilzad had asked Islamabad to do more on April 17 when he met the same group of Pakistani journalists, prompting the Pakistan Foreign Office to hit back the next day and describe Mr Khalilzad as suffering from 'Attention Deficit Disorder'. Gen Barno said the coalition forces had been successful in Afghanistan and there have also been "some positive results of Pakistan's military operations [in the tribal areas]". "There has been a change in [the terrorists'] typical spring offensive a year ago," he said and ascribed that to Pakistan's military operation in South Waziristan. "That has been a big factor in this," Gen Barno said. "There is a significant uptake in [Pakistan troops'] activity and the effectiveness of that activity ... and I don't think anyone will disagree with that," he said. When asked how far had the coalition troops been successful in plugging the routes from Waziristan to Afghanistan, he said: "Should the enemy decide under pressure from your army to try and infiltrate into Afghanistan, we are in a good position to exploit that and attack it." (SNIP) Talking about a recent tripartite meeting he attended in Islamabad, Gen Barno said the participants observed a drop in border incidents to "almost nothing in the last 90 days". This, he claimed, was due to "the effectiveness of border meetings". (SNIP) Regarding the need to reorganise given the situation in Iraq, Gen Barno said the situation in that country was not likely to affect the American presence in Afghanistan. "I see no indication of that," said Gen Barno. "We have no plans of moving troops from this theatre to Iraq."
PALESTINIANS DEVASTATED BY ID REVOCATION Hundreds of Palestinians received a hard blow earlier this week when Interior Minister Elias Murr said he was preparing measures aimed at withdrawing Lebanese IDs from them. The minister said that up to 4,000 IDs awarded in 1996 were earmarked for cancellation. The Palestinians most likely to be affected by the cancellation are those hailing from the seven border villages with Lebanon. (SNIP) Many believe that the minister's decision was prompted by political considerations. What strikes the Palestinians most is that they have had the ID for eight years and a court verdict in favor of their naturalization was issued 10 years ago. "It is not easy to lose an ID after all this time," many said. (SNIP) "We have received the Lebanese ID in a just manner. It is now our right and we refuse to part with it or bargain over it," Musa Hamade said. He added that, if Murr insisted on this move, "we shall make other moves aimed at asserting our rights as Lebanese." "If they take away my (Lebanese) ID, it is as if they have taken away my soul," Hamade said. He added that he had worked for 15 years. However, because he was Palestinian, he had not received any indemnity payment. "The (Lebanese) ID is my best defense today because it helps me get my rights. I shall not part with it because it is my right and that of my children," he said. (SNIP) Meanwhile, Ahmed Hajj, who is a young man living in the complex, said that he had made plans to do his compulsory Lebanese military service. "What shall I do now. Shall I wait for the unknown? Moreover, what happens to the naturalized people that have already completed their compulsory military service, married and had children? Is it possible for this to end with a mark of a pen? We call on Lebanese officials to do us justice," he said. | ||||||
|
©2004, Gloria R. Lalumia, insight@zianet.com Radio for the Left at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical/radio.htm BACK TO TOP |
||||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
