 |
||||||
| May 19, 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 MAY 19, 2004 1//The Telegraph, UK--MPs PRESS FOR A VOTE ON SENDING MORE TROOPS (Tony Blair is facing growing demands for a vote in Parliament before the Government sends another 3,000 British troops to Iraq. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour backbenchers want the Commons to be consulted before any decision is taken to commit forces to operations outside the area of southern Iraq currently controlled by British troops or to put them under American command...Officials insisted that no decision had yet been taken on sending more troops, despite widespread speculation in Whitehall and Westminster that Britain is poised to increase its military commitment substantially.) 2//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--PAKISTAN: AFTER THE HAMMER, NOW THE SCREWS (The "Hammer and Anvil" operation was designed by the United States to trap foreign and Afghan fighters between US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan troops across the border. It proved a failure, with the recent high-profile deployment of the Pakistani army in the South Waziristan tribal area failing to send anyone of note scuttling from their sanctuaries into waiting US arms...Fresh contingents of Pakistani armed forces have been sent to Wana (South Waziristan), Miranshah (North Waziristan) and Bannu and Dera Ismail Khan in North West Frontier Province, but officials close to the military say they fear they are "walking into a death trap". About 20,000 troops were deployed for the South Waziristan operation.) 3//Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy--SANCTIONS UNLIKELY TO HURT SYRIA (Analysts say the long-threatened sanctions will not affect the economy directly because sanctions of sorts have been in place for years because Syria is on the U.S. 'black list' of states sponsoring terrorism. Trade between the United States and Syria is a modest 300 million dollars a year, but several U.S. companies are developing Syria's oil and gas sectors. Bush did not ban U.S. investments in Syria. Between 300 and 400 U.S. companies have representative offices in Syria, according to the U.S. embassy in Damascus. These include IT firms such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Compaq...The 22-member Arab League has said the embargo would only harden Arab opinion against the United States.) 4//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--KERRY MAY NOT BACK FREE TRADE DEAL (Australia and the United States today signed an historic free trade agreement amid concerns the US Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry may not back the deal. Trade Minister Mark Vaile and his US counterpart, Robert Zoellick, signed the deal in Washington overnight after more than 12 months of negotiations...Mr Vaile, who has spent the past two days talking to Democrat and Republican members of Congress, said the trade deal now put the Australian-US economic relationship on par with the strategic and defence links between the two nations... House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said the agreement would be put to Congress as soon as possible. "We will move that through Congress some time I think this year," he said.) 5//The Hindustan Times, India--'POWER FOR ITSELF HAS NEVER ATTRACTED ME...MY AIM HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO DEFEND THE SECULAR FOUNDATION OF OUR NATION' (Towards the end of the campaign, when Sonia Gandhi had given an interview to the HT, she had made her position on the Prime Ministership amply clear. She had no interest in the job, she said. That wasn't why she was in politics. Of course, it was difficult for people to understand that because most politicians wanted to reach the top. But she was not like that. She was a reluctant politician. She was in it out of a sense of duty, not because of ambition.) * * * 1//The
Telegraph, UK, Wednesday 19 May 2004 MPs PRESS FOR A VOTE ON SENDING MORE TROOPS Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour backbenchers want the Commons to be consulted before any decision is taken to commit forces to operations outside the area of southern Iraq currently controlled by British troops or to put them under American command. Downing Street said yesterday the US-led coalition was at "full throttle" in the diplomatic and security preparations for the handover of sovereignty in Iraq on July 1. "We are pushing as fast as we can to make sure that the transfer of sovereignty is real and to give the Iraqis responsibility for their own security," the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. Officials insisted that no decision had yet been taken on sending more troops, despite widespread speculation in Whitehall and Westminster that Britain is poised to increase its military commitment substantially. In the Commons on Monday, the Liberal Democrats called for a phased withdrawal of British troops to start next year. The party said there should be no question of British forces extending their role and responsibility in Iraq or providing a substitute for forces that had been withdrawn by other coalition members. (MORE)
PAKISTAN: AFTER THE HAMMER, NOW THE SCREWS KARACHI - The "Hammer and Anvil" operation was designed by the United States to trap foreign and Afghan fighters between US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan troops across the border. It proved a failure, with the recent high-profile deployment of the Pakistani army in the South Waziristan tribal area failing to send anyone of note scuttling from their sanctuaries into waiting US arms. Indeed, the Pakistani army had to back off after sustaining heavy casualties from angered tribals, and a ceasefire was negotiated under which tribal elders promised to "register" foreigners, who would in turn be allowed to stay in the tribal area provided that they promised not to engage in resistance activities. This was widely perceived as a ploy. The US was understandably not satisfied with this outcome, let alone that no foreigners have bothered to take advantage of the "amnesty", and it exerted more pressure on its "trusted ally" in the "war on terror" to do better. So now there is plan B, in terms of which the US military, like the tribals, will treat the artificially created Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan more as an inconvenience than as a legal barrier. At the same time, the Pakistan army is reported to be mobilizing for another military excursion into the tribal areas. And it, too, will cross the border as it sees fit. On Monday, according to tribal sources who spoke to Asia Times Online, US forces intruded into North Waziristan, resulting in the death of two tribals in a skirmish. (SNIP) Fresh contingents of Pakistani armed forces have been sent to Wana (South Waziristan), Miranshah (North Waziristan) and Bannu and Dera Ismail Khan in North West Frontier Province, but officials close to the military say they fear they are "walking into a death trap". About 20,000 troops were deployed for the South Waziristan operation. The official figure for causalities in the South Waziristan operation is 50 soldiers killed, but conversations with tribals in the area - even allowing for exaggeration - indicate that this figure could be 10 times higher. In addition, several officers and a number of soldiers refused to fight against the tribals. (SNIP) To an extent, the US has been successful, as the nucleus has been forced to split and can no longer gather with impunity. According to tribal leaders Asia Times Online has spoken to, this has had an effect on the central leadership of the resistance, and one of its major problems today is a lack of an overall coordinated strategy as field commanders have been isolated from the leadership. Nevertheless, the US wants to catch or wipe out the resistance leadership completely, hence the leaning on Pakistan for a new operation in the tribal areas, where the mood is tense and defiant. Already, one tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, a former Taliban commander (of Pakistani origin) has warned the Pakistan Army that if it wants to fight, the tribals are ready. (SNIP) The stage is set, then for another showdown in the tribal areas, with the likelihood that this one will be even more bloody and more widespread than the first one in South Waziristan - according to Asia Times Online sources, the command of the new battle is in the hands of an Arab fighter named Abu Lais, and this time hi-tech and heavy ammunition will be used. The Pakistani army has been put on notice.
SANCTIONS UNLIKELY TO HURT SYRIA DAMASCUS, May 17 (IPS) - The limited sanctions imposed on Syria are unlikely to do it much harm, or the United States much good. As Damascus condemned President George W. Bush's implementation of the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SALSA, as it has come to be called), analysts agree the sanctions are largely symbolic. After months of sabre-rattling Bush chose only the minimum sanctions under SALSA. They include a near ban on U.S. exports to Syria other than food and medicine, and a requirement that U.S. banks sever ties with the state-owned Commercial Bank of Syria. The hesitation reflects the U.S. dilemma in dealing with Damascus. On the one hand, Washington wants to punish Syria for its alleged support to Palestinian radical groups like Hamas and its alleged failure to stop infiltration of anti-U.S. elements into Iraq. On the other hand, Syria has cooperated significantly with the United States against al-Qaeda. Analysts say the long-threatened sanctions will not affect the economy directly because sanctions of sorts have been in place for years because Syria is on the U.S. 'black list' of states sponsoring terrorism. Trade between the United States and Syria is a modest 300 million dollars a year, but several U.S. companies are developing Syria's oil and gas sectors. Bush did not ban U.S. investments in Syria. Between 300 and 400 U.S. companies have representative offices in Syria, according to the U.S. embassy in Damascus. These include IT firms such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Compaq. Syria now markets all of its crude oil, including that produced by foreign companies, through state marketing company Sytrol. This company has a 25 percent stake in a Petro-Canada led proposal to develop natural gas in Syria that also involves several U.S. companies. "It will be more psychological," Syrian economic expert Nabil Sukkar told IPS. But he acknowledged that "the sanctions could scare off some companies and have a negative impact on the inflow of investments at a time when Syria has launched an economic modernisation programme." There is little trade that could be affected. Only one percent of Syrian exports go to the United States compared to almost 60 percent to the European Union (EU). Only five percent of imports are from the United States, says Sukkar. (SNIP) The 22-member Arab League has said the embargo would only harden Arab opinion against the United States. The organisation said in a statement that the sanctions would "add to the sour feelings in the region and will raise more questions among Arab people" about U.S. plans for the region. (MORE)
KERRY MAY NOT BACK FREE TRADE DEAL Australia and the United States today signed an historic free trade agreement amid concerns the US Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry may not back the deal. Trade Minister Mark Vaile and his US counterpart, Robert Zoellick, signed the deal in Washington overnight after more than 12 months of negotiations. It is one of only three bilateral trade deals that are between two developed nations. The Closer Economic Relations agreement between Australia and NZ, and the NAFTA agreement that includes the US and Canada, are the other two. Mr Vaile, who has spent the past two days talking to Democrat and Republican members of Congress, said the trade deal now put the Australian-US economic relationship on par with the strategic and defence links between the two nations. "That is something that is coming through very strongly from the Americans," he told AAP. "They say that we've been good allies, that we've been pursuing the same economic objectives, so why not bring the economic relationship to the same level as the strategic alliance." Mr Vaile said although the agreement had been
signed, it had to be passed by the Congress. "We sense a good groundswell of support for the agreement and for Australia," he said. "We're quietly confident that we can get the numbers to get it passed through the Congress, hopefully during the June or July sittings. "The government wants it passed by July to avoid the congressional recess and to ensure it avoids any political fallout from the presidential elections." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said the agreement would be put to Congress as soon as possible. "We will move that through Congress some time I think this year," he said. Senator Kerry yesterday declined to fully endorse the agreement, amid concerns that some of his key union backers have fears the deal may undercut American employment, labour and environment standards. (MORE)
'POWER FOR ITSELF HAS NEVER ATTRACTED ME...MY
AIM HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO DEFEND THE SECULAR FOUNDATION
OF OUR NATION' At a stroke, she made the BJP look foolish and petty. Sushma Swaraj, humiliated by Sonia in Bellary, who had sought to establish her own claim to be a future leader of the BJP by making a vulgar attack on Sonia's ethnicity was now shown up by a woman who already had the Prime Ministership in her grasp - and yet, didn't want it. Narendra Modi, who had raised communal tension so that he could win his election amidst the smoke of funeral pyres was humiliated by the power of Indian democracy - shown up by a woman who walked away from the kind of power he can only dream of. Towards the end of the campaign, when Sonia Gandhi had given an interview to the HT, she had made her position on the Prime Ministership amply clear. She had no interest in the job, she said. That wasn't why she was in politics. Of course, it was difficult for people to understand that because most politicians wanted to reach the top. But she was not like that. She was a reluctant politician. She was in it out of a sense of duty, not because of ambition. But of course, nobody believed her. She had said much the same sort of thing to Shekhar Gupta on NDTV. And during the 1999 elections she gave me an interview in which she suggested that she would never accept the top job. (MORE) | ||||||
|
©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 |
 |
|||
