World Media Watch for May 8, 2002

BUZZFLASH NOTE: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.

* * *

1//Statfor Strategic Forecasting, Austin, TX--CUBA'S 'AXIS' LISTING A COVER FOR OTHER U.S. GOALS (Cuba's inclusion on a new list of countries suspected of seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction has more to do with other countries in Latin America than with Cuba itself. By taking a tougher line against Fidel Castro, the Bush administration seeks to bolster its foreign policy objectives in Colombia and Venezuela while simultaneously boosting support at home for the war against terrorism.)

2//Russian Observer.com, Russia--U.S. PLAN TO WORK WITH RUSSIA AGAINST IRAQ - A PIPE DREAM? ("We have come to Baghdad to support our friends at a time when the date of a possible military strike against Iraq is almost openly being discussed. Russia's stand in this respect is clear cut and has been stated at a high level many times.")

3//Arab News, Saudi Arabia--THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY (James Zogby) (The State Department hoped that the news of the intended conference might drown out news created by the fact that on the same day, both Houses of Congress had passed unbalanced resolutions "in solidarity with Israel". If that was the story behind the announcement, there was yet another story behind the pro-Israel resolutions - a story that needs to be told. When that story is known, it will be clear that far from a defeat, the resolutions exposed an intense new debate in Congress and a growing uneasiness that characterizes current congressional support for Israel.)

4//The Independent, UK--DOES MR CHIRAC HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO CHANGE FRANCE? (France, by looking into the abyss, discovered the dangers of becoming too bored with politics, or cynical about government, or playing tactical voting games (a state of affairs for which the unprincipled Mr Chirac carries much of the responsibility). A new generation of young French people has poured on to the streets in the last two weeks, not to make selfish demands, not to smash the established order, but to express their attachment to the values of democracy and openness.)

5//The Dawn, Pakistan--MUSHARRAF SAYS ROLE OF ARMY BEING CONSIDERED: FUTURE SETUP ("We are considering constitutional role for the army, and we are not ashamed of it. We are very realistic - I believe in realism, not in idealism, which leads to nothing," he said.)

6//The Guardian, UK--BILL CLEARS PATH FOR RADIO MERGERS (The government today unleashed the prospect of a flurry of merger and acquisitions in the radio sector with sweeping reforms to the ownership rules.)

******************************************

1//Statfor Strategic Forecasting 7 May 2002
http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=204384

CUBA'S 'AXIS' LISTING A COVER FOR OTHER U.S. GOALS

Summary

Cuba's inclusion on a new list of countries suspected of seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction has more to do with other countries in Latin America than with Cuba itself. By taking a tougher line against Fidel Castro, the Bush administration seeks to bolster its foreign policy objectives in Colombia and Venezuela while simultaneously boosting support at home for the war against terrorism.

Analysis

...The new focus on Cuba serves as a diversion from the battle against al Qaeda -- which has focused on almost every region of the world except Latin America, where Islamic extremism is hard to find. The range of the al Qaeda battle has stretched U.S. forces and capabilities, making the lack of a threat in Latin America a welcome reprieve. But, from another perspective, it created a hole in U.S. foreign policy, where the war on terrorism could not be used as a Trojan Horse to help achieve other goals in the region.

By adding Cuba to the expanded "axis of evil," the Bush administration will seek to pursue its goals in Colombia and Venezuela -- the two Latin American countries dominating Washington's radar screen at the moment -- with greater gusto, all under the guise of fighting terrorism and warding off the frightening possibility of a biological attack on the United States.

For Colombia, this means even greater U.S. involvement in its escalating civil war. Bush administration attempts to expand aid to the Colombian military in its fight against leftist insurgents have been largely unsuccessful, despite branding the insurgents as narco-terrorists and linking that fight to the drug war. Washington now can play on the historical connections between Cuba and the Marxist-inspired Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), as well as on alleged links between FARC leaders and a wider terrorist network, to claim that Colombia's internal struggle against insurgents is a national security priority for the United States.

Demonizing Cuba will be even more useful in dealing with Venezuela, where the real issue is, and always will be, oil. President Hugo Chavez counts Castro among his closest friends, and the connections between the two countries are myriad, including a valuable oil supply deal. Washington is still smarting from Chavez's return from a failed ouster and from allegations that U.S. officials may have had advance knowledge of -- or even supported -- the coup attempt. The Bush administration can use the friendship between Castro and Chavez to paint the Venezuelan president as a potential threat to U.S. national security. It will do so obliquely -- but even so, that connection will be important as U.S. officials plan their next move regarding Venezuela.

(SNIP)

The Bush administration has learned that vague threats can be effective, especially at home, but that such threats also need a visible face. That makes launching a primarily faceless war against terrorism exceedingly difficult. Even with Osama bin Laden, the U.S. public eventually will lose its fear of the stateless and amorphous al Qaeda, especially if it fails to attack again soon. How convenient then to call on the usual suspects -- North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi -- to shore up domestic support for the war. And who, after all, is more convenient -- more usual -- than Fidel Castro?

2//Russian Observer.com Issued on 05.07.2002 (MST)
http://www.russianobserver.com/foreign/article/15321.html

U.S. PLAN TO WORK WITH RUSSIA AGAINST IRAQ - A PIPE DREAM?
Russian delegation takes part in "Baghdad Conference'

By Victoria Whall

A delegation of top Russian officials, including representatives from the lower and upper houses of parliament, has been sent to Baghdad this week for a pro-Iraq Conference. RIA-Novosti news wire reports that delegation members Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Deputy Duma Speaker and leader of the liberal democratic faction, the former Chief of Staff, Mikhail Moiseyev and the former defense minister Igor Rodionov arrived in Baghdad early Tuesday.

The conference, entitled "The International Solidarity Conference on Human Rights", is traditionally timed to fall on the eve of UN Security Council sessions at which the need to levy sanctions against Iraq is re-assessed. Russia regularly participates in the Baghdad Conference, which provides a forum for countries sympathetic to Iraq's cause to gather and express their solidarity.

According to U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. has been working closely with Russia in the UN Security Council recently.

"We want to work with Russia to put maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein. And we are working closely with Russia in the UN Security Council toward this goal" the ambassador told a press conference at Argumenty I Fakty last week.

"President Bush has not made any decisions about attacking Iraq, nor has a proposal even been put on his desk," he announced.

(SNIP)

Comments made to one Russian news wire suggest that the delegation is not planning on changing its stand on Iraq. A statement made by Ramazan Abdulatipov, the coordinator of the Russian-Arab Inter-Parliamentary Association and a member of the delegation, was more in the spirit of the conference: solidarity, than of anything else.

He said: "We have come to Baghdad to support our friends at a time when the date of a possible military strike against Iraq is almost openly being discussed. Russia's stand in this respect is clear cut and has been stated at a high level many times."

The U.S. ambassador is hoping that Russia will put pressure on Hussein because he believes Russia, like the U.S., has little interest in letting Iraq acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Judging by Zhirinovsky's comments however, this is not the crux of the matter, he, like Abdulatipov is more concerned about the prospect of military action against Iraq. He said: "It is necessary to take all measures possible to prevent force from being used against Iraq." In his opinion, such a move would not be in Russia's interests because it is advantageous for Moscow to develop relations with Baghdad, RIA-Novosti reports.

3//Arab News Wednesday, May 08, 2002 / 25 Safar 1423
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=15046

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY
By James Zogby, Special to Arab News

On May 2, the Department of State made a surprise announcement that they would work to convene an international Middle East peace conference later this summer. Since plans for the conference are still vague, some reporters were confused by what some described as a "premature" announcement.

It appears, however, that there was a story behind the story. The State Department hoped that the news of the intended conference might drown out news created by the fact that on the same day, both Houses of Congress had passed unbalanced resolutions "in solidarity with Israel".

If that was the story behind the announcement, there was yet another story behind the pro-Israel resolutions - a story that needs to be told. When that story is known, it will be clear that far from a defeat, the resolutions exposed an intense new debate in Congress and a growing uneasiness that characterizes current congressional support for Israel.

(SNIP)

Even more interesting than the antics that led up to the final introduction of the resolution, was the fascinating public debate that took place on the day that the bills were being considered.

At the last minute, one of the Democrats' leading members, Congressman David Obey (D-WI), introduced a substitute resolution that was a balanced statement of US policy toward the Middle East. It appeared during debate that this resolution would have the support of more than one-third of the Democrat caucus (about 75 of the 211 House Democrats).

Furthermore, when the Delay resolution finally came to a vote, 82 members did not vote for it. This is a record number of members of Congress who broke rank with both the pro-Israel lobby and with the leaderships in both parties who were pressing them to toe the party line and vote for the bill.

More impressive still was the public debate that took place on the House floor during the resolution's consideration. During the day's debate, 35 members of Congress spoke out in opposition to the unbalanced provisions of the resolution. Some were remarkable statements of principle like the speech given by Congressman David Bonior (D-MI), who spoke in opposition. Bonior's remarks were so important they deserve to be quoted at length:

(SNIP)

Equally important to note was the obvious discomfort of many of those who voted for the bill. At least 12 of those who did so were so troubled by the unbalanced nature of the resolution and by the obvious politics that brought it to a vote in the first place. Exemplifying their attitudes were the comments of Congressman Jim Leach (R-IA):

(SNIP)

By day's end, almost 100 members of Congress had either refused to vote for the pro-Israel resolution or publicly made clear their reservations with the bill, despite their reluctant vote for it. This represents a significant change in congressional balance. It will be recalled that during the last public debate on a pro-Israel resolution, only 4 members spoke against the resolution. And the previous record number of those who failed to vote for such a resolution was 52.

And so when you read the headlines "State Department announces plans for a new Middle East Peace Summit", followed by the sub-headline "Congress passes pro-Israel resolution", you should know that there was a story behind the story behind the story. And that is that there is an intense debate both within the Administration and within Congress. Attitudes are changing, maybe too slowly for some, but changing nevertheless. For comments, contact jzogby@aaiusa.org.

4//The Independent 08 May 2002 01:39 GMT+1
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/
john_lichfield/story.jsp?story=292572

DOES MR CHIRAC HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO CHANGE FRANCE?
John Lichfield
07 May 2002

...Since so much has been written about France turning away from Europe, or becoming widely xenophobic, or being tempted towards the political extremes, it is worth saluting the 25,540,873 French people - many thousands of them voting for the first time - who turned out to scream down Lepenism on Sunday.

Nonetheless, as the slogan on the Bastille plinth demanded, "now what"? France is united in saying "no" to Le Pen, but it is not united in much else. President Chirac (the luckiest politician in the world) said on Sunday night that the huge, left-right vote in his favour was a call for the "refoundation" of the French Republic.

He may be right. France, by looking into the abyss, discovered the dangers of becoming too bored with politics, or cynical about government, or playing tactical voting games (a state of affairs for which the unprincipled Mr Chirac carries much of the responsibility). A new generation of young French people has poured on to the streets in the last two weeks, not to make selfish demands, not to smash the established order, but to express their attachment to the values of democracy and openness.

They thought that politics was dull, corrupt, paralysed and silly, as portrayed by the excellent, but destructive, satirical TV puppet show Les Guignols de L'info. They discovered that politics could also be about the stark choices of good and evil which faced their grandparents' generation in Europe.

Good and evil is an exciting game to play. Will they - and older French voters - remain focused on politics when it returns to the dull, complex, serious business of deciding how to run the country? What does "refoundation" of the Republic mean? Does France have the energy and will for the rebuilding of its ill-defined electoral and government system, which the crisis of April-May 2002 suggests is urgently necessary?

(SNIP)

His choice as new Prime Minister of a fresh, honest, provincial face in Jean-Pierre Raffarin - a man committed to decentralising France and reconnecting government with ordinary people - is encouraging. But every attempt to push through these kinds of reforms in the last 20 years has been defeated by the corporate power of the civil service, trades unions and other special interest groups. Mr Chirac and Mr Raffarin, if they win the parliamentary elections next month, will run into the same sharp-edged, granite paradox as their predecessors.

The country demands "change" but corporatist pressure groups block all advance, on the street if necessary, with the tacit or open support of most of the country. It will take a special kind of politician, a creative demagogue of the centre, to break through that rock. Nothing in Mr Chirac's barren, selfish 40-year record in politics suggests that he can transform himself, at the age of 69, into that man.

5//The Dawn 07 May 2002 Tuesday 23 Safar 1423
http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/07/top1.htm

MUSHARRAF SAYS ROLE OF ARMY BEING CONSIDERED: FUTURE SETUP

ISLAMABAD, May 6: President Gen Pervez Musharraf has said that constitutional role for the army in the future setup is being considered.

In an interview with a German newspaper Die Welt, the president said that in Pakistan's politics, the army had always played an important role. In the past, the head of the army had always been called to help when there were problems between the president and the prime minister.

"So why should be so shy and not institutionalise this reconciling role?" he asked.

"We are considering constitutional role for the army, and we are not ashamed of it. We are very realistic - I believe in realism, not in idealism, which leads to nothing," he said.

In his first interview after the referendum, the president talked about the internal situation of Pakistan and its role in the geopolitical game. He also talked about Afghanistan, Kashmir and democracy.

(MORE)

6//The Guardian, UK Tuesday May 7, 2002
http://media.guardian.co.uk/whitepaper/story/0,7521,711501,00.html

BILL CLEARS PATH FOR RADIO MERGERS
Owen Gibson

The government today unleashed the prospect of a flurry of merger and acquisitions in the radio sector with sweeping reforms to the ownership rules.

The culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, is scrapping the complex points system that in recent years has forced radio giants including Emap, Chysalis and GWR to effectively barter local licences in an effort to stay beneath the points ceiling.

Under the new rules, local newspaper owners will be allowed to own local FM licences for the first time, paving the way for Associated Newspapers to seize ownership of LBC and News Direct in London and rebrand the services as Metro radio.

In addition, a single company will be allowed to own two national radio stations, which means that technically Classic FM owner GWR could buy Virgin.

And TV stations for the first time will be permitted to acquire radio stations in the area in which they broadcast.

(SNIP)

The deregulation has been widely welcomed by radio owners but many would like to see Ms Jowell go further before the bill becomes law.

"The draft bill is a step in the right direction. Commercial radio has been restricted for too long by outdated ownership regulations," said Ralph Bernard, the chairman of GWR.

To ensure plurality in local markets, the government is introducing a new "three plus the BBC" rule, which means that in each local area there must be at least four separate proprietors of local radio, TV and newspaper interests.

This would restrict consolidation in small markets, but would not discourage it in cities such as London, Manchester or Birmingham.

However, radio owners are now lobbying for this rule to be liberalised further.

(SNIP)

At present no single company can own more than 15% of the total number of potential commercial radio listeners and the rules also ban ownership of more than one commercial national radio licence.

The new proposals do away with both rules, which is likely to signal a rush towards consolidation.

(MORE)

* * *

© 2002, Gloria R. Lalumia
insight@zianet.com

More Stuff at: http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical

* * *