June 10, 2005

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 JUNE 10, 2005

1//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates--‘GOOD AND HONEST’ IRAQIS FIGHTING US FORCES (A senior US military chief has admitted "good, honest" Iraqis are fighting American forces. Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence." In an interview with Gulf News, he said: "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could [want to fight us]." … General Taluto, head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra, also said some Iraqis not involved in fighting did support insurgents who avoided hurting civilians. He said: "There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'" … His comments come in stark contrast to the assertions of other top US figures, who persist in claiming all insurgents are either Baathists or Al Qaida terrorists. … He added: "Who knows how big these networks are, or how widespread? I know it's substantial enough to be a threat to the government and it will be for some time.")

2//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--EXIT STRATEGY: CIVIL WAR (As Shi'ites and Kurds fought for three months to come up with an Iraqi cabinet, it is emerging from Baghdad that soon a broad front will emerge on the political scene composed of politicians, religious leaders, clan and tribal sheikhs - basically Sunni but with Shi'ite participation - with a single-minded agenda: the end of the US-led occupation. … But the proliferation of what many moderate Sunnis and Shi'ites suspect as being Pentagon-organized black ops is putting the emergence of this front in jeopardy. … Several Iranian websites have widely reported a plan to break up Iraq into three Shi'ite southern mini-states, two Kurdish mini-states and one Sunni mini-state - with Baghdad as the seat of a federal government. Each mini-state would be in charge of law and order and the economy within its own borders, with Baghdad in charge of foreign policy and military coordination. The plan was allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC). The AFPC is financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has also funded both the ultra-hawkish Project for a New American Century and American Enterprise Institute. … The front is opposed to the American occupation and permanent Pentagon military bases; opposed to the privatization and corporate looting of the Iraqi economy; and opposed to the federation of Iraq, ie balkanization. Members of the front clearly see through the plan of fueling sectarianism to provoke an atmosphere of civil war, thus legitimizing the American presence. The George W Bush administration's obsession in selling the notion that Iraqis - or "anti-Iraqi forces," or "foreign militants" - are trying to start a civil war in the eastern flank of the Arab nation is as ludicrous as the myth it sells of the resistance as just a lunatic bunch of former Ba'athists and Wahhabis.)

3//Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy--"EVOLUTION" PREFERRED OVER "REVOLUTION" IN ARAB LANDS (The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush should back up its pro-democracy rhetoric in the Middle East with more action and consistency, according to new bipartisan report that also urges Washington to encourage "evolutionary," rather than "revolutionary" change in Arab lands. The 65-page report by an independent task force sponsored by the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman, also urged Washington to support the full political participation of Islamist groups, so long as they renounced violence and were committed to the democratic process. … The risks of empowering radical Islamists through democratic reform have clearly been a major source of concern and debate within the administration and even within particular ideological currents that have backed Bush's hawkish policies. Neo-conservatives, for example, have split between those, like the director of the Project for the New American Century [PNAC], Gary Schmitt, who has called for Washington to directly engage the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, and harder-line figures, such as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, who strongly oppose such a move and now consider "slowing down the democratisation policy in Iraq and elsewhere" to be a major priority of his work.)

4//The Independent, UK--BRITAIN CONDEMNED FOR FLOUTING HUMAN RIGHTS (Britain's record on human rights has been condemned in a report that criticises the Government for using illiberal policies to tackle terrorism, asylum and antisocial behaviour. Alvaro Gil-Robles, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, warned Britain that its regime for combating terrorism flouted the fundamental human right of the presumption of innocence. … The commissioner, whose findings are based on investigations during a visit to Britain last November, also expressed concern over the use of evidence obtained under torture. … The commissioner was also troubled that disproportionate numbers of suspects from ethnic minority communities were being stopped and searched under anti-terror laws. The report warned the Government that its policy on antisocial behaviour was criminalising children. No juvenile under 16 should be at risk of imprisonment for breaching an antisocial behaviour order [Asbo]. Asbos should be "restricted to ... serious cases.")

5//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--RUSSIA RIPE FOR A PEOPLE’S UPRISING, SOLZHENITSYN SAYS (The Nobel Prize-winning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn has emerged from his jealously guarded obscurity to decry the state of Russian politics and warn that the country may be on the brink of a Ukrainian-style revolution. … Known for his ultra-conservative views and vehement nationalism, he urged the Government and the parliament to change course and get its act together or else face a velvet or "Orange Revolution" of the kind that convulsed Ukraine last year. An Orange Revolution might take place if tensions between the public and the authorities flared up and money began to flow to the opposition, he told Russian state television. … In an apparent side-swipe at the West's attempts to impose democracy from above in places such as Iraq, he warned that such attempts were doomed to failure. "Democracy is not worth a brass farthing if it is being installed by bayonets. Democracy should grow slowly and gradually." … He also made it clear he had little time for Russia's oligarchs who grew fabulously wealthy in the 1990s, not least Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was recently jailed for nine years on fraud and tax-evasion charges.)

* * *

1//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates Published: 9/6/2005, 06:25 (UAE)
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleID=168406

‘GOOD AND HONEST’ IRAQIS FIGHTING US FORCES
By Phil Sands, Staff Reporter

Tikrit: A senior US military chief has admitted "good, honest" Iraqis are fighting American forces.

Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence."

In an interview with Gulf News, he said: "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could [want to fight us]."

General Taluto, head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra, also said some Iraqis not involved in fighting did support insurgents who avoided hurting civilians.

He said: "There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'"

However General Taluto insisted the US and other foreign forces would not be driven out of Iraq by violence. "If the goal is to have the coalition leave, attacking them isn't the way," he said. "The way to make it happen is to enter the political process cooperate and the coalition will be less aggressive and less visible and eventually it'll go away."

His comments come in stark contrast to the assertions of other top US figures, who persist in claiming all insurgents are either Baathists or Al Qaida terrorists.

General Taluto also admitted he did not know how many insurgents there were. "I stay away from numbers how can I quantify this? We can make estimates by doing some kind of guesswork," he said.

"I think there is a small core of foreign fighters. I don't know how big that is but there is some kind of capability here, and it's being replenished.

"Then there is a group of former regime personnel they're the facilitators. They make all the communications, move the money, they enable things to happen. Their goal isn't the same as the foreign fighters but they're using them to do what they want to do.

"Then we have the foot soldiers. Some are doing it for the money. Some are doing it because they're offended by our presence and believe we are a threat to their way of life. There are various levels."

He added: "Who knows how big these networks are, or how widespread? I know it's substantial enough to be a threat to the government and it will be for some time."

(MORE)

2//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Jun 10, 2005
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF10Ak03.html

EXIT STRATEGY: CIVIL WAR
By Pepe Escobar

"In reality, the electoral process was designed to legitimize the occupation, rather than ridding the country of the occupation ... Anyone who sees himself capable of bringing about political reform should go ahead and try, but my belief is that the occupiers won't allow him." -- Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr

As Shi'ites and Kurds fought for three months to come up with an Iraqi cabinet, it is emerging from Baghdad that soon a broad front will emerge on the political scene composed of politicians, religious leaders, clan and tribal sheikhs - basically Sunni but with Shi'ite participation - with a single-minded agenda: the end of the US-led occupation.

This front will include, among others, what we have termed the Sinn Fein component of the resistance, the powerful Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and the Sadrists. It will refuse any kind of dialogue with new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and his government unless there's a definite timetable for the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces. Even the top Marine in Iraq, Major General Stephen Johnson, has admitted, "There will be no progress as long as the insurgents are not implicated in a political process."

But the proliferation of what many moderate Sunnis and Shi'ites suspect as being Pentagon-organized black ops is putting the emergence of this front in jeopardy. This is obvious when we see Harith al-Dhari - the AMS leader - blaming the Badr Brigades (the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution - SCIRI - in Iraq, a major partner in the government) for the killing of Sunni Arab clerics.

Breaking up Iraq

Several Iranian websites have widely reported a plan to break up Iraq into three Shi'ite southern mini-states, two Kurdish mini-states and one Sunni mini-state - with Baghdad as the seat of a federal government. Each mini-state would be in charge of law and order and the economy within its own borders, with Baghdad in charge of foreign policy and military coordination. The plan was allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC). The AFPC is financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has also funded both the ultra-hawkish Project for a New American Century and American Enterprise Institute.

The plan would be "sold" under the admission that the recently elected, Shi'ite-dominated Jaafari government is incapable of controlling Iraq and bringing the Sunni Arab guerrillas to the negotiating table. More significantly, the plan is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq - an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Once again this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity. Call it Iraqification; what it actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war. Operation Lightning - the highly publicized counter-insurgency tour de force with its 40,000 mostly Shi'ite troops rounding up Sunni Arabs - can be read as the first salvo of the civil war. Vice President Dick Cheney all but admitted the whole plan on CNN, confidently predicting that "the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office."

But the destiny awaiting this counter-insurgency may be best evaluated by comparing it to Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 classic, The Battle of Algiers - one of the most influential political films ever, and supposedly a "must see" at the Pentagon. The French in Algeria in the early 1960s did indeed break the back of the guerrillas - but in the end lost the Algerian war. Talking about Vietnamization - the precursor to Iraqification - the Vietcong's Tet offensive in 1968 was lethal, but the counter-insurgency - Operation Phoenix - was even more lethal. In the end, though, the US also lost the war.

There's no Operation Phoenix going on in Iraq. The US has little "humint" (human intelligence), so it is incapable of penetrating the complex resistance tribal net - and not only because of its cultural and linguistic shortcomings. Even a west Baghdad neighborhood such as Adhamiyah is essentially an independent guerrilla republic. The daily, dreadful car-bombing litany will persist: whatever intelligence it comes across, the Pentagon does not share it with the Iraqi police, and the Iraqi police for its part is not exactly the best.

The US also does not have sufficient troops - so it has to resort to doomed Iraqification, using Shi'ites and Kurds to fight Sunnis. And to top it all, the US is blocked in the political sphere, because the real intelligence victory would mean convincing Sunni Arabs of the legitimacy of the political process: it's not going to happen, with only two Sunni Arabs in the 55-member committee in charge of drafting the new Iraqi constitution, and with Shi'ite death squads killing Sunni Arabs.

(SNIP)

Against all odds, a national liberation front is emerging in Iraq. Washington hawks may see it coming, but they certainly don't want it. Many groups in this front have already met in Algiers. The front is opposed to the American occupation and permanent Pentagon military bases; opposed to the privatization and corporate looting of the Iraqi economy; and opposed to the federation of Iraq, ie balkanization. Members of the front clearly see through the plan of fueling sectarianism to provoke an atmosphere of civil war, thus legitimizing the American presence. The George W Bush administration's obsession in selling the notion that Iraqis - or "anti-Iraqi forces," or "foreign militants" - are trying to start a civil war in the eastern flank of the Arab nation is as ludicrous as the myth it sells of the resistance as just a lunatic bunch of former Ba'athists and Wahhabis.

The Bush administration though is pulling no punches with Iraqification. It's a Pandora's box: inside one will find the Battle of Algiers, Vietnam, El Salvador, Colombia. All point to the same destination: civil war. This deadly litany could easily go on until 2020 when, in a brave new world of China emerging as the top economy, Sunni Arabs would finally convince themselves to perhaps strike a deal with Shi'ites and Kurds so they can all profit together by selling billions of barrels of oil to the Chinese oil majors. If, of course, there is any semblance of Iraq left at that point.

3//Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy Jun 9, 2005
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=29016

"EVOLUTION" PREFERRED OVER "REVOLUTION" IN ARAB LANDS
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jun 9 (IPS) - The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush should back up its pro-democracy rhetoric in the Middle East with more action and consistency, according to new bipartisan report that also urges Washington to encourage "evolutionary," rather than "revolutionary" change in Arab lands.

The 65-page report by an independent task force sponsored by the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman, also urged Washington to support the full political participation of Islamist groups, so long as they renounced violence and were committed to the democratic process.

At the same time, however, it said the U.S. should promote constitutional mechanisms, such as an independent judiciary or specially chosen legislative chambres to guard against "the tyranny of the majority" and prevent Islamist movements from "overwhelm(ing) more open political systems."

"For better or worse, Islamist movements and political parties are likely to play a prominent role in a more democratic Middle East," according to the report, "In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How."

"The United States must remain vigilant in opposing terrorist organisations. That being said, it should not allow Middle Eastern leaders to use national security as an excuse to suppress nonviolent Islamist organisations."

The report comes amid growing uncertainties over the direction and seriousness of the administration's pro-democracy push in the Middle East where, according to senior officials, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has created unprecedented political ferment.

In addition to elections over the past six months in Palestine and Iraq itself, Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, and so-far cosmetic constitutional reform in Egypt, according to the administration, have at least opened up the prospect of transforming the region.

Yet despite his soaring pro-democracy rhetoric, Bush and his top aides have appeared less than fully committed. The potential weakening of traditionally pro-U.S. elites in Saudi Arabia and other major oil exporters and the possible rise to power of strongly anti-western Islamist movements represent serious risks for Washington in a region that has been considered by U.S. presidents from both political parties to be a vital national security interest for decades.

While the Bush administration has so far spent more than 200 billion dollars to sustain its military operations in Iraq, for example, its budget for democracy-promotion in the Middle East has not exceeded 100 million dollars a year; in fact, it has actually fallen in since 2003.

On a democracy-promotion trip to the region late last month, First Lady Laura Bush stunned Arab activists when she praised Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for taking a "very bold step" in a sponsoring a constitutional reform that most experts denounced as cosmetic at best.

Of particular concern is the conviction that the immediate beneficiaries of reform have been and are likely to be anti-American Islamists, including the Sunni Muslim Brothers in Egypt and Syria, Hamas, a brotherhood offshoot in Palestine, and the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon which has long been supported by the Islamic Republican of Iran (IRI). The IRI, of course, also supported the Shiite parties that swept Iraq's elections in Iraq last January.

The risks of empowering radical Islamists through democratic reform have clearly been a major source of concern and debate within the administration and even within particular ideological currents that have backed Bush's hawkish policies.

Neo-conservatives, for example, have split between those, like the director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Gary Schmitt, who has called for Washington to directly engage the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, and harder-line figures, such as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, who strongly oppose such a move and now consider "slowing down the democratisation policy in Iraq and elsewhere" to be a major priority of his work.

U.S. policy toward armed Islamist groups -- namely Hamas and Hezbollah, both groups that are on the State Department's terrorism list -- is also a serious point of contention. It is no secret that the administration raised no objections to the decision of Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to put off legislative elections scheduled for next month, in major part due to fears that Hamas was likely to do very well.

It is in that context that the 24-member CFR task force, which met in Cairo with Arab experts and activists, reached its conclusions, the first of which was that the Middle East should no longer be considered an exception to U.S. democracy promotion abroad.

"Although democracy entails certain inherent risks, the denial of freedom carries much more significant long-term dangers," according to the report. "If Arab citizens are able to express grievances freely and peacefully, they are less likely to turn to more extreme measures."

As to how to promote democracy in the region, however, the report is more cautious, stressing that such efforts should be carried out "over the long term, mindful that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside and that sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable."

"America's goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not revolution," it said, adding that, while basic principles should be emphasised across the region, reform should be promoted through a "country-by-country strategy" that takes account of specific issues and problems.

(MORE)

4//The Independent, UK 09 June 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=645350

BRITAIN CONDEMNED FOR FLOUTING HUMAN RIGHTS
By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent

Britain's record on human rights has been condemned in a report that criticises the Government for using illiberal policies to tackle terrorism, asylum and antisocial behaviour.

Alvaro Gil-Robles, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, warned Britain that its regime for combating terrorism flouted the fundamental human right of the presumption of innocence.

The report found the granting of control orders by ministers against terror suspects was "inherently one-sided." Suspects, it added, should be charged under the ordinary criminal justice system. If after 12 months there was insufficient evidence to bring a case to court, the control order should be lifted. Mr Gil-Robles said democratic values and respect for human rights must "be central to the response given to it [terror] by a democratic state... To deny these rights, is to effect ourselves what terrorists wish to achieve."

Control orders were brought in after law lords ruled that the previous system of indefinite detention without trial breached human rights laws.

Under the new measures, the Home Secretary can order a suspect to abide by a curfew, enforced with electronic tagging and restrictions on the use of telephones and the internet.

The commissioner, whose findings are based on investigations during a visit to Britain last November, also expressed concern over the use of evidence obtained under torture. Ministers have said they reserve the right to use torture evidence obtained by another country. But Mr Gil-Robles criticised a Court of Appeal ruling last year in which two out of three judges said that torture evidence could be admissible if it was obtained by a third-party state.

The commissioner was also troubled that disproportionate numbers of suspects from ethnic minority communities were being stopped and searched under anti-terror laws.

The report warned the Government that its policy on antisocial behaviour was criminalising children. No juvenile under 16 should be at risk of imprisonment for breaching an antisocial behaviour order (Asbo). Asbos should be "restricted to ... serious cases."

(MORE)

5//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia June 10, 2005
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Russia-ripe...

RUSSIA RIPE FOR A PEOPLE’S UPRISING, SOLZHENITSYN SAYS
By Andrew Osborn in Moscow

The Nobel Prize-winning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn has emerged from his jealously guarded obscurity to decry the state of Russian politics and warn that the country may be on the brink of a Ukrainian-style revolution.

Now 86 and in frail health, the former dissident rarely makes public appearances, let alone public statements, so his outburst has generated considerable interest.

The author of Cancer Ward, August 1914 and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, based on his 10-year stint in the Soviet gulag, did not pull any punches.

(SNIP)

Known for his ultra-conservative views and vehement nationalism, he urged the Government and the parliament to change course and get its act together or else face a velvet or "Orange Revolution" of the kind that convulsed Ukraine last year.

An Orange Revolution might take place if tensions between the public and the authorities flared up and money began to flow to the opposition, he told Russian state television.

He also said that Russian democracy was not under threat because insufficient time had passed for it to really take root.

(SNIP)

"We have nothing that resembles democracy. We are trying to build democracy without self-governance. Before anything, we must begin to build a system so that the people can manage their own destinies."

In an apparent side-swipe at the West's attempts to impose democracy from above in places such as Iraq, he warned that such attempts were doomed to failure. "Democracy is not worth a brass farthing if it is being installed by bayonets. Democracy should grow slowly and gradually."

He also made it clear he had little time for Russia's oligarchs who grew fabulously wealthy in the 1990s, not least Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was recently jailed for nine years on fraud and tax-evasion charges.

"The world has never seen such rapid privatisation," he said. "The world has never seen such idiots. They gave away our God-given resources at lightning speed - oil, non-ferrous metals, coal, production. They fully robbed Russia. From scratch, from nothing, we bred billionaires who have done nothing for Russia."

His comments have been tacitly welcomed by the Kremlin, which gave him ample air time and newsprint to make his points. His comments, with their uniquely Russian interpretation, will find favour with the President, Vladimir Putin.

His anti-oligarch comments will go down particularly well. A deputy prosecutor warned recently that the Khodorkovsky case would not be the last and that the authorities intended to go after other oligarchs.