July 11, 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 JULY 11, 2005

1//The News International, Pakistan--DOUBLE STANDARDS RULE THE ROOST IN THE WAKE OF THE LONDON BOMBINGS (… All such attacks are to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, of course. But how is it that the UN Security Council has not to this day passed a resolution condemning the US bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 or the US bombing of Iraq in 2003, which killed thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians, including women and children? Were the lives of the 50 people killed in the London bomb blasts more valuable than the lives of the estimated 15,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and the estimated 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq by US bombing and missile strikes? The answer, of course, is, no, they were not. All lives are equally valuable, whether they are those of people in the UK, Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. So why has the UN Security Council never passed a resolution expressing outrage and indignation at the appalling US attacks against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq?)

2//Xinhua Online, China--CONTINUING MILITANCY IN BORDER AREAS TO UNDERMINE KABUL-ISLAMABAD RELATIONS (The increasing Taliban-led insurgency in Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan would further damage the strained relations between Kabul and Islamabad, as President Hamid Karzai rejected Islamabad's claim about the presence of Osama in Afghanistan. Karzai on Thursday in a sharp reaction flatly rejected Islamabad's claim, saying "Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan." … The claim infuriated Kabul, and Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal in a counter claim said "both the fugitives Omar and Osama are in the Pakistani tribal belt areas close to Afghanistan." … Trading allegations between Kabul and Islamabad and their leaders' failure to remove the persistent mistrust, Afghan observers say, would undermine relations between the two frontline members of the US-led coalition in the so-called war on terrorism. … Relations between the two frontline allies of Washington in the war on terror began destabilizing since mid last month when Taliban militants stormed Kandahar's Mian Nashin district and executed eight government employees. The violent and surprising move prompted Afghan leaders including President Hamid Karzai to accuse Pakistan directly or indirectly of supporting Taliban rebels and middling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. … Exchanging harsh statements and accusations between Kabul and Islamabad last month has pressed US President George W. Bush to interfere to prevent further escalation between its key allies in the region. In attempts to defuse tension, President Bush personally called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and sought his support in containing militants' infiltration to Afghanistan.)

3//The Daily Star, Lebanon--LEBANON MOVES CLOSER TO FORMING NEW CABINET (Lebanon moved a step closer to finally forming a government after maverick Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun reversed his earlier decision and announced he would serve in the country's new cabinet. But differences still exist over the allocation of cabinet posts to Shiite groupings, Amal and Hizbullah, who insist on being given the Foreign Ministry in return for their participation in government. … Amal and Hizbullah insist one of their members should be foreign minister in the new government in order to ensure they are not sidelined in dealing with international pressure on Lebanon to implement the UN Resolution 1559 which demands Hizbullah disarm. … Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah accused the U.S. of trying to influence the make up of the new cabinet. He said: "They failed to influence the elections so we must not give them the chance [to] influence the shape of our government.")

4//The Turkish Daily News, Turkey--KUWAIT FACES PRESSURE ON RULES OF SUCCESSION (Kuwait has a long-ailing emir and even more ill crown prince, putting pressure on the Gulf oil state's ruling family to clarify who is next in line for power. Many Kuwaitis and foreign diplomats expect Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, the emir's half-brother who has effectively run the emirate for four years, to be picked as the "spare" and some argue he should replace the crown prince now. Whoever takes over is likely to maintain the conservative policies of the pro-U.S. Gulf country, which has a tenth of global oil reserves, analysts say. However, uncertainty over the succession could rattle world oil markets, where crude prices shot above $60 last week. Kuwait's bourse, so far unruffled by the emir's long illness, could also suffer.)

5//Japan Focus, US--JAPAN JOINS U.S. IN DANGEROUS SPACE RACE (Japan is now embarking on a historic and potentially dangerous journey into space, urged on by the U.S., which seeks a more heavily armed and militarily active partner in the Asia-Pacific. … All of this is being done to give the U.S. the ability to surround and neutralize China. Tokyo’s shift in policy, as a U.S. proxy in the region, at a time of mounting China-Japan conflicts over territorial issues and provocations such as the Prime Minister's visits to Yasukuni Shrine, signals to China a more aggressive Japanese role in the region and tighter alignment with U.S. strategic goals. In particular, U.S. missile defense strategy is designed to neutralize China’s small nuclear deterrent capability giving the U.S. first-strike advantage.)

* * *

1//The News International, Pakistan Sunday July 10, 2005-- Jamadi Us Sani 02, 1426 A.H.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2005-daily...

DOUBLE STANDARDS RULE THE ROOST IN THE WAKE OF THE LONDON BOMBINGS
By Kaleem Omar

KARACHI: At 5.49 pm (British Summer Time) on Thursday, July 7, only nine hours after four bomb blasts in London killed at least 50 people and injured 700 others, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the London attacks and expressing "outrage and indignation" at the "appalling terrorist attacks against the people of the United Kingdom that cost human life and caused injuries and immense human suffering."

All such attacks are to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, of course. But how is it that the UN Security Council has not to this day passed a resolution condemning the US bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 or the US bombing of Iraq in 2003, which killed thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians, including women and children?

Were the lives of the 50 people killed in the London bomb blasts more valuable than the lives of the estimated 15,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and the estimated 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq by US bombing and missile strikes?

The answer, of course, is, no, they were not. All lives are equally valuable, whether they are those of people in the UK, Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. So why has the UN Security Council never passed a resolution expressing outrage and indignation at the appalling US attacks against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yes, the London blasts cost human life and caused injuries and immense human suffering, but so did the US bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq. In statistical terms, the loss of human life and human suffering caused by the US bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq is far greater than the loss of human life and human suffering caused by the London blasts.

Yet the UN Security Council not only chose to remain silent on the subject; it compounded the offence by actually passing a resolution in April 2003 recognising the status of the United States and Britain (George W. Bush’s so-called "Coalition of the Willing") as the occupying power in Iraq - thereby, in effect, legitimising a totally illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country that posed no threat whatsoever to the mighty United States.

(SNIP)

But is has now become increasingly evident that the United States has taken to using its clout as the world’s only remaining superpower to bulldoze the other members of the UN Security Council into also practicing double standards. Hence, Thursday’s UN Security Council resolution condemning the London bomb blasts, with no sign of any similar condemnation of the US bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq.

(SNIP)

The Bush administration and the Blair government never tire of claiming that "sovereignty" has now been "transferred" to the Iraqi people. But can any people be considered sovereign when their country is occupied by 160,000 foreign troops?

Blair said, "The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorise people ..." But what is the purpose of the invasion and bombing of Iraq? Isn’t the purpose of that to terrorise the Iraqi people? Or are we to take it that the purpose of the US’s and Britain’s massive bombing campaign against Iraq is to spread joy and happiness among the Iraqi people?

In a statement from Gleneagles on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a united response to the London attacks. Putin said, "Wherever such inhuman crimes occur - in London, in New York or in Moscow - we must unconditionally condemn them and unite all civilised countries in the struggle against international terrorism."

That, again, is true, of course. But how is it that Putin has never called for unconditionally condemning the US and British bombing of Iraq? And how is it that he has never called for all civilised countries to unite in the struggle against the war of aggression being waged by the United States and Britain against the people of Iraq?

In Brussels, Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said of the London attacks that there was "no justification for such heinous crimes."

De Hoop Scheffer was right, of course, in saying that there is no justification for such heinous crimes. Yet he, too, has never said that there was no justification for the heinous crimes being perpetrated by the US and Britain against the people of Iraq - making his remarks yet another case of double standards ruling the roost.

2//Xinhua Online, China 2005-07-09 23:08:31
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005...

CONTINUING MILITANCY IN BORDER AREAS TO UNDERMINE KABUL-ISLAMABAD RELATIONS

KABUL, July 9 (Xinhuanet) -- The increasing Taliban-led insurgency in Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan would further damage the strained relations between Kabul and Islamabad, as President Hamid Karzai rejected Islamabad's claim about the presence of Osama in Afghanistan.

Karzai on Thursday in a sharp reaction flatly rejected Islamabad's claim, saying "Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan."

Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao told newsmen in Islamabad Tuesday that "al-Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden could be hiding in southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan where the writ of the government is not so strong."

Sherpao also told the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) on Monday that Taliban's elusive chief Mullah Mohammad Omar and Osama's deputy al-Zawahir may also be in southeastern Afghanistan.

The claim infuriated Kabul and Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal in a counter claim said "both the fugitives Omar and Osama are in the Pakistani tribal belt areas close to Afghanistan."

(SNIP)

Meanwhile, Pakistan's Minister for Information and Media Development Shikh Rashid Ahmad termed Karzai's administration as a "failed government," saying the Afghan government by leveling such charges "try to conceal its massive security failure by urging Pakistan to play a more proactive role in checking cross-border movement of terrorists."

Trading allegations between Kabul and Islamabad and their leaders' failure to remove the persistent mistrust, Afghan observers say, would undermine relations between the two frontline members of the US-led coalition in the so-called war on terrorism.

(SNIP)

Relations between the two frontline allies of Washington in the war on terror began destabilizing since mid last month when Taliban militants stormed Kandahar's Mian Nashin district and executed eight government employees.

The violent and surprising move prompted Afghan leaders including President Hamid Karzai to accuse Pakistan directly or indirectly of supporting Taliban rebels and middling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

Even the Afghan president once claimed that Taliban's elusive chief Mullah Mohammad Omar had been seen in Balouchistan's provincial capital Quetta, a claim rejected by Pakistan as groundless.

Corroborating the accusations, former Afghan-born US ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said on June 19 that Taliban's spokesman Mullah Abdul Latif Hakimi has been living in Pakistan.

The veteran US diplomat who served as President Bush's special envoy to the post-Taliban nation did not rule out either the presence of Taliban and al-Qaida's chiefs in Pakistan by saying both Mullah Omar and Bin Laden are presumably in Pakistan.

He made these remarks just days after Pakistan's private television channel the GEO aired an interview of Taliban's senior commander Mullah Akhtar Usmani in which he said that "Both Omar and Osama are alive."

Substantiating his argument, Khalilzad questioned "how is it possible for a local television to get interview from a senior militants commander like Usmani while security agencies of that country remain unaware of whereabouts of Bin Laden and Omar?"

Exchanging harsh statements and accusations between Kabul and Islamabad last month has pressed US President George W. Bush to interfere to prevent further escalation between its key allies in the region.

In attempts to defuse tension, President Bush personally called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and sought his support in containing militants' infiltration to Afghanistan.

For his turn, Musharraf in a 50-minute telephone conversation to his Afghan counterpart reassured his government's support to the ongoing war on terrorists and stabilizing efforts to Afghanistan.

"Sufficient evidence are available to prove foreign hands' support to militants, otherwise 200 or 300 rebels can do nothing," advisor to Karzai Dr. Spanta stressed in a diplomatic tune without mentioning Pakistan's name.

(SNIP)

The political upheaval between the two neighboring countries is getting new dimensions as Afghan private and state-run media begun accusing Islamabad of backing Taliban and middling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

Afghan national television in panel discussion of public opinion aired last week criticized Pakistan's policy vis--vis Afghanistan and accused it of fighting a proxy war through Taliban.

Daily Anis, a state-run newspaper also in a story published on front page last weekend said that police arrested five Pakistanis from Zabul province last week and all of them confessed to their involvement in terrorist activities.

A Kabul-based independent daily Arman-e-Millie in its editorial on Saturday blamed Pakistan for creating turmoil in the war-torn Afghanistan, saying "Pakistan exports terrorists to Afghanistan to destabilize this country."

"By backing Taliban, Pakistan wants to hunt two preys with one arrow. That is, to maintain influence in Afghanistan while getting concession from the United States and recent announcement of the United States to release Pakistani F-16 jet fighters is a proof to it," said Faizullah Jalal, a Kabul University professor.

(MORE)

3//The Daily Star, Lebanon Monday, July 11, 2005
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp...

LEBANON MOVES CLOSER TO FORMING NEW CABINET

By Adnan El-Ghoul
Daily Star staff

BEIRUT: Lebanon moved a step closer to finally forming a government after maverick Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun reversed his earlier decision and announced he would serve in the country's new cabinet. But differences still exist over the allocation of cabinet posts to Shiite groupings, Amal and Hizbullah, who insist on being given the Foreign Ministry in return for their participation in government.

Aoun's volte face follows his earlier refusal to serve in the cabinet after his parliamentary bloc was not offered the justice portfolio. Prime Minister-designate Fouad Siniora confirmed at the weekend that the justice portfolio would be given to Aoun's team, a demand that two days earlier Beirut MP Saad Hariri had deemed "impossible."

Despite Aoun's decision, the formation of a government still looks to be days away, as the two main Shiite blocs continue to argue about the allocation of posts.

Amal and Hizbullah insist one of their members should be foreign minister in the new government in order to ensure they are not sidelined in dealing with international pressure on Lebanon to implement the UN Resolution 1559 which demands Hizbullah disarm.

Chouf MP, Walid Jumblatt, called on Siniora to form his cabinet as soon as possible insisting "any further delay would have its negative impact on the Lebanese fragile situation politically and economically."

(SNIP)

Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah accused the U.S. of trying to influence the make up of the new cabinet. He said: "They failed to influence the elections so we must not give them the chance [to] influence the shape of our government."

Speaking at a rally in Baalbek on Saturday, Nasrallah added that the party decided to participate in the government because of the new developments in the Lebanese politics calling for the formation of a true "national unity cabinet."

He said: "Our participation is based on a program that adheres to the fixed principles of defending the country against all exterior threats. We must not reward Israel with any compensation after its defeat and failure in annihilating the resistance by forming a government designed by foreign powers."

In a communal gathering in the South yesterday, the head of Hizbullah's Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, hit back at media reports which accuse Hizbullah and Amal of blocking progress on forming the new cabinet.

(MORE)

4//The Turkish Daily News, Turkey Sunday, July 10, 2005
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=17803

KUWAIT FACES PRESSURE ON RULES OF SUCCESSION
Haitham Haddadin

KUWAIT – Reuters - Kuwait has a long-ailing emir and even more ill crown prince, putting pressure on the Gulf oil state's ruling family to clarify who is next in line for power.

Many Kuwaitis and foreign diplomats expect Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, the emir's half-brother who has effectively run the emirate for four years, to be picked as the "spare" and some argue he should replace the crown prince now.

Whoever takes over is likely to maintain the conservative policies of the pro-U.S. Gulf country, which has a tenth of global oil reserves, analysts say.

However, uncertainty over the succession could rattle world oil markets, where crude prices shot above $60 last week. Kuwait's bourse, so far unruffled by the emir's long illness, could also suffer.

Under the constitution, Crown Prince Sheikh Saad al-Abdulla al-Sabah, 76, will succeed his cousin the emir, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah, 77. However, illness has also incapacitated the heir. The prime minister manages day-to-day affairs.

"The ruling family is expected to meet and decide to appoint someone new (when the emir dies)," a senior Western diplomat said. "I think they will appoint Sheikh Sabah since he's already running the country. He's been de facto leader for four years."

The ruling family has said nothing in public about the succession, or whether it might bypass the crown prince.

The constitution says only the emir can order the Cabinet to remove the crown prince based on an independent medical report declaring him unfit, political analyst Jasem al-Sadoun said.

One complication is Kuwait's tradition of alternating power between the two branches of the ruling al-Sabah family.

The current emir and the prime minister are both from the Jaber branch, which also holds several top Cabinet posts. The crown prince is from the Salem clan, whose only other senior official is Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah.

The confusion has prompted rare calls for the ruling family to act to avert any constitutional crisis. Two members of parliament called last year for an open debate and one said the ailing crown prince must be relieved of his duties.

"There isn't one among us who doesn't feel there are many clouds that are the harbinger of a crisis," liberal MP Mohammad al-Saqer told parliament recently, urging the ruling family to shoulder its "national responsibilities."

(SNIP)

Beyond the immediate succession problem lies the question of a generational shift to younger Kuwaiti leaders.

"It's not clear who comes after Sheikh Sabah," one lawmaker said. "The emir and crown prince are ill and Sheikh Sabah is in his 70s. We want to be sure there is reform in the ruling family and in some upcoming well-known leadership posts."

5//Japan Focus, US Posted July 6, 2005
http://www.japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=322

JAPAN JOINS U.S. IN DANGEROUS SPACE RACE
By Bruce K. Gagnon

Japan is now embarking on a historic and potentially dangerous journey into space, urged on by the U.S., which seeks a more heavily armed and militarily active partner in the Asia-Pacific.

Space technology is being developed for two primary reasons. One is to give nations the ability to better coordinate warfare on Earth. The second is that many nations and corporations view space as the "new world." Gold on asteroids, water and helium-3 on the moon, magnesium, cobalt, and uranium are believed to be on Mars. Corporations intend to venture to these planetary bodies and secure massive profits in the years ahead. But first new space technologies have to be created that make it possible, and cost effective, to "mine the skies." [1]

If citizens can be convinced that their nation must use space technologies to "protect them" from enemies, real or imagined, then this investment in space technology can also be used to create the infrastructure that will allow these same aerospace industries to mine the heavens. Thus space technology becomes "dual use." With the development for military use also comes development for corporate use. The question is who benefits? Who pays and who reaps the profits?

Japan is working on both military and civilian space technologies, developing so-called "missile defense" systems, new generations of military spy satellites, and planning for manned stations on the moon. All of these programs will come at a tremendous cost to Japanese taxpayers and will set the course for a more aggressive foreign policy in the coming years. Most important, Japanese military space developments dramatically link Japan and the U.S. military in a dangerous course of confrontation in the region as the U.S. moves to counter China’s development as a global economic competitor.

The Washington Post reported that "The Pentagon is looking at Asia as the most likely arena for future military conflict, or at least competition." [2] The article concludes that the U.S. will essentially double its military presence in the region. For example, on Guam today the U.S. has lengthened and widened runways to handle the B-1 and B-2 bombers. Cruise missiles have been prepositioned on Guam and new fighter squadrons are planned to make it a "power projection hub." New small "lily pad" bases are being developed throughout the Asia-Pacific by the Pentagon for rapid interventionary capability. At the same time, the transfer of the U.S. lst Corps to Japan more tightly integrates that nation in U.S. global military planning.

Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) is a key program in the U.S. arsenal to surround China. Based on ships and sold to the public as a "missile defense" system to protect allies like Japan and South Korea, new interceptor missiles (SM-3) are planned that will be deployed on Navy Aegis destroyers in Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan. Ground-based (PAC-3) interceptor missiles would be deployed in Japan. Converted Boeing 747 aircraft, called the Airborne Laser (ABL), are in development that are envisioned to fly round-the-clock giving the U.S. complete air coverage of China’s coast. The ABL would have a laser beam on the airplane’s nose and would fire at any missile launched by China or North Korea. The ABL, though, is having huge technological development problems and is enormously over budget. The U.S. seeks to involve Japan as a partner on this program to share the cost.

All of this is being done to give the U.S. the ability to surround and neutralize China. Tokyo’s shift in policy, as a U.S. proxy in the region, at a time of mounting China-Japan conflicts over territorial issues and provocations such as the Prime Minister's visits to Yasukuni Shrine, signals to China a more aggressive Japanese role in the region and tighter alignment with U.S. strategic goals. In particular, U.S. missile defense strategy is designed to neutralize China’s small nuclear deterrent capability giving the U.S. first-strike advantage.

The U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee meeting in Washington DC on February 19, 2005, identified "new threats" emerging in the Asian-Pacific region and called for the "modernization of military capabilities" in response, notably ballistic missile defense (BMD). The joint statement concluded that the "U.S. is reorienting and strengthening its global defense posture to provide it with appropriate, strategy-driven capabilities in an uncertain security environment." [3]

(MORE)