November 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 NOVEMBER 11, 2005

1//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--JORDAN BOMBS A TERRORIST MASTER-STROKE (… The scope of the "war on terrorism," at least in this region, appears to be widening. … The questions of the hour are why was Jordan targeted, and why now? The answers may not be straightforward, since they appear to be linked to Zarqawi's own interpretation of how the war should be waged. In that sense, the actions in Iraq, and now in Jordan, may be linked to what is also transpiring in Pakistan and Afghanistan involving al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. So, a good way to understand the role of Jordan in the "war on terror" is to compare it with the role that Pakistan plays.)

2//The Daily Star, Lebanon--ARABS BLAST U.S. ‘BIG BROTHER’ APPROACH TO BILATERIAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS (Arabs attending a conference Thursday in Bahrain blasted Washington's "Big Brother" attitude in bilateral Free Trade Agreements, saying they are political tools to serve U.S. interests rather than enhance economic prosperity in the region. "FTAs are not the ultimate solution for this region. ... I see FTAs as a catalyst for change and reform rather than promoting trade," said Rashid Rashid, Egypt's minister of foreign trade and industry. "FTAs are creating a negative environment. It is a waste of time to think that we (Arabs) will achieve economic integration through the U.S.," Rashid told a panel during the Arab Business Council (ABC) annual meeting. … Sharif al-Zubi, industry and trade minister of Jordan, the first Arab country to sign an FTA with Washington, ridiculed the idea of implementing Arab integration through accords with the United States. "I really fail to understand the logic that if you want to do Arab integration, you have to go to the United States," he said.)

3//Institute for War & Peace Reporting, UK-- KRYGYSTAN TELLS US TO PAY UP FOR AIR BASE (If Kyrgyzstan ever felt geo-strategically sidelined by the world’s only superpower, it need do so no more. A US Defence Department delegation arrived in the capital Bishkek late last week, led by Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, US Central Command director of department for plans and policy. His group came hot on the heels of the commander of Central Command, General John Abizaid. They followed a month after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held talks with President Kurmanbek Bakiev, cementing an agreement to allow US forces to remain on Kyrgyz soil for the foreseeable future. Discussion centres on the Gansi military base just outside the capital at Manas Airport, which the Americans began using for Afghan operations in 2001. But since US forces were shown the door in neighbouring Uzbekistan in July, the Kyrgyz base suddenly represents far more to Washington than a humble rear supply base. Talks are likely to be more complex than the smiling photo-calls suggest. The Kyrgyz are demanding more rent and tax for the facility, and unresolved allegations linger around massive misappropriation of base revenues by the previous government. Furthermore, the US military stands accused of causing environmental damage and domestic suspicions are surfacing that Bakiev is selling out the country’s long-standing alliance with Russia.)

4//The Independent, UK--LABOUR MPs HAVE ACQUIRED A NEW TASTE FOR REBELLION (Where does Tony Blair's humiliating defeat on the Terrorism Bill leave him? Downing Street insisted the issue was a "one-off" that would not reduce his ability to drive through reforms on education, health and welfare. Labour MPs saw very differently - and not just the 20 or so usual left-wing suspects. The danger for the Prime Minister is that he is starting to lose the support of the mainstream majority of the parliamentary Labour Party. … Because his MPs know he is going to stand down, last night's severe setback could easily mark the start of a dangerous phase in which he is seen as a lame duck. If that happens, the end could come much sooner than he wants.)

5//The Sidney Morning Herald, Australia--SEDITION DIVIDES THE PARLIAMENT (Liberal backbenchers and the Labor Party have targeted the potential of sedition provisions in the new anti-terrorism legislation to restrict artistic and journalistic freedom of expression. The tough new powers, allowing the preventive detention of suspects without charge for up to 14 days and 12-month control orders, were introduced into Parliament yesterday. … The revival of sedition provisions which were "either unknown or generally considered to be a dead letter has generated a great deal of concern," he said. Sydney Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull described the language of the sedition provisions as "far from ideal" and noted that the offence had been dropped by Canada and New Zealand. The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, said Labor supported the anti-terrorism measures but is seeking to remove the sedition provisions. If that fails Labor will move an amendment seeking to "ensure that fair commentary, artistic expression and criticism and peaceful industrial political and artistic protest are not restricted," Mr Beazley said.)

* * *

1//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Nov 11, 2005
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK11Ak01.html

JORDAN BOMBS A TERRORIST MASTER-STROKE
By Ehsan Ahrari
(Ehsan Ahrari is a CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, VA-based defense consultancy. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com.)

While Osama bin Laden has become a legend within the rank and file of global terrorists, he is living the life of a retired legend. Zarqawi, on the other hand, is fighting a two-front war: one in Iraq and a second one, as Wednesday's attacks on the Grand Hyatt, Radisson and Days Inn hotels in Jordan seem to indicate, in his native country.

Zarqawi is the "prime suspect" for the Amman bombings, according to Jordan's Deputy Prime Minister, Marwan Muasher. At least 57 people are reported dead and more than 115 wounded in the three almost simultaneous explosions.

Iraq's al-Qaeda, headed by Zarqawi, in a statement posted on an Islamist Internet site usually used by the group, on Thursday claimed responsibility for the attacks. In August, the same group claimed responsibility for a failed rocket attack on US Navy ships in Jordan's Aqaba port.

The scope of the "war on terrorism," at least in this region, appears to be widening.

(SNIP)

The questions of the hour are why was Jordan targeted, and why now? The answers may not be straightforward, since they appear to be linked to Zarqawi's own interpretation of how the war should be waged.

In that sense, the actions in Iraq, and now in Jordan, may be linked to what is also transpiring in Pakistan and Afghanistan involving al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. So, a good way to understand the role of Jordan in the "war on terror" is to compare it with the role that Pakistan plays.

Jordan, like Pakistan, has chosen to side with the US in the "war on terror." Much of the Jordanian populace, like that of Pakistan, nurtures sympathy in various levels for al-Qaeda, and anger for the continued US occupation of Iraq. Thus, in both of these countries, the legitimacy of the governments remains shaky. That reality plays well into the hands of Zarqawi and al-Qaeda.

Where Jordan differs from Pakistan is that the former has a large number of Palestinians seething over the continued suffering of their brethren in the occupied territory. But even that variation may not be significant in the sense that pro-Palestinian emotions are quite intense, and equally genuine, in Pakistan.

(SNIP)

Jordan's King Abdullah bin Hussein II, like President General Pervez Musharraf, has not only remained a strong supporter of the "war on terror" but has also been more willing than Musharraf to show the "Jordanian face" in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Jordan has played an active role in training Iraqi forces. Abdullah's reasons for being visibly bolder than Musharraf regarding Iraq have something to do with the fact that there have been economic payoffs for remaining a pro-US actor in post-Saddam Iraq.

More to the point, Abdullah envisages a great leadership vacuum in the Arab world and aspires to create his own niche by remaining a "true friend" of the US, whose military prowess and presence promises to determine the balance of power in the region for a long time to come.

The Sandhurst-educated Abdullah must have studied the history of England closely enough to understand how a small country can maximize its strategic payoffs by siding with the dominant power of an era. No one understood that reality better than that most astute student of world history, British statesman Winston Churchill. In emulating Churchill in that strategy, Abdullah is playing a safe hand.

Thus, in his commitment to do America's bidding - only to the extent that it also serves Jordan's strategic interests - Abdullah has become a masterful player. In that role, he has come into serious conflict with another skillful strategist, Zarqawi.

Abdullah is building his own advantage in the US's "war on terrorism." Zarqawi and his allies, for their part, are maximizing the advantage of their side by striking at Jordan at a moment of their own choosing and attacking places where Westerners reside. The purpose is not necessarily to destabilize Jordan, but to create enough instability and terror to depress the Jordanian economy, a strategy that is working well for al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

2//The Daily Star, Lebanon Friday, November 11, 2005
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id...

ARABS BLAST U.S. ‘BIG BROTHER’ APPROACH TO BILATERIAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
Participants at Bahrain talks insist trade deals meant to serve American interests

By Agence France Presse (AFP)

MANAMA: Arabs attending a conference Thursday in Bahrain blasted Washington's "Big Brother" attitude in bilateral Free Trade Agreements, saying they are political tools to serve U.S. interests rather than enhance economic prosperity in the region. "FTAs are not the ultimate solution for this region. ... I see FTAs as a catalyst for change and reform rather than promoting trade," said Rashid Rashid, Egypt's minister of foreign trade and industry.

"FTAs are creating a negative environment. It is a waste of time to think that we (Arabs) will achieve economic integration through the U.S.," Rashid told a panel during the Arab Business Council (ABC) annual meeting.

"The United States will not be the gateway for regional economic integration," he said.
Rashid's comments came in response to Robert Lawrence, professor of trade and investment at Harvard University, who had earlier told the panel that FTAs between Washington and Arabs will help integrate Arab economies.

"If Arab countries can integrate with the United States (through FTAs), it will be easy for them to integrate with each other," Lawrence said.

Although he acknowledged that the "U.S. motives of these agreements are fundamentally political," Lawrence said "but they have to deliver economically in order to be effective." Arabs can reap the fruits of FTAs if they use them "to open up their economies and accelerate domestic reforms," Lawrence said.

Washington has already signed FTAs with Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain and is negotiating similar accords with Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Framework trade accords, a prelude to FTAs, have also been signed with several Arab states.
The FTAs are part of U.S. President George W. Bush's plans to create a Middle East free-trade area by 2013.

Sharif al-Zubi, industry and trade minister of Jordan, the first Arab country to sign an FTA with Washington, ridiculed the idea of implementing Arab integration through accords with the United States.

"I really fail to understand the logic that if you want to do Arab integration, you have to go to the United States," he said.

(MORE)

3//Institute for War & Peace Reporting, UK (RCA No. 419, 10-Nov-05)
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/rca2/rca2_419_1_eng.txt

KRYGYSTAN TELLS US TO PAY UP FOR AIR BASE
The United States needs Kyrgyzstan more than ever, but authorities in Bishkek are telling the Americans to show them the money.

By Cholpon Orozobekova in Bishkek
(Cholpon Orozobekova is a correspondent for Radio Azattyk, the Kyrgyz service of RFE/RL.)

If Kyrgyzstan ever felt geo-strategically sidelined by the world’s only superpower, it need do so no more.

A US Defence Department delegation arrived in the capital Bishkek late last week, led by Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, US Central Command director of department for plans and policy. His group came hot on the heels of the commander of Central Command, General John Abizaid.

They followed a month after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held talks with President Kurmanbek Bakiev, cementing an agreement to allow US forces to remain on Kyrgyz soil for the foreseeable future.

Discussion centres on the Gansi military base just outside the capital at Manas Airport, which the Americans began using for Afghan operations in 2001. But since US forces were shown the door in neighbouring Uzbekistan in July, the Kyrgyz base suddenly represents far more to Washington than a humble rear supply base.

Talks are likely to be more complex than the smiling photo-calls suggest. The Kyrgyz are demanding more rent and tax for the facility, and unresolved allegations linger around massive misappropriation of base revenues by the previous government.

Furthermore, the US military stands accused of causing environmental damage and domestic suspicions are surfacing that Bakiev is selling out the country’s long-standing alliance with Russia.

Rice secured a joint declaration that both sides wanted to see US-led Coalition forces stay in Kyrgyzstan until “the mission to fight terrorism in Afghanistan is complete.”

The Kyrgyz government agreed, despite calls at the July meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, SCO – a regional security grouping including Russia and China – that US Central Asian bases should be phased out.

But Bakiev, who swept to power in the so-called “tulip revolution” in March, has made it clear that a continued American presence will cost them.

He told a news conference on November 2 that a new draft agreement was being prepared on the Gansi airport, which “requires major expenditure from the Americans. The US will have to pay for each metre of land used at world prices. Inflation and other circumstances should be taken into account.”

The day before the conference, Bakiev had told General Abizaid to resolve the issue and “not put off taking a decision”.

The Kyrgyz foreign ministry said on November 8 that the latest talks had yielded an agreement on changing the terms of the lease of the base, including an increase in payments of rent and taxes.
But a US embassy spokesman in Bishkek played down the meeting, saying the defence department visit was aimed at “sharing information” and not at striking a new deal on the base.

“There’s a mismatch of perspectives here,” he said.

“The US is used to inflated expectations in the hope that they will give in and pay more.”
Nevertheless, Washington will not want to lose Gansi, which is set to become its only reliable strategic outpost in Central Asia since neighbouring Uzbekistan served US forces with marching orders from the Khanabad airbase near the southern city of Karshi.

The Uzbek government was angered at US calls for an independent investigation into Tashkent’s bloody suppression of protesters in Andijan in May and has given the Americans until the end of January to be gone. Rice pointedly did not include Tashkent in her recent Central Asian tour.

Kyrgyz defence minister Ismail Isakov rejected the notion that his government was simply exploiting Washington’s strategic requirements to make more money.

“This is not our task at all. The only goal is to attract greater funds to raise the country’s economy,” he said. “The issue of re-examining this agreement is being raised in order to bring greater benefit to the lives of Kyrgyzstan citizens.”

As yet unresolved, however, are allegations that the greater benefit from the base has largely been reaped by family members of former president Askar Akaev, who fled to Russia after crowds of demonstrators stormed government buildings in March.

(SNIP)

Financial considerations aside, the draft agreement covering the base also contains environmental stipulations, following an incident in October when two US planes allegedly dumped 80 tonnes of fuel over a village near Bishkek.

The US embassy spokesman declined to comment on the allegation, saying only that legitimate complaints of this nature should be pursued through the country’s courts.

Deputy Minister for Ecology Bakirdin Jolchiev said the Americans were going to have to live up to international standards. “As a member of the convention for protection of the atmosphere, we believe that damage was done to the environment,” he told IWPR.

Bakiev has been keen to demonstrate to his partners in the SCO, particularly Russia, that his revolution did not represent a strategic tilt towards the West. Russian forces maintain a standing presence at the Kant base, also near Bishkek, which opened in 2003.

Russian defence minister Sergei Ivanov visited the base in September, pledging further funds to upgrade the facility and signing an agreement to supply weapons and equipment to Kyrgyzstan.

But many Kyrgyz politicians still believe that the country is now being used by the US as a tool for regional domination, despite assurances by Rice that Washington is not trying to lure Bishkek away from Moscow.

(MORE)

4//The Independent, UK Published: 10 November 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article326047.ece

LABOUR MPs HAVE ACQUIRED A NEW TASTE FOR REBELLION
Analysis by Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Where does Tony Blair's humiliating defeat on the Terrorism Bill leave him? Downing Street insisted the issue was a "one-off" that would not reduce his ability to drive through reforms on education, health and welfare.

Labour MPs saw very differently - and not just the 20 or so usual left-wing suspects. The danger for the Prime Minister is that he is starting to lose the support of the mainstream majority of the parliamentary Labour Party.

Worryingly for Mr Blair, his growing number of critics have discovered a powerful weapon: the House of Commons. As Labour MPs discussed the prospects of further rebellions in the Commons bars and corridors last night, the word was: "He ain't seen nothing yet." Many backbenchers feel more angry about his domestic plans than they do about locking up terrorist suspects for 90 days without charge.

His first Commons defeat since coming to power does not automatically mean that his days in Downing Street are numbered. But these are not normal times, because Mr Blair took the unprecedented step just over a year ago of announcing that he would not fight a fourth general election as Labour leader. His statement, designed to avoid the trap Margaret Thatcher fell into by saying she would go "on and on," may now come back to haunt him.

Because his MPs know he is going to stand down, last night's severe setback could easily mark the start of a dangerous phase in which he is seen as a lame duck.

If that happens, the end could come much sooner than he wants.

Last night's vote was more than a rejection of a draconian power sought by the police. It was also a rejection of Mr Blair's style of running his party. The cajoling and bullying might have worked with a majority of 167, but it has less clout with a majority of 66. It will cut even less ice now that Labour MPs have acquired a taste for rebellion.

(MORE)

5//The Sidney Morning Herald, Australia November 11, 2005
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sedition-divides...

SEDITION DIVIDES THE PARLIAMENT
By Louise Dodson and Joseph Kerr

Liberal backbenchers and the Labor Party have targeted the potential of sedition provisions in the new anti-terrorism legislation to restrict artistic and journalistic freedom of expression.

The tough new powers, allowing the preventive detention of suspects without charge for up to 14 days and 12-month control orders, were introduced into Parliament yesterday.

"These measures bring to the fore the very real tension between Parliament's duty to protect the community from the threat of terrorism and its obligation to ensure that other fundamental rights such as due process, liberty and freedom of speech are not unduly infringed upon or curtailed," said a Liberal MP, Petro Georgiou.

The revival of sedition provisions which were "either unknown or generally considered to be a dead letter has generated a great deal of concern," he said.

Sydney Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull described the language of the sedition provisions as "far from ideal" and noted that the offence had been dropped by Canada and New Zealand.

The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, said Labor supported the anti-terrorism measures but is seeking to remove the sedition provisions. If that fails Labor will move an amendment seeking to "ensure that fair commentary, artistic expression and criticism and peaceful industrial political and artistic protest are not restricted", Mr Beazley said.

The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said he was prepared to look at further amendments to clarify the sedition provisions, although he said he did not believe they were "unreasonable."

His department will review the provisions early next year.

Mr Georgiou also raised concerns that under the draft legislation's disclosure rules, a 16-year-old girl who was detained could tell her mother but if her mother told her absent father she faced a five-year jail sentence.

He called for continuously reviewing the operations of the legislation by a parliamentary committee or an independent reviewer such as in Britain.

He warned that the Government must ensure the law did not lead to "the alienation of community groups whose active participation is essential for the success of intelligence collection and law enforcement."

The Prime Minister, John Howard, said Australians would be "embroiled in this struggle for years" and that they had to accept their lives would change in some respects.

(MORE)