January 27, 2006

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 JANUARY 27, 2006

1//The Jordan Times, Jordan--ISLAMISTS’ WIN RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS (… On social issues, the group has promoted an Islamic worldview, calling, among other things, for the implementation of Sharia. Yet candidates have repeatedly emphasised that it will not force anyone to change their way of life. In an interview in October with The Jordan Times, Mahmoud Zahar, one of the most senior Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip incredulously replied to a question about women's dress code that “there is no indication in the Koran to enforce people to be believers. So are we going to tell people how to dress and how to eat?” Yet one woman, who did not want to be identified, told The Jordan Times that during a Hamas rally in Ramallah yesterday, one Hamas supporter had entered a restaurant that served alcohol and pointedly announced that “you have two days!” … And there can be no doubting the fears of secular society. Hisham Ahmed, a professor of political science at Birzeit University in Ramallah and the author of a 1994 book on Hamas, “From religious salvation to political and social transformation,” called the issue the “most important” for the immediate future. “We are at a very serious crossroads in Palestinian society,” Ahmed told The Jordan Times. “This will either take us into further radicalisation or provide us with a historic opportunity to revitalise the secular moment on different basis from what we have seen in the past few years.” However, Ahmed also said that Hamas is a political movement “first and foremost.”)

2//Middle East Times, Egypt--WOMEN BEAR BRUNT OF POVERTY IN POST-INVASION IRAQ (… Poverty has exploded across Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion. A recent study by the United Nations Development Program and International Monetary Fund shows that 20 percent of the population has fallen below the international poverty line of $1 per day per person. The numbers of families registering for assistance with the labor and social affairs ministry has more than tripled since the war to 171,000 and even that, according to Leila Kazem, a director general at the ministry, is a "drop in the ocean." "After the war, a new dangerous issue arose in Iraqi society - poverty, which is clear to everyone," she said, blaming unemployment and violence that has been killing off the main breadwinners, something "which is happening every hour of every day." … Female heads of household under a certain age receive limited assistance if they are deemed able-bodied enough to work. For many willing to go out to work, there is simply no job.)

3//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--US SHOWS INDIA ITS IRON FIST (The United States and India may be allies but they have different views on the pressure Washington is exerting on New Delhi to stand on its side by voting for Iran's referral to the United Nations Security Council at next week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]. The Americans have warned India that its nuclear deal signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's last trip to Washington will die in Congress if it doesn't back the US on Iran. From India's perspective that's bare-knuckle diplomacy at its worst. From the US vantage point this is merely a test of friendship between the two democracies. If India were to follow its past patterns of conducting an independent foreign policy, it would be unlikely to take too kindly to such threats. But India's practitioners of realpolitik have claimed for about the past five years that, being two democracies, India and the United States are "natural allies." That aside, the next few weeks are crucial in terms of testing this bare-knuckle diplomacy and India's natural predilection to follow its vital national interests free of external pressures.)

RELATED: TURKEY WARMS TO TALK, NOT ACTION

4//MosNews.com, Russia--NOTORIOUS OLIGARCH BEREZOVSKY REVEALS PLANS FOR COUP IN RUSSIA (Wanted Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has gone public with his plans to seize power in Russia by force. The London-based oligarch said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station Wednesday that he had been working on the coup plan for 18 months. Berezovsky, a notorious critic of Putin’s regime, said he aimed to replace the “anti-constitutional regime” in Russia. “The regime has lost its legitimacy. Neither Putin nor the parliament are legitimate. They are anti-constitutional, because they have made a number of anti-constitutional decisions, such as replacing elected governors by appointed ones. This is absolutely against the spirit and the language of the constitution.” Today’s regime would never allow a fair election, Berezovsky added, so the only way out is a coup. ... As for personal security, Berezovsky said, he did not feel he was in any danger. “My security is guaranteed by the state I live in. The UK takes care of all its residents, including the immigrants.”)

5//The Globe and Mail, Canada--U.S. AMABASSADOR SENDS OUT PEACE FEELERS (The top United States diplomat in Canada made a concerted effort yesterday to ease tensions between the two countries after the defeat of Paul Martin's government. … His conciliatory tone was in stark contrast to his very public rebuke of Mr. Harper's predecessor last month. The ambassador lashed out at Mr. Martin for his criticisms of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, in the process bringing tensions between the two countries to the forefront of the Canadian election. … During the question-and-answer session, Mr. Wilkins was reluctant to express a view on virtually any topic, even something as benign and Canadian as hockey. Asked how much anti-Americanism he encounters in Canada, he replied, "I don't see it, feel it or hear it." That prompted television host and panel moderator Steve Paikin to say: "We're very polite. We wouldn't say it to you.")

* * *

1//The Jordan Times, Jordan Friday-Saturday, January 27-28, 2006
http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/news/news2.htm

ISLAMISTS’ WIN RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
By Omar Karmi

RAMALLAH — Defying all polls and even exceeding its own expectations, Hamas Wednesday secured an absolute majority in the Palestinian parliament and will now be asked to form the next Palestinian government.

Despite being widely expected to do well, the victory itself, not to mention the extent of the victory, came as a shock to most observers, including Hamas candidates themselves. A stunned Palestinian government submitted its resignation hours before preliminary official results were released. Even though it was a formality, the move showed the overwhelming nature of the election results.

In Hebron, where all seven district seats went to Hamas candidates, a slightly taken aback Dr Aziz Dweik, one of the winning candidates, told The Jordan Times that “we did not expect such a great result. It has put us in front of a new challenge.”

(SNIP)

But Hamas' victory ultimately raises more questions than answers, not least of the movement itself and its readiness to rule. Did Palestinians vote for Hamas or against Fateh? Is this a rejection of negotiations with Israel? Is this an expression of growing conservatism within Palestinian society, and where will this leave the significant secular population? What about the international community? And how will Hamas deal with all of the above?

The uncertainty is in large part due to deliberate vagueness on behalf of Hamas. The group's candidates have made contradictory statements regarding almost all major issues throughout the election campaign. The group has offered no official recognition of Israel, yet refrained from calling for its destruction in its election manifesto, which nevertheless stated that, “Palestinian rights to all of Palestine have no statute of limitations.”

(SNIP)

On social issues, the group has promoted an Islamic worldview, calling, among other things, for the implementation of Sharia. Yet candidates have repeatedly emphasised that it will not force anyone to change their way of life. In an interview in October with The Jordan Times, Mahmoud Zahar, one of the most senior Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip incredulously replied to a question about women's dress code that “there is no indication in the Koran to enforce people to be believers. So are we going to tell people how to dress and how to eat?”

Yet one woman, who did not want to be identified, told The Jordan Times that during a Hamas rally in Ramallah yesterday, one Hamas supporter had entered a restaurant that served alcohol and pointedly announced that “you have two days!”

Dweik was adamant yesterday that the secular segment of Palestinian society “is an important component of our society and we will respect their choices. We will behave with them as with anyone.”

Nevertheless, he saw the victory as “a success for the choice of Islam as the religion of the people and the source of their dignity.”

And there can be no doubting the fears of secular society. Hisham Ahmed, a professor of political science at Birzeit University in Ramallah and the author of a 1994 book on Hamas, “From religious salvation to political and social transformation,” called the issue the “most important” for the immediate future.

“We are at a very serious crossroads in Palestinian society,” Ahmed told The Jordan Times. “This will either take us into further radicalisation or provide us with a historic opportunity to revitalise the secular moment on different basis from what we have seen in the past few years.”

However, Ahmed also said that Hamas is a political movement “first and foremost.”

“In the absence of any other successful ideology, and in the absence of a successful political track, religion can be and was a driving force for people to mobilise. But far-reaching political objectives should not be neglected. Hamas will continue to balance out its resort to religion and its dependence on political calculation.”

Ahmed believes Palestinian voters were primarily protesting corruption and the failure of the peace process, rather than an indication of growing social conservatism.

“The vote for Hamas was not a vote for its religious outlook but primarily for its political agenda and discourse. This is where secular society can step in.”

Indeed, it is not at all clear that Hamas has in anyway finalised its intentions on any issue. Yesterday, the movement declared itself eager to form a unity government with any and all Palestinian factions. Having Fateh in a coalition government might provide useful cover for the group. Certainly, it needs to find a way to extract itself from the “new challenge” of government.

(MORE)

2//Middle East Times, Egypt Thursday, January 26, 2006
http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php...

WOMEN BEAR BRUNT OF POVERTY IN POST-INVASION IRAQ
Ahmad Fadam & Nafia Abdul Jabbar

BAGHDAD (AFP) -- Umm Ziyad, her husband, two sons and granddaughter were just making ends meet in a one-room hovel in Baghdad when a suicide bomber decided that the best way to attack a police station was to drive through the carwash where her husband worked.

"We didn't used to need anyone. He worked and we could make do, but now it's obvious that we are in need," said the widow, swathed in black and looking much older than her 46 years.

But one year after she applied for government assistance, she has heard nothing and her eldest son, Ziyad, has dropped out of high school to support the family with occasional work.

Poverty has exploded across Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion.

A recent study by the United Nations Development Program and International Monetary Fund shows that 20 percent of the population has fallen below the international poverty line of $1 per day per person.

The numbers of families registering for assistance with the labor and social affairs ministry has more than tripled since the war to 171,000 and even that, according to Leila Kazem, a director general at the ministry, is a "drop in the ocean."

"After the war, a new dangerous issue arose in Iraqi society - poverty, which is clear to everyone," she said, blaming unemployment and violence that has been killing off the main breadwinners, something "which is happening every hour of every day."

The families, however, do not receive any special treatment at the ministry. "We don't have a separate category for victims of terrorism, we just talk about needy families," she said.

Violence is hitting families, already weakened by decades of war and international sanctions under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who were just surviving and now have lost their sole means of income.

"We were afraid a war would come and then it happened and our father is gone now," Umm Ziyad said, referring to her husband.

As she tells her story, the electricity cuts out and her other son Ali, who is still in school, steps out into the twilight to finish his homework.

The family, which lives in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Qahira, is being helped by Umm Murad, who works with the social programs of the Iraqi Turkmen Front.

"I know over 80 families in a perilous economic state and I am helping about 20 of them," she said.

"You can see them for yourself, any place you go just ask, there are hundreds of them - no one knows the exact number ... Most families who have six sons maybe only one or two are working, usually as policeman or soldiers."

She promised to help Umm Ziyad negotiate the massive lines of applicants at the swamped labor ministry where hundreds try to register for assistance and suggests that she feigns an injury to get additional money.

Female heads of household under a certain age receive limited assistance if they are deemed able-bodied enough to work.

For many willing to go out to work, there is simply no job.

3//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Jan 17, 2006
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA27Df01.html

US SHOWS INDIA ITS IRON FIST
By Ehsan Ahrari

The United States and India may be allies but they have different views on the pressure Washington is exerting on New Delhi to stand on its side by voting for Iran's referral to the United Nations Security Council at next week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Americans have warned India that its nuclear deal signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's last trip to Washington will die in Congress if it doesn't back the US on Iran. From India's perspective that's bare-knuckle diplomacy at its worst. From the US vantage point this is merely a test of friendship between the two democracies.

If India were to follow its past patterns of conducting an independent foreign policy, it would be unlikely to take too kindly to such threats. But India's practitioners of realpolitik have claimed for about the past five years that, being two democracies, India and the United States are "natural allies." That aside, the next few weeks are crucial in terms of testing this bare-knuckle diplomacy and India's natural predilection to follow its vital national interests free of external pressures.

(SNIP)

US Ambassador to India David Mulford has stated that the United States is eagerly seeking India's support when the IAEA meets to discuss Iran's nuclear-research program. If India takes the position that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, he said, "We think they should record it in the vote."

By itself that statement would not have been half as bad if Mulford did not add that that US-India nuclear deal would "die in Congress" if leaders in New Delhi were to vote against referring Iran to the UN at the meeting next Thursday.

The US-India nuclear deal was reached when Manmohan visited Washington in July. The United States agreed to share advanced civilian nuclear technology with India, thereby lifting sanctions that were imposed on the country in the aftermath of its nuclear test in May 1998. An important aspect of the deal was that it had to be approved by the US Congress, which has always been suspicious of India's intentions regarding the nuclear issue.

(SNIP)

One wonders whether Washington paid much attention to the controversy the US-India nuclear deal created in New Delhi. The Manmohan government came under intense criticism from the communist parties for its alleged subservience to Washington and for parting company with the long-standing tradition of conducting independent foreign policy that was established by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and cherished by his successors.

When Manmohan signed the nuclear deal in Washington there were expectations and understandings that Iran would not be referred to the UN any time soon, since such a measure would have forced the current Indian government to take a position. If it were to side with the US, there were fears the coalition government might be brought down. But if New Delhi were to oppose the US, then such a measure would have created its own deleterious consequences along the lines specified by Mulford.

What the US does not understand - or maybe understands but fails to appreciate - is that India's foreign policy toward Iran is quite complex. Iran has consistently balanced, especially lately, its ties between India and its South Asian arch-rival, Pakistan. At times, Iran has gone some distance in terms of manifesting its preference for India and Indo-Iranian economic ties.

That is saying a lot, considering both Pakistan and Iran claim to be "Islamic republics."  Besides, after acquiring nuclear weapons of its own by developing a complex rationale for them, New Delhi is not interested in antagonizing Iran in its own attempt to acquire advanced nuclear knowledge. Indian leaders are too busy with other important foreign and domestic policy matters to be bogged down in a quarrel involving Iran, the United States and the EU-3 (Germany, France and the United Kingdom).

What is likely to be the outcome of this newly intensified controversy between two major democracies? It should be noted that India has already rejected any claims of linkages between the Indo-US nuclear deal and its vote related to Iran. Still, its choices may not be that simple.

One option for India is to take no position on the issue when the matter is referred to the IAEA next week. It might hope for IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei's reported intention to give Iran more time before referring it to the UN.

If that doesn't happen, then India is likely to go with the US position only if it determines that such a move would not bring down the coalition government. However, if there is a storm of powerful protest and controversy in India in the coming days and week on the issue, Manmohan is likely to vote against referring Iran to the UN, calculating that the US-India nuclear deal might prove to be too humiliating when the US legislators start taking a close look at it and start adding more conditions to it.

(MORE)

RELATED:

TURKEY WARMS TO TALK, NOT ACTION
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA27Ak02.html

Turkey is very much a focus as the Iranian nuclear crisis heats up. There is speculation about it abetting a US attack, in return for the US turning a blind eye to a Turkish attack on Iraqi Kurds. Ankara, however, is leaning toward a political solution to its Kurdish problem, having realized that this could bring much-needed stability to Turkey itself.

4//MosNews.com, Russia Created: 26.01.2006 13:38 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:38 MSK
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/26/berezrevolution.shtml

NOTORIOUS OLIGARCH BEREZOVSKY REVEALS PLANS FOR COUP IN RUSSIA

Wanted Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has gone public with his plans to seize power in Russia by force. The London-based oligarch said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station Wednesday that he had been working on the coup plan for 18 months.

Berezovsky, a notorious critic of Putin’s regime, said he aimed to replace the “anti-constitutional regime” in Russia.

“The regime has lost its legitimacy. Neither Putin nor the parliament are legitimate. They are anti-constitutional, because they have made a number of anti-constitutional decisions, such as replacing elected governors by appointed ones. This is absolutely against the spirit and the language of the constitution.”

Today’s regime would never allow a fair election, Berezovsky added, so the only way out is a coup.

“There is only one way out — a coup, a forced seizure of power,” he said.

The oligarch said he had plenty of supporters.

“Every day I talk to lots of people who are certain the existing regime should be changed, and see there is no chance of this happening legally, by an election.

(SNIP)

The businessman is going to fund the coup with his own money, earned by honest labor, he said. He was also deliberately making his intentions public, he added.

“It is vital that the Russian people realized just talking was not enough, that it is time for action.”

As for personal security, Berezovsky said, he did not feel he was in any danger.

“My security is guaranteed by the state I live in. The UK takes care of all its residents, including the immigrants.”

5//The Globe and Mail, Canada Thursday, January 26, 2006 Page A8
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory...

U.S. AMABASSADOR SENDS OUT PEACE FEELERS
By Karen Howlett

LONDON, ONT. -- The top United States diplomat in Canada made a concerted effort yesterday to ease tensions between the two countries after the defeat of Paul Martin's government.

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins said he expressed a willingness to work closely with prime-minister-designate Stephen Harper during a phone conversation with him on Tuesday evening. Mr. Wilkins described the call as "cordial and friendly," but he said no specific issues were discussed.

"We're always optimistic and hopeful that this wonderful relationship we enjoy can get stronger," Mr. Wilkins told reporters yesterday. "We're working toward that end."

His conciliatory tone was in stark contrast to his very public rebuke of Mr. Harper's predecessor last month. The ambassador lashed out at Mr. Martin for his criticisms of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, in the process bringing tensions between the two countries to the forefront of the Canadian election.

Yesterday, however, Mr. Wilkins was clearly in a mood for keeping peace. He said he never intended to have his comments last month become a campaign issue. As for now, he said the week of an election and transition to a new government in Ottawa is not the time for an ambassador to be expressing opinions.

"There's plenty of time for us to speak out on issues. When I think it's time to advocate a position I will."

Mr. Wilkins made his remarks at the University of Western Ontario after a public forum on Canada-U.S. relations, where he appeared on a panel with Allan Gotlieb, former Canadian ambassador to the United States.

During the question-and-answer session, Mr. Wilkins was reluctant to express a view on virtually any topic, even something as benign and Canadian as hockey. Asked how much anti-Americanism he encounters in Canada, he replied, "I don't see it, feel it or hear it." That prompted television host and panel moderator Steve Paikin to say: "We're very polite. We wouldn't say it to you."

(SNIP)

Mr. Gotlieb, who titled his remarks, "How not to manage Canada-U.S. relations in seven easy lessons," said relations between the countries are at a low-water mark.

(MORE)