March 8, 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 MARCH 8, 2006

1//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates--AMERICAN ATTACK ON IRAN ‘LIKELY’ (The quagmire that America finds itself in Iraq "makes an attack against Iran more likely," according to the Oxford Research Group. The comments came as Iran was accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction. "The evidence points to Iran building a bomb," the International Institute of Strategic Studies told Gulf News. … The Oxford Research Group is the leading organisation in its field, facilitating dialogue. It has close connections with the highest levels of the British government and is acutely aware of the issues of the day. … "Well, they haven't got Iraq right, which means it is more likely that they will take action against Iran. But there is one other major issue here that America is worried by and that is China. Iran has just signed a $70 billion [Dh257 billion] oil deal with China. This worries America. The geo-politics of oil and the Middle east over the next 30 years is what this is about." … The International Institute of Strategic Studies increased the pressure on Teheran when it told Gulf News that it now believes Iran wants a nuclear weapon. "The cumulative evidence suggests that Iran is building nuclear weapons," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the IISS, a think-tank that examines the global military situation. ... "We are perhaps about 4-6 months from a turning point." This does not mean that Iran will have a physical bomb, that is still about three years away, but it does suggests a time when the knowledge and basic framework needed to produce a bomb come together or at least will be apparent to Teheran. The IISS is considered "left wing in America and right wing in Europe." It reflects Washington's foreign policy through a European prism. What its says carries weight through the fact that it echoes official Washington viewpoints for an audience that is not American.)

2//The News International, Pakistan--ABIZAID ARRIVES (As a follow-up to US President George Bush's visit to Pakistan, US Central Command Chief John Abizaid arrived here Tuesday. His two-day visit would be focused on sharing intelligence information to give impetus to the war on terror, said sources. General Abizaid will meet President Gen Musharraf and Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ahsan Saleem Hayat. These separate interactions are being held highly important in the context of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's unsubstantiated charges against Pakistan. According to highly-placed sources Abizaid wanted to have full intelligence information and then "take up this matter with the Afghan authorities." A senior official said Abizaid's visit might help overcome, what President General Musharraf termed, "mini crisis." … Sources said the Afghan officials and pro-Indian leaders are needed to be checked to avoid undermining the war on terror. They said Pakistan would give General Abizaid a concrete evidence of how American soldiers and Pakistanis were attacked and killed in Afghanistan and it was all masterminded by Indian RAW in an attempt to create a situation. President Musharraf is learnt to have confided the intelligence information in President Bush, as Afghan leaders tried to "deliberate, articulate a conspiracy" against Pakistan. "There was a sharp contrast between the treatment meted out to India and Pakistan," said Talat Masood, a retired general-turned political commentator.)

3//The Daily Star, Lebanon--EDITORIAL: CHIRAC IS WELL AHEAD OF BUSH IN THE OPINION OF ARAB PUBLICS (Since assuming office, French President Jacques Chirac has sought to reassert French influence in the world, particularly in the Middle East. This week, Chirac took that effort a step further during a visit to Saudi Arabia, where he became the first foreign leader to address the Saudi Shura Council. Chirac's special show of interest in the region and its people's concerns in part explains his relative popularity among Arab publics. Chirac, in stark contrast with U.S. President George W. Bush, is rather well liked in the Arab world. Official Palestinian food and postage stamps have honored Chirac as a "friend of peace." … During Ramadan 2003, merchants in Cairo named their best quality dates "Chiracs" in honor of the president, although the dates lost popularity the following year, after Chirac supported a French ban on Muslim headscarves. Yet Bush, who has loudly championed democracy in Egypt, has never been honored by the Cairo merchants with a Ramadan fruit in his name. … This difference in approach - France's soft power and engagement as opposed to America's hard power and isolation - explains how Chirac, despite his history of blind support for regional despots, has managed to portray himself as a hero in the Arab world while Bush, who speaks incessantly of freedom and democracy, remains a villain in the eyes of Arab publics.)

4//Al-Abram Weekly, Egypt--OPINION: WHAT A SHAME (… However, even with this grim history in mind which they fear will impact on their ability to address their global clients' needs and fulfil their mission of addressing world poverty, World Bank staff have even more immediate worries to contend with. What everybody in the Bank perceives most evidently is the increasing rift between Wolfowitz and his inner cabal of advisors and the staff at large. The problem is manifesting itself on several levels. In recent months, there had been a massive exodus of top talent from the World Bank. The senior ethics officer of the bank has departed. Also on the exit roster are the vice president for East Asia and the Pacific, the chief legal counsel, the vice president for environmentally and socially sustainable development, the bank's top managing director, the director of institutional integrity (who monitors internal and external corruption), and the head of the information solutions group. Steve Clemons says in the Washington Note: "It looks as if Wolfowitz is gut-punching the most talented teams at the Bank and morale is plummeting. A lot of good people are leaving." … No one is comparing Wolfowitz with any of the former Bank presidents any more. Everyone is saying that he is building his "cabal" of supporters at the highest levels of the institution and confirming all their worst fears of foisting a Bush administration agenda on the world's premier development agency. Meanwhile, the board of executive directors, which represents the 184 member countries of the World Bank, remains scandalously silent. Quel domage!)

5//The Toronto Star, Canada--CANADA’S MILITARY GOES ON OFFENCE AT HOME (Canada's military is cranking up a public relations offensive in the face of new casualties and fresh questions about its Afghanistan mission that now is expected to stretch longer than first expected. To bolster support for the mission, the defence department is planning to recruit army brass, the minister of defence and frontline troops to reinforce opinion on the homefront. Military officials had always recognized that they would have to sell the Canadian public on the merits of its Afghan mission. … But the real heart of this PR offensive promises to be the soldiers themselves. As they return from their tours of duty, they'll be sent to speak to hometown radio stations, television talk shows, service clubs, "wherever we can ... to explain to Canadians what we're doing, why we're doing it and why it's having a good effect," an official said. … Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay conceded yesterday that top generals now say Canada's role in the war-torn country will be a "longer-term commitment than was perhaps originally intended." … Still, MacKay rejected opposition demands for a full debate on the Afghanistan mission when the House of Commons returns April 3, saying it might undermine support for the country's troops. … "I don't believe at this point we can undermine in any way our commitment to our forces and to our men and women who are there doing extremely important and extremely dangerous work," he said. … New Democrat MPs have been leading the call for a full debate when the Commons returns. “Canadians need to know exactly what are the terms of our engagement in Afghanistan," said NDP MP Dawn Black [New Westminster-Coquitlam].

* * *

1//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates Published: 03/08/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)

AMERICAN ATTACK ON IRAN ‘LIKELY’
By Tom Clifford, Assistant Editor, International

London: The quagmire that America finds itself in Iraq "makes an attack against Iran more likely", according to the Oxford Research Group.

The comments came as Iran was accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction.

"The evidence points to Iran building a bomb," the International Institute of Strategic Studies told Gulf News.

Leading organisation
The Oxford Research Group is the leading organisation in its field, facilitating dialogue. It has close connections with the highest levels of the British government and is acutely aware of the issues of the day.

"Shortly after 9/11 I went to Washington to attend a high-level meeting on American foreign policy," Paul Rogers a peace studies professor at Bradford University and a key member of the ORG, said.

"Iraq, of course, was the main topic and I argued against an invasion. Then a high-ranking officer pulled me aside and said 'Paul, it is not about Iraq it is about Iran. We get Iraq right, we get Iran right'." Rogers said.

"Well, they haven't got Iraq right, which means it is more likely that they will take action against Iran. But there is one other major issue here that America is worried by and that is China. Iran has just signed a $70 billion (Dh257 billion) oil deal with China. This worries America. the geo-politics of oil and the Middle east over the next 30 years is what this is about."

Iran kept quiet about one key element of its nuclear industry, involving enrichment, which it later admitted to. But that aside, it has not done anything to break its commitment to the NPT. It has met all its international obligations."

The International Institute of Strategic Studies increased the pressure on Teheran when it told Gulf News that it now believes Iran wants a nuclear weapon.

Cumulative evidence
"The cumulative evidence suggests that Iran is building nuclear weapons," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the IISS, a think-tank that examines the global military situation. The IISS is an Atlanticist organisation that reflects the view of Washington on most key issues.

"Taken separately you could possibly explain some of their actions away but when you put it all together it looks as if Teheran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme."

This statement indicates a hardening of the IISS position since a report on Iran's nuclear programme last October carried by the Gulf News. Then the IISS said that there was "no smoking gun" and the organisation was far less forthcoming in its opinion.

The situation was increasingly critical, Fitzpatrick said.

"We are perhaps about 4-6 months from a turning point."

This does not mean that Iran will have a physical bomb, that is still about three years away, but it does suggests a time when the knowledge and basic framework needed to produce a bomb come together or at least will be apparent to Teheran.

(SNIP)

Perfect world
"In a perfect world no one in the middle east would have nuclear weapons. But we do not live in a perfect world."

The IISS is considered "left wing in America and right wing in Europe."

It reflects Washington's foreign policy through a European prism. What its says carries weight through the fact that it echoes official Washington viewpoints for an audience that is not American.

2//The News International, Pakistan Wednesday March 08, 2006-- Safar 07, 1427 A.H.

ABIZAID ARRIVES
By our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: As a follow-up to US President George Bush's visit to Pakistan, US Central Command Chief John Abizaid arrived here Tuesday.

His two-day visit would be focused on sharing intelligence information to give impetus to the war on terror, said sources. General Abizaid will meet President Gen Musharraf and Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ahsan Saleem Hayat. These separate interactions are being held highly important in the context of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's unsubstantiated charges against Pakistan.

According to highly-placed sources Abizaid wanted to have full intelligence information and then "take up this matter with the Afghan authorities." A senior official said Abizaid's visit might help overcome, what President General Musharraf termed, "mini crisis."

Pakistani authorities reject the speculation that the US has moved in to mediate between Pakistan and Afghanistan on "war of words". "This is speculative...there is nothing like mediation," military spokesman Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan told The News to a question on Abizaid's ensuing role to cool down the tempers arising out of what President General Musharraf said "non-sense accusation of the Afghan government that Pakistan was abetting trouble within Afghanistan."

Pakistan is a key ally in the US "war on terror" and the armed forces of the two countries are hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in the region.

Islamabad provided key logistical and intelligence support for US operations in Afghanistan that led to the ousting of the Taliban regime in late 2001.

General Sultan said President Musharraf exchanged information with President Bush as to how far Afghans are meddling in the affairs and what was going wrong in Afghanistan. Some analysts say that almost 70 percent intelligence apparatus, plus the defence officials in Afghanistan, comprised Indian RAW-trained people who belonged to Northern Alliance.

Sources said the Afghan officials and pro-Indian leaders are needed to be checked to avoid undermining the war on terror. They said Pakistan would give General Abizaid a concrete evidence of how American soldiers and Pakistanis were attacked and killed in Afghanistan and it was all masterminded by Indian RAW in an attempt to create a situation.

President Musharraf is learnt to have confided the intelligence information in President Bush, as Afghan leaders tried to "deliberate, articulate a conspiracy" against Pakistan. "There was a sharp contrast between the treatment meted out to India and Pakistan," said Talat Masood, a retired general-turned political commentator.

(MORE)

3//The Daily Star, Lebanon Monday, March 06, 2006

EDITORIAL: CHIRAC IS WELL AHEAD OF BUSH IN THE OPINION OF ARAB PUBLICS

Since assuming office, French President Jacques Chirac has sought to reassert French influence in the world, particularly in the Middle East. This week, Chirac took that effort a step further during a visit to Saudi Arabia, where he became the first foreign leader to address the Saudi Shura Council. Chirac's special show of interest in the region and its people's concerns in part explains his relative popularity among Arab publics. Chirac, in stark contrast with U.S. President George W. Bush, is rather well liked in the Arab world. Official Palestinian food and postage stamps have honored Chirac as a "friend of peace." A Zogby poll in 2004 in six Arab countries showed that Chirac was considered at the top of the list of world leaders, while the same survey ranked Bush as the least liked world leader, second only to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. During Ramadan 2003, merchants in Cairo named their best quality dates "Chiracs" in honor of the president, although the dates lost popularity the following year, after Chirac supported a French ban on Muslim headscarves. Yet Bush, who has loudly championed democracy in Egypt, has never been honored by the Cairo merchants with a Ramadan fruit in his name.

Both Chirac and Bush have voiced commitment to democracy and to the war on terror, but two leaders have taken a noticeably different approach in achieving these objectives. Washington's approach, which has been dominated by hawkish forces, is often to confront the problem of terrorism with the use of force. This approach has had the adverse effect of creating an upsurge of anti-Western feelings, with scandals such as the use of chemical weapons in Iraq or the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib providing more fodder for terrorist recruiters. In contrast, Chirac's focus has been on engagement through the economic, cultural and political development of the region. This emphasis was noticeable during Chirac's recent trip to Saudi Arabia. More than 20 businessmen representing major French firms accompanied Chirac on his visit with a view toward forging closer business ties. And Chirac inaugurated a high-profile Islamic art exhibition at the Saudi National Museum in Riyadh. Instead of using pressure and force to change the region, Chirac is using the weapons of trade and cultural exchange.

(SNIP)

This difference in approach - France's soft power and engagement as opposed to America's hard power and isolation - explains how Chirac, despite his history of blind support for regional despots, has managed to portray himself as a hero in the Arab world while Bush, who speaks incessantly of freedom and democracy, remains a villain in the eyes of Arab publics.

4//Al-Abram Weekly, Egypt 2 - 8 March 2006 Issue No. 784

OPINION: WHAT A SHAME
The cronyism of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank is ruining the institution and driving the best of its staff out, writes Mohamed Hakki.
The writer is a former member of the staff of the World Bank.

In an article on the eclipsing fortunes of the neocons vis-à-vis Bush foreign policy, the Wall Street Journal said: "In the past year, the ranks of the neoconservatives within the administration, who moulded the American response to 9/11, have grown thin and their influence has ebbed." It mentioned the departure from key policy-making positions of some of the administration's most prominent neoconservatives. Some of them left in disgrace, others left their jobs for other Bush appointments. Perhaps the most interesting of these career changes involves that of former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who was promoted for his role in the Iraq war to president of the World Bank.

From day one, all vice-presidents, directors and staff members of the World Bank were apprehensive in view of his reputation as the "high priest of the hawks" or "The Vulcans"; nicknames for Mr Bush's tight-knit group of security advisors, the architect of the Iraq war, and the driving ideological force behind the decision to invade Iraq. They also wondered about his arrogant dismissal of all misgivings about the war. They remembered his rosy forecasts, his predictions that the Iraqis would greet US soldiers as liberators, with open arms, and his casual dismissal of warnings by Eric Shimseki, former US army chief of staff, that the US would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq (and who was fired for daring to give his expert opinion). They remembered well his assertion that the "oil revenues of Iraq over the course of the next two to three years would bring in 50 to 100 billion US dollars which could more than finance its own reconstruction." But, to be fair, they were all willing to give him the benefit of the doubt despite the deep moral struggle they are each grappling with; working for a man who is morally and politically responsible for a horrendous war that has shed the blood of thousands of innocent victims in Iraq.

Now, it seems that the honeymoon is over. On the cost of the Iraqi war, it is becoming more and more obvious that Wolfowitz's predictions are, at best, a joke approaching the fanciful, and, at worse, outright intentionally misleading. When White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay forwarded an estimate (September 2002) of the Iraq war at a higher level of $100-$200 billion, the administration dismissed his analysis as "likely very, very high" and promptly fired him (another person who lost his job because he did it conscientiously and professionally). Now it turns out that even his figures were wildly low. According to Joseph Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University and Nobel Prize winner in economics, and Linda Blimes, a Harvard budget expert, the war in Iraq is likely to cost up to $2 trillion. The American Conservative magazine says: "What is certain is that before hiring him to run the World Bank, someone should have recalled Paul Wolfowitz's prediction that Iraq would fund the operation itself." Normal people under normal circumstances would have been fired, but not "Wolfie!"

However, even with this grim history in mind which they fear will impact on their ability to address their global clients' needs and fulfil their mission of addressing world poverty, World Bank staff have even more immediate worries to contend with. What everybody in the Bank perceives most evidently is the increasing rift between Wolfowitz and his inner cabal of advisors and the staff at large. The problem is manifesting itself on several levels.

In recent months, there had been a massive exodus of top talent from the World Bank. The senior ethics officer of the bank has departed. Also on the exit roster are the vice president for East Asia and the Pacific, the chief legal counsel, the vice president for environmentally and socially sustainable development, the bank's top managing director, the director of institutional integrity (who monitors internal and external corruption), and the head of the information solutions group.

Steve Clemons says in the Washington Note : "It looks as if Wolfowitz is gut-punching the most talented teams at the Bank and morale is plummeting. A lot of good people are leaving."

What has Wolfowitz done to start this serious wave of negative sentiment? He appointed Kevin Kellems, former communications director and spokesman for Vice President Cheney, to a newly created post of director of communication strategy in addition to his position as advisor to the president, effectively sidelining the vice president of communication, UN and External Affairs at the Bank. While one could question Kellems' professional ability and record in view of his previous position and the miscommunication that flowed from Cheney's office over the years, the immediate issue for Bank staff is that he was imposed following a Wolfowitz presidential fiat. Wolfowitz in effect, forced a political appointment at the director level, which is rather unheard of, especially since directorships are lower in the administrative stratosphere and are traditionally filled following an open competitive process based on merit, not political imposition.

Another glaring example of presidential fiat came with the appointment of the Bank's new corruption czar, Suzanne Rich Folsom, as the new head of "institutional integrity." Her catapulting prompted the courageous and highly respected chairwoman of the Bank's Staff Association, Alison Cave, to issue an open letter of protest to all staff. Ms Rich, married to a powerful Republican leader and a powerful Republican lobbyist in her own right, was also appointed with no concern for clear and open competitive process. She also has the title of "Counsellor to the President". A clear conflict of interest if there was ever one.

Another example involves the appointment of Karl Jackson, an old friend of Wolfowitz and colleague from Johns Hopkins University as well as government, as an advisor to the president, and who apparently has been handed the portfolio of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Bank's private sector supporting arm.

Perhaps the most stunning example of Wolfowitz's cronyism and complete lack of regard for the principles of the institution he has been handed to govern, not to mention the obvious appearance of conflict of interest, involves the ever-growing role of his senior counsellor, Robin Cleveland. Ms Cleveland left the Bush administration under a cloud after it emerged that she attempted to use her connections to get a relative a job at a large defence corporation while she was negotiating a contract on behalf of the US government with them. However, even this apparently has not tarnished her stature in the neocon's books, as it is said that Ms Cleveland effectively is now running the Bank.

All these examples are only serving to fuel Bank staff's growing doubt with the stewardship of Wolfowitz. One key senior official called it "utter shamelessness." Another old time Bank staffer said "the fight against global poverty is essentially a moral cause; if we lose the moral high ground, by disregarding transparency, competence, and integrity in our own institution, nothing else is left."

(SNIP)

No one is comparing Wolfowitz with any of the former Bank presidents any more. Everyone is saying that he is building his "cabal" of supporters at the highest levels of the institution and confirming all their worst fears of foisting a Bush administration agenda on the world's premier development agency. Meanwhile, the board of executive directors, which represents the 184 member countries of the World Bank, remains scandalously silent. Quel domage!

5//The Toronto Star, Canada Mar. 7, 2006. 11:40 AM

CANADA’S MILITARY GOES ON OFFENCE AT HOME
PR campaign for Afghan mission
Returning soldiers will be recruited

Bruce Campion-Smith and Graham Fraser

OTTAWA—Canada's military is cranking up a public relations offensive in the face of new casualties and fresh questions about its Afghanistan mission that now is expected to stretch longer than first expected.

To bolster support for the mission, the defence department is planning to recruit army brass, the minister of defence and frontline troops to reinforce opinion on the homefront.

Military officials had always recognized that they would have to sell the Canadian public on the merits of its Afghan mission.

But in the week since taking over command of the Kandahar region, the dangers have been quickly driven home. Two Canadian soldiers were killed in an armoured-vehicle accident, one was seriously wounded by a suicide bomb, and one was attacked by a man with an axe.

In January, Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry was killed by a suicide bomber in the Kandahar area.

Defence officials suggest that many Canadians are in the dark about the potential toll of military work in "this more dangerous world."

"We always knew that the nature of peacekeeping/peacemaking was changing in a way that Canadians were not aware of," a defence official said yesterday.

Now defence staff are vowing to turn up their information campaign to "do everything possible" to convince Canadians about the values of the mission.

The offensive could kick off as early as today when Col. Steve Noonan, the former leader of the Afghanistan mission, returns to Ottawa to speak about the soldiers' work.

That will be followed up by an "aggressive" speaking schedule for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. His office did not return calls yesterday.

But the real heart of this PR offensive promises to be the soldiers themselves. As they return from their tours of duty, they'll be sent to speak to hometown radio stations, television talk shows, service clubs, "wherever we can ... to explain to Canadians what we're doing, why we're doing it and why it's having a good effect," an official said.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay conceded yesterday that top generals now say Canada's role in the war-torn country will be a "longer-term commitment than was perhaps originally intended."

While Canada has pledged 2,000 troops to the Kandahar region for next year, MacKay made it clear that the new Conservative government thinks it might be in for the long haul.

"We have to exhibit in a very clear way that we are committed to this mission, that we intend to finish what we started," he said.

"Canada has to show a great deal of perseverance and resolve at this time, particularly when we have seen the dangerous nature of the mission itself.

"As for the length of time that we will be there, that is an open question."

Still, MacKay rejected opposition demands for a full debate on the Afghanistan mission when the House of Commons returns April 3, saying it might undermine support for the country's troops.

"I don't believe at this point we can undermine in any way our commitment to our forces and to our men and women who are there doing extremely important and extremely dangerous work," he said.

"Recent results have demonstrated that this is life and death. And we do not want to jeopardize, or in any way have a psychological or a real impact on the troops who are in Afghanistan," MacKay said.

New Democrat MPs have been leading the call for a full debate when the Commons returns.
"Canadians need to know exactly what are the terms of our engagement in Afghanistan," said NDP MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam).

"We need to know exactly what it is we're participating in, what the expectations are, how long we are expected to be there. ... Debate needs to happen."

(MORE)