August 13, 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 AUGUST 13, 2004

1//TurkishPress.com, US--SHAKY IRAQ GOVERNMENT PLAYING WITH FIRE IN NAJAF MISSION (Just six weeks after taking power from the US-led occupation, Iraq's shaky interim government is playing with fire by trying to expel militiamen from one of Islam's holiest cities, analysts said Thursday..."It would be very difficult to have a decisive victory in Najaf ... without causing extensive damage and the higher the cost in civilian casualties, the less the political gain," he added...But if Iraqi security forces succeed, it would deliver a strong message to other insurgent groups -- precisely the aim of a government which has to restore national security to survive...On the other hand, Sadr, widely popular among the impoverished and disenfranchised, also stands to gain...But analysts see the Najaf campaign as far less tense than an aborted US mission in the Sunni Muslim bastion of Fallujah, where hundreds of people were killed in April before marines were forced to retreat. Sadr's fighters have proved themselves less effective at inflicting losses among US troops than insurgents in Fallujah, who attracted sympathy and admiration for their standoff against the occupation forces.)

2//The Moscow Times, Russia--SHOULD PUTIN FEAR A KERRY VICTORY? (President Vladimir Putin doesn't get to vote in the U.S. elections in November, but it's clear he'd cast his ballot for George W. Bush if he did... The real cleavage on foreign policy is not between parties but between liberals and realists within the two. Realists see the world in terms of national security threats and power, while liberals emphasize cooperation and principles. The prevailing assumption in Moscow that Republican administrations are easier to work with likely dates back to the era of detente under U.S. President Richard Nixon, a Republican who signed arms control agreements and recognized the Soviet Union as a great power. Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Fond Politika think tank, who has advised Putin on foreign policy, voiced a view common in conservative Moscow circles that the Democratic establishment is "genetically anti-Russian." He pointed to the prominent status of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, both of whom were born in Eastern Europe.)

3//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--HOUSE OF SAUD EXITS COCOON OF DENIAL (By deciding to oust the Saudi monarchy, al-Qaeda has resuscitated the age-old questions related to the commitment of a governing entity to Islam in its birthplace. By entering into a compact with Mohammed Abdel-Wahhab in 1744, the Saudi dynasty had kept those issues dormant. Now the Saudi rulers encounter increasing pressure from within to remain true to Islamic puritanism. From outside, they are facing intense pressure not only to create a distance from those demanding Islamic puritanism, but also to liberalize Islam. The extreme nature of these competing demands promises to push Saudi Arabia toward increasing instability. The greatest challenge for the current regime is not to find a common ground between these extreme demands - for such an option is not even tenable - but merely to keep the implosion of their political system from happening in the near future.)

4//Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy--ANALYSIS: U.S. SET TO 'GRIN AND BEAR' CHAVEZ VICTORY (Just days before Venezuelans vote on whether to recall Hugo Chavez, U.S. officials and analysts appear increasingly resigned to at least another two and a half years of a government headed by the fiery populist...In fact, some analysts here prefer a clear win by Chavez at this point, rather than a close finish that could provoke charges of fraud from either or both sides, particularly if observers from the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Centre hedge their own assessment as to whether the election was free and fair. The possibility of civil conflict breaking out in one of Washington's most important and reliable sources of imported oil at a time when global oil prices are hovering around historic highs is a nightmare that George W Bush's political handlers would rather not face less than three months before the November elections here.)

5//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--PM GIVES WAY ON TRADE PACT CHANGES (The free trade deal with the United States is set to go ahead after the Prime Minister, John Howard, caved in to Labor demands for amendments - and was then forced to qualify comments that the demands were causing concerns in the US...Mr Howard, who initially warned that there were "obviously concerns" in the US, later quoted from an official message from the Australian embassy in Washington that made no mention of concerns. The US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, told the embassy he had "no official position" on the Labor amendments until seeing the final Australian law, according to the message Mr Howard quoted...The influential American trade lobbyist Anne Wexler yesterday cast doubt on Mr Howard's claim that the Labor amendments could derail the trade deal. "I'm not aware of any clause of the agreement that could possibly nullify US law," said Ms Wexler, the principal force behind the political lobby that promoted the Australian deal.)

* * *

1//TurkishPress.com, US 8/12/2004
http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=24352

SHAKY IRAQ GOVERNMENT PLAYING WITH FIRE IN NAJAF MISSION

BAGHDAD, Aug 12 (AFP) - Just six weeks after taking power from the US-led occupation, Iraq's shaky interim government is playing with fire by trying to expel militiamen from one of Islam's holiest cities, analysts said Thursday.

On the eighth day of fierce fighting in the pilgrimage city of Najaf, US marines and warplanes spearheaded a massive two-pronged assault to crush a Shiite Muslim uprising.

But as thousands of US troops and Iraqi security forces tried to trap the militiamen in the heart of the city, home to the tomb of Prophet Mohammed's son-in-law Ali, they risked a violent religious and political backlash.

The interior ministry said police had been ordered to remove all militiamen from the mosque "whatever happens", although the government has been careful to insist US marines will not enter the shrine.

"It's quite dangerous. Smoke billowing out of the Imam Ali shrine, reminiscent of what Saddam did in 1991 would be a very powerful image," said Yahia Said of the London School of Economics.

"It would be very difficult to have a decisive victory in Najaf ... without causing extensive damage and the higher the cost in civilian casualties, the less the political gain," he added.

Najaf is a powerful symbol for Shiites the world over who consider Ali the true successor to the Prophet, not only the majority in Iraq, but also in Iran, where officials have been recently accused of meddling in domestic affairs.

(SNIP)

But if Iraqi security forces succeed, it would deliver a strong message to other insurgent groups -- precisely the aim of a government which has to restore national security to survive.

(SNIP)

On the other hand, Sadr, widely popular among the impoverished and disenfranchised, also stands to gain.

"You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Both the Iraqi government and the coalition forces need to show they can stand up to the (militia), but it is also benefiting the popularity of Sadr," said Said.

(SNIP)

But analysts see the Najaf campaign as far less tense than an aborted US mission in the Sunni Muslim bastion of Fallujah, where hundreds of people were killed in April before marines were forced to retreat.

Sadr's fighters have proved themselves less effective at inflicting losses among US troops than insurgents in Fallujah, who attracted sympathy and admiration for their standoff against the occupation forces.

The cleric has also provoked discontent among Najaf residents, furious that his militia have hunkered down in the city, driving away thousands of tourists and much-needed income.

2//The Moscow Times, Russia Friday, August 13, 2004. Page 1
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/08/13/001.html

SHOULD PUTIN FEAR A KERRY VICTORY?
By Caroline McGregor, Staff Writer

President Vladimir Putin doesn't get to vote in the U.S. elections in November, but it's clear he'd cast his ballot for George W. Bush if he did.

The conventional wisdom is that Democratic candidate John Kerry would be more critical of the constraints Putin has put on democratic freedoms. Bush, a Republican, meanwhile, is a fellow warrior on terror who treats Putin with respect.

Yet it's overly simplistic to assume that a Kerry victory would signal a return to the eat-your-spinach days of the Clinton administration.

In speeches and interviews, Kerry and several of his foreign policy advisers have indicated that security cooperation, not concern for human rights, would be the centerpiece of his Russia agenda.

Kerry's policies, therefore, are likely to have more in common with those of the Bush administration than with those forged under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, when circumstances in Russia and the world were much different.

The real cleavage on foreign policy is not between parties but between liberals and realists within the two. Realists see the world in terms of national security threats and power, while liberals emphasize cooperation and principles.

The prevailing assumption in Moscow that Republican administrations are easier to work with likely dates back to the era of detente under U.S. President Richard Nixon, a Republican who signed arms control agreements and recognized the Soviet Union as a great power.

Vyacheslav Nikonov, head of the Fond Politika think tank, who has advised Putin on foreign policy, voiced a view common in conservative Moscow circles that the Democratic establishment is "genetically anti-Russian." He pointed to the prominent status of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, both of whom were born in Eastern Europe.

(MORE)

3//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong August 13, 2004
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH13Ak04.html

HOUSE OF SAUD EXITS COCOON OF DENIAL
By Ehsan Ahrari
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.

The war between the Saudi monarchy and al-Qaeda is fast becoming a struggle between regime survival and regime change. The underlying objective is replacement of the royalist autocrats by puritanical hierocrats. Saudi autocrats are finally convinced that their regime is faced with the possibility of extinction. Consequently, their natural survival instincts have nullified all previous claims that responsibilities for the al-Qaeda-related terrorist acts should really be placed elsewhere.

Reports currently filtering from Washington and Riyadh state that intelligence agents of the monarchy and the American democracy are reportedly joined at the hip - with the creation of one or more "fusion cells" in Saudi Arabia - to save the autocratic regime, and to ensure uninterrupted access to world's largest oil reserves. The unanswerable question is whether this cooperation will save the oil kingdom, or has it already become a futile endeavor to save a doomed cause.

(SNIP)

In emphasizing the illegitimacy of the Saudi regime, Osama bin Laden seems to have adopted the Islamist concept of Takfir expounded by an Egyptian, Shukri Mustafa, of the Society of Muslims in the 1960s. This doctrine - takfir wal-hijra, roughly translated as "excommunication and exile" - advocates withdrawal from the world of sin or impurity into a pure world, practiced by the Prophet of Islam when he decided to emigrate from Mecca to Medina. Mustafa's interpretation of this doctrine narrowly determines who is a Muslim and advocates for the elimination of the "unbelievers", ie, those who believe differently than the followers of the Takfir. Without getting into its excruciating details, suffice it to say that bin Laden's practice of the Takfir doctrine has emerged as a rationale for the sustenance of the jihad culture at the expense of others, including all extant Muslim regimes. The Islamist-related violence against the government of Pakistan is being driven by these sentiments.

What is becoming clear now is that al-Qaeda has decided to implement the Takfir doctrine in Saudi Arabia - given its centrality as a birthplace of Islam - as a strategy to replace the current regime and replace itself as the ruling power and a rightful claimant of Islamic purity. The frequency of attacks on Saudi government buildings and identification of members of Saudi royalty as targets of assassination are definite proofs of that decision. By the same token, it is also clear that the Saudi regime has finally understood al-Qaeda's objective and is equally unwavering about eradicating it.

Consequently, the Saudi and US governments are finally in agreement on identifying the enemy. But the issue related to dealing with al-Qaeda remains very complicated, for a variety of reasons. First, there remains a high degree of uncertainly, indeed lack of information, about the depth and breadth of sympathy and support for al-Qaeda's objectives of creating a more puritan state than the current one in the Saudi society at large. A guess - and that's all it is because we are dealing with a closed system - is that a great majority of Saudis under the age of 30 are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and its vision of a pure Islamic state. Since almost all demographic reports claim that 60% or more of Saudis fall in this age group, the government has to be careful about not antagonizing a sizable portion of its population. Second, at a time when the regime's survival is emerging as a No 1 threat, no one inside or outside the oil kingdom can advocate political reforms. Thus, in all likelihood, reforms - at least radical ones - will be shelved.

Therein lies the rub. One important need is to introduce drastic reforms; however, such reforms would also destabilize the Saudi polity. That is something neither Riyadh nor Washington desires. At the same time, merely token political reforms or window dressing would only prove al-Qaeda's argument that the current regime is driven primarily by its desire for sustaining the political status quo and not by its commitment to Islam. Third, by cooperating with the Saudi regime to eradicate al-Qaeda from that country - a highly improbable scenario - the US has to abandon its own vociferous advocacy of democratizing the region. Considering how ominous the growing symptoms of instability for Saudi Arabia appear from Washington, neither the current nor a new administration would take the risk of pressing for political reforms.

By deciding to oust the Saudi monarchy, al-Qaeda has resuscitated the age-old questions related to the commitment of a governing entity to Islam in its birthplace. By entering into a compact with Mohammed Abdel-Wahhab in 1744, the Saudi dynasty had kept those issues dormant. Now the Saudi rulers encounter increasing pressure from within to remain true to Islamic puritanism. From outside, they are facing intense pressure not only to create a distance from those demanding Islamic puritanism, but also to liberalize Islam. The extreme nature of these competing demands promises to push Saudi Arabia toward increasing instability. The greatest challenge for the current regime is not to find a common ground between these extreme demands - for such an option is not even tenable - but merely to keep the implosion of their political system from happening in the near future.

4//Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy August 11, 2004
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25044

ANALYSIS: U.S. SET TO 'GRIN AND BEAR' CHAVEZ VICTORY
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Aug 11 (IPS) - Just days before Venezuelans vote on whether to recall Hugo Chavez, U.S. officials and analysts appear increasingly resigned to at least another two and a half years of a government headed by the fiery populist.

They have watched Chavez surge in the polls in the past few weeks and, what with a leaderless opposition united only in its contempt for the president, they now see Fidel Castro's biggest foreign admirer as likely to prevail, if not in the plebiscite itself, then in new elections that must take place within 30 days of the recall vote.

''He's definitely got momentum on his side'', conceded one Bush administration official, who admitted that Washington is unlikely to be happy with the outcome.

In fact, some analysts here prefer a clear win by Chavez at this point, rather than a close finish that could provoke charges of fraud from either or both sides, particularly if observers from the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Centre hedge their own assessment as to whether the election was free and fair.

The possibility of civil conflict breaking out in one of Washington's most important and reliable sources of imported oil at a time when global oil prices are hovering around historic highs is a nightmare that George W Bush's political handlers would rather not face less than three months before the November elections here.

''The administration really doesn't have any good options for bringing pressure to bear on Chavez at this point if he does win'', according to William LeoGrande, a Latin America expert at American University here. ''The last thing it wants to do is alienate another big oil producer. If Chavez wins, they're just going to have to grit their teeth and live with him''.

''If the oil is flowing and U.S. investors are happy, this administration isn't going to do much'', Michael Shifter, a Venezuela expert at the Inter-American Dialogue (IAD), a prominent think tank here, told IPS. ''What the U.S. wants above all else is stability''.

(MORE)

5//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia August 13, 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/12/1092102599408.html?oneclick=true

PM GIVES WAY ON TRADE PACT CHANGES
By Mark Metherell and Peter Hartcher

The free trade deal with the United States is set to go ahead after the Prime Minister, John Howard, caved in to Labor demands for amendments - and was then forced to qualify comments that the demands were causing concerns in the US.

The Senate is expected to pass the legislation for the agreement by today after Mr Howard agreed early yesterday to Labor's proposal for tougher penalties to deter patent abuses by drug companies.

But he said that while he accepted the amendments, if the US found they jeopardised the agreement "it will be on the Labor Party's head and no one else's".

Mr Howard, who initially warned that there were "obviously concerns" in the US, later quoted from an official message from the Australian embassy in Washington that made no mention of concerns. The US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, told the embassy he had "no official position" on the Labor amendments until seeing the final Australian law, according to the message Mr Howard quoted.

Mr Howard took the unusual step of calling a second news conference after the Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, revealed he and his trade spokesman, Senator Stephen Conroy, had spoken about Labor's changes to officials in Mr Zoellick's agency in the past two days, "and nothing has been conveyed to us that would jeopardise the [agreement]".

Mr Latham called on Mr Howard to "come clean" about any differences between the text and the spirit of the agreement.

But Mr Howard said his fears about the risk of US repudiation were "not based on some kind of secret understanding with the Americans; they are based on a bona fide concern about the impact of the changes that have been put forward".

The influential American trade lobbyist Anne Wexler yesterday cast doubt on Mr Howard's claim that the Labor amendments could derail the trade deal.

"I'm not aware of any clause of the agreement that could possibly nullify US law," said Ms Wexler, the principal force behind the political lobby that promoted the Australian deal.

(MORE)